Nov 26

I hate when people imply that a mother on government assistance is less of a mother than one that isn’t


A mother is a mother is a mother is a mother.

As long as she loves her children and provides a home for them and feeds them and nurtures them and teaches them things and dotes on them and fights for them and protects them and puts their needs before her own and would sooner die than not have them in her lifeā€¦.

What fucking difference does it make how that home is maintained?

I’d add that a mother on assistance proves that she’s an advocate for her kid(s). There are situations or circumstances that are preventing her kid(s) from having the opportunities to not be hungry, or to have the stability of a home, and she has swallowed her pride, knowing people will judge her, and has asked for assistance. Obviously there are always abusers, and while they are the overwhelming minority of recipients, they are the ones people like to parade as THE example. The majority are mothers who just want to keep their kid(s) from being in emotional, and even physical, pain.

I keep looking at this book beside my desk, “Myth of the Welfare Queen: A Pulitzer Prize-Winning Journalist’s Portrait of Women On the Line”, and thinking about this very subject, and considering that I need to read the book. The book’s description reads as follows, “Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter David Zucchino spent a year sharing the lives of Odessa Williams and Cheri Honkala — two “welfare mothers” in Philadelphia — to gain an intimate look at their day-to-day existence. Odessa, supporting an extended family, exhibits almost superhuman strength and resolve. Cheri, a single mother, is a tireless advocate for the homeless. Zucchino beautifully portrays them as figures of profound courage and quiet perseverance, systematically shattering all misconceptions and stereotypes about these women and so many others like them.” I think it speaks my mind.

Wouldn’t you rather a small part of the public funds go to help children have stability and healthy food? Because the cheapest food is the most nutritionally bankrupt. Or would you rather that debt rise, increasing what we all pay for credit and healthcare? Insurance rates rise because hospitals have to raise their charges to insurance companies, in order to cover the costly ER visits that are eventually written-off, when mothers couldn’t afford a regular sick visit to a doctor, thereby waiting until the illness becomes severe, or even life-threatening. That “write-off” doesn’t mean that the hospital didn’t have to pay the doctors, nurses, orderlies, even the cleaning staff, the medical supply vendors, and the power company. They have to pay all those people and services anyway, so that money needs to be covered. Like a retailer covers shoplifting by raising its prices to ensure profit exceeds total expenditure, so do the hospitals. I’d MUCH rather the mother be able to get her child a $100 doctor visit and a $4 amoxycillin prescription from the public funds, than to have a $4,000 hospital visit that gets passed along through our insurance.


  1. nursewithtattoos said: You’re absolutely right.
  2. thunderdolt reblogged this from sarkastickunt and added:
    I’d add that a mother on assistance proves that she’s an advocate for her kid(s). There are situations or circumstances...