Cathy Young, author of Ceasefire! has an article in Newsday entitled “Downside of Rising Single Motherhood”:
The doomsayers may exaggerate, but the cheerleaders are misguided. It’s great news that more women are economically self-sufficient. But there are at least two major reasons the rise of single motherhood should not be hailed as a victory for female autonomy. One is children. The other is men.
Children born to single mothers do not always fare worse than children of married couples. But all else being equal, out-of-wedlock birth is a risk factor for economic hardship, psychological and behavioral problems, and lower educational attainment….
AdvertisementFatherlessness is not only bad for children; it is also bad for men — and for gender equality…
Yet the trend toward more engaged fatherhood is being canceled out by the growing number of children with no father in the home. This redefinition of families as women and their children is a modern-day version of the old-fashioned, very non-feminist notion of family and child-rearing as a female domain in which men are only visitors. Sending men the signal that they are disposable is hardly a way to encourage them to be better fathers. The 1950s-style family is certainly not the only environment in which children can thrive. But glorifying single motherhood is no better and, in the end, no less sexist.
Girls growing up without a father in the household don’t have the day-to-day experience of seeing how the relationship between a husband and wife should go.
Boys in that situation miss that and more. Mothers can love their sons, but they cannot teach their sons how to be men. Here’s a seemingly trivial example. As a leader in Scouting, I have encountered several young Cub Scouts who did not know that they could urinate while standing up. They all were being raised without a father in the home.
Boys need fathers to teach them how to be men and meet manly responsibilities.
Ann Coulter addresses this issue in very fine and specific detail, and from every angle in her last best-seller prior to “Demonic”. It is an eye-opener, in a very harsh and scary way. Every citizen who thinks they have developed a position on the single-parent issue, whether commie-lib, or conservative should read it. It WILL blow your ever-lovin’ mind.
If the implication is that the lionization of Single Motherhood has led to a large growth in Gynocentrism and also a noticeable growth in Misandry, then I would agree.
Reading the 1965 Moynihan Report now seems like the good ol’ days.
Sending men the signal that they are disposable is hardly a way to encourage them to be better fathers.
It doesn’t take much insight that a mother sending this signal also sends the same signal to her sons, men are disposable. It also doesn’t take much insight that this signal would have a terribly negative affect on sons.
It has been my observation, and i would like feedback, that boys raised by their mothers, lack risktaking characteristics. I see adult men who are content with deadend jobs, because they won’t take the risk of attempting to get a great paying job, lest they fail. Risk and danger, invigorate men. It brings out the best in us. It is why men love war movies. We identify with characteristics, like bravery, loyalty, self sacrifice, strength, courage and honor. You don’t conquer anything by staying safe.
Men raised by women also avoid fighting. “Honey, use your words!” No, use your fists.
I think of the song, “Imagine”: “nothing to kill or die for”. If there is nothing worth dying for, then there is nothing worth living for. Boys and men should be allowed to fight, so they learn the rules of being men.
Mostly being a man is not running off at the mouth, so you don’t get punched in same. It means you end up being spare with your words and say things succinctly. It means more thinking than talking. It means more wisdom. Men are supposed to provide wisdom and discipline.
Nothing worse than a man who fills the air with empty words. He will also have all kinds of other unmanly traits, like, femininity, whininess, being weaselly, and unreliability.
And being Liberal.
I think you see what not having a father in the house ,has done to our president. His response to the killing of US soldiers over the burning of some defaced Korans, is a feminine response. He appologized! They kill our guys,because someone burned a book, and he appologized. No rightous rage. No response that would cause those who would consider killing over a book burning , to pause. What he should have done ,is announce a special Koran burning, with time and location. Then drop a daisy cutter in the midst of whoever shows up. Announce that that was revenge for the Americans who were killed.
Let everyone in Afghanistan know that if it happens again, we will find out which tribe the killers are from, and will kill as many of that tribe that we can find. Then announce another Koran burning a week later. See who shows up! Make it a weekly thing till they get the message
The young women who have children without a commitment from the father probably just don’t believe they are condemning themselves and their children to a hard life. They are sure going to find out, though.
They don’t care because there will always be some man/father to blame for their failures. It’s the classic double-bind, win-win situation for women.
“Yet the trend toward more engaged fatherhood is being canceled out…”
I read that as fathers being more like mothers. Why does this myth persist that fathers were some how not engaged with their children before 19XX (where XX is 70s, 80s or 90s depending on the author)? Maybe fathers were less involved with bathing the baby or changing diapers, but my father certainly engaged with my brother and me. How else could we have learned to be men?
I’m totally on board with you there and have made the very same argument for years against this myth.
As a youngster, not only was my father very engaged (despite a heavy workload), every single one of my friends, our neighbors, etc. etc. were engaged in their childrens’ lives. Further, many of the dads were often engaged in the lives of ALL of the neighborhood children in certain circumstances.
Keep fighting to deaden the roots of that poison plant. In my small “growing up” world, fathers were very engaged.
In the 1950s men weren’t expected to be women and that was OK. If it weren’t for my traditional 1950s style dads discipline, I would most likely be in jail right now.
Glorifying single motherhood is far worse than glorifying 1950s family structure and home life. It relies on the smear and lie that the 1950s was oppressive to children’s lives, rather than providing the stability that they did.
The 1960s hippies and leftists trashed the 50s and still trash it to this day because that was when the USA went after domestic Communists and rooted them out because they knew that the CPUSA was working at the direction of the Kremlin. That history has to be rewritten to indict the 1950s as oppressive in order to justify their treason.
“In the 1950s men weren’t expected to be women and that was OK.”
As someone who knows a VERY high number of Male-to-Female transsexuals, I understand that statement only too well.
My Dad changed diapers. He learned that back in 8th grade on his nephews and nieces. He also cooked Sunday dinner so Mom could have her day off. We all did lots of chores too.
Just don’t get in the way of the tv when he was watching sports. He made sure they both had their downtime.
I’m an economically self-sufficient single mom of two beautiful, happy donor sperm created sons.
I think it is important to understand that the choice for many single moms wasn’t whether to have children alone or with a husband but rather whether to have children alone or not at all. The femininization of men due to the feminist movement and other social blights has rendered it very difficult for strong women to find suitable husbands. Over the past generation or so, successful women have found ourselves disqualified from the dating game as increasingly meek, weak and feminine men prefer either to be homosexuals or to marry non-competitive girly girls.
At 38, divorced from a crazy husband I married out of desperation for children, I had a choice: effectively “marry” myself and be mother and father to my children, or opt out of motherhood. Thankfully, I chose the latter and have two wonderful sons. They will have issues with fatherlessness but at least they are here, and they have a mommy who will do everything in her power to ensure that this is not an impediment to happiness or to growing up to become fine men and fathers in spite of the feminists.
As I read your post, I was struck with the words you use. 1) to describe men
2) to describe yourself.
Those are clue’s
I loved your strong and supportive posts for both genders.
Also there was an instantly respectably assessment of feminist movement, which was a true movement. I’m not saying it was a bowel movement. It hit people at different times in different ways – until it became Godzilla in every city and town. It became a “throw the baby out with the bathwater” comprehensive movement. As long as we can recover to the middle (only possible with acknowledgement and empathy for men lost) then society can bring both genders along with fewer life-limiting fears and images – which are extraordinary in their scope to cope (men), enjoy life (women) and make money (everyone). Think of the extraordinary coping and excessive pursuits of happiness men and women are involved in.
Our natural spirits have been taken hostage. Empathy for men is so low, that when I see or start to become part of verbal disagreement, in almost all cases I see women ramp it to 100% disrespectfully; threatening, uncaring, unnecessary, wrong, and what else…bad for society. Verbal arguments are the precursors to allowed violence of women on men’s sexual parts – no matter how violated he feels sexually. Then normal arguments must be avoided. Unless, of course, men’s bodies could receive equality under the law and his feeling of being **ped (for most men) is treated with no less commitment and empathy or pain as a woman’s feeling of being **ped, then verbal disagreements can return and society can function with some normalcy. Move to higher topics now that men’s body’s are also respected with laws greater than a simple “assault,” (since retaliation is only allowed for women also, per the courts).
Once many of the basics of men’s requirement (to me) to shut their mouth or be slapped, punched, taken down by good men when they mistreat women, and women never making a joke or a reality out of harming men’s privates, we can concentrate on some much higher pursuits.
So many await us. But let’s straighten out our sexual images on the media, exhibit genuine understanding and compassion for both genders (otherwise NEITHER counts) from their childhoods forward.
– This falls to Mom’s for sure. Little boys see and never forget, then use violence as armor in a world of fears. They then do harm, do not understand their motivations, harming both genders, and ’round & ’round.
– Men, you’ve absolutely got to know, try your frickin’ hardest in relationships. Then harder. Then harder. If she’s undermining you, and talking about your manhood – yes, that stinks. Tell her calmly personal attacks are too much. And for Pete’s sake, do not ever ever ever ever ever think that the company of a woman, the appreciation & connection you feel for a change, with her giving of her heart and her body, will come without 100,000 things. One fling – yes CHEATING, and 100,000 things come down on your family. You weren’t thinking for a moment, so if you’re a young reader here today – please believe this!
And for men just dating, you CANNOT hold up under a bad woman. You will be driven away because she will not back down. So what do you DO? YOU DATE. DATE HER. DATE HER. AND DATE HER. Her wild ways will come out, she can’t hold them back forever. Now I exposed my gal to a lot of scenarios and still was surprised by how bad bad got. But it was never THAT bad. Close, but survivable. Because I really did have the thought, “Can I handle her worst?” – And I’m a fairly sensitive guy at times. I’m no complete package of mental fortitude. I need her. She showed me more strengths than I was aware a woman had, mostly in teamwork with me, loving and supporting me, and GENUINE motives for the family – not to put me down.
Mrs. Trust, none of us gets, “it all.” However, in my book you are a complete success and a lady. So happy you’re next to me in the human race.
Even a young child can read your response and tell it is backhanded. The type of language you have chosen to describe the father of your children (sperm donor) is incendiary and deliberate. Such arrogance is a BIG reason why alot of men nowadays don’t want to date a single mom or a self-proclaimed independent woman. There’s nothing wrong with being self made, or opponionated. There is surely nothing wrong with being a woman who knows what she wants. There is a level of eliticism and a “holier-than-thou” attitude that most women in your position exuberate that is a BIG-TIME TURN OFF to even the most masculine guy. Maybe the reason why there are alot of feminine men, or emasculated men, or beta males, or meek, passive men and not so many dominant agressive surefire men is because women like yourself make men ashamed for being men. Maybe these men had a mother who was SELFISH and only cared about her own interests and desires while masquerading as a victim of circumstance at the front desk of a food stamp office, shelter or a gathering of girlfriends with well-connected men wrapped around their fingers. When you label men as sperm donors, you are just the kind of culprit that make men like me fatherless in our boyhood and I will not let you flaunt your arrogance unscathed. Oh and BTW check your grammar and undersstand the difference between “Latter” and “former.” If you are so economically successful, then you obviously don’t need his alimony or monthly support. I mean, you are independent, right?
“Over the past generation or so, successful women have found ourselves disqualified from the dating game as increasingly meek, weak and feminine men prefer either to be homosexuals or to marry non-competitive girly girls.
_____________
Good slam against men. Aside from the fact that it’s not up to you to decide how men should act, or to try to shame men to fit your preconceived notions, I find that most “strong” and “economically self-sufficient” women are really “hard-to-get-along-with / opinionated / bitchy” and “still-getting-money-from-the-government-or-a-man-in-reality” kind of women.
If you’re working full time and absolutely paying everything for you and your kids, great. You’re doing exactly what men who have custody of the kids have always had to do in life.
The big problem with lots of single women is they are NOT taking responsibility. Kids grow up with that as a role model – mom’s leeching again off somebody or someone.
Isn’t uncanny how all of the explanations for why marriage is declining and the increase in fatherless homes always seems to come down to the fault of men? There always seems to be some explanation, usually having to do with the inadequacies of men, from which to draw such conclusions.
Interestingly, if you were to ask “real men” to explain their positions about the subject, you’ll find some cold, hard truths that won’t sit well with most women. I assure you, they have nothing to do with an abject love of gaming or any other refusal to “grow up” as the MSM would want everyone to believe.
Baloney,
I don’t believe a slam at men was intended there. Really I don’t, esp. with remainder of her comment. It’ll always be tough to read some things. The better writers take care (as she did) to give their “full side” which is undying support for the other gender, while trying not to pigeon-hole that gender into slave-like roles or minimizing them. That would be a back-handed and manipulative compliment common with liberals and feminists. This lady has boys to raise that she cares about. She’ll do well, esp. with clear thinking and support when she’s supporting us.
As an aside, yes, good points to the essence of, bigger paychecks of “successful” women means less desire to work out anything. The faux rich and actual rich have a hard time enduring to the point of growing up. If they can weather storms they will be stronger, as the ebb and flow of strength, i.e. which partner is carrying the morale, financial, physical, long-suffering role, etc. changes over time. We must be humble and loving to be worth more than a dime.
Single mom: Lots of men would like a “successful” woman – or even a woman who works – it really beats a sit-at-home woman in my mind anyway.
But it comes down to the price you have to pay. If the “successful” woman is accompanied by an irritating, nasty personality and a sense of entitlement bigger than the Grand Canyon – and if she barely tolerates you because you only make a little more than her, instead of being the very rich guy she really desires – then I’m going to have to say “no thank you” at the risk of being called a homosexual by you. Oh, and calling men names as a group because they don’t behave exactly like YOU want could be considered part of a nasty personality. Nice it ain’t.
@Single mom: Over the past generation or so, successful women have found ourselves disqualified from the dating game as increasingly meek, weak and feminine men prefer either to be homosexuals or to marry non-competitive girly girls.
___________
Actually, it is more commonly the successful women disqualifying less successful men from their options. Since less successful men are invisible to women from a dating perspective, women lament there are “no good men left.” What they really mean is they are no good men available who are good enough for them.
Or, to put it more bluntly :
“Why should I marry a man who I won’t get anything from when I divorce him?”
Men are often shamed into marriage saying they are “afraid of commitment.” However, marriage is a much more serious commitment for men than it is for women, especially in this legal climate.
Is it any secret that most married men have assets in their name, or a seriously rewarding career, or something to their credit? I can’t remember the last time I ever saw a married man who was poor, or on welfare, or struggling significantly unless he was seperated. When some of these women pick a man to date and ultimately marry, or look for a sperm donor candidate, they usually consider the downside or the benefits of “if all else fails” when selecting a “victim.” If you die, she wins. If you divorce, she wins. If she is merely lucky enough to have unprotected sex with you and your hormones send you a signal this is right, or if she cons you into believing she had a hysterectomy, or her tubes tied….she wins. If you do not believe me, google “TITLE IV-D” and see how even judges and attorneys benefit from divorced dads and marginilized fathers. See how states make revenue off the interest rates of child support payments, just like PayPal makes money off the interest of your ebay sales every time there is a 21 day hold on your money. This is real talk men!!!
Frankly, the liberal arts are good for women who want to earn the Mrs. degree. They don’t really have to think a whole lot, but they are in the mix at the university and can talk to men majoring in medicine, law or engineering.
And that woman who bags a man in one of those areas may well get much richer than … you. So liberal arts definitely does not mean poor, it just usually means poor if you are a man majoring in that politically correct, brain-dead crap.
A huge barrier to women finding a committed father for their children or candidate for marriage is often their own social conditioning. Not all women have this issue, as Ithe one thing I refuse to do is generalize an entire demographic over the actions of a prolific many. Don’t you men get sick and tired of hearing how bad we as men are, or who is a real man and who is not. Every time there is a family issue, these prolific women I am taking about point the finger at men, and certain types of men, whom I recently began referrign to as “common men” point the finger at their fellow man too. No accountability on the part of the female partner is assumed, nor is it pursued vigorously enough for the seriousness of equal accountability amongst a 2 parent household or a couple to register on the social Richter scale of these matters. There always seems to be an omnipotent urge for men to “step up” or “man up” or do something different, while most publicized outcries like these never ask anything of the female involved in creating the family or whatever the situation is. It is almost as if we as men have bought into our social conditioning of believing that all a woman does right or wrong is sacred. Our fathers have constantly engrained a standardized rulebook of chivalry in our minds as we were young sons and generations of men wore thiese beliefs on their sleeves, failing to acknowledge the littlest imperfections in such a way of thinking. Females have been riding high on a cloud of entitlements and continue to be very smug as the gears of public and unilateral sympathy for any and every reason churn at a higher rate year after year. With the current legal climate of the modern world and the ease of access of misandry-laden literature and public renouncing of the importance of fatherhood, it seems like the only way this trend will slow down is if we, both men and women alike confront it on all frotns. Every aspect needs to be addressed and until we stop sugarcoating bits and peices for our own convenience, and until we get real with ourselves about the damage this has done me, you, your kids if you have any, or someone close to you that you know, then it isn’t going to change.
Children look to the same gendered parent as a guide to what they should aspire to as an adult.
They look to the opposite gendered parent as a guide to what they should seek in a mate.
Single mothers teach, by example, that their daughters do not need males, except as sperm donors (and/or fun), and teach the boys that they are dispensable and may not be particularly wanted
It would help if single mothers would teach their children that their situation is anomalous, not normal, but it is not. Over 40% of children are born to single moms, and 70% will live without a father
I’m a single father, with custody of 2 children. I take great pains to explain that our situation is not normal, but it is what it is. I also expose them to intact families to show them, by example, what IS normal. They also know WHY I will not remarry and expose them to abusive behavior (by experience, evil step-mothers are far more damaging than bad step-fathers).
By every criteria, children of single parents are FAR worse off. Statistically, children of single parents are more prone to be perpetrators (or victims) of violence, will engage in sex earlier, are more likely to have children of their own at an earlier age, are more likely to abuse substances, are more likely to be incarcerated, and are more likely to be impoverished. Where’s the upside? There is NO upside.
Single mothers are virtually condemning their children to the bottom of the social ladder. Children of single fathers fare slightly better, but that is because it so anomalous – it takes more effort (no support system), and “the system” (Protective Services) is more suspicious of potential abuse and people are more willing to call in complaints on single fathers than mothers. Single fathers must actually perform better than married men to even the playing field, all on their own, whereas single mothers get sympathy and assistance. Where single mothers usually get child support, with the absent father facing jail and loss of licenses (professional and drivers), single fathers get often do not get monetary support. If anything, the non-custodial mother is given massive amounts of leeway, because she’s got “problems” (else SHE would have gotten custody).
The system is screwed up, and the children pay the fare.
When the judge asked me if I believed that placement of the children with their mother was in their “best interests,” I said, “Their best interests would be to live with both of their parents, your honor.” I wanted to say, “What kind of stupid question is that?”