Ah, Mondays...the perfect day for fisking

A while ago, I wrote a review of the book Nickel and Dimed, by Barbara Ehrenreich, PhD, both here and on Goodreads.com. The premise is that Dr. Ehrenreich (an upper middle class academic) tries to see how "the other half" lives: she works in low-wage, low-skilled jobs in places around the country, then reports on her experiences. Wow - I've received so many wonderful comments on my Goodreads review. The most "inspiring" are the ones that excoriate me for being such an awful person (meaning: I have all the wrong views). You'll see what I mean below. Since this guy voiced his opinion of my "work," I feel very comfortable in quoting him verbatim on my blog.

Reader "David" quotes my words about the appropriate time to have kids: "[when folks have] attained sufficient financial stability." My statement doesn't sound out of the question. I mean come on.

He goes on to opine:

"Major assumption - that they ever will. When being poor is a temporary state, as with grad school, this might be a reasonable thing to say. However, the point is that for many people, being poor is a lifetime prospect. And you've just said they don't deserve to breed."

So...
1. I'm being unreasonable for stating that people who are considering having kids should have enough money to not only to sustain themselves, but also sustain the proposed kids.

2. Is David saying that people having little money now have no possibility of earning more, no matter what, and

3. Furthermore, that even if they barely have enough income or don't have enough income to support themselves, it's fine that they go ahead and reproduce anyway,

4. Because they're only dumb animals anyway, so just humor them?

5. Is he saying that people who currently earn under a certain amount are too stupid to improve their earning potential and/or use contraception to delay having kids they can't currently afford?

6. Isn't he being a little paternalistic by suggesting that the poor dumbasses are so stupid and hopeless that we (Government, taxpayers, the smart ones) must simply allow them to reproduce sans responsibility and subsidize their lives indefinitely? Noblesse oblige much?

"And Ehernreich clearly states why she avoids major cities - the populations filling the low-wage jobs are almost entirely racial minorities, where she would be conspicuous."

Right. Uh-huh.

1. When I first came to DC, I did temp jobs before I got a permanent job. Starting at the bottom - clerical work, answering phones, etc - I made maybe $14k a year. Even when I got a permanent job, it didn't really pay that much.

2. And come on, Dr. Ehrenreich would (and probably did) stick out anyway. It's very difficult to remove all the education, socialization, attitudes of your upbringing and yes, economic class to be thoroughly convincing anywhere as someone you're not.

3. The author really didn't try THAT hard to do a balanced study or she would have lived/worked in some big cities. Also, as I mentioned in my review that she put a lot of other caveats in her study: that she wouldn't share quarters and pool resources, that she would only rent crummy cars (yeh, because as you know, dear readers, "The Poor" are also too stupid to buy modestly priced, fuel efficient, used cars), etc., etc.

4. And just for fun, David, why not spell the author's name correctly [meow]?

"I would _love_ for the poor everywhere (and everyone else) to have good public transportation to use, but that requires public funds that conservatives never want to give. Many poor today need a car."

Bonehead, I'm a conservative and take public transportation (subway & buses) every single blessed day. Neither my husband nor I own a car. Some employers even subsidize public transportation - for all employees no matter what their salary level. And furthermore, it's not all us conservatives' fault about poor public transportation access - there's plenty of blame to go around (I may post more on this particular issue later).

Whew! I could go on, but you get the picture.