Relationship Tug of War--When Do You Let Go?

Women are an emotional breed. Generally, our actions are dictated by our emotions.  Thankfully, we also have common sense to guide us, as our emotions often lend themselves to us making some downright stupid mistakes.  But what happens when we allow our emotions to cloud our judgement, to overshadow the most basic instinct that any woman should possess, which is to protect herself and her children at all costs? What happens then? Why do we, as women, allow ourselves to participate in what, in effect, amounts to a three-ring circus with a man that refuses to be loyal to us? When you are pulling for your man in the tug-of-war of love, and the side chick is pulling in the other direction, when do you let go?

Let's get this out of the way. If you are the type of chick that will tell a man that "you have to choose", then you definitely need to continue reading!  I hate to hear a woman use that phrase: "you have to choose", or "why does he do this to me?" Why do we give men that power? Why is it that we want for HIM to choose us? When we give men this authority, then we are giving them power over us. They know that they have our hearts in the palms of their hands, and they are free to toy with, squish, and otherwise maim it in anyway possible. And by giving them that power over our lives, they know that we are unwilling to let go. This is why we want them to choose, because we allow ourselves to feel powerless in situations where we should feel powerful.  The Bible says that a  MAN that finds a WIFE finds a good thing.  Do you understand the power that God gives woman in that simple phrase?  A woman is a prize! She is worthy of respect, and by giving our power to a man, we only disrespect ourselves...

Which brings me to my next point. It's ALL ABOUT RESPECT. If YOU don't respect you, then don't expect for HIM to respect you. However, it's important to understand that a woman should be RESPECTABLE! If you are in the club every weekend with a bottle in your mouth, yelling "turn up", and otherwise being RATCHET, then you aren't exhibiting behaviors of a woman that deserves respect.  But even the most respectable women run into some disrespectful men, and I don't care how long you've supported him, how long you've "had his back", no matter how many babies you have by him, it comes down to this: He either respects you, or he doesn't. And if he can not respect you as his lover, his friend, his confident, his child's mother, than you can't MAKE him do it.  If he refuses to give you the respect that you rightfully deserve, then MOVE AROUND! Screw it, because this old adage is true: A man will only do what a woman LET'S him do.  If your man treats you like dirt, tell homie to eat rocks! Nothing gets a man's respect like saying "F... You", and meaning it. Nothing moves a man to action more quickly than knowing that his woman has moved on WITHOUT HIM.  If he really loves you, he will do what it takes to be the man in your life. If he doesn't, then he wasn't sh** , anyway, and you are better off without him!

How can I say this? Because I have been through it! My husband and I were back and forth, off and on, for years. And it probably would have stayed that way, if I didn't put my foot down.  I remember one evening, we had a little rendezvous, and afterward, this fool felt that he was ballsy enough to tell me that he had a new girlfriend. Huh, do what, now? Whatchu just say? At that point, I knew that I had enough. I didn't curse him out. Nope, not at all. However, I remember telling him that when he walked out of my front door, he would not be walking back through it. He thought that I was playing, but I was oh, so serious.  At that time, we had one child together.  After he walked out my front door, I kept my word. There were no "booty calls". There was no coming over to see the kid. Hell, you want him, come and pick him up or I can drop him off--I don't need you being under me! If it had nothing to do with our child, then we had no conversation. Why should we? Friends would have treated one another better than he treated me, so I didn't see the need for unnecessary conversation. He did his thing, and I did mine.  I took a vacation, and took that opportunity to renew myself.  I came back home with my son, happy and refreshed, because I had begun to reevalute my life. I realized that it wasn't him that was making me unhappy; I had more unresolved issues that I needed to contend with. But allowing him to come in and out of my life wasn't lending itself to making me happy, either, so I truly let go. I dealt with my issues, and allowed him to live the life that he wanted to live, and then...

He realized that once he had what he wanted, he didn't want what he had.  He realized that what he had was a young girl, and what he needed was a woman. And I was that woman.  I was strong, independent, and I had his back at all times. I loved his children from his previous relationships, and what shocked him was that even when we were no longer together, his children still loved and confided in me. I was truly his "ride-or-die chick". But I had to let him go, allow him to live "in that moment", so that he could see what was really right before him all along.  I did not want to force what I wanted as my "reality" to be his "reality". After almost a year, I received a call late one night. I had no idea who it could be; the number wasn't familiar to me (he would still see his child, however, conversation between us was very limited). "Hello" I answered. "Hey" was his response, followed by "do you mind if I call, just to talk?" Now looky there...I took that power away from him when I stood by my word!  The choice was not his, it was all mine! We talked for quite awhile, and when met to talk face-to-face again, I was looking at a completely different person. He didn't just look at me, but he SAW me. He respected me. He LOVED me. He LISTENED to me. And I could tell the difference, and it wasn't because of anything he said or did. When a person's heart truly changes, you can see the difference illuminating them from within. Even when I spoke, he hung on every word. Even the way that he touched me, the way that he held me, everything was different. He was a different man, not because he HAD to be, but because he wanted to be a BETTER man. And that's what he did. We've been married now almost 4 years.

When you've given it your all, and your all just isn't enough, then it's time to let go. Stop giving him power over you! You deserve better in this life, but it's up to you to seek out your "better".  Live your life being the best person that you can be, and the rest will fall into place.  We have to stop chasing men that don't want to be caught, loving men that can't love us, respecting men that find joy in disrespecting us. Life is TOO SHORT! Slowly inhale. Exhale. Then. Just. Let. Go...

Does the Govt Promote Reliance and Abuse of Welfare System?

Although the United States government has made some efforts in regulating welfare abuse, such as the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, and current attempts to reform the welfare system [Rep. Doug Reichley (R-Lehigh/Berks)], the government has a long way to go when it comes to truly reforming the system that many individuals have come to rely on as a way of life.  Many people look at the welfare system as a lifestyle, and this outlook is usually generational within families.  The use and abuse of the welfare system is usually promoted within communities, although increasing numbers of individuals are maximizing the true benefit of welfare, which is to provide a sort of ‘stepping stone” towards self-sufficiency. This leads one to wonder, why is this unhealthy reliance on welfare allowed to persist? Well, after personally witnessing many instances of abuse and misuse of the welfare system, my question is this: does our government promote the abuse and misuse of the welfare system? I think so.
 
Now, when I speak of an “unhealthy reliance on welfare”, I am not speaking of every individual that receives welfare assistance, whether it be for housing, food stamps, medicaid, etc. At some point in most of our lives, we have needed help from someone. Many of us have sought assistance from an outside agency for bills, food, clothing, and shelter, to name a few. For those of us who haven’t, its usually because we feel, maybe even know, that we would be ineligible to receive benefits, even though those benefits could desperately be used. There are those that are elderly, or disabled, whose basic existence derives from some type of benefit from a government agency (housing or food stamps, for example). There are the families that have suffered a loss of employment or a death in the family, which caused otherwise working families to suddenly need help. These types of situations, and many more, are understandable. It is also one reason that the welfare system exists, in the first place. According to Welfare Information, “welfare in the United States commonly refers to the federal government welfare programs that have been put in place to assist the unemployed or underemployed. Help is extended to the poor through a variety of government welfare programs that include Medicaid, the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Program, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) “The History of Welfare”.  So why is a system, set into place to help and assist families in need, become so abused and defrauded? Well, rules put into place by various government agencies allow, passively encouraging, some of the abuses that it is victim to.

One reason for such defrauding of the welfare system is miseducation. Many people do not understand the rules, even benefits, of the particular welfare agency from which they are seeking assistance, and feel compelled to “cheat the system” in order to receive benefits. For example, many people believe that you can only get housing assistance or food stamps if you are a single mother. This is not true. The welfare system was not put into place to separate famlilies, rather, it wants to maintain the integrity of the family, by allowing the family to remain a single unit, while promoting self-sufficiency. The husband, fiancee, even boyfriend can be a part of the household. The male head-of-household’s income (or lack of) is included in the eligibility calculations of the household, and if the family is eligible, the family can receive assistance. Yet, throughout communities, the myth is perpetuated that you cannot have a man living with you. When you think about it, that would be ridiculous of the government to promote the disintegration of the family, by excluding a husband, boyfriend, etc. Often, it is the male, even if the female head-of-household does not work, that has earned income. By being a part of the household, his income is counted towards that of the family, and the family receives less benefits, essentially reducing costs for state and federal governments. This is particulary beneficial when families participate in programs such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Family Self-Sufficiency Program. Education of “the system” is one way to reduce fraud. Without education, and especially the provision for funding for education of welfare and its benefits, and also of the penalties for its abuse, the government is perpetuating miseducation, and therefore, misuse, of the welfare system.

There are also many programs that aim to educate recipients, promoting job training, secondary education, and ultimately, employment. These programs have shown to be effective in reducing the number of individuals that rely on welfare as their sole source of income. However, these programs would be more effective if they were supported by legislation that made, for those non-elderly, non-disable individuals, participation mandatory. It is not enough to simply reduce benefits for people who choose not to participate in job training or job search. People must be forced to be responsible for their own families, and this can only be done by eliminating benefits to individuals who choose not to benefit in the self-sufficiency programs of agencies. Only then will our government see truly effective reductions in dependence on welfare systems.

Welfare abuse is also cultural and  generational. Its abuse is often applauded. It is not uncommon to know of the grandmother, mother, daughter, and granddaughters of any one family to all be recipients of welfare. It’s almost a “monkey see, monkey do” syndrome. The use of welfare, in and of itself, is not the problem. It is a person’s persistence to remain on welfare, not trying to better themselves through education or employment, that is the problem. These individuals do not seek employment, often bragging about their lack of job experience. All the while this lifestyle is being promoted, there are children growing up in these households, unintentionally and unknowlingly, learning how to exploit “the system”. They see one or both parents not working, and they are not teaching their children any other way of life. They are not encouraging education, or teaching their children how important it is to try to be self-sufficient. “Back in the day”, even the most undeducated parents instilled in their children: “I just want you to be better than me/have more than I had/get a better education.” Now days, many parents just don’t care. They rely on the system, and they see nothing wrong with it, and they are teaching that to their children, whether they know it or not. This causes a generational, and also cultural, dependence on welfare. Again, education is key, but this can only be effective with stiffer penalties for failure to participate, and also stiffer penalties for abuse.

The government encourages dependence on welfare by passing legislation that allows individuals to receive assistance that should otherwise be ineligible, and by also increasing benefits instead of providing a threshold, even reducing benefits, when it is obvious that the assistance is being abused. For instance, the Department of HUD has a regulation that says that if a person is under 21, is in a secondary school of education, has no children, is not elderly, or disabled, they are not eligible to receive housing assistance, unless their parents are income eligible. Now, I’m sure the Department of HUD had some reasonable explanation for passing such legislation, but when you look at this rule, what is HUD really saying? A young woman that has decided to defer having children in order to pursue a college education, is not eligible to receive assistance, while  a young woman who decides not to work, who may or may not have children, that is not pursuing an education, is eligible? Let’s not forget the baby daddies! There are young men, able-bodied, and intelligent enough to maintain steady employment, that choose not to work or pursue an education, but they are receiving housing and food stamps. Their only job: reproducing. As they say in the social networking world: SMH.

Increasing benefits as a reward for uncontrolled reproduction also encourages abuse and misuse of the welfare system. Many of us know people that are receiving upwards of $800 or $900 or more, each month, for food stamps, which are supposed to be to feed their families. Many families, although already dependent on the system, continue to have more children because benefits from some agencies will increase, like food stamps. Why should the taxpayers reward such behavior? Me and my husband’s finances are already strained, and we only have two children. I knew that having any more children would be more of a strain, and decided that it would not be feasible to have any more children. I made the responsible decision to have a tubal ligation. Yes, that was my decision, but it is one that I feel was financially responsible. We have to encourage financial responsibility in families in order to reduce dependence on welfare, and stop promoting and encouraging long-term, continued dependence on welfare.

Some agencies allow the use of  “collateral statements” or “statements of contributions.” These statements are provided for individuals that are claiming to have income, recieved from being personally assisted by private individuals. Well, this is perfectly fine in instances where the support is actually being provided. Look at this situation: a mother receiving Social Security Disability in the amount of $674 per month provides a “contributions statement” to her daughter, stating that she provides her child $350 in financial support. She provides the statement so that her daughter can meet the income guidelines to receive welfare assistance from a particular welfare agency. Both mother and daughter receive food stamps. Now, even the dumbest individual can see that this must be a lie. However, there is no system to tie the various welfare agencies together, so that they can cross check one another, and these statements are allowed to be used. Therefore, someone who would not be eligible to receive assistance, is able to be assisted because of the use of a bold-faced lie. This is further evidence of the government promoting dependence and abuse of welfare.

In order to make a change in how welfare is promoted and used, and to make a drastic reduction in abuse and misuse of welfare, we must push for education of welfare, and support stronger laws and welfare reform. Without stronger, more logical rules and regulation governing the receipt of welfare benefits, the government must shoulder as much of the responsibility for the pathetic state of the United States welfare system, as the ones that abuse it.