Deadbeat Dads vs. Miscreant Moms

The Battle of the Ex’s

We have come to hear an awful lot about fathers who don’t support their children. Some won’t, some can’t, but the father’s ability to pay doesn’t matter much. What matters is whether or not he pays. We even have a rather cute name for this obnoxious animal, “deadbeat dad.” There are no national statistics kept to track these loathsome creatures, but one estimate (probably an over estimate since it comes from a group that is out to snare them) is that there are about a quarter of a million of them. I say this is an over estimate because hunters of any animal must inflate their numbers for it to remain legal to hunt them. If the numbers drop too low, they may be placed on an endangered species list and would no longer be considered fair game. The state may be forced to stop issuing licenses to hunt them in order to save them from extinction.

As with most big game animals, it is only legal to hunt the male of the species. The female is considered far too valuable to the survival of the species. So typically, the male is characterized as violent, dangerous, aggressive, or lazy while the female is supported as being caring and nurturing. This helps prevent the cognitive dissonance from occurring due to the blatant sexism involved. After all, if the decision to hunt them is based on value to the species and not on sex, it isn’t sexism even if only one sex is hunted. This is no different when it comes to hunting humans, especially the parents of young humans. Fathers are vilified as dangerous threats to their children while mothers are praised for their tender loving care of the young.

So the question arises, is the mother of young humans really more loving and caring than the father or is this just propaganda used to justify the hunt? In 2005, there were approximately 64.3 million fathers and 80.2 million mothers alive in the United States. Not all of these had young children under the age of 18, but I couldn’t find any figures for that, so these will have to do. Besides, since women outlive men on average by several years, more mothers than fathers will not have young children at home, so the statistical averages used for comparison should favor the female of the species, thus verifying the hypothesis that human mothers make better caretakers of their children than do fathers. Better to err on the side of the woman in such matters, don’t you think?

So let’s get cracking. If there are approximately 250K deadbeat dads as stated above, then the overall percentage of deadbeats as a part of all fathers is .4%. Of course this is an underestimate because there will be a few million fathers who have managed to live long enough for their youngest child to reach the age of 18. Because we know it is an underestimate, we can now justify saying that it is an under-reported crime and we can then guesstimate that only about one in every thousand or so cases gets reported, therefore we know that at least 40% of all fathers are deadbeat dads, perhaps even more. This then becomes justification for claiming that all fathers are potential deadbeats. Once we have claimed this to be true, we can then have the state issue hunting licenses for us to hunt the entire species.

There is no reason not to exterminate all fathers.

But what about miscreant moms, surely there can’t be very many because we never ever hear about them. There is no uproar, no organizations to hunt them, and no corals to pin them up. Therefore, they probably don’t exist and even if they do, then it isn’t likely to be their fault. Since deadbeat dads are defined as fathers who do not pay financial support for their children, miscreant moms must be defined in the same way. It’s only fair, right? You know, equality and all that nonsense.

The first problem we encounter when we attempt to find miscreant moms is that they are mistresses of disguise. They are very cunning and difficult to find. According to NOW, there are approximately 5.6 M stay-at-home moms in the US. These are obviously non-working mothers with no income. As a percentage of the whole, they amount to 7% of all mothers.

This amounts to 17.5 times as many miscreant moms as deadbeat dads, right? Wrong. There can’t possibly be that many miscreant moms; it must be some sort of mistake. In our count of deadbeat dads, we forgot to include stay-at-home dads. NOW estimates there are about 143K of those nasty critters. Add that to our figures and we get just under 400K deadbeats. This ups our percentage of deadbeats to .62% of all fathers, which in turn increases the number of unreported cases to include about 60.2% of all fathers. That definitely helps us justify our claim that all fathers are potential deadbeats. Further, we can state with confidence that the stay-at-home moms are in fact providing financial support for their children either via the rare father or a home business. Therefore the deadbeat mom does not exist. Or does she?

There is one other type of stay-at-home mom, the welfare queen. There are approximately 4.3 million welfare recipients in the US today. Almost all of them are women with young children. But this is probably just a myth, no more provable than the existence of the miscreant mom. Since only about half the people in the US are openly female and far more of them actually work for a living than men, it stands to reason that women couldn’t possibly comprise more than about 10% of all welfare recipients. This leaves us with a count of about 430K of the special breed called welfare queens. Calculating these as a percentage of the whole, we arrive at approximately .5% of mothers belonging to this special breed. But that’s almost as many welfare queens as deadbeat dads, can that really be so? Don’t be silly. Like other types of stay-at-home moms, welfare queens also provide financial support for their children. They aren’t even really unemployed. They are, in fact employees of the federal, state, and local governments whose job is to provide childcare. These women work hard and therefore cannot possibly be miscreants. This drop the percentage of miscreant back to 0% where it belongs.

However, there is one other type of miscreant mom being promoted by a fringe group of radicals known as male chauvinist pigs (they prefer to be called MRAs, but we all know what they really are). This group is comprised mostly of deadbeat dads who do little more than whine about their predicament and idle away their time trying to avoid their financial obligations to their children. They are deadbeats of the worst kind who are well-known to fabricate statistics based on actual science instead of the more popular and accurate pseudoscience used by their superiors who control the propaganda machine. There really should be a special license issued to hunt down that particular kind of ugly scum. But I digress.

These chauvinist pigs actually believe that a very high percentage of mothers kill their children when in fact it is simply not true. Women almost never do this and when they do it is done in order to protect them from their deadbeat dad and therefore perfectly justifiable. At any rate, it occurs so infrequently that it would have no impact on the actual statistics. Surprisingly fathers don’t kill their children very often either and although they are far more dangerous than mothers, the number of homicides committed by fathers against their children is also negligible. But those nasty chauvinist pigs aren’t satisfied. They claim that one in six pregnancies ends in abortion and that women who kill their unborn children should be defined as miscreant moms. This is insanity, simply because there were about 820K abortions in 2005 and about 4.1M children who lived long enough to be born is no cause for alarm or concern. Obviously the vast majority of pregnancies are carried to term so children are still being born and women are still becoming mothers who love and care for them far more than those awful and abusive deadbeats. Further, what these pigs call an unborn child is really more like a cancerous tumor that posed a threat to the woman’s freedom of choice and therefore needed to be cut out anyways. Besides, she probably decided to kill it either to protect it from the abusive deadbeat that sired it or because she knew the deadbeat wouldn’t support it and she didn’t want to. Her body, her choice.

In fact, it is this last point that further skews the statistics. Abortion actually prevents deadbeat dads. It could be considered the cure for that particular disease. If only more women would exercise their rights and make that choice, there would be fewer and fewer deadbeats. This works in two ways. First it prevents a man from fathering a child and becoming a deadbeat. Secondly, it prevents them from being born in the first place.

In conclusion, we can see from the facts presented that there every man is a potential deadbeat dad and that there is no such thing as a miscreant mom. She is a fiction, obviously created by chauvinist pigs to demonize and vilify women and shift the blame from themselves. There is no reason not to exterminate all fathers. This type of misogyny must not be tolerated.

Recommended Content