Help me understand, am I reading this wrong? I think the worst line in the piece is this: "...we have no choice. If we could choose, we’d choose to be in a healthy marriage based on reciprocal passion and friendship."

I think she's begging the question, as do a lot of lost-soul baby-boomers generally. (I'm serious about this. It's a problem with anyone who thinks that policies are what deny them the option 'to be happy'.) It's like saying that if Tiger Woods had his "choice", he's sink a hole-in-one from every tee. If Ford Motor Company had its "choice". every model it sold would lead its market segment.

She may not have been entirely sincere as she wrote that, but neither does she seem aware of her ironic presumption. There's a real absence of responsibility on display... A failed recognition of just how dark life is on this planet, and how backhanded human achievement can be, and how endlessly fractal suffering can be. There's never going to be a life where you can just choose fulfillment.

If Tiger sank every putt, no one would bother watching him play. In the real world, every swing is fascinating.

Also, she chose single motherhood, and I hate that with the undying fire of ten thousand scorching suns.

I was married for 27 years and we had a lot of fun as business partners. None of our many ventures made a huge amount of money but we complemented each other superbly and enjoyed the challenges and occasional successes.

I'd recommend it as a model.

Just throwing this out there:

If marriage, as a model, inevitably leads to some level of settling by both partners, lack of passion and a love that turns into a mutual respect at best and resentment in many cases (followed by petty fighting, undermining each other in the parenting arena, etc)...what's the best way to raise children?

Should people go into marriage as a deal, a business model if you will (to use Norman's phrase) just to raise kids? Should it be an s corporation, limited liability partnership or voluntary association? Do you pretend to be in love for the kids or is our idea changing all together - the kids know you're their parents and there to raise them, not to necessarily provide romance and loving partnership to each other? In other words - what does the marketing section of the business plan look like?

How does this work going forward now that we're all pretty much realizing that the marriage model worked better when men worked the plow and women raised the children (who then worked the farm)? It used to be about surviving from day to day. Now it's more about propagating the human race.

Single parenthood works but I don't think it's ideal and I don't think all these divorces are great. Caveat: if the relationship is so poisonous and volatile that the fighting is causing a lot of emotional distress. If one spouse abuses alcohol, drugs, is mentaly/emotionally unstable... those thing might truly justify a divorce. But is simply falling out of love and not feeling "alive" in a relationship a good reason? Should ppl be more pragmatic and decide to have an open relationship?

My brain is going haywire.

Amy, you don't want to get married and have kids and have great reasons. But, many people DO want kids. Do you have any ideas how that can work or what marriage might look like in another 100 years?

When it comes to kids, I'm just to the right of Dr. Laura. I'm with Crid on single motherhood by choice. And when couples have children, I think those children should become priority one...through five. Their needs come first, and I don't care how "unfulfilled" as a sex partner you are. Sure, you need to try to get what you need personally, but I'm for a "delivery room through dorm room plan." Once you squeeze out those kids, your life had better revolve around raising them as happy, non-fucked up people. And sorry if you want to run off with your secretary, but you need to stay a family for their sake. And think enough about what an enormously serious endeavor it is to have kids that you only do it with somebody who can be that with you. Did you fuck up, get involved with somebody a little bit boring, and do you now have bad sex? Oops, too bad! Gotta think of those kids.

The worst site I've seen in a long time is one of a guy who's getting a divorce from his wife and arguing about petty things with her. If he'd just posted their arguments anonymously, as a chronicle of divorce, or what an unreasonable bitch his wife seems to be, I'd have no problem with it. But, he's posted the kids names, pictures, and video of them on it. Tragic for those girls -- beyond the conflict their parents bring to their everyday lives. (I didn't post the site, because I didn't want to contribute to people seeing those pictures, but did I ever want to.)

Part of the problem is too many people regard love as a feeling and do not understand what it really is.

Love is a feeling. Loving is something you do. It's staying with the wife after the passion is gone and being sweet to her because those kids need a daddy and a happy home life.

The whole thing about "settling" is just weird. There is no such thing as the perfect person. So - in that sense - everyone "settles". But the way she puts it? What a sad, pessimistic way of looking at life...

"...much as I’d like to settle, I can’t seem to do it." This attituce reminds me of a couple of single women who have managed to reach their 30's or 40's without a serious relationship. Their lives are arranged "just so", and have no room in them for anything new or different. Heavens, if they had a boyfriend over, he might dirty their bathroom sink, or get an extra dish dirty.

Maybe that's not what she's like - after all, she has children, so she can't expect to be able to arrange the individual dust flecks in her life. But there are plenty of nice people out there. Can she really not find one? Just what is she really looking for?

But, I don't want to "settle" either, which is why I don't get pledge to be with somebody for the rest of my life, and why I spent much of my 30's unrelationshipped. If my relationship with Gregg starts to feel like settling, we'll break up. I can't imagine it getting to that point, though -- and I was free to be with him because I didn't settle for somebody out of desperation. I'm really quite happy being alone, and I'd rather be alone than in a relationship with just anybody.

Amy - I understand your idea about divorce and remaining a unit for the sake of providing a balanced upbringing. But let's rewind to even before divorce, let's rewind to before people get marriage in the first place.

Marriage isn't a necessity to survive from day to day. I'm pretty sure everyone on this site realizes that the dynamic of partners has changed over the past 200 years. I think our reasoning overall is beginning to catch up with the reality: we get married 1) b/c that's just what is expected and is tradition 2) we have romantic ideals that don't necessarily reflect the truth about love 3) we want children (disclaimer: "we" used generally).

Marriage might become a completely moot point in another 200 years. Do we (again, very general collective language) need to keep marriage in the picture simply for the sake of reproducing and then raising children? Can marriage continue to stand alone as an idea(l)? I'm not sure it can for most people.

The whole love/relationship thing is really tricky, though, because sometimes, when you "love" somebody, and get into a relationship with them, you discover things about them that you don't "love", and you can decide to either deal with them, or decide that those things are deal breakers. (Ideally, children aren't involved, but when they are, that complicates things, obviously.) Thing is, relationships don't come with guarantees. You get into them without knowing how it's going to turn out. Sometimes you have more faith in the other person than yourself, only to find your faith's been misplaced, which leaves you confused and often resentful. And if you have a lot of faith in yourself, you really don't need anyone else to justify and/or validate it, but it's nice to have someone there to share things with. In my case, my ex is a total moron, the poster boy for cognative dissonance, and I shudder to think of what my life would be like if I had decided to stay with him "for the sake of the children", because I know we are so much better off without him. And my current BF, well, right now he's the only one I can imagine spending the rest of my life with, but even if he were to decide to leave, I know that even though I'd be exceedingly sad, I also know that I'm a strong enough person now to be able to continue to live my life with no regrets and be satisfied with who and what I am. But it took me a damn long time to get here.

Lifelong relationships and the love model for relationships are in sharp conflict. You can pledge to be with somebody for life, just don't expect it to see sparks flying at year two, year seven or year 50-70. You might, sure, but I'd bet against it if I were you.

I just advised a soldier to think very carefully about whether to stay in a marriage with a woman who weighs 30-40 lbs more than when he married her (a few years ago), and who wants to have kids with him. His current worry vis a vis that situation: He doesn't know if he can find her attractive enough to get it up to try to have kids.

His current worry vis a vis that situation: He doesn't know if he can find her attractive enough to get it up to try to have kids.

Ouch. That's gotta hurt, both him and her. And I can see it from both sides, having been there (heavy) and done that (lost the weight). And here's where it gets tricky:
One guy I dated, a long time ago, told me he'd marry me if I lost 30 lbs. I threw my drink in his face and left the bar. Took a good look at myself and decided, dammit I'll do it, but not for HIM. So I lost the weight. Saw the guy a couple years later, and he was all over me, and I said, you stupid asshole, I'm still the same person inside! If you're going to be that superficial, kiss my ass! I was really pissed at him, because even though he wanted to fuck me when I was overweight, he wouldn't marry me until I lost the weight. But he wasn't a good candidate for marriage anyway, he was so self-centered it was pitiful. I ran into one of his ex-wives a couple of weeks ago; he's chasing some 20-something-year-old and she's (the ex-wife) laughing at him, because he's going bald and has a beer gut. Go figure. o_O

"You can pledge to be with somebody for life, just don't expect it to see sparks flying at year two, year seven or year 50-70. "

Or it could turn out this way, and you'd never have to find out. Biggest "wah wahhhh" story of the day:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080210/ap_on_re_us/wedding_death

P.S: how the eff do I make a link show up within the text? Am I an HTML retard?

Marriage is fundamentally (and yes it still is) a legal agreement. There are huge perks financially to get married even if your a dink you still have many benefits. The most basic is hospital visitation rights. The legal rights of survivorship. The unmarried partner can not collect death benefits from social security. They have no say in situations when a living will is not present or does not cover the situation at hand. Banks get cagey about making joint loans to unmarried couples and even more so single mothers.

You can be madly in love with some one but when it falls apart you take no risk except him or her tossing your shit out into the rain. You may have to pay child support if children are involved. There are only a few states that have palimony and common law marriages are easy to circumvent most of the time, you are free to leave your partner with no legal ramifications. Once you are married and you are the better employed spouse (making more money) you are utterly screwed if they turn.

Settling? There are different degrees of settling and no matter who you are there will be some settling because we have some really odd ideas about the other gender. I had at least a few female friends who when describing their ideal man are asking for a paradox, my favorite "she loves arrogant (not confidant) men but hates assholes". Wants a subservient intellectual who argues but knows (she does not believe in ESP) when to concede the point to her. My favorite for guy is the almighty virgin-whore complex, "Why does my sex life suck? ANS: Cause you married a prude!. Figments of the imagination: arrogant nice guys, ESP (or so says science) and virgin porn stars.

"And I can see it from both sides, having been there (heavy) and done that (lost the weight)." Oh hell yeah and with more graphic fervor then I ever want to remember. I got to have a lot of fun with this at my 10 year reunion. However there are a few jocks that looked like utter shit but had only put on 20 lbs where as 20 lbs on me would be hard to notice unless I'm in spandex (no I don't). The extent of the asshole factor is in how someone carries it, ie: at 5'1" 120 20 lbs is a huge difference (let alone 40) while at 6'1" 184 (USMC max permitted) you'd have to be looking to notice. Being superficial has it's limits on both ends. Asking your significant other to lose 5 lbs cause they doesn't look like a model which they were before you started dating(especially if you look like old shit) has a max asshole factor. If you need to role them in flour or roll the rolls up to find the happy place. Telling them too lose weight cause your having shoulder problems holding the rolls up and keep getting fungal infections from their local flaura is acceptable.

A guy who nags his 5'6" wife to lose the 10 pounds she's gained over 20 years and four pregnancies (the last at his behest) is a jerk. The guy who's not attracted to a woman who's gained 200 pounds isn't a jerk. There are a vast number of situations in between, and there is the fact that men tend to gain weight too. Oh, and also, if you want your spouse (male or female) to lose weight, you'd better be prepared to back that up by offering to help out with his or her other duties to give him or her time to go to the gym, as Dan Savage has pointed out.

On the topic at large...eh. I think the author has gone from one extreme to the other. Yes, when picking a long-term mate and potential father for your children, you shouldn't expect to find a sensitive version of George Clooney who likes nothing more than to give you backrubs and never burps. But if you pick someone with whom there's *no* chemistry at the beginning, the slings and arrows of daily life are going to take on even more weight as the years go on. I note in the article that she speaks semi-approvingly of marrying men who aren't necessarily straight. That works great until he can't take the double life any more and leaves you and your preteens for the hot guy he met at the mall. I'm not going to disagree with the idea that a fair number of women who want marriage and kids end up being single because of the Prince Charming complex, but in my mind, marrying someone about whom you're *lukewarm* or have *no* sexual connection is just the flip side of that. The hard part of marrying successfully is navigating the shoals between that and figuring out the acceptable compromises. Kids may not care if their parents aren't 100% fulfilled with one another, but they do pick up on it when their parents are *miserable* with one another, or so my friends who have told me, with great sincerity, that the best days of their lives involved their parents filing for divorce have told me. (That having been said, I think the number of couples who are *actually* miserable with one another is far lower than the number that *thinks* they're miserable with one another for want of any real comparison.)

Yes, long-term marriages represent compromises, but those compromises don't have to entail living with someone you find *boring*. Now, they may entail, as she said, ending up with the guy who's "5'4" with an unfortunate nose but gets you," but there's a *huge* difference between the two. And I note that she really doesn't seem to have considered that having a baby with a sperm donor would lower her appeal in the marriage market. And then there's this:

The guy was substantially older. He had a long history of major depression and said, in reference to the movies he was writing, “I’m fascinated by comas” and “I have a strong interest in terrorists.” He’d never been married. He was rude to the waiter. But he very much wanted a family, and he was successful, handsome, and smart.

I'm sorry, I don't care how much you want a second income and someone to go home to - do not marry a person who's rude to waiters. And the fact that her idea of potentially acceptable "settling" is someone who has money and looks but an awful personality indicates to me that she still hasn't gotten the point.

Oh, and while I hate to admit that I watched "Friends"...her anecdote isn't quite right. Barry, the "stable orthodontist" type, was having an affair with the maid of honor before the aborted wedding. Yes, I've known plenty of women who were willing to overlook stuff like that...but they typically end up snapping around the 10th affair or so.

The tone I don't like about this article is that getting married for the sake of raising kids is "settling." I think it's so only if the desire for "OMG true love/passion" is your top priority. But if having kids is important to you and you believe, as Amy does (and I do) that kids need to be raised by two parents in a happy well-adjusted household, marriage is a legitimate choice and is not "settling" even though, along with the marriage and the kids, you're getting the likelihood of waning passion. That's why friendship, trust, and mutual respect is so important in a marriage, because it will still be there once the bloom is off the rose, and allows you to continue working with your partner in child-rearing. But making that choice isn't necessarily "settling", it's just different people with different priorities.

The real problem lies in people's unrealistic expectations about marriage and romance and passion. I submit you can have it all, but you have to have two partners who can be honest with each other and who both understand that all of their emotional and sexual and intellectual needs may not be filled by the same person. Someone mentioned Dan Savage, and Dan is a firm believer in doing what it takes to keep passion and sex alive in a relationship - even if that means going elsewhere. So long as you've chosen your partner well, you ought to be able to have some degree of excitement and passion in your life while still being a good parent in a stable and secure relationship. Making the choice to commit to building a life with a person doesn't preclude joy, sex, romance, and heart-pounding passion in lieu of trust and stability, I think, so long as you've chosen the right partner - the "right" one being not necessarily the person who fulfills every single one of those needs, but rather being the person that you bring it all home to, always remembering at the end of the day that they're you're best friend and chosen companion. What keeps that from happening is people's unrealistic expectations that one person can be their everything, forever. That only works if you're their number one priority, and of course that does and should go right out the window when you have the kids, as Amy says. So you can have the Heinlein love, or you can have kids and great friendship, but I don't think you can have both.

Personally, I think Ms. Gottleib is extrapolating her own unhappiness a great deal, and hasn't fully grasped the meaning of "the grass is always greener." While I agree that there is no perfect Prince Charming out there, if you feel like you're "settling" as you walk down the aisle, a life of quiet desperation awaits. (Been there, done that, left after three years, and am now happily married to someone I wanted to be with and can't imagine my life without.)

P.S: how the eff do I make a link show up within the text? Am I an HTML retard?

Here's a quick and dirty HTML reference. Scroll down and look for "Anchor." That's what you want.

http://www.web-source.net/html_codes_chart.htm

I didn't like the women's article specifically because she doesn't seem to think that living alone is a viable option and hello? it is.

And, once again, I have to respectfully disagree on the whole diaper to dorm thing. Unhappy parents together are worse for the kids than two happy, well-adjusted parents in two different residences. It only seems odd because we're used to the two miserable parents image. Frankly, the majority of fucked up adults were abused either verbally or physically as a child. Unhappy parents are more likely to abuse and resent their children than happy parents. A parent's happiness is important for the child and, frankly Amy, it's only because you haven't raised children that you're not realizing how much they pick up on whether or not their parents are happy regardless of any act put on. People always think they're sheletering kids when the kids are actually smarter than they think.

That aside, that's also a major chunk of your life you're talking about. 18 years, maybe more if you have more than one not born at the same time. Ridiculous to think that mom and dad can hide it from the kid for that length of time, or, if they do manage to, it's not gonna be traumatic for the adult child when it comes as a shock to them that their whole damned childhood was a fucking lie and mom and dad didn't really love each other.

And that's presuming someone in their 20's or 30's (when most of us have children) has the foresight to know what they're getting into. I've got to say you don't know just how hard, how taxing parenting is until you're in it. I've found it rewarding but I've also found it so damned difficult and taxing that if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't. My 25 year old daughter and 4 year old grandson not being here would be an absence I'd feel -- there's an emotional attachment -- but if I'd never had a child, well, they wouldn't exist to be missed and I'd have filled my life with things I didn't -- like career, travel and a more active social life -- because I put my daughter and now both of them first.

Has it been worth it? Yes and no. I love the dickens out of them and they bring me a lot of joy. But they also bring a lot of heartache and 25 years of putting myself last has left me drained mentally, emotionally and physically. I'm about to turn 50 but I feel much older than that. I feel so damned worn out it ain't funny. I grant you I had some extraordinary circumstances most parents don't endure but still, I shouldn't feel this old this soon. Not too mention that, because my daughter was ill last year and I carried them, I'm only now starting to build my nest egg and have no money to speak of. So, no, if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't. I know a mom, let alone a grandmother, is not supposed to admit that but there it is (and, fuck you, to anyone who thinks I shouldn't be that honest).

The circumstances of skipping state with my daughter to protect her from her father doesn't exactly give me insight into the two parents in separate households thing (though unlike the article writer, I did concur with her friends -- I thought it was great not having to run every little thing past a mate and not having to run every parenting decision up the flagpole for some other parent, it was the silver lining) but, watching my grandson now, I don't think it's really all that horrible for kids having parents in two separate household. I think how good or horrible it is for child (and this applies if parents live together or not) is how well they handle their joint responsibility to the child they made together.

Every so often my grandson does the want mommy and daddy back together thing but it's rare and I think it's more a peer pressure thing when some kid asks why they don't live together. And once, he asked me to ask daddy if he and I could be friends (this was just after mommy's illness so he felt the need for me and daddy to get along more urgently I'm sure; I asked him -- trust me I did this for my grandson -- and daddy was sure and he and I have been friendly since, it's not a real sincere friendly but we make an effort to be pleasant and not argue over issues pending with his mother or anything and that's good for grandbaby).

Far more every day, he seems to benefit from it and thrive. He gets two views of two different ways of living from two very different people (which might explain the incompatibly of living together after they accidently made a baby despite using birth control) and it seems to broaden his mind and only give him a bigger view and more options to think about. At home, it's him and Mommy and me and sometimes him and Mommy and he likes that and the attention. At Daddy's, it's Daddy and his girlfriend who is my age and has a grandson not quite two years older than mine that he often plays with. They're quite good chums and he gets a lot out of having the other boy there. He has his little friends in the neighborhood and is extremely popular in school but I think when this other boy is staying at his grandma's when my grandson is there, they both rather dig playing like brothers for the weekend and that's good for them both. My daughter is less outgoing than his father, more a homebody, who takes him to the park or some other outing but is not one to go, go, go. Daddy can't sit still worth a damn and they're always doing something 'til it's time to go home and go to bed. I think he has aspects of both extremes he enoys but is getting a more rounded view than either of them. At this point, they're about equal as parents now that his father is being more responsible about his food allergies and he's happy both places. I think it's actually been good for him getting the perspective and am utterly sure it's definitely been better for him than the two of them living together "for his sake" would have been.

Granted that might not be true in every case but the individual parents have to call it. If they cannot stand living together but feel obligated to, it's gonna be nothing but bad for the child. If they decide they personally want to make a go of it, it might work for them and children but only if there is a certain degree of harmony possible and that's only possible if there's a certain amount of respect and affection between them. Note, I said affection, not mad, passionate love. I daresay without respect and affection, it ain't gonna work no matter how hard you try.

But, bottom line, it is way overgeneralizing to all the individuals involved to say that it's always better for mommy and daddy to stay together for 18 years whenever they make a baby. Way, way overgeneralizing.

"Not only does he contribute financially, help with the dishes, and share in the child care, but as his wife, if you want some companionship or physical intimacy, you don’t have to shave your legs, blow-dry your hair, find a puke-free outfit, apply lipstick, drive to a restaurant and sit through a tedious two-hour meal for the mere possibility of some heavy petting while the babysitter meter is ticking away. You don’t have to follow up with flirtatious e-mails or engage in time-consuming courtship rituals."

Wow. A single mom who doesn't enjoy making an effort to be attractive. Shocking that she's alone.

I should add we were not just business partners - that was only one of our many pastimes. We also brought up two kids who are doing just fine.

Perhaps the key word is pastime. It's good to be able to go off and do your own thing, but it's also good to have something you like doing together (beyond the obvious pleasures and the daily necessaries). Some people travel, some do amateur theatricals, some politics. We did business. It was a bit like playing Monopoly, but with real money, and hardly any rules.

Great post, Donna.

...but as his wife, if you want some companionship or physical intimacy, you don’t have to shave your legs, blow-dry your hair, find a puke-free outfit, apply lipstick...

Wow. A single mom who doesn't enjoy making an effort to be attractive. Shocking that she's alone.

Right?!? I do those things, no matter how tired I am, so that I feel good about me, the hell with him! o_O

Am I an HTML retard?

No, it's a bit of a pain. Do it like this:

<a href="YOUR LINK">YOUR TEXT</a>

You can just drop links right in the blog comment as is, and they'll work.

Unhappy parents together are worse for the kids than two happy, well-adjusted parents in two different residences.

Parents owe it to their kids to do whatever it takes to not fuck the kids up. A high conflict relationship between the parents can't be good for the kids, but if your choice was make it work or die, wouldn't you make it work?

And on the topic of single motherhood by choice, what do you think of this?

Knock Yourself Up: No Man? No Problem: A Tell-All Guide to Becoming a Single Mom

Delivery to dorm room? So parents splitting up after 18+ years is going to be minimally traumatic to a kid just leaving the nest and adjusting to life in college? Negligible adverse effects? I don't think so. I think this would be true for mouch of a young adult's twenties, too, the way adolescence and parental dependence keep extending. Even a full-fledged adult, completely independent and with their own life, experiences emotional trauma when the parental unit, the backbone of their childhood, splits, don't they? Anyone have experience with this?
People marry in order not to be alone, not just in the present, but many years in the future when they are less physically attractive and able to find new partners and have a lot more leisure time. For a long time continued integration in the extended family has been the respite from loneliness for elderly people. Of course, that's changed a lot in recent generations, and rather heartbreakingly so. Now, there are many great reasons to choose not to marry or have a family. I really admire Amy's positions on that... but how does one then really deal with this fear of being alone, without extended family and possibly unable to find a partner of any kind (even a less than perfect one) later in life? Can you elaborate, Amy?

I really admire Amy's positions on that... but how does one then really deal with this fear of being alone, without extended family and possibly unable to find a partner of any kind (even a less than perfect one) later in life? Can you elaborate, Amy?

Friends don't leave you when you get less sexy. I don't understand why nobody thinks of that. Bella DePaulo has. Here's a column I wrote about this, with a mention of her work:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2007/06/for_bitter_or_f.html

Can't comment on all of this above now, Debra, on deadline. Sorry!

It seems to me that the writer of this article thinks that anyone who ever has a gripe about their SO "settled." I mean, if I ever met a person I could live with full time and not occasionally want to strangle I would frankly die of shock. Every single friend, roommate or family member I have had has made me angry or frustrated at least once (more like once a month.) I mean, they aren't perfect, but that doesn't mean I'm "Settling" in my choice of friends. Why would that be true of my SO? Everyone has flaws, it's just figuring out which flaws you can live with.

Frankly I think she's seen too many romantic comedies that end before the relationships get started. Real relationships have conflict and unhappiness, that doesn't mean that the people in it desperately grasped for the first opportunity they had to not be alone. (The way she seems almost eager to do.)

Just for thought, let me throw this example out:

My mom, 70 years young, has a friend. This friend is in her 60s and has a daughter, who is married and also has a daughter. For many reasons, not the least of which being this woman's emotional instability, her daughter's husband hasn't let her be involved in their lives and that of her grandaughter. The woman's mother, in her 80s, lives alone and has no one but the daughter to look after her. Recently, this daughter took it into her head to pack up all her stuff, leave CT and drive to her daughter's house, where she isn't welcome, in another state. Halfway there, she had a breakdown and is now in a mental health facility in another state. My mom, goddess bless her, at the woman's mother's request, paid a friend of my brother's to go to the other state, and drive the woman's car back here. As the woman's mother was getting the keys, etc. back from my mom, she asked my mother if she (my mother) would "help [her] when [she] dies." She recognizes that her daughter would be of no help, her husband left her long ago, and she just has NO ONE there to help with all the crap after she passes. My mom asked if she had a lawyer, and the woman said no. Mom told her to get one, and then they'd talk. But the point is, when you have no one, what are you supposed to do? When your family is so dysfunctional as to create scenarios such as this (and I believe they are more common than most people think), how do you work out these things? I told my mom I thought she gave the woman the right advice, to get a lawyer, but I also warned her against getting too involved. It's one thing to help someone out, and quite another to get in over your head. I don't know the whole history behind this family and why these women's respective partners left, but is this just one more thing people don't think about, whether in relation to marriage/children or not?

I mean, if I ever met a person I could live with full time and not occasionally want to strangle I would frankly die of shock.

I'm annoying as fuck, yet I can be quite charming on a part-time basis. I would venture that this describes many people; they just aren't willing or able to admit it. If they would, they might live more reasonably, and more happily and peaceably with their partners by living apart.

Amy, I gladly admit I'm annoying as fuck, too, but as far as getting along peaceably with the ex? Ain't happening, mainly because he's more annoying than you or I and refuses to acknowledge it, never mind admit it!

I keep hearing "It's all about me" and I don't think it's from the gym...

When it stops being about us and our future and our kids, I think there's a problem.

My sister just described a "single mom by choice" that she knows. My sister said, "She acts like this Madonna, but the truth is, she's just too intolerable for any man to be with. That's why she's a single mother. Because the little in-vitro sperm couldn't refuse her."

Kudos to Amy for having and raising a child on her own. I agree that a single, loving mother raising her child is far better than a loveless couple trying their hand at child rearing together.

As to Amy's statement about settling, I whole heartedly disagree. I prefer to be happy and single, surrounded by my friends, than in an "I suppose it's better than being alone" relationship. In fact, I recently ended a two year relationship after a looooooong contemplation and ALL of my friends say they haven't seen me so happy in years!

If everyone keeps settling perhaps they're otherwise occupying someone else's perfect (as perfect as can be in this life) mate!

Helene
The Modern Woman's Divorce Guide
http://themodernwomansdivorceguide.com

Alkon, your clarity on these matters sets my heart free.

I think before anyone should call it settling try comparing what each side brings to the table. If you are tubby, toothless, and old looking then don't expect to have a 20 something being receptive to you, unless your rich, very very rich. Then your getting a gold digger. Also you should be able to evaluate what you can actually get as opposed to what you want. If you are shooting for Hollywood looks and wallet then you should have the same. If you are shooting for the spark that burns hot and bright and forever you might want to get used to being alone. Even if the passion is there it will eb and flow. Nothing will ever burn hot and bright forever.

I find that highly intelligent, curious people have more staying power.

I couldn't get through more than the first three paragraphs. First, she insists that if you say you're past 30 and not freaking out about being single, you must be lying. She makes a big point of saying she won't listen to anyone who says they are happy being single. She is bound and determined to believe that 30-something single women are miserable, and no amount of evidence is going to sway her from her pre-determined opinion.

So she's just a jerk. I am going to be 38 next month and have never gotten married. I do have a great boyfriend, but neither of us is interested in getting married or having kids. I have never wanted kids and got my tubes tied when I was 34 - I did that on my own and didn't even have a boyfriend at the time. I'm perfectly happy with my situation, but Lori Gottlieb isn't interested in hearing what I have to say. She would simply refuse to believe me and only wants to talk to people who already agree with her.

If she assumes I'm lying, why should I believe anything she says either? If she doesn't want to listen to me, why should I listen to her either? So I didn't bother reading the rest of her crummy article.

personally, I'd like to see where we went wrong using the word settled. When you make any decision with multiple choices and inputs, you "settle" on the most reasonable answer, or best bundle of compromises.

Yes you may regret not taking the one that set your innards afire, years later. But that earlier decision was based on the facts as you knew them then. Same as if you DID decide on the one that set your innards afire... and consumed you and everything you ever held dear.

The future doesn't exist yet, so we make some wild a$$ed guess about what the future holds with someone, when we don't even know what WE will be like then. Settling, my hiney. You make a decision that you hope is for the best. You have to move forward in any case, regardless if it was the best or worst decision. Basically it seems people are complaining about a decision they made. "If I had waited..." "maybe monday, he'll call" "how was I s'posed to know she was bipolar?"

Well it's in the past, do better next time...

Kudos to Amy for having and raising a child on her own. I agree that a single, loving mother raising her child is far better than a loveless couple trying their hand at child rearing together.

Uh, unless there's some invisible posting from another Amy here, or I'm missing some sarcasm, I should clarify: I only have children who are friends.

When people ask me if I have children, I sometimes like to joke, "None that I know of."

One of the great reliefs of being a woman is the fact that no semi-stranger you had sex with five years ago after getting drunk in a bar will ring you up and inform you that the state will be hitting you up for some kid's college education, and then some. Or, if you know anything about paternity fraud -- it could be a woman you've never met, much less knocked boots with.

Pirate Jo, you're the sunshine of my life.

I agree with Donna that people who are intractably, obviously miserable with one another aren't doing their kids any favors by staying together solely and utterly for their sake. Thing is, I'd say the number of people who are actually MISERABLE with one another to a point that's toxic to their kids is much lower than the people who are *actually* that miserable. Misery is waking up every morning saying, "The only reason I'm not going to try to kill myself or my partner today is because of the kids." It's not saying, "God, this person drives me crazy sometimes." No, I don't know what the hard and fast dividing line is. I do know that several years ago there was a study indicating, more or less, that while kids are definitely better off being out of an abusive situation, they generally don't pick up on their parents being "unfulfilled" and the like.

In addition to all that...there are things that can be at least attempted to make unhappy marriages happier - learning how to fight fair, learning how to emphasize the good rather than the bad in your partner, learning to admit your own contributions to a relationship's problems, etc. etc. These won't work for every couple, but they will work for some couples. Living with another person for years and years, even a great person, isn't *effortless*. Learning how to work together to defuse tension in a relationship can help you in other areas of your life as well. Again, some people are just intractably different and won't benefit from this, but some will, and, absent real abuse, I think these steps should be tried before one just throws in the towel.

Donna brings up a good point - while we started off discussing best practices for people who actively seek out fellow parents for kids not yet conceived, sometimes people end up conceiving accidentally, and what then? (Aside from better birth control in the future.) Abortion is not for everyone in every situation, and while I'm a big fan of adoption, it's not for everyone either. The person one sleeps with is not necessarily the person with whom one can build a stable life with. I don't think that means that people such as Donna's daughter must get hitched to the person they're dating, and Donna's grandchild certainly sounds happy. That having been said, study after study indicates that kids born out of wedlock, ON AVERAGE, tend to have less stable lives than kids born in wedlock. If relatively few kids fit this description, society could help fill in the gaps, as it were, with more stable adults essentially helping out in various ways. The problem comes when you hit a critical mass. I'd actually say that the existence of unplanned extramarital kids makes it MORE important for married-with-kids couples to try to work on their problems and stay married if they can do so without chasing one another with axes.

> I agree that a single, loving
> mother raising her child is
> far better than a loveless
> couple trying their hand at
> child rearing together.

Do you think you're being insightful? Do you think you're being sensitive? This is insane.

Everyone is so eager to say make that comparison, as if in the best existential analysis, that's how the kid ought to see things as well... As if a Gottlieb's little hellchild might never ask why his mother was (A.) so incompetent at selecting a decent, loving man to be his father; or (B.) so cowardly in the face of intimacy that she couldn't sustain a marriage; or (C.) so egotistical that she thought she could do it all herself nonetheless.

Wanna know why feminism sucks, and why most women here would deny plain enthusiasm for it? Because it's cowardly. It asks nothing of women, and pretends that everything that's wrong with life is something that's done to them by other people. It's infantilizing, and even simple women recognize this, even if they don't say so out loud.

This is about the fifth time I've said this on this blog. If the United States of America survives another 200 years, people will regard the incompetent parenting of these years with the same horror by which we view slavery. And they will be right to look at us this way.

Pirate Jo,

Yes, it's an incredibly crummy, annoying article...but

"She makes a big point of saying she won't listen to anyone who says they are happy being single..."

I think she means she won't listen to anyone who says they are happy being single even though they admit they definitely DO want kids.

I don't think she means women - like you - who never wanted kids in the first place.

"people will regard the incompetent parenting of these years with the same horror by which we view slavery." Your ideas on the topic are? While you are quick to attack this (fairly sad women) you do not give alternatives. While those that will come in 200 years will look on us as primitive the question is what will they see as the progressive variants? Will it be single moms who will be viewed as savages or will it be those who looked down on them.

The kid issue is fairly simple it's easier to raise a child if there is a support structure. Does it have to be a spouse, no. Should it be some one who is an ice hearted sadist, no. If given a choice between raising a child alone or raising the child with a monster alone is always better. Should anyone become a single parent by choice, that depends on the support structure. If your parents are multi-millionaires and support your decision to become a single parent then you are all good.
The questions are in the gray areas. What level of schmuck can they be before being a single parent is better? How much of what feature or lack there of is a deal breaker?

> you do not give alternatives.

Oh. Sorry. I thought you'd seen the memo on this.

Children are literally delivered at the intersection of a man and a woman, and that happens for a reason. There's no greater distinction in human thought than the difference between masculine and feminine thinking. A child raised in a loving home where this is thoughtfully and patiently negotiated every day for 20 years is going to be a much sturdier soul than one who isn't.

If a woman wants to have kids --and golly, so many of them do nowadays-- she need to select, attract and fulfill a man who will closely assist in the venture which will consume the better part of her lifetime, and the healthiest, most productive years of her life.

(What women shouldn't do is squirt out kids, then decide their mates are weasels. If they're such weasels, why did they spread their legs for them? Why would the child of a weasel not be a weasel as well?)

Gottlieb doesn't love her boy enough to give him a father. Why the fuck am I supposed care about him, and pay extra taxes (etc.) to make sure his needs are met? This is the cause of Republicanism: Such children are, by the measure of their own parents, a bad investment.

> If given a choice between
> raising a child alone or
> raising the child with a
> monster...

There it is again! People cannot resist making apple-to-oranges comparisons! The truth about what's going on --that seemingly adult people are making selfish, shortsighted choices which gravely affect the lives of their children-- is too horrific to acknowledge. It's always easier to pretend the bad stuff was already in motion at the beginning of scenario.

As if we must never, ever ask grownups to be strong.

"The truth about what's going on --that seemingly adult people are making selfish, shortsighted choices which gravely affect the lives of their children-- is too horrific to acknowledge." Um, bad decisions are precisely what I mean. You don't know how anyone will react to being a parent until you do it. Everything could be fine (unlikely to be great) until the baby comes and she's (yes using gender stereo-type) spending most of her effort on the baby (as it should be) he starts feeling rejected. He gets more and more agitated by feeling like a second class citizen. Now he gets nasty (not physically abusive) what does she do, stay for the sake of the kid or leave?

Now if your criticism is of her decision to have a child as a single mother intentionally sure no argument. That's bad move unless you have shit loads of capital where hired help is fully trained and the child is properly raised. Just cause you are biologically related to the kid does not mean you have the ability to raise them, the right by law yes.

"Why the fuck am I supposed care about him, and pay extra taxes (etc.) to make sure his needs are met?" Her being on social services is listed where in the article? Your assuming that if she has a kid she can not support herself, why? I'm in agreement with you on all points except one, the male role model does not have to be the father. The kid needs good both male and female role models, why the hell does it have to be the parents. Do I think her decision is a smart one? No. Now using basic biology if they can't attract a mate then they shouldn't breed.

"Role models" is a silly way to think. See discussion here and here. And check in tomorrow, long night of work ahead....

It is said that happiness is the amount by which reality exceeds your expectations. That being the fact, today's crop of "empowered" entitlement princesses are doomed to a life of unhappiness -- and they can blame their feminist "have-it-all" mommas. Boo the "F" hoo!

And for the record, you went back to apples-and-oranges again, didn't you? We must never ask women to use good judgment....

Oh, and by the way, for all you ladies out there who are almost past your "expiration date" and are considering "settling" for one of us guys ... DON'T BOTHER. We can do better and younger than you now that we've reached the "disposable income" phase of life that makes us so attractive to you at this point. Enjoy your cats ... .

This reminds me of that post a few days back about how guys were little boys because they wouldnt settle for women once they had reached the point they wanted to settle down

I lived a free and single life until getting married at 43. I thought I would never get married. I was a musician and moved around a lot, and after a few years away from my family and high school friends it started to get a little lonely. Bandmates and local acquaintances tend to fall by the wayside when you move every few years. I was sort of up and down manic, and partied way too much.

It's been 15 years of marriage now and though I miss some things about being single, the pure autonomy of it, it's really rather nice to have companionship. Just having someone to walk with, hold your hand...ski and bike together, cook for each other, just little things like that seem very rewarding.

ne thing I had to learn though was to shut up once in a while and not run my mouth all the time like he's a girlfriend on the phone.

What it takes is humility.

"I find that highly intelligent, curious people have more staying power."

Did you know that there is a set of non-denumerable values "larger" than infinity? I find that fascinating!

Heh.

But seriously: can you think of something missing in all this discussion? I can. You got close talking about "love". I like Heinlein's description, roughly "that state of mind in which another's happiness is essential to your own". He wrote an entire novel to show Virginia how serious he was about her. Such devotion is an ideal, but it is not to be shunned, avoided or dismissed because it's inconvenient to wait and look before you decide to devote yourself to someone. I mean, really - how many people do you think actually know what they're talking about when they say, "I do"? They should be saying "You'll do - for now", and they are poised to flee if anything uncomfortable appears.

This discussion wouldn't even be happening except for two things: religious influence condemned the idea of finding out if your intended was actually everything you needed, and we are shown now that what is most important is what we want NOW. Result: furtive glances and sneaking around by the religious, deep in denial of their needs; the expectation of instant gratification by the rest.

You will need help doing the most basic things as you age. When young, it is smart to find someone you can learn with. As time passes, you'll have pride in someone who continues to grow personally; the more closely you can identify with a "winner", the better off you'll be. In doddering old age, you'll still treasure a companion you may confide in - even though there is little say that has not been heard.

More people don't do this because they DO settle. That's no reason at all to claim it can't be done - or is undesirable in some way.

Question for the guys out there: In terms of dating single mothers, is there a difference, in your mind, between women who have given birth to children on their own and those who have adopted children on their own? I have certain views on this, but I'm a woman, not a guy.

However, I'd like to say that not all single women in their 30s are that way because they refused to "settle," just as not all single men in their 30s are that way because they refused to "settle." Some people spend a hell of a lot of time figuring out what they want to do, moving around, etc. Some people take a while to reach a point where they can be selfless enough to be a good romantic partner. The author may have viewed marriage as a soulmate-or-nothing endeavor, but I know many people who got married because, well, their friends were getting married, or it was time to get married, or because they wanted a Big Day, and are now regretting it. If you don't find someone in your 20s with whom you can build a true and lasting relationship, you're not doing anyone - yourself, the other person, your hypothetical kids - a favor by biting the bullet and getting hitched. By "true and lasting" I don't mean "unendingly passionate," either. I'm glad that the author of the article didn't seem to feel powerful marriage pressure, but please let me assure you that it does exist in many areas of the country.

One note about Heinlein: Notice that, despite the fact that his later fiction is full of all types of sex, his definition of love does not mention "passion" or "eros" or anything of that nature. I think it's a pretty good description of the happy marriages that I've known - of course you don't want your spouse to be unhappy, and of course your spouse doesn't want you to be unhappy. Heinlein's novels also strongly, strongly encourage having at least two parents (if not more) in one household raising a kid. In fact, his later advocacy (in his novels) of group marriage is based on the argument that it's the safest family structure for kids - the loss of one parent isn't traumatic. Now, I don't know if I'd go that far, but I think Heinlein would agree with the assertion that the needs - not the wants, but the needs! - of kids are of paramount importance in *any* discussion of human pair-bonding.

I think a big part of the problem is our notion that the nuclear family is THE way to raise kids. I had a different notion for child care purposes -- see this column, "Look Before You Sleep," my response to an exhausted mother:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2007/12/look_before_you.html

...but I agree with you about "at least two parents" per household, too, Marion.

"is there a difference, in your mind, between women who have given birth to children on their own and those who have adopted children on their own?"

Both are suspect. The former likely selfish, while the latter may have some kind of savior/martyr comlex unless the adopted child belonged to a newly-dead family member.

Amy, I've said to more than a few of my friends who are struggling with new parenthood that look, for virtually all of human history, new parents have been in the midst of extended families, with everyone from grandparents to aunts to siblings pitching in to take care of the cute little bundles of needs that we call newborns, and the adorable little walking bundles of unreasonableness that we call toddlers, and...you get the idea. Now, we send two people home with a newborn and tell them that if they don't do EVERYTHING perfectly, the kid will die, or be messed up, or spend his/her adolescence glued helplessly to the TV. It's a recipe for insanity. We're essentially in the midst of a vast experiment here, and I'm not thrilled with the results. Thing is, I don't see an easy way "back," as it were. Heinlein came up with the idea of group/line marriage, which works great...in his fictional societies that are quite different from the ones we have on earth. I liked your advice to the letter-writer - the blogger I know that seems to *enjoy* parenthood the most appears to follow your advice, and she's got five kids - but *tiny* children pretty much always require a whole hell of a lot of time and energy no matter what. From what I've seen, those initial years of parenthood can mark the time when each spouse in a marriage stops being able to identify with the other's feelings and needs, because it's taking all of that person's energy just to get through the day. That doesn't have to happen, and sometimes people recover...but sometimes they don't.

Question for the guys out there: In terms of dating single mothers, is there a difference, in your mind, between women who have given birth to children on their own and those who have adopted children on their own? I have certain views on this, but I'm a woman, not a guy.

I don't see a difference. I view them both as unacceptable candidates for dating.

Of course, my standards are so high that I'm not worthy of the only women who meet them. So I may not be in the best position to answer.

e said to more than a few of my friends who are struggling with new parenthood that look, for virtually all of human history, new parents have been in the midst of extended families, with everyone from grandparents to aunts to siblings pitching in to take care of the cute little bundles of needs that we call newborns, and the adorable little walking bundles of unreasonableness that we call toddlers, and...you get the idea.

People who don't have this (if they're living away from their families, etc.) should replicate it in some way -- as I suggested in the column I linked, and in other ways. I actually think it would be wisest for families with kids to live in, say, five-family units...kind of communes, where everybody can have their own place if they want but where the family is a small community.

Radwaste -

I am actually in complete agreement with Heinlein on this one, indeed, he was rather heavily influential on my own interpersonal relations philos. But I think your making a rather large assumption here, that making one's partner's happiness a necessity for one's own, automatically means that the love involved is somehow excruciatingly passionate and vibrant.

My partner and I are both rather pragmatic, especially after a little more than a year separated. In part we got back together to make it easier, the raising of our son. But we also got back together because we are more comfortable with each other, than we are with other people. That, and even separated, her happiness was quintessential to my own, and it was then that she truly recognized that.

Our relationship is not exactly the most passionate, by any stretch. Both of us being naturally solitary people, we have separate bedrooms. We have pretty passionate sex, but both of us have always been that way, regardless of the partner. "If it's worth having the sex, it's worth doing it right," has been important to both of us. Probably a big part of why we clicked (aside from both of us being introverted geeks who would far rather go to a used book store, than go to a club to see a band (for her part, it was an effort for her to see my band, back in the day).

The thing is, I doubt we will ever see sparks, as it were. Nor do we ever need to, to enjoy a companionship to rival that of Heinlein or Herbert's for that matter. And I wouldn't give a moment of my life with my partner, for years of extreme passion and emotion. In part, I think it's part of being an introvert, but I am far more comfortable and happy without a lot of extreme emotion, all the time.

In doddering old age, you'll still treasure a companion you may confide in - even though there is little say that has not been heard.

Hah! I'm saving shit up for then. Try to mix it up, keep it interesting. I daresay neither she, nor I will ever run out, though we may become quite talented at reading each other's minds.

Marion -

Question for the guys out there: In terms of dating single mothers, is there a difference, in your mind, between women who have given birth to children on their own and those who have adopted children on their own? I have certain views on this, but I'm a woman, not a guy.

I've just never had an interest in single moms, the circumstances don't really make a lick of difference to me. Though I heart Cheryl Crow.

One note about Heinlein: Notice that, despite the fact that his later fiction is full of all types of sex, his definition of love does not mention "passion" or "eros" or anything of that nature. I think it's a pretty good description of the happy marriages that I've known - of course you don't want your spouse to be unhappy, and of course your spouse doesn't want you to be unhappy.

That was exactly my take on him. I just don't see why that sort of passion is an essential ingredient to a relationship where one puts the needs of their partner, above their own.

"Question for the guys out there: In terms of dating single mothers, is there a difference, in your mind, between women who have given birth to children on their own and those who have adopted children on their own? I have certain views on this, but I'm a woman, not a guy." Marion

Mmmm, this seems way too situational to have a standard opinion. Unless we are talking women who have a child of their own puposefully, never intending to have a father in their life.

Kids are surprisingly resilient, and frighteningly fragile, and there is no way of knowing if they will turn out for well or ill, regardless of who their parents are. That said, having a child with no positive male role models hobbles them to an extent, and raising them in a situation where there is no template for relationships, also sticks them behind an eightball. Certainly having parents with a negative and damaging relationship is tough on the kid, But it depends a lot on if the relationship has gone bad, or has always been that way. When there is no relationship at all, there is no template to work from. This may be harder on boys because they have to look elsewither for a role model. There is no knowing if they will choose a positive one or a negative one.

So the woman who goes out and gets preggers from a bank or other donor, because she wants to have children is putting her children at a disadvantage from the get-go. The big however, is that this may not affect the kid or it may have disasterous consequence. You can't tell until you get there, and then it's too late.

I think my question is always "why do you need to have a child at any cost?" This is for someone who intentionally has that child for their own gratification. It isn't an accident, a circumstance beyond control. They adopt or get preggers for that single reason, and no other. this seems selfish to me from the standpoint of the child. It's not that it doesn't turn out well, just that the kid is stranded without all the tools they COULD have had.

You know, the author of this piece irritates me. I think she still doesn't quite get what adult love is about - either you end up with someone PERFECT, or you settle - and she seems immature at best.

That having been said, I'd like to point out that no one is paying alimony or child support to her. There's no guy out there being denied the chance to see his kid, or who's had to sell his car. Whatever her exes think of her, they don't have to spend money or time on her post-breakup. The thought of "forgetting" her birth control with someone appears to have never occurred to her...and while I would like to say that this should be a given, we all know it's not. No, I don't think that qualifies her for sainthood, but I do think it qualifies her for a little leeway.

Would her *son* be better off with a father? Most definitely. But a fair amount of time is spent on this site and others discussing the inequities of family law court where men are concerned, and excoriating the women who divorce men and demand punitive renumeration from the actual or supposed fathers of their kids. This woman, I'm guessing, could have gotten married...if getting married were all that she cared about. Whatever her flaws, she hasn't dragged another adult into her daily life to fulfill her needs. (Not yet, anyway.)

It appears that she had unrealistic expectations of what she could find in the dating market. But I don't think her original approach was all bad. It appears that she was trying to find someone with whom she could build a happy relationship for life...as opposed to, say, finding a walking wallet who could be kept around long enough to father her kids.

There are women out there in their 30s and 40s (etc.) who are single because they kept expecting Prince Charming to come along. But there are also a hell of a lot of women who get married in their 20s to someone who's good enough for then, because, well, it's time to get married, and they won't be fertile forever! Given that about fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, I'd say that there's no shortage of some sort of "settling" going on in the youth of Americans.

Some men and women stay single a long time because of huge personal issues. Some men and women stay single into their 30s and beyond because they genuinely don't find someone with whom they believe they can have a lasting, content marriage - not a passionate fairy-tale marriage, just a happy one. Some people aren't ready in their 20s to be as selfless as one needs to be to be a good partner. Eschewing a marriage that doesn't seem to be a good fit is not, in and of itself, a bad thing, especially when such marriages can end up wreaking havoc on the life of kids. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't think it's the exact opposite of what this women did in her 20s - I think it's a happy medium between her attitude then and the attitude of women who look for a source of funding for themselves and their future kids, either consciously or subconsciously.

""Role models" is a silly way to think. See discussion here and here. And check in tomorrow, long night of work ahead...." Ok, I see your point, the women by intentionally choosing to get pregnant without a dad present is showing bad judgment, thus she is acting as a bad role model. Yeah ok never disagreed with that, intentionally becoming a single parent is not the brightest thing one can do.
Now before everyone jumps down my throat the key word here is intentional. If you intentionally became a single parent: as in having a procedure (this includes unprotected sex) with the express intent of getting pregnant alone or adopted a non familial child (also excluded is the godparent of an orphan) as a single parent I'd love to hear the justification.

If you intentionally became a single parent: as in having a procedure (this includes unprotected sex) with the express intent of getting pregnant alone or adopted a non familial child (also excluded is the godparent of an orphan) as a single parent I'd love to hear the justification.

Funny you should say this, vlad. When I was pregnant with #1, and had told the ex to be on his way, I was visiting, with my best friend, a friend of her mother's. Her (the friend) daughter showed up, as we were discussing my situation, and she was, like, awed for some reason. Told me how "marvelous" and "brave" I was. I told her, "I don't think so, I just ended up in this situation and the father doesn't want to be involved. It's not something I'd recommend." Heh. She decided that because her biological clock was ticking, and had just come out of a bad relationship, she was going to "be like [me]" I thought her mother was going to choke me or something but to my surprise she said, "Oh, go for it, that would be wonderful!" I haven't seen either one of them in years, but last I heard, the daughter was, indeed, going it alone with a child. My friend says she's doing well, so I guess it's all in how you handle it, and what type, if any, kind of support system you have. I'm sure her mother is helping in a major way.

Thanks, snakeman.

Sean, probably one reason my grandson is so well adjusted is that they split up when he was only six months old. Since then, they've been off and on living with me. We were to separate places but she got ill and I moved back in with her. Now that she's well, we're driving each other crazy (two women wanting to run a household their way is not a pretty picture, especially when they're mother and adult daughter) and I'm looking for my own place again soon. But I think what you say is true. When he was six months old, daddy slammed a door in mommy's face and my friend and I went up there with her truck and got my daughter the hell out of there. She was too distraught to see it but, even then, at six months, he was freaked out. He'd look at mommy every 15 minutes or so as if he expected her to disappear. I don't think he fully understood, of course, but I think he got that daddy put mommy in danger. I can't help but think this would have been even more traumatic if he'd been older. I'm relieved to see that daddy seems to be growing up somewhat though, given his past, I'm skeptical. It took court action to drive the seriousness of food allergies home to him.

"Same as if you DID decide on the one that set your innards afire... and consumed you and everything you ever held dear." Well said, Swiss. Tell me about it. I had no idea how totally the wrong one could fuck up your whole life. One thing that annoys me is no one does want to hear it. If you're honest enough to talk about it (instead of just keeping quiet), they accuse you of living in the past. You don't develop amnesia if you move on. Indeed, if you aren't able to deal with the reality of the shit that happened to you, you haven't put a period at the end of that sentence and moved on (as someone I greatly admire is wont to put it). Just the other day, I mentioned that I'll be poorer the rest of my life for the out of state move. A mere fact not only because of the expenses of interstate move etc. but because that 12 year absence from state service is sure as hell gonna affect my pension from NY state. That was a mistake with this person. They went on a total rant that I was letting him affect me even though he's been dead 12 years. Okay, honey, I know better than to suggest such a thing to you. Next time we meet up, I'll gift you a pair of rose colored glasses. While in my planning for taking care of my own ass in my old age, I take into consideration the hit on my pension because I hooked up with the asshole who set my innards on fire.

marion, that's why I said it's the individuals that have to call it. If they're not both willing to work at it, it ain't going to. I do think we need to take marriage a lot less casually as well as having kids together like we were buying a car together or something. But adults are going to have sex, married or not, and accidents are going to happen. My grandbaby daddy does seem to be growing up lately. If his old lady (pun intended, I call her that all the time but not to her face, she is 20 years almost to the day older than him) has anything to do with that, then good, I'm glad he's with her. But he and my daughter were a mistake. I don't like calling my grandson an accident even if he wasn't conceived on purpose. I got pissed as hell when the other grandmother did in front of him (she was mad at my daughter and yelling at her but it's inexcusable to say that in front of the boy). I like to call him a surprise and a rather pleasant one at that. I think that's a better way for him to feel about himself. I think we need to be more responsible when we have sex and more responsible to the children. I think we need to think of it more rationally and separate it from religion. Religion isn't the only reason to abstain for instance. I abstain because I'm not willing to risk disease or pregnancy. I don't believe in abstinence only sexual education programs because sometimes hormones do override common sense but when we talk about birth control, it should be discussed as an alternative without bringing religion into it. I think we'll never get totally rational about the whole thing until we separate the two. I also appreciated what you said about how extended family should help out, especially the grandparents. I wish there was still more of this prevalent in our society instead of viewing grandma as childcare solely. I've filled in a lot of gaps for my grandson and his other grandmother has stepped up to the plate a couple of times but that's a couple of times in over four years and his grandfather and stepgrandmother, it's like they hardly exist, someone he presumably visits with daddy now and then. I'm overtaxed, overburdened and nonplused as to just why the other grandparents' hearts don't go out to him as much as mine does. Perhaps this society is too damned selfish because no one perceives doing this any more and in previous generations, extended family was something that helped parents make it as they adjusted to parenthood.

"The kid issue is fairly simple it's easier to raise a child if there is a support structure." Well, said, Vlad. And, Crid, newsflash, weasels don't come labelled and some of them are more like wolves in sheep's clothing -- meaning they are very, very good actors. And often very, very good at perceiving what role you want them to play and will do so patiently to get what they want out of you before the devil comes out. Now, you might have a point if you could figure out a way for the surgeon general to put a label on them warning women like we have on cigarette packages. But, alas, weasels don't really carry a mark of Cain.

Jay R, who the hell wants your sorry ass? This must be some hard-up woman indeed. Myself, I can't comprehend being that hard up.

DuWayne, you and babies mama are beautiful, man. I love your stories about your family. But you're a prime example of my point about having a certain amount of respect and affection in the mix.

> no one is paying alimony
> or child support to her.

Oh, I'd bet there are payments aplenty. Our economy is being warped in ten thousand little ways as single motherhood is normalized. Homes with both a loving mother and a loving father save us all kinds of money, and not just because their children are less likely to wind up in prison. (Hel-lo universal healthcare!)

> There's no guy out there
> being denied the chance
> to see his kid

Those sperm didn't swim out of the ocean.... All those fathers are being "denied the chance" to fulfill their responsibilities.

> a fair amount of time
> is spent on this site
> and others discussing
> the inequities of
> family law

Apples and oranges again. I keep saying people should behave better, and the only response is "Yeah, but when they don't..."

> Whatever her flaws, she
> hasn't dragged another
> adult into her daily life
> to fulfill her needs.

No. She dragged an absolutely defenseless child into her life to fulfill her needs, which are all about solipsism and egomania. That's the problem with these times, is that everyone thinks it's about adult fulfillment.

> Some people aren't ready
> in their 20s to be as selfless
> as one needs to be to be
> a good partner. Eschewing a
> marriage that doesn't seem to
> be a good fit is not, in and
> of itself, a bad thing, especially
> when such marriages can end
> up wreaking havoc on the
> life of kids.

So then goddamnit, marry well! Apples&Oranges Apples&Oranges. People, this is insanity. Please tell me there's a student of logic or rhetoric on this planet who sees how these discussions flow in a loop.

Listen, the most important point of family is not to collect the fulfillment that comes from making babies, but to raise children well.

> a happy medium between her
> attitude then and the
> attitude of women who
> look for a source of funding
> for themselves and their
> future kids

Ta-da! The only constant in your scenario is that women are going to have kids. This is why I think that most women are reproduction robots. Raising kids well is always a secondary consideration. I have energy about this. Perhaps you noticed.

> weasels don't come labelled
> and some of them are more
> like wolves in sheep's
> clothing -- meaning they
> are very, very good actors.

No. Not in the numbers we're talking about. It's not possible that so many millions of women are being so slickly deceived over so many generations. Nobody's insisting that women be strong and smart, and civilization is paying a terrible price.

"I keep saying people should behave better, and the only response is "Yeah, but when they don't...""

Point well made, but you can keep saying people should behave better until the cows come home, but what can YOU do to MAKE people behave better? Or I? Or the government? Maybe the only response really IS "Yeah, but when they don't ..." because we live in a (comparatively) free country, and that gives us the freedom to choose badly. Lots of people choose badly. It shouldn't be that way. And ...? I don't think most people disagree with your ideal.

"Listen, the most important point of family is not to collect the fulfillment that comes from making babies, but to raise children well."

Oh, amen to that. It ain't just about being able to buy cute little outfits at Baby Gap. You want an accessory, get a glittery pink cell phone.

> but what can YOU do to
> MAKE people behave
> better? Or I?

We can call things by their proper names. We acknowledge that natural impulses in all individuals are often not to be trusted. We can ask people to be strong, and speak frankly when they fail, no matter how much it pains us. (My divorce [childless] was in '92, and thanks for asking.) We can shun the recalcitrant and the flagrant.

And other stuff I'll write about after work....

> It shouldn't be that
> way. And ...?

Because it shouldn't be that way, I'm loathe to pay for the poor judgment of others.

"Because it shouldn't be that way, I'm loathe to pay for the poor judgment of others." Again total agreement so there isn't shit to talk about. No one is advocating single motherhood and definatly not advocating planned single motherhood. As far as a student of logic: Logic has to be adjusted when humans are involved.

"We can shun the recalcitrant and the flagrant." We do shun them again what is the debate about. The only question is: Is punishing the mistakes costing us more or less money then helping them without judgment. Taking all single mother and displaying them on a stage and forcing them to wear markers of shame get us no where.

"Because it shouldn't be that way, I'm loathe to pay for the poor judgment of others."

I am certainly with you on this one. Where do you say the line exists for paying for the poor judgment of others? Welfare programs, obviously, are a direct transfer of your hard-earned cash. You might also argue that women like Lori Gottlieb, who choose to be single mothers and deny their kids a father, are polluting the society you live in by raising messed-up kids, or at least kids who could otherwise be better adults? Would you go so far as to say women should not be allowed by law to do this? Or is that cutting into other people's freedom a bit too much?

So then goddamnit, marry well!

Crid, my darling, I wasn't attempting to suggest that staying single and going to a sperm bank to have a child is a great thing to do. I was attempting to suggest that holding off on marriage in one's 20s if one believes that one cannot marry well at that time is not, inherently, a bad idea. I assume that you would agree with this statement, no?

Yes. But I find Gottlieb's intentions, rhetoric and conduct indefensible. It's important to be clear.

In mid-century academe, there was a brief movement in American history departments to suggest that the lives of slaves were not that different from those of free workers in practical terms. I was too young to care or understand, but I remember being told that some of the discussion had concerned diets. Someone was arguing that based on the records from the plantations, slaveholders (who managed slaves like any asset) were feeding their workers better food than that eaten by most people who worked the fields as migrants and gleaners.

This may not have been said to make anyone feel better about slavery, but the presumption that it was shut down the discussion pretty quickly.

That's what came to mind when reading your comment. Gottlieb is not "immature at best." To be blunt, it's a surprise that you, Ivy League Marion, feel compelled to compare decisions like hers to the worst imaginable scenarios.

> [Heinlein's] later advocacy (in his
> novels) of group marriage is based
> on the argument that it's the safest
> family structure for kids - the loss
> of one parent isn't traumatic.

An old treasure from the alt-weeklies is recalled, with a minor tweak... There's a reason we don't turn to sci-fi writers for guidance in social policy. The reason that multiple-parenting arrangements don't work is the same reason that (socially incompetent) single mothers are so eager to make a baby: Babies chose a very small number of people to bond with, and then they're in, and in a big way. Long before they could understand how many faces are out there and do any comparison shopping, babies select as champion the one that drops a titty into their mouths, and they give it the wager of a lifetime.

Women find this flattering. The fact that babies give this love to the mother because they have no choice doesn't seem to matter. But the constraint is from nature, red in tooth and claw: Our policies will do nothing to change the behavior --or improve the discerning judgment-- of babies.

Their parents can be directed.

I hate to tell you this Crid, but you're flat wrong about babies. Babies are all about bonding with adults they see all the time, who provide affection and take care of such needs as diaper changes and the occasional feeding. My now two year old nephew managed to bond with both his parents, in spite of being fed solely by his mother's boobs. At a few months, my dad moved in with them, having taken a job in the Seattle area, with my mom visiting every other week. Baby bonded quite firmly with both of them.

Our own eight week old, is firmly bonded with both me and his mother. Indeed, because of lactation issues, he only gets about half his feeding from her and seems to be developing a stronger bond with me. He can be in the midst of a huge squalling fit, when I come home from work. I pick him up and the squalling stops cold, replaced by giggles and smiles. Sick as it is, we suspect this is because I am a rather better singer than momma. He also seems to be bonding nicely with the senior citizen helper I arranged. And he is bonding with the single mom who lives close by, who has an infant of her own. She and her kids are spending a fair amount of time with our family, to provide her four year old son, with a male role (me) and a big brother type (my six year old). In turn, she helps out with our baby (hers is almost a year now) and wetnurses as well.

In the past, it was very common for extended families to live together and raise kids together. Children have bonded to multiple adults for many, many years. The modern prevalent paradigm of only the birth parents raising a child, is a relatively recent one. The dominant paradigm, even fifty years ago, was extended families raising kids together. It could even be argued that infants are "designed" to bond with multiple adults that provide love and take care of basic needs.

This is not to say I am arguing for group marriages, though I am not entirely averse to the notion. What I do advocate, is shifting the paradigm back towards larger supports for even two parent households. If one's actual relations are not a practical choice (such as mine, with my folks living twenty-five hundred miles away and my closest family members three hours away in Seattle), then creating one is very plausible.

> Babies are all about bonding
> with adults they see all the
> time, who provide affection
> and take care of such needs
> as diaper....

Who denies it? Pinhead single mothers understand that the child they call "my baby" is going to be seeing them more often than anyone else... Again, it's not a competitive marketplace. And they know that baby is going to presume that whatever warmth he can get from the mother is as good as love can get.

Hillary's "It Takes a Child Speech" was nicely mocked by Steyn in a speech last week. Summary: Do we really want to take hillbilly proverbs from Africa, the continent of madness and poverty, as our standard?

I bungled that being distracted... I meant Hillary's "It takes a village" book.

You knew that.

Sorry, it's just that this; Babies chose a very small number of people to bond with, and then they're in, and in a big way. Long before they could understand how many faces are out there and do any comparison shopping, babies select as champion the one that drops a titty into their mouths, and they give it the wager of a lifetime. sounded very much like it to me.

I can happily say that I haven't read Hillary's book. But I think there is something to the proverb you seem to dislike. I didn't watch the speech you link to, mostly because my laptop really gets cranky when I try to watch video on it. The thing that I have found with our six year old though, is that having the influence of others on his life, has rounded his perspective considerably.

In some cases, it reinforces what his mother and I try to instill, by positive affirmation. I.e. he meets strangers who feel the same or even more strongly about this or that discussion, as his mother and I do. OTOH, he also meets people who are in opposition to ideas that his mother and I wish to instill. This has the positive effect of providing him with more perspective. At times, this has led him to decide that his mom and I are just plain wrong about some things. More often though, it cements his perspective on things.

I also like to see him deal with discipline from others. To realize that not everyone deals with certain behaviors the same. It is critical that kids get the perspective of disciplinary figures, who are not their parents or regular care givers. My son has learned some hard lessons this way, having really pissed off the parents of a friend, to the point that he was not welcome in their home. On the one hand, the situation that perpetuated this, was ridiculous on its face and was responded to with a rather extreme over-reaction. But it made a hell of an impact on him and his behavior. It also caused him to decide (on his own) to dictate a letter of apology to the parents in question. While I do not ask, nor do I expect strangers to involve themselves in my child's development, it does indeed, take a village to raise a child reasonably.

On a related note, I have been giving the very old fashioned notion of fostering one's kids a lot of thought lately. My brother and I, are working out the details of his sending his eldest to me for four to six weeks this summer, in part because of my nephew's behavior issues. Having an interest in medieval literature, this is an idea that has always intrigued me. The cherry on top, is that I am also lining up a job that would be appropriate to bring him and my six year old in on.

"No one is advocating single motherhood and definatly not advocating planned single motherhood."

I would rather have one that has a good plan (including a male role model, and good support system) than a single mother without one.

DuWayne, I truly respect your views on family.

DuWayne, I suspect that what irritates Crid about Hillary's "It takes a village" mantra is that she doesn't say what she really means. She doesn't actually mean that it takes a village to raise a child, she means it takes a village to PAY FOR a child. She's a card-carrying socialist - you should read some of her other quotes. Like "I have lots of great ideas - the country just can't afford them" or something to that effect.

I think it's great when children are exposed to a variety of people at a young age. It prepares them for real life, when they will be exposed to a variety of people anyway.

But the people quoting Hillary don't want the village to RAISE their children - try asking the parents of a screeching toddler to quiet it down in a movie theater and you will see what I mean. They just really like having the village pay for the education, medical care, breakfast, lunch, etc. etc. of their children.

> having the influence of others
> on his life, has rounded
> his perspective

Exactly. There's a difference between the village 'having an influence' on your child, and the village raising your child. I think Hillary seeks to blur this distinction not because it's good for the kids, but because it will give the village government a lot of power.

"No. Not in the numbers we're talking about. It's not possible that so many millions of women are being so slickly deceived over so many generations. Nobody's insisting that women be strong and smart, and civilization is paying a terrible price." Take a good look around, Crid. Yes, they are. So are men. To quote an old song, "everybody plays the fool sometime." And, while you can't just demand people miraculously be strong and smart and voila, they would be (man, wouldn't that be great if you could), it isn't always the dumb and gullible and naive who fall for a good act. That's the nature of love, Crid, my good man. Unfortunately, it's a gamble to take a chance on love and always will be. Newsflash: people are not always what they appear.

I liked DuWayne's assessment above but Hillary's line about it takes a village pisses me off also because I don't perceive it being genuine but, far worse, than the money issue brought up, I think she means that it takes a village to train the child in the ways of the village, in other words in marching to the drum the government's beating rather than their own. I was a single mom raising a child and I've always growled she can keep her damned village out of my child. I think she also more specifically means to the God drum beat. Does she want to make large with the purse strings also? Absolutely. But for the same reason the churches do. Poor people are great advertisement and to be exploited as such. Note her other entirely inaccurate quote around that same time that every child is born believing in God. Uh, no, every child is born an Atheist actually who has to have god drummed into them. No one believes in a god they ain't told about. Interestingly enough. It would be beautiful if she meant it the way DuWayne does but she doesn't.

> To quote an old song,
> "everybody plays the fool

A great song for a lousy sentiment. I know plenty of people who never tortured the next generation with their foolishness.