There's a fascinating article in
The Wall
Street Journal titled "This Is Your Brain Without Dad" about the
importance of having a father with respect to brain development.Now I admit I'm
not much of a statistics girl. I read a lot, so I'm well versed in the latest
stats; but I place my stock in common sense and experience. If you read this
blog regularly, you know that. Still, this was interesting.
Apparently a
German biologist is conducting research on this subject using
animals that are
typically raised by two parents as compared with one parent. When the animals
were deprived of their father, the pups exhibit short and long-term changes in
nerve-cell growth on different regions of the brain.
In the two-parent
families, the mothers and fathers cared for their pups in similar ways. When the
mother was a single parent, the frequency of her interactions didn't
change
much, which means the pups experienced significantly less touching and
interaction than those with two parents.
So I was thinking about this
issue with respect to the faux "
women's rights" movement - more specifically,
how feminists have no problem with single
motherhood. In fact they encourage it.
It's part of a woman's right to become a mother in any way she deems
appropriate: without a father, without staying home, etc. The idea of being
married in order to raise
children is almost an afterthought. And divorce is
considered a fait accompli -- not something we should strive to avoid. Indeed,
feminists are the reason there is now a whopping 40% of single mothers in
America.
Not only are feminists responsible for this pitiful statistic,
they want to
support single mothers by adopting policies that encourage it. When
Ann Coulter told the truth about single motherhood in her
book Guilty, she was of course pilloried by the
Left. Feminists don't like facts and statistics; it messes with their plan. But
those with open and independent minds can handle the following information from
Guilty:
"
Of all single mothers in America, only 6.5 percent of
them are widows, 37.8 percent are divorced, and 41.3 percent gave birth out of
wedlock. The 6.5 percent of single mothers whose husbands have died shouldn't be
called 'single mothers' at all. We already have a word for them: 'widows.' Their
children do just fine compared with the children of married parents.
According to the Index of Leading
Cultural Indicators, children from single-parent families account for 63 percent
of all youth suicides, 70 percent of all teenage pregnancies, 71 percent of all
adolescent chemical/substance abuse, 80 percent of all prison inmates, and 90
percent of all homeless and runaway children.A study cited in the Village Voice
produced similar numbers. It found that children brought up in single-mother
homes 'are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to
drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14
times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up
in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home.' Single motherhood is
like a farm team for future criminals and social outcasts.The illegitimacy rate has gone up by more
than 300 percent since 1970.
In 1979, only about 600,000 babies were born out
of wedlock and one quarter of them were
put up for adoption. By 1991, the number of illegitimate births had doubled to 1,225,000 annually, but only 4 percent were allowed to be
adopted. By 2003, 1.5
million illegitimate babies were born
every year, but less than 1 percent were put for adoption. Not surprisingly,
unwed mothers who care enough to give their children up for adoption also come
overwhelmingly from responsible backgrounds. They tend to have higher education
and income levels and to come from intact upper-middle-class families with
highly educated parents."Finally, this: "
According to the US Justice Department
crime statistics, domestic abuse is virtually nonexistent for married women
living with their husbands."
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
OPINION:Why Single Motherhood is a Recipe for Disaster
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
wow!
“Now I admit I'm not much of a statistics girl. I read a lot, so I'm well versed in the latest stats; but I place my stock in common sense and experience.”
No! Bad Suzanne! It goes the other way... we place our stock in statistics and tested evidence, not common sense and personal experiences.
- MrBook
November 2, 2009 9:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Divorce
Yes, America is a divorce disaster, a lot like the American sex life.How does a civilisation keep half of its women from enjoying intercourse for three hundred years. Why are there no clear guidelines for raising infants?It is all deep and complex, like a feminism that voices it's terror about intercourse, as if it were the issue of equal pay for equal work.
- bartolomeo7
November 4, 2009 11:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I agree!
I agree with your post but just have one comment to add . There is clear guidelines for raising children , and luckily it doesn't come from an inappropriate source such as the government . It comes from The Bible. Great post!
- straightroadtosuccess
November 4, 2009 10:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Bible
Thanks. I personally agree that the ten commandments and the sermon on the mount are a suitable guide to morality. There are however strange remarks in Leviticus about stoning your children to death. I think Dr. Spock is a right guide for raising children. but he was discredited as a peace advocate.
- bartolomeo7
November 5, 2009 5:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Good post!
I liked your post. However, God doesn't want us to stone our children , and that was while we still had to sacrifice animals so the blood would cover our sins. Some things in The Bible were meant to be read a little differently than we speak today. I do not disagree with you, I just think that stoning your children to death may have been referring to the children of nations, rather than the children of parents. We just use words much differently than they did back then, and a sentence translated word for word has a different meaning than a sentence translated as a whole.
But there are very clear instructions about what love is (love is patient, love is kind) and regarding spanking children only on the butt with a rod or switch (which will never permanently harm a child). This is a short summary of what I was referring to, and is a great guide for raising healthy, happy and respectful children to do not have irrational fears (nor are they scared of their parents or scared of talking to their parents).
Thank you for your post bartolomeo7!
- straightroadtosuccess
November 5, 2009 9:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ridiculous assumptions
"Indeed, feminists are the reason there is now a whopping 40% of single mothers in America."
This shouldn't really even be dignified with a response. The author has no evidence to support this baseless accusation that feminists are responsible for single motherhood .
Carefully collected statistical evidence, on the other hand, point to poverty and high rates of male incarceration in inner cities as the leading cause of single motherhood. Poor women have trouble finding decent marriageable men when half the men they know are in jail and the other half can't find work.
"According to the US Justice Department crime statistics, domestic abuse is virtually nonexistent for married women living with their husbands."
Gee, I wonder if this is because women don't stay married to and cohabiting with men who abuse them.
- emikoala
November 4, 2009 11:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's about survival and poverty
First: It's about survival stupid.
Why report an abusive husband to the law if he is abusive and you live under the same roof? That would be crazy. Of course the sane thing to do is to leave if you can do so safely. Then of course we know that partner homicides are most frequent when a woman attempts to leave. I wonder where that is in the criminal statistics quoted.
But if you get yourself and your children out safely, the last thing on your mind is bringing criminal charges. You need to hold down a job while getting and paying for a divorce which is trouble and expense enough and get on with raising the children with a severe shortage of money and manpower.
Second: As for the bad general statistics for kids of single moms: it's the poverty , stupid. Even if you are middle class, the financial strain of managing with a deficit of both money and man power is tremendous. Do that while being harrassed by a vengeful bully and of course the children will suffer from the strain.
Oh, yes, and it is documented that divorced dads who do not have custody tend to flake on their children and especially balk at paying for college . Hardly the fault of feminists.
A survivor
- green ribbon gail
November 4, 2009 11:49AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Bull
emikoala: "Carefully collected statistical evidence, on the other hand, point to poverty and high rates of male incarceration in inner cities as the leading cause of single motherhood ."
Nonsense, poverty rates were far higher a hundred years ago, yet women without husbands having babies was far rarer. And male incarceration in the inner cities should _reduce_ single motherhood, since there are fewer men available to get women pregnant.
emikoala: "Poor women have trouble finding decent marriageable men when half the men they know are in jail and the other half can't find work."
So? A man not good enough for a woman to marry is _certainly_ not good for that woman to become his mistress. If women stopped stupping men who aren't good enough to marry, maybe those men would strive to become better.
- fsilber
November 4, 2009 12:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A hundred years ago...
A LOT of things were different about society 100 years ago - not just feminism and poverty .
That's a nice idealistic moral argument for celibacy you've made, but in the real world people are more likely to get pregnant during a lapse of judgment than to get married.
I'd suggest you read the book "Promises I Can Keep" which explores the world of poor single mothers. Most of them voice some variation of the sentiment that they meet kind of jerky guys, think it's going to work/they can change him/he's not like the others, get pregnant, feel like an abortion would be irresponsible, and eventually the guy ends up arrested /jailed/abusive/alcoholic so they leave with their children to escape the bad situation. Could they have made better choices? Yes. Are their choices understandable? Yes. Do their choices really have anything to do with feminism? No, except for the fact that feminism has given women in abusive relationships the option to leave them. A hundred years ago that option was not really available.
- emikoala
November 4, 2009 12:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Well, then
We'll just have to restore the social/moral stigma against unmarried women who get pregnant. If that requires restoring the social/moral sigma against women who have sex before marriage , then that's just what we'll have to do.
- fsilber
November 4, 2009 2:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
WTF?
Who do you think those "immoral" women are having sex with?
- expataddie
November 4, 2009 6:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
two to tango
Why is it always the women who are acting immorally? Last time I checked it took at least two people to make a baby .
The best way to reduce the pregnancy rate is through education ... both in birth control methods and education in general.
As to restoring the 'stigma'... are you really going to go around yelling at single moms? Cause that's kind of a jerk thing to do...
- MrBook
November 4, 2009 7:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
two to tango
Yes, the moral stigma should be applied to men as well. No, education in birth control has never been proven to reduce unmarried pregnancy ; what has helped is heavy religious indoctrinization.
- fsilber
November 5, 2009 5:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
stigma
“Yes, the moral stigma should be applied to men as well.”
So you are encouraging a system where it is in a man’s benefit to deny that he has a child? It is much easier for a man in our society to ‘duck out’ of his responsibilities… and if he is not the sole caregiver to the child then there would be no way for society to know that he was being lax in his duties.
“No, education in birth control has never been proven to reduce unmarried pregnancy ; what has helped is heavy religious indoctrinization.”
It has? Then I vote for Odin as our deity… Why have some guy that was executed by the Romans when you can have a guy who nailed himself to the World Tree and cut out one of his own eyes to gain knowledge. Mitraism would be another good choice… then we could have statues of Mitra wrestling a bull to the ground while a scorpion stings the bull’s testicls (which would make for a great argument against pre-marital sex … if you do then our god is going to send scorpions to sting you in the junk!)
The problem with ‘heavy religious indoctrination’ is that it is just indoctrination… not a logical and rational foundation. Saying “don’t have sex because the invisible man that lives in the sky will punish you when you die” stands up fairly poorly against “having sex outside of a committed relationship is dangerous due to the risk of STDs as well as the burden that will come from having to take care of a child”.
Lest we forget… sex is a lot of fun, and people want to have it… and teenagers REALLY want to have it (thinking back to my teenage years I can attribute my low level of sexual activity to lack of opportunity rather then the moral code of desert nomads living 2500 years ago).
Religious indoctrination will not help you in the ‘heat of the moment’, but rational thought before hand (taking birth control pill, bringing condoms ) will.
- MrBook
November 5, 2009 4:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
compassionate...
“Nonsense, poverty rates were far higher a hundred years ago, yet women without husbands having babies was far rarer.”
First, can you cite that rate?
The social structure was vastly different a hundred years ago as well, to compare the two as though they were equal is highly inappropriate.
“And male incarceration in the inner cities should _reduce_ single motherhood , since there are fewer men available to get women pregnant.”
You are ignoring the reasons for that incarceration… the underlying poverty (which is the greatest contributor to crime ). The men who are sent to jail cannot act as fathers (though they can ‘do the deed’).
“So? A man not good enough for a woman to marry is _certainly_ not good for that woman to become his mistress. If women stopped stupping men who aren't good enough to marry, maybe those men would strive to become better.”
Your compassion stands as a shining beacon among human beings…
What you are ignoring here is that these are people born into poverty; that is the world that they know… that they have grown up in. They grow up seeing the men in their world act that way (and seeing the women in their world tolerate it). It is the world that they know as surely as those in the middle class know their world.
- MrBook
November 4, 2009 7:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
compassion?
No, I cannot cite numbers, but the lyrics of Diana Ross hit single "Love Child" testifies as to the uncommonness of unmarried parenthood before the 1960s "sexual revolution".
What has changed about "the social structure"?
You say men who are sent to jail cannot act as fathers, but they can "do the deed." "The deed" should not be done by unmarried men (except maybe with prostitutes). Maybe we need some kind of mandatory implanted male birth control to be embedded until parole has been completed without re-offending.
As for what they see growing up, it is no different than the racism poor southern whites used to see while growing up. Whatever moral pressure we can apply against racism, we can apply against unmarried sex . I see no more reason to be compassionate towards whores and dogs than towards racists.
- fsilber
November 5, 2009 5:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
revolutions
“No, I cannot cite numbers, but the lyrics of Diana Ross hit single "Love Child" testifies as to the uncommonness of unmarried parenthood before the 1960s "sexual revolution".”
But doesn’t the presence of a ‘hit single’ on the subject indicate that it was prevalent enough within the culture that most people would be familiar with it?
“What has changed about "the social structure"?”
For starters people are far more mobile, which means that people no longer live in the same area as their extended family (most extended families are spread out over a wide area). The changing nature of the economy has made it so it is very rare for someone to start one job in their mid-late teens and then continue with that job until they retire.
Popular culture has also undergone significant changes due to mass media … where as before your culture was geographically constrained we now have a national culture (and a global one).
People are also ‘starting’ later in life… it used to be rather unusual for people to get married after their early twenties, or ‘move out’ of their parents house . Nowadays someone in their mid teens is seen as still a child, where as before you were seen as a young adult.
“You say men who are sent to jail cannot act as fathers, but they can "do the deed." "The deed" should not be done by unmarried men (except maybe with prostitutes). Maybe we need some kind of mandatory implanted male birth control to be embedded until parole has been completed without re-offending.”
Ignoring the fact that such an implant does not exist… and that such an action would be slapped down as unconstitutional really, really quickly (plus the charges of genocide that would be leveled at any politician that put forward or supported such a law ).
A better solution would be to help prevent them from going to jail in the first place (a two birds / one stone deal)… and why is sex with a prostitute somehow ok, but sex with ones girlfriend isn’t?
“As for what they see growing up, it is no different than the racism poor southern whites used to see while growing up. Whatever moral pressure we can apply against racism, we can apply against unmarried sex .”
We use logic and reason against racism, not blind indoctrination…
“I see no more reason to be compassionate towards whores and dogs than towards racists.”
Let’s start with how women who have sex out outside of marriage are not whores, and how guys that do so are not dogs… They are people, and people make mistakes.
Racists are malicious, actively causing harm… this is far different from the action of two people who feel that they love each other or who seek physical comfort.
- MrBook
November 5, 2009 4:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
accusations of genocide = racism
"But doesn’t the presence of a ‘hit single’ on the subject indicate that it was prevalent enough within the culture that most people would be familiar with it?" -- People were also familiar with the idea of being struck by lightening. Part of the lyrics had the phrase "different from the rest" -- meaning that having an unmarried mother distinguished the character from her peers. That's far different from today where bastardy is the norm in some neighborhoods.
The implant I mentioned would not be unconstitutional -- if we have the authority to keep someone in prison then we certainly have the authority to keep him from reproducing. The convict doesn't _have_ to accept parole, you know, and we are free to set the conditions (as long as the device is removed when parole is completed without re-offending). I cannot think of anything more racist than to call such a policy genocidal -- such an accusation is equivalent to saying that the victim race is a race of criminals.
Unmarried people who have babies are actively causing harm. Those who do so deliberately (and there are many) are malicious against society .
The social changes you mention (mobility, etc.) did not require a change in the moral standards.
- fsilber
November 6, 2009 6:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
lyrics
“People were also familiar with the idea of being struck by lightening. Part of the lyrics had the phrase "different from the rest" -- meaning that having an unmarried mother distinguished the character from her peers. That's far different from today where bastardy is the norm in some neighborhoods.”
When was the last time that someone wrote a song about being struck by lightning? Without statistics to back it up we cannot say that the rate was significantly higher or lower in the past.
And bastardy? Really? That's not biased...
“The implant I mentioned would not be unconstitutional -- if we have the authority to keep someone in prison then we certainly have the authority to keep him from reproducing.”
Actually we don’t. Part of putting people in prison is to keep them from harming others… having consensual sex isn’t harming people. Further you are talking about a medical procedure that is not ‘life saving’… I cannot think of any instance where non-life saving procedures have been legally mandated.
The convict doesn't _have_ to accept parole, you know, and we are free to set the conditions (as long as the device is removed when parole is completed without re-offending).
We can attach condition on the release of an individual… and that has been used with convicted sex offenders to get them to consent to chemical castration. However that is consistent with preventing them from repeating their offense… and would not be consistent with the offense of a car thief.
“I cannot think of anything more racist than to call such a policy genocidal -- such an accusation is equivalent to saying that the victim race is a race of criminals.”
You are ignoring the political realities… we both know that this policy would be implemented on significant portion of minority populations. Thus framing it as genocide would be very easy for someone to do… further when you consider the past actions of the US government with regards to minorities (the experiments run at Tuskegge come to mine) and you can hopefully see how politically explosive this would be.
“Unmarried people who have babies are actively causing harm. Those who do so deliberately (and there are many) are malicious against society .”
No they are not. Unmarried people who do not properly care and support the children that they have are part of a larger issue.
“The social changes you mention (mobility, etc.) did not require a change in the moral standards.”
And the changes to the moral standard are not needed as part of the social change. Why push an arbitrary and abusive morality on people if it is not needed?
- MrBook
November 10, 2009 5:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Children need two parents
My Mother (God rest her soul) raised me and my sister (I am 60 years old) alone. We were never hungry, cold or did not have clothes and shoes to wear. We lived in a projects that had only four room - kitchen, livingroom, two bedrooms and a bathroom. Most of the furniture that my Mother had at the beginning was handed down by her older sister who was financially more stable than my Mother. My Mother threw my father out because he was an alcoholic and NEVER paid a dime of child support . However, I do miss not having a father - I have been divorced twice and I believe that had I had a stable father to guide me when I was younger, I would have chosen more wisely when I was younger.
- SSCADO
November 4, 2009 11:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
staying
So it would have been better for your mother to have staid with an alcoholic who did not support his children ?
Your problem should not be with the single mothers, but with the guys who abandon their children.
- MrBook
November 4, 2009 7:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
not really.
It sounds more like SSCADO is saying that her mother made a good life for her despite being a single mother--but that having a stable father as well would have been better. An alcoholic who doesn't pay child support is not a "stable father" by any means.
- Callista
November 5, 2009 1:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Choose Your Point
I'm confused by this illogical diatribe, at the outset you seem to claim that having only one parent is inherently harmful due to biological reasons. Yet later in the same rant, you claim that a single parent can be successful if her partner is dead. The two points are contradictory, it's either an inherent unavoidable biological disadvantage or it's not. If social conditions can compensate for the supposed biological disadvantage, then the animal studies are clearly not relevant to humans (according to your own points) and its inclusion is completely without merit. It is, however, a nice example of appeal to authority, a useful logical fallacy in a world where "scientific research" is used to justify all sorts of conclusions beyond the realm of scientific investigation .
Another example of what science doesn't do is draw conclusions of causality based on correlation. Correlation is not proof of causality; this is a basic fact that anyone trained in the scientific method must understand. You have attempted to do so twice. First, you ascribe changing social customs in this country to "feminists," whose identity remains nebulous and undefined. There are many self-labeled feminists who hold a vast array of conflicting opinions, there is no one "feminist" viewpoint, and if you're referring to one you must define it. It's a huge leap to conclude that this mysterious group of people are somehow able to control US society on the level you claim, particularly given that I don't even know who you mean. If any one group were capable of completely altering our society, surely it wouldn't be a secret? And surely this group would be widely known as extremely powerful?
Finally, your inclusion of the fact at the end is misleading at best. Rather than quote a statistic, you quote an interpretation of a statistic without any basis. How many is "virtually nonexistent?" It's a meaningless phrase carefully constructed to make the reader believe that being married is some sort of magical amulet protecting against abuse. No mention is made of the many women who are abused within a marriage or the much lower risk of abuse among those who don't marry to begin with. No consideration is given to the obvious fact that a marriage that includes abuse is likely to end, and therefore automatically mean there is a lower abuse rate among those who stay married. A person who is abused is unlikely to make it stop by getting and staying married to his/her abuser!
Maybe you should consider being more of a "statistics girl" so you are not easily manipulated. If you consider only opinions of others rather than verifiable fact, you will always be a slave to what others want you to believe for their own benefit. You do realize that Ann Coulter doesn't write these books to help America, but to make herself rich, right? Look at the results of her actions (the statistics?) rather than her claims.
- lostlo
November 4, 2009 11:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I Agree
Beautifully, logically and clearly stated. Thanks!
- expataddie
November 4, 2009 6:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Behind every number...
...there is a story. There is a reason behind every woman who chooses, or is forced, to raise a child without its father's presence or help. Most of the stories are tragic.
The common thread behind all the problems typically associated with "single motherhood " is not that she's single, but that she doesn't have the help she and her child need to live well. How can we expect anyone, woman or man or elder sibling, to raise a child all by him/herself? We must help these women !
And it's often better to be raised in a one-parent household where there is love than in by two parents who fight or abuse each other and their children .
Finally, I would challenge this statement: "According to the US Justice Department crime statistics, domestic abuse is virtually nonexistent for married women living with their husbands." That makes sense only if you consider that it's probably only the women who have left that report abuse. Far too many (both men and women) suffer terrible deeds and words in silence.
- jochanaan
November 4, 2009 12:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Decent child care would go a long way.
Unsupported by family, a woman without a college degree simply cannot pay for good child care as well as a full-time job. The money just doesn't stretch far enough to allow day care, often not even far enough to pay a neighbor to look after the kids . So naturally, what do you do? Well, first you get food stamps; they're easy to get when you're raising kids on one entry-level income . But you're living paycheck to paycheck and eventually, maybe things get really tight with a hard winter's heating bills or a medical emergency, or maybe you lose your job; and suddenly you can't pay what you owe--and you end up either homeless or on welfare or, for that matter, both.
Child care is one major expense that many single moms have trouble paying. Kids get shuffled from place to place, without consistent contact with the same caretakers. Moms miss work, so they can't provide for their kids properly. If they can get good, reliable child care, though, they can keep working, and with work comes money and self-respect.
Job training is another thing that can really come in handy if you're a single mom. There's a world of difference between the jobs you can get as unskilled work and the jobs you can get with an associate's degree or even a training certificate. Community colleges should have grants available to single moms--and it should be possible to take most classes by correspondence.
Of course, any woman raising kids on her own actually has to know about all this stuff. Half the time, they don't know how to work the system, to get what they need to actually increase their independence. Here's where the social workers come in. Poor single moms need to know how to access the resources that are there, and not just how to stand in line and act submissive so that people will give them handouts. That kind of thing is completely demoralizing. No human being can live through it for long without losing her spirit.
- Callista
November 5, 2009 1:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Don't push Dad away!
What is even sadder is when Mom and her feminist buddies make Dad out to be the bad guy so Mom can play the victim role. I've seen some dead beat Dads, sure. But I've seen many more Dads that are driven away from their kids by Moms that force an untenable visitation agreement in court and then don't keep to it to boot. Mom wants to tell herself and her friends that she is a victim and the attitude is reflected in the way she talks to them about Dad. This is court and CPS sanctioned child abuse .
- joelinda November 4, 2009 12:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who's the victim?
In spite of the fact that my father never paid any child support , my mother made sure that I was able to visit him as often as possible. Sometimes she drove the 6-hour trip so that I could see him. When I was 6, I started flying by myself to visit him. When I was 10, I arrived at the airport and he wasn't there to pick me up! At times he would promise to come and visit me, but never show up.
When I was 11, my mother criticized my father and I told her to stop because it made me feel like I had to defend him and I didn't need anyone to point out his flaws as they were already quite clear to me.
My mother isn't a feminist, but you can be sure that I am. That's why I kept the last name of my deadbeat dad when I got married, rather than taking my husband's name.
- expataddie
November 4, 2009 6:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who is to blame for single motherhood?
Single mothers can either get there by widowhood, divorce, or not being married. I really can't blame them if their husbands divorce them or die. Don't the dads share some of the blame? And those teenage moms who choose not to have abortions? Yes, they had sex , but a guy had sex with them. Since conservatives don't want these women getting abortions--could we say the conservatives are responsible for encouraging women to be single moms?
Most feminists are pro-choice , and while they do believe in responsible sexual behavior, they also don't blame poor women who get abortions.
It is very difficult to raise a child in this culture, single or married, when most families need two breadwinners. What single moms need is some form of HELP.
Feminism is all about equality, and if women are to be treated equally, both men and women need to take responsibility for children .
- Lynn9
November 4, 2009 1:54PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
generalizations
That seems to be the trouble with statistics a vain attempt to encapsulate human experience in nice little boxes. I'm having a problem relating to all this. I was a single mom,yeah sometimes it was really hard,you do what you have to do. That is about as far as I can relate to this article. I'm not a feminist,I'm not poor,not pro-life ,not a man hater,and I didn't raise a serial killer ,or rapist or burglar.I also didn't raise a kid in the projects ,or struggle with abject poverty ,went without food for myself a few times ,no big deal. My daughter is not nor ever was intellectually deficient,graduated with honors.She's not a drug abuser or an alcoholic,she went through her crazy times when she was 18 but mild compared to my craziness at that age.
There is so much wrong with this article don't even know where to begin.Maybe statistics just make some people feel safer when they can confine the variety of human experience into meaningless numbers and bullsh-t
- bug
November 4, 2009 4:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Correct!
Yes, parenting was not created that way. A single parent (male or female) will not be able to care for a child in a way that compensates for the other not being there. Every aspect of the parent and child's life will be affected. We do not need scientific or medical proof to understand this, just common sense. If it wasn't meant to be that way, it will never work out as well. Single parents, same-sex parents, grandparents raising children instead of parents, foster care, adoption . These all equal a sub-standard life for a child (adoption may be a great change for a child's life but he is still not with his blood parents, regardless of their situation even if the environment is better with the adopted parents the connection won't be there).
- straightroadtosuccess
November 4, 2009 5:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
[Citation Needed]
Parenting wasn't 'created' at all, it is an evolved adaptation to caring for children .
We do need scientific or medical proof to show that children need two parents, or that a single parent cannot care for their child... relying on our own experiences allows for dangerous flaws to creep in when dealing with a large population.
Single parents, same-sex parents, grandparents, foster care, and adoption can all provide a stable loving home in which children can (and have) been raised.
- MrBook
November 4, 2009 7:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ha!
Yes, parenting was created and even came with an instruction manual. The Bible. That means, like all other things in life, there is a correct, or optimum way to do it and the opposite, a wrong way to do it.
No, same sex parents ( homosexuals ) can never provide a kind of environment that is good for children and should be illegal . A male is meant to be the strong logical parent and a female is meant to be the loving nurturing parent and both are to enforce discipline that a child needs and even asks for (finding and pushing boundaries).
- straightroadtosuccess
November 4, 2009 10:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
instruction manual
There are a few competing instruction manuals out there...
Yet even that is unimportant, the USA is a secular nation... and we cannot make decisions on secular matters using religious texts.
You are still not supporting your claims... The evidence shows that homosexual parents are fully capable of creating a happy healthy home for children . Further you show a rather predictable bias when you assume that every man is going to be the 'strong logical parent' and every woman is going to be the 'loving nurturing parent'.
Why can't a man be a loving father and a woman be a strong mother ?
- MrBook
November 5, 2009 5:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Where to begin...?
My mother was a single mom who raised me with no financial support from my father (I was born "in wedlock" only because my father agreed to marry my mother when she got pregnant). It's such a shame that all that did so much damage to my brain. Oh, but wait - I'm an award- winning scientist with a Ph.D. And I've been married to the same man for 18 years. And I have 2 wonderful, unselfish, intelligent children . And I'm a feminist, by the way.
Contrast this with my half-brother and half-sister who grew up with my abusive father (who also abused their mother who he was married to - I simply do not believe that last statistic!). Of the three of my father's children, I am definitely the smartest, happiest and most successful by anyone's definition of the word.
However, I do believe that people should only have children if they can support them. My mother worked her ass off to provide for me, without ever resorting to welfare. Funny how conservatives like you can't stand single mothers and "illegitimate" children, but you also work to take away a woman's right to have an abortion , while at the same time, making it impossible to teach proper sex education (ah yes, abstinence-only is working so well!). I would never have an abortion, nor wish for my daughter to have one, but where do you think all those single moms came from?
And here's a statistic for you - the average American has one ovary and one testicle. The statement is analytically correct, but not particularly useful!
- expataddie
November 4, 2009 6:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Great Post Suzanne!
Great Post! I wonder why feminists want to take it so far... These are sad statistics and hopefully people (both men and women ) will read and understand these statistics (that don't lie). Another interesting factor to add to this is nerve-cell growth related to economic factors and how it relates to this study (concerning people, not puppies). I do not have the link, but it is not hard to find, and I even think it is here on opposing views. Thanks again Suzanne!
- straightroadtosuccess
November 4, 2009 10:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Adoption
Is the author of that book suggesting that responsible pregnant women who are left by the father of their baby should put up their child for adoption ? Instead of trying to find a way out of their situation together with their child, hopefully into a better life with maybe someone new by their side who is able and eager to live a healthy and happy family life with the woman and her child? As I have done? There's no way I could have given my baby away! From what I hear, adopted children are often unhappy and on a constant search to deal with their past and their true origin. My daughter will never have to face such a situation. She's with her mom. It is by no means easy - I agree that it should not be glorified as well. But it is certainly doable, and there are no natural laws that make a woman and her child bound to some certain dark future, not in any way. It all depends on the personal effort one (the woman in that case) puts into it, as with so many things. I thought personal effort was something you conservatives valued. Anyway, single moms who struggle every day to make their child's life or even children's lives a better one, and who manage, are heroines. They should be thanked for what they do for society which the children's fathers often enough don't. And if both parents care for the child after they've separated, in a cooperative fashion, then that's the best they can make out of a situation like that, and they should be respected for that as well. It's hard enough on anyone involved in something like that, no need for purely philosophical bashing on top of that. Our society needs solutions, not blaming.
- serendipity79
November 10, 2009 4:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Single Motherhood is a Recipe for Condemnation
1. Humans are not wolves, despite what you may think when you listen to the news.
2. There is usually more than one cause for anything. Saying feminism is the ONLY cause for 40% of mothers being single is a bit like saying the only reason you're alive is because of your mother .
3. Even if you were a statistics girl... which, clearly, you're not.... it's very easy to manipulate data.
- SocialistBetty
November 14, 2009 1:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.