Small Business Loans For Minority Women: Some Answers

Mark asks…

In a world where people state that they want equal rights,?

If the world were to truly want to develop and foster a truly egalitarian society for all, why are the following situations still permitted under law (each by nature automatically exclude a certain group)?

1. If family services takes the children away from her and put them in foster care, the father is still required to pay child support, but not the mother. The mother is allowed at any point during her child’s life to financially walk away from the child in the instances of abortion, adoption, abandonement, or seizure as stated above, yet a man is held financially responsible in each of them with the exception of abortion.

2. Laws passed specifically to protect women, children and infants (by nature excluding men).

3. The small business administration that doles preferential loans specifically to women and minorities ( excluding against caucasians and men).

4. Shelters and organizations made for violence against women (often paid for by taxpayer dollars), which if you look in any city, you while find several for women, yet in Los Angeles, the second largest city in The United States, you will find none for men.

5. Custody awarded to women on a far more frequent basis than it is to men, even when the men request custody.

It would be possible to cite examples of inequality all day long, yet I have named a few of the more common ones and I am curious why these injustices are both, socially and legally acceptable by people who claim to want equality?
No… each point was carefully researched and is absolutely based on fact. Anyone stating otherwise, provide me with even one example, and we’ll strike the point…observe… http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlGIpOZNhkObnppw0hIH0Izty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090223182519AAH0wco
Lovestheconstitution, please provide some links to your answers and I’ll show you some as well… There is much that you have said that is refuteable, especially in regards to the violence against women act, a law that puts men in jail (and how is that not harmful or not held up in court?) soley based upon “her” say so.

In regards to the SBA, where are the “majority” instead of the “minorityloans? Why do minorities and women have special groups that cater just to them instead of catering to EVERYONE, and creating a law making the discrimination of others a felony?

You seem both intelligent and educated…I am interested in hearing what you have to say…show us some proof.
Skylerz? Really? Have a look… http://centralalabama.momslikeme.com/members/JournalActions.aspx?g=503270&m=3504067

admin answers:

Equal rights doesn’t equate to dollars spent on programs designed for women, minorities, and the such. Equal rights ensures everyone has the right to vote, to drive at 16, to own land, property. You’re thinking of equal treatment, the fact that women don’t have to pay child support and men do is on a case by case basis dependent upon the income of the mother and father. Courts ALWAYS rule in favor of the woman if the child is young and the mother is found to be merely competent versus a proven good father. THAT is an injustice.

Michael asks…

In a world that truly wishes to rid itself of inequality, why are the following still permitted?

If the world were to truly want to develop and foster a truly egalitarian society for all, why are the following situations still permitted under law (each by nature automatically exclude a certain group)?

1. If family services takes the children away from the mother and put them in foster care, the father is still required to pay child support, but not the mother. The mother is allowed at any point during her child’s life to financially walk away from the child in the instances of abortion, adoption, abandonement, or seizure as stated above, yet a man is held financially responsible in each of them with the exception of abortion.

2. Laws passed specifically to protect women, children and infants (by nature excluding men).

3. The small business administration that doles preferential loans (funded by taxpayer dollars), specifically to women and minorities ( excluding against caucasians and men).

4. Shelters and organizations made for violence against women (often paid for by taxpayer dollars), which if you look in any city, you while find several for women, yet in Los Angeles, the second largest city in The United States, you will find none for men.

5. Custody awarded to women on a far more frequent basis than it is to men, even when the men request custody.

It would be possible to cite examples of inequality all day long, yet I have named a few of the more common ones and I am curious why these injustices are both, socially and legally acceptable by people who claim to want equality?
Lynn, you make some points, but you are woefully mistaken, so much so, that I am going to only b*tchslap your first point…go do some homework… http://centralalabama.momslikeme.com/members/JournalActions.aspx?g=503270&m=3504067 It isn’t “woe is the whiteman syndrome”… they are facts.
Ps… racial discrimination is wrong regardless of who it is against, including whites.
Anyone, and I repeat, ANYONE, that can cite even ONE EXAMPLE of a woman ordered to support after this…http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1859951,00.html “I’ll be good, I’ll be good!”, as the mother walked away… show me one example of a woman that was ordered to support after abandoning her children…ONE! Don’t ask for one for men, I have thousands to choose from.
Professor, the last edit was aimed at you trying to refute point number 1.
The rest of the arguments by feminists are just trash. Not even suitable for rebuttal. I am asking for proof that even one of these points not being true, and loans? I’m sorry, I’m not in the banking industry and if I’m not entitled to the loan, their not entitled to my tax dollars…

Men’s shelters for battered men, I can’t see why we wouldn’t need a place for a man to go with his children so that he wouldn’t have to stay home and be hit until she gets mad enough to call the police and blame it on him…why would we need that?
Mem11363,

I earn a six figure income as well, and the amount that I make is none of my ex-wife’s concern. She has an obligation to be responsible for herself and cold though it may seem, if after the divorce, she is thrown on the street, so be it. It happens to men everyday, losing the house, paying custody and alimony as well as paying for their ex’s lawyer (Paying her so that you can lose even more than you would of)? Pardon me if I have little to no sympathy for the other after divorce (they are defacto opponents as far as I’m concerned), but let’s not lose the focal point.

The point is that women and several others continue to enjoy rights that are not available for everone.

If you are making 6 figures, you undoubtedly have something to do within the management of your company, (I have roughly 200 people under me), so I ask you, would it be within the realm of what is feasible from a business perspective to favour one employee above another based on gender, race, ethics,
or creed? We both know the answer to that, so I ask you, if it isn’t sound nor fair to do from a business standpoint, why is it both legally and socially acceptable to do outside of the workplace as long as we target only certain members? I ask in earnest. Due respect, but I have much in common with you based on the way that you’ve described yourself and I think I have an excellent point dear chap. Cheers.
Ad note: So we are now more concerned with the level of humanity afforded a grown woman than we are a child? What about the humanity of forcing a man to 18 years of payments? It is okay for a man to suffer, but because she is a woman, we should as a society spare her? I think not. She knew what she was doing when she slept with him. I mean let’s be honest, how many times have we heard the same exact argument used against men by both genders?

admin answers:

As a mom and a step-mom, I’ve seen it all, and my opinions on subjects such as these have remained pretty steady through the years. Here’s hoping for only a few thumbs down!

1. I believe both parents should continue to support their child until that child becomes a legal adult and/or their parental rights are terminated.

2. I personally have a very serious problem with incorporating gender-based language into any legislation of this sort. Either we are here to protect all, or we are here to protect none. A man’s safety is no less important than a woman’s. Men are abused regularly, and it’s time that society acknowledge it and work to having it become acceptable to help men, not berate and make fun of them for being ‘wimpy’ or ‘not being a man’ or ‘being whipped’. To me, this is unacceptable.

3. I believe that incentive programs should be in place for those who need them and are worthy of them. Basing criterion on age, race and gender only serves to create and sustain barriers based on these differences. In a nutshell, we won’t stop seeing differences if we continue to breath life into them.

4. I believe that there absolutely need to be shelters for men. Protective shelters with appropriate resources, not a soup kitchen, not a homeless shelter and not the Y. Further to that, I think there need to be shelters for men and their children. I do believe that because of the nature of domestic abuse, shelters for men and women need to remain separate; not for perpetuating differences or inequality, but for the physical safety of those seeking assistance.

5. Status quo is status garbage. The reality is that men are far more involved with parenting than they were 50 years ago. However, the ‘system’ has yet to acknowledge this. I wonder if the courts default should simply be shared co-parenting with the strong recommendation for a mediator to assist with the transition to a new family lifestyle. Taking children from a caring, involved father is unacceptable to me, and I think it’s high time that dads not be sacrificed in the name of a failed marriage. Marriage and parenting are not synomyous, nor should they be treated that way.

Great question!

P.s. I’m confused by the comments about alimony. Alimony represents money paid to an ex-spouse and is different from child support. I didn’t get the impression that alimony was discussed at all in the question posed.

Mandy asks…

In a world that truly wishes to rid itself of inequality, why are the following true?

If the world were to truly want to develop and foster a truly egalitarian society for all, why are the following situations still permitted under law (each by nature automatically exclude a certain group)?

1. If family services takes the children away from the mother and put them in foster care, the father is still required to pay child support, but not the mother. The mother is allowed at any point during her child’s life to financially walk away from the child in the instances of abortion, adoption, abandonement, or seizure as stated above, yet a man is held financially responsible in each of them with the exception of abortion.

2. Laws passed specifically to protect women, children and infants (by nature excluding men).

3. The small business administration that doles preferential loans (funded by taxpayer dollars), specifically to women and minorities ( excluding against caucasians and men).

4. Shelters and organizations made for violence against women (often paid for by taxpayer dollars), which if you look in any city, you while find several for women, yet in Los Angeles, the second largest city in The United States, you will find none for men.

5. Custody awarded to women on a far more frequent basis than it is to men, even when the men request custody.

It would be possible to cite examples of inequality all day long, yet I have named a few of the more common ones and I am curious why these injustices are both, socially and legally acceptable by people who claim to want equality?

admin answers:

They are and always will be true until more men start fighting back and demanding more equality in these types of cases.
How do you think women got equality to ever vote? It took one woman standing up and fighting for all the women in order for it to happen.

So as long as no men are fighting back against these cases and just “accepting” the outcome, then things will never change.

You need a leader and someone that will fight for this if you want it to happen.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers




Comments are closed.