Letters to the Editor
-
Just because it's unpleasant to hear...
Doesn't mean that there's no kernel of truth here. While I don't go in for heaping shame on single mothers by any stretch (and the ones I know have thriving kids, but also a lot of extended-family support), it's hardly scold-y or anachronistic to say that kids fare better with two committed parents. I agree with the poster who mentioned the brutal economic divide which means that for many women, it's just not feasible to expect a stable, prosperous marriage during prime time for childbearing.
I think it might even go deeper than that: there's a malaise of the spirit in our culture for all but the very wealthy. It may be too hard to acknowledge that the stuff that seemed basic a few generations ago for most of us--owning a home,having kids,and maybe being able to afford music lessons, preschool, whatever--is well-nigh unattainable for lots of us now. Better to roll the dice and "get caught" and muddle through than to consciously plan to bring a child into a world that will be diminished in time, security and hope. The other alternative is never to have kids at all. While that one may make the most sense on paper, the heart wants what the heart wants.
Why so much column space devoted to the archetypal 35-plus female professional who's now ordering donor sperm from a menu of attributes because "The right mate never came along?" If this woman even exists in the numbers that the media would have us believe, well, she tried to do things in the prescribed order. Because kids do best with two committed parents.
So even for those who can afford to raise children, marriage and procreation are declarations of optimism. We keep postponing them--or forgoing them altogether. Until we find some miraculous way to tackle the forces that have sapped our collective optimism, too many single parents of either gender will be left holding the bag, er, baby when the other partner sees no hope for the future.
-
your honesty is a start anonymous and I agree with you that women don't like jerks but there are other things to be honest about
starting with the fact that both men and women are going to have to compromise to get any of what they want and that when one side cares more and therefore has to compromise more there are emotional effects. I agree with you that changes in the social structure mean that women don't need men for practical reasons as much as they used to and women have never needed men for sexual/romantic reasons EXCLUSIVELY as much as men need women. The feminist line now is that all men have to do is do everything women want and everything will be fine. Even setting aside for the moment the fact that a lot of things women want are mutually exclusive to each other it isn't true even if it were possible for men to do that which it isn't.
-
Who is really carrying the bag here
His words to me were "It's not the 50's, I don't have to take care of you." He is not an absentee father, but we certainly aren't a nuclear family either. He's left me with the burden of being the horrible slut that got knocked up while he's the wonderful prince that helps out occassionaly.
This happens in marriage, too. My ex-husband is a prince because he leaves his son in the care of a stepmother who bullies and mistreats him (read: "gives him a real, proper, married mommy"), but I'm a cheap slut, even though I was freakin' MARRIED to the guy when my kid was conceived and born, and he wasn't a criminal, wife-beating jerk either. He was a decent, responsible man by most measures at the time. When I married him, there was no reason to believe that he'd do this stuff.
I'm not the one who kicked the kid out of my bed so I could have sex, I'm not the one shoving angry, jealous stepsiblings down his throat, and I'm not the one spending money on my new honey at the expense of my child. I'm not the one who moves every year. I'm not the one who operates as an amateur half-way house for ex cons and addicts. Doesn't matter. I'm single. I'm a mother. I'm responsible for the downfall of society. My ex-husband, on the other hand, is a prince among men because he fights for joint custody he's proven he can't handle (flunked the psych eval, among other things) and pays the occasional medical bill.
This is what makes a man a prince? It's a big deal for a man who makes nearly six figures to "handle" a $20 co-pay?
The person who isn't fooled is the child, but they call that "parental alienation syndrome" and blame it on the mother. I'm alienating my child from his father by providing a more stable, loving home, a better education and more opportunities? WTF?
Forcing women to marry or stay married to these guys isn't the answer, and collecting child support from them costs more than it's worth. And yet putting support structures in place so the small families they leave behind can thrive is somehow a bad thing to do? Would it be better to have the neglect and infidelity under my own roof?
I just don't see it. I'm also sick to death of carrying the bag for my ex-husband's choices, while he gets patted on the back as an exemplary father.
-
One thing men can do to help fix this problem...
...is to not date single mothers -- ever. Public shaming wouldn't be necessary if men made it clear that they're not going to come to the rescue of these women and pay for their past mistakes. The clearest way to make that point is to simply stay away from them. Don't date them, don't have "relationships" with them, and definitely don't move-in with them. Trouble is, there's always some desperate, horny guy who thinks he'll never get laid again if he ignores these easy targets for sex. Very sad.
Also, a lot of these out-of-wedlock chirldren wouldn't exist if mandatory DNA tests were given to every child born in America. Are there any feminists out there willing to get behind that idea?