It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jeb Bush In 1995: Unwed Mothers Should Be Publicly Shamed

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: ~Lucidity


It seems like these days there is very little shame about anything. Does anyone really get embarrassed anymore about anything? It is an emotional, ethical, ect, ect you name it, dog eat dog world out there these days.


Maybe just the counterbalancing reaction to others constantly judging and trying to control things that just aren't their business to begin with. Just a hypothesis.

And also maybe just people deciding that there are things that we should not be ashamed of an again are no one else's business.

Like keeping an unexpected child instead of aborting it.

Or our bodies as they are.

Or who we love.

That plus just changing times where we are looking to again find a balance.
edit on 6/10/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: daryllyn
There is a world of difference between blaming and shaming.

Blaming tells us that we have done something bad.

Shaming tells us that we are something bad.

Psychology 101


Yeah, no. They address the behavior that needs to be modified. Negative reinforcement. I'm guessing you never took psych 101.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: ~Lucidity


It seems like these days there is very little shame about anything. Does anyone really get embarrassed anymore about anything? It is an emotional, ethical, ect, ect you name it, dog eat dog world out there these days.


Maybe just the counterbalancing reaction to others constantly judging and trying to control things that just aren't their business to begin with. Just a hypothesis.

And also maybe just people deciding that there are things that we should not be ashamed of an again are no one else's business.

Like keeping an unexpected child instead of aborting it.

Or our bodies as they are.

Ot who we love.


Nonsense. When one takes public funds, it is made the public's business. When one is on the dole, it is the taxpayer's business. What you advocate is support with zero accountability.

When you subsidize something, you get more of it--hence the abject failure of the great society.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

This whole thread is full of assumptions.

I took psych 101, growth and development, and abnormal psychology.

It's nice that you assume I must be uneducated, though.

I think positive reinforcement is a lot less damaging than negative, but that's just my opinion.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: NavyDoc

And again? Do we have to shame people to teach them about individual responsibility? What's wrong with the alternatives? Education? Assistance when they need it? Support?

Feeling shame comes from within anyway. Some people come by it naturally, some are taughy. However, the action of shaming others? That's just plain mean and harmful. And extremely damaging.


Yea I dig what you are saying. But when a woman has her second child out of wedlock then she didn't screw up again but is probably a screw up or a welfare grifter. The pedals are off the rose at that point.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: NavyDoc

This whole thread is full of assumptions.

I took psych 101, growth and development, and abnormal psychology.

It's nice that you assume I must be uneducated, though.

I think positive reinforcement is a lot less damaging than negative, but that's just my opinion.


Considering that you use the terms incorrectly, it is a logical assumption. Negative reinforcement "more damaging?" How? In what way? When you put a hand on a hot stove and you are burned and you learn not to do that again--that is negative reinforcement. Do you honestly believe that this lesson is not a valuable or less strong one?



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

A hot stove is a different rodeo than shaming someone. Apples and zebras.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

I'm pretty sure this wasn't connected to public funds.

Public shaming would be an effective way to regulate the “irresponsible behavior” of unwed mothers, misbehaving teenagers and welfare recipients, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) argued in his 1995 book Profiles in Character.


That doesn't say unwed mothers WHO ARE welfare recipients.

But even if it was, how do you imagine we'd find these unwed mothers on public funds and shame them? Just the poor ones.

What the hell. Really.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: NavyDoc

This whole thread is full of assumptions.

I took psych 101, growth and development, and abnormal psychology.

It's nice that you assume I must be uneducated, though.

I think positive reinforcement is a lot less damaging than negative, but that's just my opinion.



You are right. Positive reinforcement is better. But its not positively reinforcing anything positive when multiple kids grow up in a home with multiple dads, coming and going, lack of stability ect. This is not really doing anything for the kids. Oh but let us not get down on moms case. Besides its not going to do any good at that point just try to make the best of it mom and Jr.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Well, you all are right and I am wrong. I've been shamed by the social pressure from individuals here.

I'll change my behavior. . . . . . . . wait, what?




posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   
a reply to: daryllyn

Agree on the assumptions (see above).

Also, negative reinforcement is only good for the short term and applied immediately (puppy pees on carpet).

I would also argue that shaming is not a good example of even the good kind of negative reinforcement, but I don't even remember psych 101 anymore.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: NavyDoc

A hot stove is a different rodeo than shaming someone. Apples and zebras.


Not at all. Thus the assumption that you didn't take psych 101. Negative reinforcement has nothing to do with stoves or airplanes or Santa Claus--it is all about negative repercussions to an act to prevent repeat of said act.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

How dare they be poor! Getting their poverty all over the place, I hope I don't step in it and ruin my shoes, or worse... catch it. Maybe we should tattoo them, or make them wear a uniform, so we can easily identify them.

If people really think that this type of behavior/treatment is even remotely acceptable, I am secondhand embarrassed for them, and saddened that anyone still thinks that way.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: NavyDoc

I'm pretty sure this wasn't connected to public funds.

Public shaming would be an effective way to regulate the “irresponsible behavior” of unwed mothers, misbehaving teenagers and welfare recipients, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) argued in his 1995 book Profiles in Character.


That doesn't say unwed mothers WHO ARE welfare recipients.

But even if it was, how do you imagine we'd find these unwed mothers on public funds and shame them? Just the poor ones.

What the hell. Really.

[/quote]
Nonsense it says it quite clearly right there. It also states that the plan was to deny assistance until the father was identified. So you are against holding deadbeat fathers accountable too?



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
This is more germane to the public shaming law passed on his watch, not related to welfare...


In 2001, Bush didn’t veto adoption-overhaul legislation that included a provision making it harder for unwed mothers to put their children up for adoption, as The Huffington Post recently reported.

And by taking a pass, he allowed a particularly offensive provision to become law.

This provision required any woman who wanted to put her child up for adoption, but who didn’t know who the father was, to take out an ad in a local newspaper listing her name and description, as well as the name and description of each possible father and the locations where the baby could have been conceived.

In other words, women had to broadcast her sexual histories to, well, pretty much everybody before attempting to find stable homes for her children.

The law’s sponsor, state Senator Walter Campbell, said the provision was


So some people are against abortion and want to shame people who opt for the adoption route like this? Then if the mom wants to keep her kid and can't afford it and needs assistance, that's a no-no too.

Nice.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: ~Lucidity

How dare they be poor! Getting their poverty all over the place, I hope I don't step in it and ruin my shoes, or worse... catch it. Maybe we should tattoo them, or make them wear a uniform, so we can easily identify them.

If people really think that this type of behavior/treatment is even remotely acceptable, I am secondhand embarrassed for them, and saddened that anyone still thinks that way.


Shrug. I'm saddened that people think that special snow flakes should not feel bad (for you leftists it's all about feelings isn't it) for poor choices and should not be held responsible or accountable. Oh the abject horror of individual responsibility.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Being an unmarried parent is becoming commonplace. There are those who might want to be a mom, but not a 'wife'.
Makes sense to me. I would of course, want this to be a conscious decision a woman makes, and also would hope she has the means to support the child on her own.

If that is not the case, she still doesn't deserve to be targeted by judgmental folks who really have very little understanding of those circumstances.

But for those of you who don't like it......... brace yourselves because it's the way of the future.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Jeb Bush forced single mothers to publish sexual histories in Florida newspapers.


Public shaming would be an effective way to regulate the “irresponsible behavior” of unwed mothers, misbehaving teenagers and welfare recipients, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R) argued in his 1995 book Profiles in Character.

In a chapter called "The Restoration of Shame,” the likely 2016 presidential candidate made the case that restoring the art of public humiliation could help prevent pregnancies “out of wedlock.”


One of the reasons more young women are giving birth out of wedlock and more young men are walking away from their paternal obligations is that there is no longer a stigma attached to this behavior, no reason to feel shame. Many of these young women and young men look around and see their friends engaged in the same irresponsible conduct. Their parents and neighbors have become ineffective at attaching some sense of ridicule to this behavior. There was a time when neighbors and communities would frown on out of wedlock births and when public condemnation was enough of a stimulus for one to be careful.


Bush points to Nathaniel Hawthorne's 1850 novel The Scarlet Letter, in which the main character is forced to wear a large red "A" for "adulterer" on her clothes to punish her for having an extramarital affair that produced a child, as an early model for his worldview. "Infamous shotgun weddings and Nathaniel Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter are reminders that public condemnation of irresponsible sexual behavior has strong historical roots,” Bush wrote.

As governor of Florida in 2001, Bush had the opportunity to test his theory on public shaming. He declined to veto a very controversial bill that required single mothers who did not know the identity of the father to publish their sexual histories in a newspaper before they could legally put their babies up for adoption. He later signed a repeal of the so-called "Scarlet Letter" law in 2003 after it was successfully challenged in court.


Anyone who clings to the philosophy of the "Scarlett Letter" should just drop dead. Bush needs to go back to the 18th century where he belongs.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: daryllyn
a reply to: NavyDoc

A hot stove is a different rodeo than shaming someone. Apples and zebras.


Not at all. Thus the assumption that you didn't take psych 101. Negative reinforcement has nothing to do with stoves or airplanes or Santa Claus--it is all about negative repercussions to an act to prevent repeat of said act.


Touching a hot stove and being shamed are definitely not the same thing at all. Maybe the outcome, of not wanting to repeat the action are similar, but the mechanism/delivery of each are 100 percent different.



posted on Jun, 10 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Exactly.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join