Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
75. This is a result of the old "Man in the House" Rule
Mon Jul 21, 2014, 12:00 AM
Jul 2014

For those people unfamiliar with the "Man in the House" rule, it was a rule of welfare that a family that the Father was still living with could NOT get on welfare for they had an adult male who would work and therefore the family was NOT entitled to welfare.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Man-in-the-House+Rule

While technically the rule was struck down in 1968 by the US Supreme Court, that case only involved a male who was NOT the parent of the children in the household. Male Parents were still grounds to deny a family welfare if the Father lived with the Children. In the 1970s and into the 1980s the courts slowly e ended the "Man in the House" rule, but it kept coming back via State Legislatures. The Later cases all said it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to treat children differently depending on whether they father lived with them or not.

Senator Moniyhan, before he was a Senator, wrote about the "Man in the House" rule and how it was destroying African American Families, for many African American males of the 1950s were of the last hired, first fired group of employees. Thus African American males had longer periods of unemployment then did whites, and often were unemployed way pass the six month unemployment insurance period (if they were eligible for unemployment in the first place). Thus a lot of African American and poor whites who were in the same economic group (Last hired, First fired) ended up on welfare and quickly found out they children were eligible for Welfare IF THEY MOVED OUT OF THE HOUSE. The Supreme Court ruling of 1968 took many years to be enforced in most states (I knew several WHITE families whose husband left the household every time welfare workers were scheduled to show up at their family's home and that was the late 1960s, early 1970s).

Sorry, a lot of males learned that they families were better off without them, if they did not have a job, as they grew up in the 1950s, 1960s and even the 1970s (and in some cases, even if they have a job, they children were better off economically without them).

Now, the above was NOT true of the Father had a full time job, but I am discussing your typical person of welfare, someone who is technically employable, but given a choose between him and almost anyone else, you opt to hire the other person. Thus I call them "Last hired, first fired".

Even today, while the Man in the House Rule is NO longer the law, you will see welfare rules that tries to do the same thing without saying an adult male can NOT be in the house. Even welfare workers see such men as parasites and will cut them off (and their families) welfare faster then a single Mother with children.

THE OTHER MAJOR PROBLEM is where jobs are for low income people. Most are shift work at low pay. Thus men and women often end up getting jobs where they rarely see each other to interact as a family and often end up with jobs so far apart one has to leave to minimize cost of transportation do to employment (Most jobs are in the suburbs, and if you do not have a car, and many of the people I am discussing do not for they can NOT afford one, getting to work can be a problem, often requires going to some city center by bus and then to the suburbs by bus. One way to cut costs is to move so that you are on the same bus lines as your job. Often with a husband and wife they can NOT be on the same bus lines for their jobs are on different bus lines. This drives them even further apart.

Yes, a lot of Fathers abandon their children, but in many cases (and I believe it is most cases) it is economics that drives the Father out. It is easier for a Male to get a job where he does NOT have show up not dressed to a T (i.e. construction, night janitor work etc as opposes to women who end up in a lot of retail jobs) and as such easier to live in a low rent house since they do not have children for CYS to worry about.

Just a comment on your comment. In many cases, the father do provide support as much as they can but when dealing with the lowest income groups economics kick in big time to break up relationships.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Maybe if Chicago passes some more gun laws Tetris_Iguana Jul 2014 #1
This message was self-deleted by its author Lochloosa Jul 2014 #2
chicago doesn't have closed borders, and there is nobody who says the only solution is gun control JI7 Jul 2014 #3
I agree Tetris_Iguana Jul 2014 #5
My students are poor but they don't shoot anyone kylie5432 Jul 2014 #7
Thanks for that! Tetris_Iguana Jul 2014 #8
Parenting is hard if daddy skips town AngryAmish Jul 2014 #36
And Moms working long hours for shit pay. Inkfreak Jul 2014 #38
This is a result of the old "Man in the House" Rule happyslug Jul 2014 #75
control the borders... everybody wins quadrature Jul 2014 #13
Strict gun laws are much easier to get around when the surrounding areas don't have them. nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #4
I agree Tetris_Iguana Jul 2014 #6
Strict gun regulation is obvious. delrem Jul 2014 #9
I have my own cynical suspicions Tetris_Iguana Jul 2014 #10
It isn't entirely a problem of having a well maintained PD. delrem Jul 2014 #11
Is Chicago PD Spouting Horn Jul 2014 #62
Worse Tetris_Iguana Jul 2014 #63
Illinois has strict gun control laws all over the state. former9thward Jul 2014 #15
That doesn't explain, Why Chicago? AtheistCrusader Jul 2014 #18
If surrounding areas Spouting Horn Jul 2014 #61
Because guns aren't the only factor by a long shot. It's just that their fairly easy availability nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #74
Maybe if there were no fucking guns.. trumad Jul 2014 #23
too conceptual and decent for gun lovers to understand - these deaths are horrifying samsingh Jul 2014 #47
Illinois has the strictest gun laws in the United States or at least one of them yeoman6987 Jul 2014 #64
its where the guns are coming from - and let's have some liability in place for people violating samsingh Jul 2014 #70
or may be if gun lovers started caring about victims and stopped attacking samsingh Jul 2014 #46
Seeing as that's not a characteristic of gangbangers Tetris_Iguana Jul 2014 #59
How horrendous and it happens much too frequently azurnoir Jul 2014 #12
This is just too much RainDog Jul 2014 #14
Things that would help, people aren't going to approve of..like Stop and Frisk KinMd Jul 2014 #16
So people should sacrifice their 4th amendment rights (and possibly be racially profiled) alp227 Jul 2014 #17
Agreed. No thanks. nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #19
And a jury kept the stop and frisk post 3-4! alp227 Jul 2014 #45
Why wold someone alert that? yeoman6987 Jul 2014 #65
Do you not realize Stop and Frisk is both a totalitarian and racist policy? alp227 Jul 2014 #66
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #26
yeah right heaven05 Jul 2014 #28
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #29
you need to quit, really heaven05 Jul 2014 #30
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #31
yeah right heaven05 Jul 2014 #32
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #33
I really don't care heaven05 Jul 2014 #34
Bloomberg was willing to violate any right to make people safe hack89 Jul 2014 #35
what if any us had kids and lived in these neighborhoods 22 shot in 12 hours. KinMd Jul 2014 #44
I still wouldn't willingly give up my 4th Amend. right, IronGate Jul 2014 #50
I might so my 11yo doesn't get shot inside her own house KinMd Jul 2014 #51
Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither. IronGate Jul 2014 #52
I'm guessing you don't live in any neiighborhood like that KinMd Jul 2014 #53
I grew up in a neighborhood like that, IronGate Jul 2014 #55
Ok just tell the people their on their own.. we can't protect you KinMd Jul 2014 #56
So giving up our fundamental rights is the answer? nt. IronGate Jul 2014 #57
Stop and frisk iisn't the same as being jailed without trial, and not a perfect solution. KinMd Jul 2014 #58
Stop and Frisk is a blatant violation of the 4th Amend. IronGate Jul 2014 #60
+1 ClassyCaptain Jul 2014 #69
It's people like you who are more of a threat to our country IronGate Jul 2014 #54
Thinking that targeting a whole race as criminals will deter crime is hilariously naive. n/t nomorenomore08 Jul 2014 #20
Bloomberg says it worked hack89 Jul 2014 #22
People who say it "works" are usually white... Blue_Tires Jul 2014 #72
Bloomberg is as racist as they come hack89 Jul 2014 #73
Message auto-removed Name removed Jul 2014 #25
figures heaven05 Jul 2014 #27
Fuck that noise. (nt) Inkfreak Jul 2014 #39
Rightly so people won't approve of. IronGate Jul 2014 #40
would not be used to intimidate more black males? samsingh Jul 2014 #48
No thanks; black folks get more than enough "attention" from LEOs Blue_Tires Jul 2014 #71
Death Penalty for Gun Possession lobodons Jul 2014 #21
Yeah I see you working... trumad Jul 2014 #24
You forgot this: IronGate Jul 2014 #37
You just called for the execution of many DUers ButterflyBlood Jul 2014 #41
Way to go, fueling the paranoid nightmares of the pro-gun militants. Paladin Jul 2014 #43
Such a complicated issue.... theHandpuppet Jul 2014 #42
Gaza, Ukraine, or Chicago? SansACause Jul 2014 #49
FYI: Chicago is safer today than at any other time in its history ... pbmus Jul 2014 #67
I don't think ltheghost Jul 2014 #68
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»22 shot in Chicago over 1...»Reply #75