The feminists in Seattle want to encourage more women to become single mothers by creating a new tax to provide more funding for mooching mommies.

While helping poor children is a good thing to do, the problem many people have with this tax is that it subsidizes mooching mommies.

Witless offspring of the feminist movement, mooching mommies generally start reproducing around age 19, although many start sooner than that. Encouraged by Feminatics, Femigogues and Ms.Andrists to believe they are victims to whom society (read: men) owes life, happiness, pleasure and support, these insatiable sows voraciously feed at the public trough, squealing in demand for ever more stuff with which to fill the bottomless pit of their pathetic, empty lives.

The politically correct view spawned by the vigorous efforts of the Feminazis put the prurient pursuits of teenage girls and single mothers beyond reproach: a woman can sleep around, get knocked up, have a litter of kids, impose what Tom Leykis accurately describes as "vaginamony" on every man she can, collect support from state agencies to help support her lifestyle "in the best interests of the children," and woe betide the judgmental H-Hole who dares to criticize her. Especially at work, where such honesty can get a guy fired.

Although the Seattle metropolitan area is saturated with mooching mommies, they are a blight upon the entire state of Washington, which provides a plethora of feminist-inspired programs to support them. Seattle is, however, the epicenter from which this sexist socialism emanates, and it is Seattle where this latest tax - that began under the misleading name of The Early Learning and Care Campaign - will be introduced.

Distressing Damsels all?
Talk show host Tom Leykis condemned this latest effort to support Seattle's distressing damsels, characterizing it as another measure that will encourage women to leech off the system. Given his reputation for encouraging women to be promiscuous, it was a little ironic to listen to him fume over the licentious behaviors of these women, but he's absolutely right, although his position with regard to their children went too far.

In his opinion, the women made their bed, now let them sleep in it regardless of the consequences to the children. On Wednesday, August 20th, he characterized most single mothers as little more than whores. The following day he allowed as how it's more often a case of the women exercising poor judgment, and that there are also exceptions, such as victims of rape and widows.

Then Seattle-area talk show host BJ Shea (now based in Tacoma, Wash.) expressed a more reasonable position. He argues for taking the babies and infants away from their mooching mommies and placing them into foster case or putting them up for adoption. In his view, if we as taxpayers are going to support those kids, then we should have a say in their care and upbringing. This makes great sense, although it flies in the face of the feminist doctrine that dominates our politics.

While both Leykis and Shea make very strong arguments, what they are condemning is not so much the idea of providing support for poor children as the women whom the programs benefit. In this respect, Shea's proposal makes more sense: support the children, not the salacious, slothful sows who squeal for more.

Eligibility Requirements
There are exceptions: not all single mothers are distressing damsels, some are damsels in distress, whom we ought to help. Unfortunately, the eligibility requirements are driven to such an extent by the policies of feminist fanatics that the very women we ought to help are, often as not, excluded from the programs that help the shiftless sows.

A couple years ago, shortly after I and thousands of other US West employees were asked to contribute to then-Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio's retirement fund (i.e., we were "laid off" so he could pillage the pension fund), I asked for help finding a new job from a Washington state program. A counselor told me I did not qualify because I'm too well educated, have too many credentials, too many skills, and my job history is too strong.

When I complained that a person I knew kept receiving their assistance despite the fact she basically kept throwing away the jobs they got her, he explained that this program, like many of the state assistance programs, is designed to help those who are least likely to achieve the program goals and turn their lives around. Herein lies the crux of the problem with program eligibility.

Perpetuating the piggy class
The reason so many shiftless sows continue to feed at the public trough is because the programs are tailored to perpetuate themselves by, among other things, excluding many of the women who want to turn their lives around, while embracing and coddling the very women who are least likely to turn their lives around. In effect, the programs perpetuate a piggy class.

The answer is to change the eligibility requirements and the screening process. Women who have gotten into trouble through no fault of their own, women who are striving to change their circumstances, women who are willing to take the steps necessary to turn their lives around may merit our support.

What about the slothful sows? To hell with them! We owe it to ourselves to give their children a better chance, either through foster care or adoption, but nothing for their mooching mommies.

Regards

Rod Van Mechelen

Rod Van Mechelen is the author of What Everyone Should Know about Feminist Issues: The Male-Positive Perspective (the page now includes several articles by other authors), and the publisher of The Backlash! @ Backlash.com. He is a member of the Cowlitz Indian Tribe and served for 9-1/2 years on the Cowlitz Indian Tribal Council.