Strollerderby : single mothers

Unwed Motherhood on the Rise; Paternalists on the Warpath

Shannon LC Cate — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:00:00 GMT

Since the new statistics arrived suggesting that the numbers of unmarried women having children are rising--and that these women are sometimes having children alone by choice--the tsk-tskers have been having a field day.

Latest among them is unmarried, not-mother, Cathy Young of the Boston Globe, who decries the lack of social opprobrium against single women as "unfeminist" seeing as it presumes child rearing to be women's work (if it does indeed, which I'd argue, it does not).

I do find her questions about where the unmarried (at least to these mothers) fathers of unmarried women's children are, both in reality and in the discourse about the issue, to be refreshing. I think it is indeed decidedly unfeminist to go on and on about women and children these days with nary a reference to the men who, let's face it, make single motherhood possible in the first place.

But her conclusion that because children with two parents continue to fare better in research than children with only one, society should get back to "encouraging" marriage between people who've procreated is simplistic, short-sighted and posits a red herring in place of the real issue.

The research shows that children with two parents fare better than those with one, not that children with parents who are married to each other fare best. Marriage per se does not provide a child with a functional parent and lack of a marriage certificate does not deprive a child of one. Rather, even in this recent research, it was found that a sizeable percentage of "unmarried" mothers are not, in fact single mothers, but mothers who co-parent with their children's fathers either in the same home without benefit of marriage or in separate homes.

As for mothers who choose to to go it alone via unknown or at least uninvolved "fathers" whether sperm donors, ex-boyfriends or one-night stands, those children need not be deprived of the benefits of a multiple-parent home just because their mothers are not married. There are many ways to raise children these days including living in various forms of community or cooperation with others, including extended family arrangements.

I also have to wonder what percentage of these births to "unwed" mothers might have been to lesbian couples, whom most states do not allow to appear together on a child's original birth certificate. (Birth certificates were used as the basis for the study.) Again, these are not really single mothers. (And am I the only one whose irony censor is bleeping away about the fact the on the one hand, we are told to encourage marriage among "unwed" mothers and on the other we are told that lesbians with a mad, raging desire to marry and support one another's children can't be allowed to do so?)

Whatever the reasons for the growing number of children born to women not married to their genetic fathers, such children should not be discriminated against and neither should their mothers. Rather than pulling out the rather musty notion that paternalism, and/or downright patriarchy is what these women and their children need, why not directly open our society's resources to benefit these families? How? Universal healthcare access, generous family leave benefits to workers, better quality free schooling, and family law that recognizes families as they are rather than wishing for what they never were. Because regardless of how much society encourages marriage among parents, women will continue to get pregnant and bear children outside of marriage, just as they have from time immemorial. All the encouragement in the world will not make it go away.

A mother and her child is not a defective family unit. It's just a family unit. Period. Recognizing that is the first step in making the road smoother for such families and most importantly, the many, many children growing up within them.

British Single Mums Forced to Name Father on Birth Certificates

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 21:55:00 GMT

A new British law could make it mandatory for single mothers in the UK to name the biological father on their birth certificates, unless they do not know who he is. Advocates of the law claim that this will make it easier to enforce child support payments and will signal “official recognition of the importance of fathers in children's lives.” But critics say the measure could endanger abused women, since it would allow estranged fathers to add themselves to the birth certificate.

Given that four out of 10 of the single mothers who give birth each year are teenagers, the law does seem like it could send an important message to teenage boys (and other men) that they are just as responsible for their actions as females.

But the potential backlash to victims of domestic violence seems to outweigh this benefit. As a charity for battered women points out, "A pregnant woman could, in theory, escape domestic violence only to find that her abuser has registered himself as the father of her child and has automatic rights to the child."

Photo: Upstream Gallery

Ann Coulter Says Single Moms Are Bad For Society

Brett Singer — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 04:31:00 GMT

Ann Coulter, the woman who once called John Edwards a "faggot" and then defended it by saying that it wasn't a gay slur, has now turned her warped mind to single mothers.

Coulter has been out promoting her new book, "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America." She is a bizarre creature who appears to exist purely to spew venom at the world. It's not clear what possible purpose she has on this planet other than to sell her own books and appear on talk shows, which, in turn, helps her sell her own books. The promotional pattern is the same every time – "make outrageous statement in book, repeat statement on a channel other than Fox News, then go on Fox News and defend the statement." And it works – her latest tome is currently number 21 overall on Amazon.com.

One of her latest "points" is that single motherhood has now become "acceptable," despite the "fact" that it is "a recipe to create criminals, strippers, rapists, murderers." Nice.

Over on The View, Coulter was her usual charming self. She attacked Barbara Walters for the way she read the book aloud, and actually did a very nice job of playing the victim, accusing The View co-hosts of attacking her while she wasn't there. Unfortunately, everyone on The View talks at the same time so it's hard to tell what was being said during most of this clip. But it does mark the first time I can honestly say that I agree with Elisabeth Hasselbeck. (Thanks to Sassy Smith for posting this clip over at Famecrawler.)

As someone who was raised by a single mother, I have nothing but respect for any parent, male or female, who is raising a child alone. I'm married, we're lucky enough to have grandparents who live nearby, and I'm still exhausted. I often ask my mother what the hell she did with me during school vacations and half days. She always says that she "figured something out." In other words, she did what she had to do because she was a mother. That's it. What exactly would Ann Coulter like these single mothers to do? Give their kids up for adoption? Get a mail-order husband?

There are one or two words that I don't like to use. One of them fits really Coulter well. It starts with a "c". And I don't mean "cookie".

Source: Famecrawler

Image: Amazon.com

Video: Ann Coulter Makes Elisabeth Hasselbeck Seem Sane

Linda Ellerbee Says Kids Should Skip School To Watch Inauguration

Parents Criticize Schools for Celebrating Inauguration

New Pro Vaccine Book Author Getting Death Threats

Kid Named Hitler Taken From His Parents By Family Services

Obama’s Mama: Working Mother Extraordinaire

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sat, 19 Apr 2008 17:36:00 GMT

Turns out there’s another reason why Barack Obama’s run for the presidency is unique: he is the first presidential candidate whose now deceased mother is interesting enough to warrant a Time cover story. Regardless of politics (though it's probably pretty clear where my loyalties lie), the article is a moving examination of the varied ways women in the last century have filled the roles of wife and mother, even as they strive to make meaningful contributions to the world at large.

S. Ann Soetero, née Stanley Ann Durham (her father wanted a boy) was a teen mother who divorced twice; a scholar with a Phd. in anthropology; a devoted, hands-on single mother of two; and a well-seasoned traveler who was a champion for Indonesia’s poor, both through her pioneering work on the microfinance program there and her almost excessive generosity to beggars. Although—or perhaps because—Ann made unorthodox decisions about religion, relationships, and career, she worked hard to instill the values of spirituality, marriage, and civic duty in her son. For instance, Obama writes that his mother had a “healthy skepticism of religion as an institution,” but she was one the “most spiritual souls” he ever knew.

In part as a reaction against his mother’s wanderlust, Obama has been committed to grounding his traditional family unit in one place. But Ann’s vast understanding of varied peoples and cultures also positively influenced Obama, as evidenced by his ability to rally the support of people from all walks of life. (He has had more individual donors to his campaign that any other presidential candidate in history.) And Obama stated that his mother was his imagined critic for his famed race speech. He knew that her stamp of approval would mean he had successfully channeled her gentle, non-reactionary way of fighting racism and sexism. Ann once joked that while she would fight to get paid as much as a man, she wasn’t going to stop shaving her legs.

Image: time.com

Pregcellent: Who's Having All Those Babies Out of Wedlock?

Kelly Mills — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:35:00 GMT

I'm going to try and write this without once referring to the movie Juno. (Crap, does that count?) Remember back in the day, when you could easily wax hysterical over the issue of teen pregnancy? When we were freaked about babies having babies? Well, in the U.S. teen pregnancy rates are falling, so it's going to be that much harder to whip ourselves into a lather, and that is good. In 2004, only 12 percent of pregnancies were to teen moms, compared to 15 percent in 1990. Oh, and one likely factor in the drop is the more frequent use of birth control methods. Imagine that.

However, there is another group who are having babies outside of marriage, and I guarantee you we'll see more fear-mongering stories about at least some of them. Turns out birth rates are going up for unmarried women in their twenties, and also for older women. Maybe twenties is the new teens? Now while teen pregnancy is obviously not ideal, I'm curious to see how these women under thirty fare with babies. Anyhow, let's just be glad more of the kids are using condoms.

More Babies With Unmarried 'Rents

Kelly Mills — Wed, 16 May 2007 15:09:00 GMT

Child Trends reports that the number of kids born out of wedlock has risen. (Doesn't "wedlock" sound so, well, "ball-and-chain"?) According to the research, 37 percent of babies today are born to unmarried parents, compared to 22 percent two decades ago. A little more than half of those children came into households where two parents were present. Highly educated, white women were least likely to have a child without being married, but were most likely to live with their partner if they did. More than 70 percent of pregnancies to unmarried, cohabiting partners were unintended. No word on how many came as the result of a few too many momosas.

The research led Child Trends to recommend some steps, such as better pregnancy prevention education for couples. They also cite studies showing that children born out of wedlock, even in cohabiting relationships, fare worse economically and emotionally than children of married couples, and suggest that couples should be supported in forming stable marriages.

Not to be the anti-marriage girl here, but I often wonder about some of these "marriage is the way" conclusions. Like, if the numbers of babies born outside marriage is going up because couples are living together without getting married due to some changing social conventions, will that actually change the statistical outcomes for babies in those families? Are the current prospects for kids with unmarried parents worse because the parents choose not to get married, or is there something to the fact that the parents don't want to get married that is having more of an effect on kids? Be careful with those research studies, my peeps.

Married Moms Really Better for Kids?

Kelly Mills — Mon, 14 May 2007 17:34:00 GMT

The National Review Online published this column claiming that married mothers deserve special praise, because staying married is soooo much better for the children. After a couple of creepy digs at single motherhood and sperm donors (and the NY Times, of course) author W. Bradford Wilcox claims, "...married mothers serve our nation's neighborhoods, children, and even themselves better than any of the dizzying array of alternatives to married motherhood. This truth was abundantly clear to me after surveying the social-scientific literature on marriage and child well-being with 15 other family scholars for a recent report, Why Marriage Matters: Twenty-Six Conclusions from the Social Sciences."

Oh. The link is to an organization called the Institute for American Values, which puts out all kinds of socially conservative studies, often with an array of supporters from both political camps. A few years back they told us that kids are hardwired to need religion. However, some divorce studies have been questioned by other researchers, for a couple of key reasons. One of the biggies is that when it comes to divorce, it's sometimes hard to know where the real problem lies. For example, if couples divorce because of certain marital issues, and it can be hard to determine if the divorce itself messed with the kids, or if it was those other issues. Another problem is that some studies ask children of divorce to self-report levels of happiness, and it's hard to know if those folks claim greater angst because their parents' problems were identified and perhaps more openly discussed.

We do know that financial and emotional resources can be limited for single parents- but does that mean staying in an unhappy marriage is the best answer? What about better community support for solo parents? More educational and career resources so prevent poverty? Affordable daycare and health coverage? Nope, stay with that man, ladies, even if you can hardly stand him.

Whether you buy the divorce research or not, you should know I love this quote from the article: "Marriage also binds children to their fathers, who usually find it very difficult to maintain consistent and positive relationships with their children without the support and encouragement of their children’s mother." I think that is strong enough to be patently insulting to fathers everywhere. Maybe you menfolk didn't know you need us women around if you want to stay close to your kids. On behalf of great dads, and especially great single dads everywhere, I say "UGH!"

This little gem wraps up with this: "So, this Mother’s Day, lift a glass to dear old Mom, and lift it especially high if she honored the vows she made on her wedding day." This "dear old Mom" would like to barf when she reads crap like that. If Wilcox thinks it's my responsibility to honor those vows and hold the family together, I'd almost like to contact my attorney.

Strollerderby Playdate: People Are Mean

Kelly Mills — Fri, 04 May 2007 11:03:00 GMT

When I dropped my daughter off at school yesterday, she was crying because she couldn't sit in the front seat of the car (I'll spare you the details of that saga.) As the kids were lining up to file inside the classroom, one of her little classmates turned to her and said, "Crybaby." I wondered what would happen if I ever-so-gently nudged that kid in the eyeball with my car key, and then I took a deep breath and reminded myself that there's plenty of jerks in the world and it's good for both my daughter and I to learn to deal with them without scratching corneas. Then I went off to blogland to find out how other folks deal with it.

The Cheeky Lotus took a bullet to save her kid's feelings and made me well up in the process. Big hugs, sister!

Meanwhile, the Sarcastic Journalist discovered that some people have no sense of humor. But she can sell sex toys at my house any day.

Suburban Turmoil had to take a polygraph just to facilitate a sleepover. FYI, we offer all our houseguests guns and crack while they watch our sex tapes.

Not So Pregnant has made up a handy checklist for potential single mom suitors. Sounds like some of them are jerks.

Now, If all that has made you lose your faith in humanity forever, get into your feelings with Beaker at the Poop. It's safe to love again.

Miss World Competition To Miss Jamaica: Your Pregnancy Is O.K. With Us

Alisyn — Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:01:00 GMT

Founder and Chairwoman of the Miss World Limited, Julia Morley, has come out to support Sara Lawrence, Miss World Caribbean, and made it clear that she will not expect Sara to relinquish her title due to an unplanned pregnancy. In fact, she has given Sara her unwavering support during this time, and made it clear that she expects local pageant promoters, including Mickey Haughton-James, head of the Jamaica pageant, to do the same.

Sara made headlines around the world when she when she announced that she was pregnant and forfeiting her Miss Jamaica World title. But when Julia Morley caught wind of the announcement, she quickly intervened, claiming that Sara "is a warm, compassionate, brilliant girl whose behaviour and promotion of Jamaica is second to none... it is not for anyone to condemn Ms Lawrence, but to give her the love and support she needs during her pregnancy." (Click here to read Julia's full letter of support.)

Wow... just... wow. I am happily stunned to hear someone speaking up so loudly for a mother's rights. While some people have argued that Sara's pregnancy compromises her role as a safe sex advocate, I think her announcement, and Julia Morley's support of it, make a strong and necessary statement about the value of women in our society - particularly pregnant women. Why can't a single, pregnant woman be a good role model? Sara Lawrence is an exemplary person in every way - and the fact she is a safe sex crusader who became pregnant unexpectedly underscores the very important fact that protected sex, while lowering your chances of contracting an STD or becoming pregnant, is not 100% effective. Unplanned pregnancies are common the world over, and there is still a stigma attached them that only women are affected by. Sara and Julia are working hard to debunk the myth that pregnant women, and single mothers, don't have a place in this world; Single mothers are, in fact, are a large part of our society, and they have value, and they matter.

I applaud Sara Lawrence and Julia Morley for their strength and conviction.