Strolling through the nacle this morning, where I have been told I am an unwelcome troll, I passed by fmhLisa’s latest post which calls for a “fourth wave” of feminism. I won’t try to dissect her commentary save for one little rant at the tail end of her post.

Declareth fmhLisa:

We’re not asking for no stinking hand out, we are demanding that we be fairly compensated for our very real, very valuable labor. I’ll say it again, motherhood is the number one risk factor for poverty in America. That is our reward. A woman can invest a lifetime of labor in raising her five children, all of whom grow up to work, paying into the social security system, and exactly how much of that investment of labor is she then entitled to withdraw from that system, the very system her labor directly supported? The answer is zero. If she didn’t have a “real job” if she didn’t “pay into the system” well then, apparently all that labor of raising children, that was totally without value. All those children (raised with to be responsible citizens) paying into the system, measurably worthless. (Emphasis Added)

We will assume that fmhLisa's hypothetical mother of five children is (or was) married at some point in time. This assumption is based on the fact that if he knocked her up five times, she had better have been married to him or retirement is probably the last of her worries. But I digress.

The Snarkernacle Research Department found, with one or two clicks of a mouse, information contrary to fmhLisa's claim:

Social Security survivors benefits can be paid to:
  • A widow or widower -- full benefits at full retirement age, or reduced benefits as early as age 60
  • A disabled widow or widower -- as early as age 50
  • A widow or widower at any age if he or she takes care of the deceased's child who is under age 16 or disabled, and receiving Social Security benefits
  • Unmarried children under 18, or up to age 19 if they are attending high school full time. Under certain circumstances, benefits can be paid to stepchildren, grandchildren, or adopted children.
  • Children at any age who were disabled before age 22 and remain disabled.
  • Dependent parents age 62 or older
  • If you are divorced, you may still qualify for survivors benefits.
And this is all a valid conversation, because as we know, our politicians have been wise stewards of our money. Social Security will still exist by the time fmhLisa's generation retires! There is a sacred “trust fund” in Washington, DC. There is a “lock box” where 15% of every paycheck is saved. Our politicians certainly haven't spent our hard earned money in a fashion that would embarrass drunken sailors!

Simply put, a blindfolded, intoxicated monkey throwing darts at a stock chart could give our divorced/widowed/separated mother of 5 a better rate of return. Again, I digress.

So, o wise fmhLisa, if you're going to slam the "system", the least you can do is research your slams first. Just sayin'.


bongos said... @ October 30, 2009 at 9:43 AM


Anonymous said... @ October 30, 2009 at 2:14 PM

But would that monkey have health insurance coverage?

Anonymous said... @ October 31, 2009 at 2:14 AM

Don't bother Lisa with the facts! That is totally contrary to what she's trying to do! The facts have nothing to do with the beautiful, creative, technicolor mind-vomit that are her joyful posts! Take your ridiculously mundane facts and stick them where the sun don't shine and let Lisa's gorgeous spew shine on in all its rich, bubbly glory!

And BTW, she's way hotter than you, too!

-Fake Kaimi

Anonymous said... @ November 1, 2009 at 8:38 AM

"...a blindfolded, intoxicated monkey throwing darts at a stock chart..."

Ahem. I'm sure you were trying to be funny by using the monkey as a metaphorical device. But I think that such a blatantly racial stigma of the "monkey" is out of place given our current political environment. Perhaps you could edit the OP?

D. Golden Shizzle said... @ November 1, 2009 at 4:33 PM

I'm very tempted to file the comment above under the "You've got to be friggin' kidding me". Just in case the anoymous commenter was both serious and sober...

I specifically made no mention of the monkey's racial or ethnic background to say nothing of his immigration status. I figured it sufficient to infer he has a drinking problem. If he was sober and in a non-blindfolded status, he could probably pick stocks better than most hedgefund managers.

As for your request that I "edit the OP". Sir, I do not edit. That would be censorship and we cannot have that here.

Anonymous said... @ November 2, 2009 at 3:09 PM

Your post is troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys. One has to question whether you are making a less than casual reference to this when, in reference to government entitlement programs, you conjure the image of an intoxicated monkey.

Being that health care has been a major priority of President Barack Obama (the first African American president) and has become synonymous with him it is not a reach to imply racism in your writing.

D. Golden Shizzle said... @ November 2, 2009 at 9:46 PM

I'd like to personally thank this anonymous commenter for pointing out the fact that Barack Obama is America's first African-American president. Up until this very minute I was unaware of this fact.


Now, on to the substance - or rather the lack there of - of your comment.

In this satire laced post there was no reference to the current president nor any of his predecessors. I know it must seem shocking to you that somehow a blog post managed to be published without mentioning Obama in some form. Obviously you tried to find him and settled on the fact that I must have somehow slipped in a racist mention of Obama by saying that a blindfolded intoxicated monkey could get a better ROI on my social security money by throwing darts at a stock chart.

This post did not mention health care. It, and the post that inspired it, focused on Social Security - an issue which Obama has yet to tackle.

99.98% of the people who read this post understood the spirit in which it was written. Thus far you're the only one to cry "racist". What that tells me is you're looking for any reason to throw that insult at someone. Why is that? I have no idea. Perhaps the racism you see is not to be found in this post, but rather it is to be found in yourself.

Anonymous said... @ November 2, 2009 at 11:40 PM

The fault, dear blogger, is not in our posts, but in ourselves.

Anonymous said... @ November 3, 2009 at 7:43 AM

I'm not racist. I like monkey's. And black people.

Anonymous said... @ November 3, 2009 at 9:02 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Post a Comment