Why is working single motherhood the first condition of poverty we should seek to remedy? That's like saying one of the greatest threats to a daily feeling of well-being is end-stage heroin addiction. Like, yeah!. That would follow.

If you worry for the fates of single mothers and their children, work to prevent single motherhood.

I think of the convulsion of public and private debt that are going to rock through this culture in the next few years, and am left to wonder how this woman can even launch a fantasy that "companies change and become more family friendly"... As if that's what "companies" were for, and as if anyone in the culture was trying to strengthen companies.

I don't know how the companies are going to become more family friendly. Even if they supply daycare centers and higher salaries, that won't change the number of single mothers, will it?

I am at a slight disadvantage as far as feminism and motherhood are concerned. I apparently have never had a biological clock. This has been an advantage for me personally, but I honestly can not connect with that feeling of wanting a baby as a biological imperative.

I certainly am not trying to speak for any other childless women. I'm just saying that for me the solution seems so simple: Stop having babies for awhile! Especially if one is worried that much about their future.

I'm not going along with the guys who say "How can we bring a baby into a world this messed up?"
They've been saying that forever.

I just know that we push to make sure every baby survives know matter what, and they're growing to need all the stuff that Mom has now, not to mention all the stuff that will come along in the future.

I know this doesn't give you a simple one word answer as to agree or disagree. (I imagine your used to that by now!)

Okay: disagree. There.

Well, I wondered how many posts would be in before I finished wading through mine! I'm surprised there weren't more. Hi Crid, how ya doin'?

Honestly, sometimes I think that in fighting for education and work, we have instead of making things better for ourselves, women just made things worse.

Heh. If it weren't for my education and work, I wouldn't be able to support myself. I don't have to end up with some guy who may or may not be good to me in order to survive. In this case at least, those doggone feminists made things better.

This woman sounds somewhat confused and a little schizophrenic. She seems to throw a whole lot of ideas together in a random fashion without much of a consistent theme. And then she ends up falling back on trite cliched ideas like 'well, if only business was more family-friendly everything would be great'.

I'm not surprised that she can't find a husband. What man wants to be with a hysterical woman who throws the kitchen sink at you like that. Yawn! I'm getting tired just glancing at this letter.

Another thing this writer does not seem to either understand or acknowledge is that the reason there are more single mothers and that women tend to spend more time looking after children is simply that women have more control over such things. Family law bias, reproductive technology and associated changes mean that women have greater ability to make decisions about having children on their on, without as much male input.

That is, women have greater freedom to marginalize men from family life but the price of doing so is that women will inevitably get lumbered with more of the drudgery of raising a family as well.

Instead, she blames it all on residual traditional sexism that says it is a woman's role to do such things. Oh noes. Woe is woman's lot!

The first thing I have to say is paragraphs. That would make her somewhat understandable.

It sounds like a conversation I had at work the other day -- they were conflating the Health Care reform with the Mortgage Crisis and refused to consider that historical events (i.e. CRA and Social Security) contributed to both issues.

"Unless companies change and become more family friendly, I worry about what's going to happen."

I was utterly confused until I reached that sentence. Then I got it, followed by a slow shake of the head.

Lady, no one is is obligated to help you reproduce. The very most I would say is the father of any kids you have is responsible to be their father...but not your paycheck.

Good luck, though. And please try to remember that your great-great-great-great grandmother likely raised children in a life you would consider hell by comparison to yours. And that time was not so long ago. So please: a little sense of proportion about tough you have it.

I generally agree, except with her point that companies become more family friendly. That's not business's responsibiity. It's great when they voluntarily put in daycare centers or allow flexible schedules, but it shouldn't be a mandate.

Crid is right. The resolution is to address single parenting more than have the rest of the world accomodate it. We have to impress upon our daughters that they probably can't do it all, especially alone. Even with a supportive spouse, working and raising children is hard to balance. Somethings gotta give. Maybe your house won't be so clean, or your meals will have to be mostly take out on weekdays.

And it's ideal if you have a partner who isn't of the old-fashioned mindset that all that is "woman's work". If both parents are working (which is pretty much a necessity today), both need to pitch in on childcare and household chores.

My ex was a child of the 50s, so he left pretty much all the childrearing, cooking, and housekeeping to me. I realized after our son was born that there was just no way that I could handle it all and work outside the home. Those were my personal limitations, and fortunately, I had the ability to stay home. I really feel for the women who don't have that option.

@Spartee: "So please: a little sense of proportion about tough you have it."

Agree with that! When I read something like, "But I have just nearly finished a bachelors program and internship and now am going to work for a year and then go on to grad school," I'm not sure how tough I'm supposed to find the commenter's life. Of course there are choices and tradeoffs to make. That's true of everyone on the planet, and always has been.

"Many of the poorest people in California are working single mothers."

Like there isn't a way to avoid that. (sigh ...)

Almost all single mothers are single mothers by choice, so don't bitch. Also the feminist mantra is that "I don't need a man." So again why complain.
As far as women making 71 cents for what a man makes is bull-shit. I have worked 13 jobs in my life and have never seen a female make less because she is female. I have 3 sisters who are bright, strong, and independent if they or any female they worked with were paid less for being female I would have heard about it.

I have seen women benefit by being female. Get into Medical and Law school with lower grades and get hired on to jobs they can't do like firefighter or cop.
That 71 cent figure is what feminists use to keep playing the poor oppressed female card to get money and special priviledges from our government.

Agree that there is a problem, agree that feminism is mostly to blame. COmpletely disagree as to her solution. And her view of how things used to be.

"I don't know how the companies are going to become more family friendly. Even if they supply daycare centers and higher salaries, that won't change the number of single mothers, will it?"

Actually it will, but it will increase the number of single mothers not decrease them.

As to how things used to be many people have no concept of how peoplw lived in history. That it used to be easier, take lest time to raise kids, people had more free time. LOL, ask anyone over 30 and they will tell tales of needing to wait nore than 5 minutes for dinner to cook. Working shifts 60 yrs ago were 80 hours/week.
How? we didn't feel taking 4 yrs off to do grad school is expexted even though you don't want to use your degree. We didn't assume the latest fashion of the week was a necessity. Our expectations were about what was really importaint not the ammusements of today.

And of course if single mothers were doing a lot better, this would be celebrated as another success story of female achievement, and proof of how women can do just fine without men, and blah blah blah.

David, if you look carefully she is not actually claiming that women are being paid less for the same work. Or at least not entirely. She says it is partly due to women working less due to family commitments.

But to some people, women are so much more deserving than men, that the idea that men could ever have more of anything, ever, is repugnant and indefensible. Even if it is just breadwinner men earning more to support their families.

"Almost all single mothers are single mothers by choice, so don't bitch. Also the feminist mantra is that "I don't need a man." So again why complain."

David, you can't hold women responsible for their own poor choices and forty years worth of grandstanding.

Women only supported this stuff because they were led to believe it would be a giant goodie grab with someone else (i.e. government or business) picking up the tab.

We discussed this Gottlieb woman earlier, right? From the title alone –even without hearing about her willful single motherhood– I"d presume she's a deeply twisted soul.

Apparently she really thought she could, or should be able to, acquire a life partner without negotiation (i.e., "settling"). Apparently a person of featureless excellence and stupendous good will was just supposed to appear before her without any (Pop!) idiosyncratic needs or any personal characteristics at all, solely for the purpose of sating her conscious desires.... A gift from cosmos, 'just for being you, little lady!'

How would that even work? What would that even mean? How could a person in such a union even regard it as a relationship with another human?

Can the Disney fantasy of princess fulfillment get any more narcissistic and psychotic than that?

This is feminism?

"It's your job to stay with your partner, not to expect business to pick up after your accidents."

That's true, but in their defense, many single parents would've stayed with their partners. Their partners left them.

We live in a culture that tells us if we're not completely fulfilled in all ways by our relationship, something is wrong, and we're "entitled" to find fulfillment elsewhere, even when that means breaking up families. Choosing someone with good character certainly helps, but the truth is that even people of good character fall prey to this message.

Too many people marry before they're mature enough to really deal with the day-to-day reality of a relationship. Young people today are not as mature as they were 100 years ago. I think we should strongly encourage young people not to marry before 25 at least. 30 would be even better. Their odds of staying together will be greatly increased.

>> Almost all single mothers are single
>> mothers by choice

> I don't think that's the case. I'm guessing that
> most are women who didn't make a
> conscious choice

How "conscious" does such a choice need to be? Given the stakes, how 'bout we demand a little clarity from people?

Y'know, there have been thousands of drunk drivers who didn't consciously choose take out that school bus full of retarded kids headed out to summer camp.

> We live in a culture that tells us if we're not
> completely fulfilled in all ways by our relationship,
> something is wrong

It's not true.

And even if it is –and I'll fault Hollywood in many respects, and on precisely this topic, it's no excuse to say these intoxicating stupidities were just in the air.

First of all, there are (at least since the signoff of the original Cosby show twenty years ago) no popular depictions of a happy marriage in public life. Hillary was a castration artist, Laura was depressive, Michelle has yet to register in a big way.

More to the point, people pull what they want out of thin air in these respects.

We're talking about the narcissism of automatons, robot-women on a rampage. "Culture" can do every bit as much to discourage misconduct as to encourage it; culture is no excuse.

Lily...

... you're babbling. Quit it.

-----

Short lesson on economics for the poor and middle-class: "saving" is not just putting money in a bank account. When you sign a contract for a car that costs $25,000, you are going to pay that - and that money is not going to do anything else. It's gone. In your lifetime, no matter how long you live, your income is not the whole story - it's actually how much of it you keep.

Don't buy a "nice" car, and then moan about not being able to afford college for the kids - something I've heard from a guy with an Escalade. Of course he didn't want to hear it. It's still the truth.

Look at what you earn. Write it down in big numbers. Hold it up in front of what you have, and you will have a measure of how well you are doing for yourself. It's not up to somebody else. You and your brains have to be "family-friendly", first.

Rant: "More progress is needed" = "more welfare for me". Gaah!

"Culture" can do every bit as much to discourage misconduct as to encourage it; culture is no excuse."

I agree it's not an excuse, but where are the voices telling the partners who leave that? Virtually non-existent. Instead, it's usually, "Oh well, your spouse isn't making you completely happy. Must be his/her fault. You deserve BETTER." And so it goes...a whole societal chorus of this from every magazine, TV show, and friend or neighbor who traded partners and seems much happier.

There just isn't as much support for sticking it out as there was once. We used to have family and religious pressure, but now, those are just as likely to condone leaving a marriage as condemn it. In fact, almost nobody outright condemns it anymore.

So, what is a spouse who wants to preserve the relationship to do? Without family and societal support - without even the support of marriage counselors, who often recommend having a "good" divorce over a "bad" marriage (a friend's counselor actually advised this), there are few options.

"Part of it is that women do take more time off to for their children (I would argue out of necessity and residual expectations from 50 years ago) but part of it is just prejudice."

This is the part that jumped out at me because it's a great example of the mindset that leads to feminist attempts at social engineering. Does the author really think that "residual expectations from 50 years ago" are the main reason women still tend to take the primary role in raising children? Things have changed a lot, I'll grant -- my male colleagues take a much more active role in childraising than my father did -- but there remains a fundamental, biologically-driven difference in how mothers and fathers interact with their children that will tend to lead on average to women taking the more active role in that area.

Hey folks are sympathetic, but companies are not in the business of taking care of your kids. They exist to make money. But society understands the plight and the challenges of working and raising kids and society doesn't function without kids. So even if it is tough sometimes, give it your best shot. Kids are worth it.

MonicaP pointed out in an earlier discussion that there are reasons to provide certain family friendly policies. Lower long term turnover, reduced work anxiety, talent retention...and she's right, there are good reasons to have a family friendly policy, and ways to impliment it to minimize the cost to the business and the burden on other workers.

But even her advocacy, presented as more of a job guarantee post absense, works best with a two family home. The single parent is going to have issues. And even the best aspects of such a plan, which might be fine for the more easily replaced entry level to mid level workers, cannot be applied without consequence to the senior levels or high skilll/rare skill positions.

In short there is a limit to how family friendly a company can be, before it starts shooting itself in the foot to meet family needs.

And that isn't what companies are for. There is no rational argument for paying more money to a single mother, who is gone from the work place during work hours multiple times per week to see to her children. Any argument for it, is exactly the argument that was used AGAINST feminists decades ago when they were campaigning for Equal Pay for Equal Work, and fighting the higher pay that married men recieved.

No, the best solution to single motherhood poverty is for those women to stop being single.

The next thing I'd have to ask is:

What about single fathers? They're not nearly as common as single mothers, not even close. But reasonably speaking, its the same challenges for them as it is for their female counterparts. Why aren't THEY below the poverty line?

What are THEY doing differently, that keeps them financially secure?
------------

Statistically speaking lovelysoul, women file for the majority of divorces. The reasoning may vary, but if you take an informal poll amongst your divorced friends, I suspect you'd find what most of us would, that they were simply no longer happy, no longer in love, in otherwords, it was a question of fulfillment. I don't see anything wrong with that...until there are children in the picture.

I see a lot of divorces in my line of work, I think military divorce is now up to about 70%. It ain't pretty. If it were up to me, soldiers would not be allowed to get married 6 months before deployment, or in the first 3 months afterwards. That would solve alot of the, "Oh baby highschool sweetheart I'm going to war, lets get married now, you'll wait for me to come back..." oops no she didn't....circumstances.

Otherwise, I happen to agree with you lovelysoul.

----------------

I have to disagree with you crid, take a look at a women's magazine sometime. I don't usually look at that crap, but that is about all they put in doctors offices and the like to read, you have scads of articles on personal fulfillment, how to find it, who to find it with, how to get a man to provide it or fix him so he will, it'd give Stephen King nightmares. Look at Oprah or her other talkshow counterparts. Women are told how important it is to be fulfilled and to find it with someone else, and they're told it from yes, hollywood, but multiple other venues up into adulthood.

But "fulfillment" like that, is seldom anything eternal. Women don't have much in the way of what men do. We have Denis Leary saying, "Happiness is temporary, its the the 2 minute smoke, the 5 second orgasm, the chocolate chip cookie. You cum, you eat the cookie, you smoke the butt, and then you go to sleep and get up in the morning and go to fucking work."

We grow up mostly being told to shovel the fucking gravel, to borrow a line from a favorite article of mine, so we're usually NOT on some quest for long term fulfillment. Ironically enough, that is how some of us end up finding it, by not constantly looking. Very zen in a way. *l* The restlessness that women talk about as the start of the modern women's movement, just isn't in us, whether you want to blame culture or biology, the result is the same.

----------------

Damn right Radwaste! Nobody pays any attention to the cost of their lifestyle, its like nobody studies economics in school anymore, or at least doesn't apply it to themselves.

I think that this is the source of her confusion ..

Part of it is that women do take more time off to for their children (I would argue out of necessity and residual expectations from 50 years ago) but part of it is just prejudice.

It's not prejudice or social pressure. Women want to raise their own children. It's natural. When you have kids, the significance of your 'brilliant' career pales in comparison. This is true for single mothers as well.

The writer seems like an inexperienced young woman who's reciting a lot of received PC wisdom on these issues. I'm not sure what her point is.

Yes it's very expensive in many parts of CA - consider moving.

If you want to spend time with your children, develop a lifestyle that allows you to. There are millions of women who do this successfully. Reside somewhere with a reasonable cost of living, and live within your means.

I'm not sure what companies are supposed to do that's going to change anything. Many already try to accommodate parents. But not everyone has kids, and the further you go in trying to privilege parent, the more you're likely to burden everyone else.

Remember kids, the most important part of reading is reading between the lines. Allow me to offer my translation of the text.

"I haven't found a man. I want to have a baby. Working single moms have a tough life. I don't want a tough life! What if I get through grad school and still don't have a ring?! Then I might be a poor single working mom! Waaaaaaaah! I know, I will disguise my selfish worries (from even myself) by pretending I care about the plight of poor single women with children everywhere."

Part of the pay discrepency between men and women is the fault of the women themselves. Men are more likely to negotiate for more at the beginning of employment (which may or may not be true anymore in this economic climate. No wants wants to play too extreme a game of hardball and risk their odds of employment.) Men are also more likely to ask for raises they think they deserve. Women tend to keep on with what they're doing in hopes of being noticed and offered a raise.

^^^ Obviously the above is very general gender-based brushstrokes that may not apply to large numbers of individuals. I can't imagine a pushy broad like Amy waiting around for someone to notice how awesome she's doing.

Not to pile on, but the quoted author is entitled. She thinks, like many feminists, that she has the right to children, and the right to family-supporting employment. Men do not have these rights. We, for the most part, are not deluded. We just need to say no to these demands.

> where are the voices telling the partners
> who leave that?

Here's one, if only I'd been asked... I almost never am, though, because I'd insist on presenting it as a "good news/bad news" joke, only with the "good news" part: You are expected to find a partner who'll stay with you for the whole ride.

Women don't choose bad partners accidentally. They bear some responsibility for these "partners who leave". Their naivete is big part of the problem, and it's not all forgivable. Don't blame the media, and don't blame "friends and neighbors" who made misconduct seem so attractive.

> take a look at a women's magazine sometime.
> [...] you have scads of articles on personal
> fulfillment, how to find it, who to find it
> with, how to get a man to provide it or
> fix him so he will

These are not authoritative source of instruction: They're PANDERERS. So what?

Are you patient with young men who think the women in their lives should be Miss November? Of course not: Such men are pathetically deluded, as are the women reading Cosmo. They read those "scads of articles" to indulge their base nature. There will always be voices in society who tell us stupid but comforting things. Good people are expected to ignore them.

Never blame media.

People claiming wage disparities by sex have to cite how they get their figures, and why the following explanation is not adequate.

The Wage Gap Myth

When women behave in the workplace as men do, the wage gap between them is small. June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that among people ages 27 to 33 who have never had a child, women's earnings approach 98 percent of men's. Women who hold positions and have skills and experience similar to those of men face wage disparities of less than 10 percent, and many are within a couple of points. Claims of unequal pay almost always involve comparing apples and oranges.

Women make different choices, and those choices affect how they work. Women often place more importance on their relationships - caring for children, parents, spouses, etc. - than on their careers. A study by the Center for Policy Alternatives and Lifetime television found that 71 percent of women prefer jobs with more flexibility and benefits than jobs with higher wages, and nearly 85 percent of women offered flexible work arrangements by their employers have taken advantage of this opportunity.

Women's work-life patterns and their occupational preferences are significant factors in determining wages. Rather than being "funneled" into low-wage, low-prestige and part-time positions, women often choose these occupations because of the flexibility they offer. After adjusting for these factors, scholars find that the difference between men's and women's earnings is very narrow.

Those who still cite women's 76 cents for every male dollar as evidence of sexism fail to take into account the underlying role of personal choice. The "wage gap" is not so much about employers discriminating against women as about women making discriminating choices in the labor market.

Then there is this mystery. Activists paint business owners as cutthroat pirates who would fire their grandmothers if it would earn an extra nickel. Supposedly, these owners routinely sacrifice their morality and personal preferences to make a buck.

But, they pay men 1/3rd more than women ($1 vs $.75) to do jobs that the woman could do just as well. What accounts for this desire to increase costs and lose money? In fact, why would they hire any man when a woman is available at such low rates?

it's been alluded to above, but perhaps it's better straightforward. This is about expectation vs. reality.

Both parents don't NEED to work, if they are willing to adjust their lifestyle to match what one person makes. No big house in the 'burb, no new car, etc.

When you reward bad behavior, you get more of it. The expectation the business should be picking up the slack, just causes more people to want to slack.

Marriage of old has always been a financial transaction, required to offset the biology that requires that woman and child be taken care of for periods of time. That it has taken on the patina of love between the parties is also a function of biology, but that isn't what caused marriage.

It isn't family or church that forced marriage, they simply parallel it's contruct. They reinforce the direction it is going, but the requirement is econonmic in nature, surrounded by family structure and better child outcome.

The necessity of that economic exchange has been watered down and diluted by what appears to be freedom. But who is free really? If we go back to our far away ancestors, or other animals with social contructs falling away? Males probably travel in packs, and have little or no responsibility to the females... that would be freedom in context, but it doesn't match many expectations.

So, what is LW's expectation? Is she ever going to use that grad degree for anything, or is it just a lark? Why does she even need it? Is it actually going to help in the long run if she takes years off to be a mother? Or will her being out of circulation render it's advantage moot?

When people choose note to decide, they make a choice. Regardless if it's about finding the right mate, protecting themselves from pregnancy, or deciding to go it alone. Make a bad choice and you will live with it, just like a good one.

What is strange is expecting that someone else will pay you for making the bad choice. Or that they will reimburse you.

"Lovelysoul has a good point about culture promoting this above, but there's a woman who's sloppy in her thinking and ends up single and a woman who goes to a sperm bank, and there's a difference, although the result is the same."

Not all single mothers are the same and not all single mothers became single mothers for selfish reasons. While I agree that kids deserve loving parents, I don't think that it always comes in the form of a marriage. I can name maybe 2 marriages I know of that are at least relatively happy. The majority are homes that are filled with fighting, screaming, excessive drinking, and affairs. Is that any healthier for a kid than a divorce?
Life is hard for two parent families nowadays also. There is something about society as a whole that causes this, not just single mothers. There are many two parent homes where both parents work and the kids are in day care and with nannies. When the parents finally make it home, the kids are overscheduled and family dinners are the nearest drive through. Once home, the family members go their separate ways to catch up with social networking, that is if they weren't checking their i phones every 2 minutes while at Susie's practice.
Family time has become less of a priority than it was when I was a kid or when my parents were kids. I rarely hear about families sitting together for dinner or talking about their day. I didn't grow up in Mayberry, but in my town, the store owners were part of the community. If I misbehaved, I knew that Billy who owned the deli was going to tell my mom. That seems to be gone now.
We can lay blame in whatever direction we choose, but the truth is that we are all in this together. I know my kids' friends and talk to them. I make a point of having them over and making my house the hang out place for them, not because I'm trying to be the cool mom or their friend but because it gives me the opportunity to know what's going on.

The majority are homes that are filled with fighting, screaming, excessive drinking, and affairs.

What street do you live on? Peyton Place?

Is that any healthier for a kid than a divorce?

Actually yes.

Unless there is a pattern of physical abuse, having two parents who fight, drink and carry on is a better alternative than one parent who rid [her]self of all that drama and leaves the child[ren] with an empty hole in they psyche that they end up romanticising.

Instead of learning that a man who drinks and gets mean is a shitheel because the child saw Dad doing it, the child - deprived of the shitheel dad - is hundreds of times more likely than those whose families don't split up, to either
1] become that man, if the child is a boy, or
2] seek out that man for companionship, if the child is a girl.

And in answer to the protest you are going to next make: "but it's not good!!!" It's not as good as the Ward and June Cleaver family, no, but we're not talking hypotheticals when we narrow the discussion to specific circumstances. You can't take Homer Simpson and replace him with Ned Flanders. People are not interchangeable.

"Instead of learning that a man who drinks and gets mean is a shitheel because the child saw Dad doing it, the child - deprived of the shitheel dad - is hundreds of times more likely than those whose families don't split up, to either
1] become that man, if the child is a boy, or
2] seek out that man for companionship, if the child is a girl."

I strongly disagree. A child needs parents to teach healthy choices. Leaving a marriage where Mom or Dad is a mean shitheel or a drunk is showing the kids that both the kids and the parent deserve better. It teaches them not to settle for shitty treatment. Its not romanticizing it to say that if Daddy loves his bottle of Jack more than his family, then well Daddy can have his bottle of Jack but not us.

I was that little girl growing up with the parents who stayed together. When my father found his way home, he spent more time opening the fridge looking for his can of beer than ever having a conversation with his kids. He raised 2 alcoholic sons, one serious enabler son, and two daughters who thought a man who drank a lot was normal. It took a lot of time to break those patterns and I'd never subject my kids to a household like that just to say that it was an intact household.

There were many times a kid that I wondered why my mother made so many excuses. To hear her tell it, her staying was a sign of a strong healthy self esteem because she was not insecure enough to be threatened by his love for his bar stool or maybe even his wandering eye. How could you possibly think that's healthy?!

I don't doubt that in times past there were situtions where women were paid less than men for doing the same work. But to suggest this is still the case in 2010 is horseshit on stilts.

Anyone who has actually been in a regular workplace in recent times would understand the pressure that managers are often under to contain costs. If any manager thought they could get the same work done at a lower cost by simply hiring women instead of men, they would only hire women as much as possible.

The people who make absurd claims about pay discrimination strike me as being those who have a somewhat cosseted existence, and are out of touch with the competitive commercial realities at the coalface. Chief among them are tenured academics. Talking about the "pay gap" might be a good cocktail party conversation starter, but it sure as hell wouldn't fly when put into practice in today's commercial environment.

Andrew, you make an excellent point that it is often the very same people who claim that corporations are greedy and selfish and determined to keep wages down who in the next breath claim that men are being paid more for doing work that could be done more cheaply by women.

The contradiction in those two positions is absurd.

"without removing the expectations to keep our homes clean, do volunteer work, and children raised. '

Whoa - I totally don't feel those expectations. I work and have no kids. I like my career. Problem solved.

Also - for all you "stay together for the kids" people. Please, please PLEASE get over it. My parents are divorced and this simple fact has made me very happy over the years. They were married for all of the wrong reasons and then stayed "together for the children". Until we started catching on that their lives sucked. So our lives sucked too. My sister ate her pain until she became obese. I pulled out my eyelashes until I had none left. Our emotional scars are from parents who stayed together, "miserably ever after"!!! They did eventually get a divorce and they both ended up getting married. I am glad that they both got the opportunity to live with someone they truly love, who makes them happy. People vilify divorce foolishly. Even the so called "crushed" adults children of divorce use it as an excuse to feel badly for themselves. Chances are they would have exactly the same problems even if their parents stayed together. Blaming EVERYthing on parents is just soooooo easy.

There are a lot more single parent families today than was the case a couple of generations ago for a few reasons: increased social tolerance of single parenthood, reproductive technology that makes it easier for women to have children without a partner, the welfare state has subsidized single parenthood, increased divorces and family law bias that tends to favor women, and greater economic independence for women. Related to that is the fact that women have a preference for men with greater earnings potential and social status, and so as society has been structured to encourage more female success and give women more opportunities relative to men, there is a growing underclass of less successful males who are seen as not being economically viable.

None of these changes are primarily due to men simply abandoning women for no good reason (I'm not saying that doesn't happen, just that it's not the primary force at play). They are all changes that women have pushed for for their own benefit and advantage, which have had the effect of marginalizing the role of men.

It's true that these changes have not been all bad. Women today do have greater freedom to end bad relationships with abusive men than was the case in the past. But the downside of all this is that a lot of good men have also been thrown under the bus, while abusive and dysfunctional women have greater freedom to run amok, especially by running single-parent families.

In short, we have created a cure that is worse than the disease. The new matriachal cultural norms are more oppressive, destructive and limiting than the old patriachal norms they
replaced.

I'm sorry for what you went through, Karen, but what you said does show a truer picture for those who think always staying together for the kids is the best thing. Not all single parents are the ones who think that marriage and kids are disposable. I know some women on their third fiancee with kids from different fathers. I think that's gross and I do feel sorry for those kids. I also know some dads who when they got divorced were too concerned with spending time with the hot chick to remember that they had kids to see just as I know some great single moms and dads who do put their kids and their kid's needs first. Its about personal responsibility. Not everyone does the right thing. Single parents don't corner the market on selfishness.

> I can name maybe 2 marriages I
> know of that are at least
> relatively happy.

It's at least possible that everyone you know on a personal basis is a loathesome troll: We should bear this in mind as you offer your example.

> The majority are homes that are
> filled with fighting, screaming,
> excessive drinking, and affairs.

Well for fuck's sake, do people leading lives like that have any business trying to raise children at all?

> Is that any healthier for a
> kid than a divorce?

This is just a horseshit argument. You're accepting all this incompetence as if it can't be helped and can never be foreseen.

But I know plenty of women who chose husbands wisely. I'm grateful that they're among the closest women in my life today. They worked hard not to be stupid, not to be naive. When fools and scoundrels smiled with white teeth and told them they were special, and that happiness could come to them easily and without close attention, they knew better than to listen. They knew that no matter how great their blessings and advantages, there were going to be tough times, and they chose their partners accordingly.

> Life is hard for two parent
> families nowadays also.

I hate this kind of argument with the undying fire of ten thousand scorching suns. This is sour grapes moistened with the dew of your own special cowardice. Rather than admit that some people do better at this that other people, and achieve better results through better effort, your going to pretend that everyone else in the world is sullen and bitter, and that no one's children enjoy the comfort of two loving, nurturing parents. This is madness.

> Leaving a marriage where Mom or
> Dad is a mean shitheel or a
> drunk is showing the kids that
> both the kids and the parent
> deserve better.

Alternatively, it shows the child that incompetence in this most fundamental judgment is the norm. Which do you think the child will learn? Well they trust such a parent's words verbal instruction to do better in their own lives, or will they just follow the example which has been the narrative for so much of their family life?

> They were married for all of the
> wrong reasons

M'kay. So let's stop things before they get to that point, shall we? Let's make it clear that people are expected to marry well. And when they don't, let's not be too eager to say simply "gosh darn, what a shame."

OK, I oughta proofread when I get pissed off, but there's never enough time....

Crid, you make these points better than I can. And Kristen seems to be dancing around the point.

Yes, one can make all the statutory qualifications and platitudes. Yes, yes, there are single parents who do the best they can in difficult circumstances. And yes, there are two-parent intact families where both parents are crappy.

None of this really addresses the underlying social trends. Why are there so many more single-parent families than there once was? And do children raised in such families fare as well? To ignore these basic realities just because you can't offend some single parents is to put sparing hurt feelings ahead of averting societal collapse.

Let me get this straight. Corporations should pay higher salaries and provide more services such as childcare. Then Corps will have to charge more so the extra pay will be cancelled out. Yep! Inflation will solve all the problems.

Where I used to work, there was definitely a stigma ... that is probably to strong of word, but something ... about a guy not putting in a full day to do something with the kids such as take them to the doctor. Women on the other hand, no problem. One in particular used to leave early at least one day a week for to watch her kid play ball for the whole season and everyone else was just expected to cover for her. So guys didn't do that. The one that sort of did made arrangements to come in early so he could leave early.

"They worked hard not to be stupid, not to be naive. When fools and scoundrels smiled with white teeth and told them they were special, and that happiness could come to them easily and without close attention, they knew better than to listen."

The same thing you said to Kristen could be said to you, Crid. How do we really know all these perfect and wise friends of yours exist? I find it hard to believe you've never known of marriages that have failed, often after many years of what seemed like a stable and well-chosen match. And this could happen to your friends yet.

Among my peers, it seems that divorces come in waves. The really "badly chosen" ones dropped away quite early, if not immediately.

Then, there were what I could call the stable, childrearing years, where everyone's efforts were more focused on family. These couples really try to make it work, and apparently succeed, for a long time.

Yet, as their children start reaching the finish line, adolescence through the teen years, there's a new wave of divorce. These couples are nearing or in middle age, facing an empty nest, and perhaps at a loss for what they really have in common anymore, if not the children. Most have not nurtured the marriage nearly as well as they have the children. Many have also let themselves go - grown obese and unattractive to each other.

In an article about the science of marriage that I read recently, the researcher said that there is no biological or scientific explanation for why couples stay together AFTER the childrearing, so it's really not that surprising that many couples do break up at that point, even when their children are still at home. After all, we've extended childrearing well beyond where it used to end - age 12 or 13.

In those cases, when long-term marriages fail, it is usually the men who leave (though the women may file), which is also fitting with biology, as the males can go on and build a whole new young family, whereas the females cannot. Also, females do not usually desire to be on the market in middle age, as it's generally a detriment.

Women will usually leave in the early years, the first wave - in hopes of trading up to a better partner or life - not typically in the later wave.

The first wave is much easier to predict, but the second wave less so. It's virtually impossible to predict how someone's character will change over the course of two or three decades, and, whether of good character or not, they will still enjoy being with you.

Nick, I'm not dancing around anything. My opinion is that many of the supposed nice homes I know of, I also know what goes on behind closed doors and I don't think those kids are any better off than if the parents divorced. I know because I grew up in one of those homes and I get the "private" phone calls of the parties still involved. Do those people have any business raising kids as Crid asked? That's beside the point. They have them. So what now? Take them away? Forbid people to have kids until they pass certain tests? What? The child welfare system is a joke!

You mistake the fact that I can understand different reasons parents become single parents for endorsing a single parent society. I would love to see all children grow up in two parent households with parents that love them but that doesn't even happen in fairy tales, so let's get real here. By putting the blame for all the ills in society on single moms is not correcting anything.

Do I wish I chose more wisely? Every single day of my life! But I didn't and a big part of that was the way I was raised, by two parents who stayed together in a very miserable and unhealthy way for the sake of the kids. It wasn't for the sake of us. It was for their own selfish sake so that they could still be viewed as pillars of the earth to the town while behind the white picket fence they were fucking all of us up.

And Crid, while I love and respect you dearly, its hard to respond to every one of your bullet points when I know that you read what I say not in hopes of gaining a different perspective or some understanding, but just to get some of that shit out of your head that is floating around up there. Things aren't as black and white as you seem to think.

"I find it hard to believe you've never known of marriages that have failed, often after many years of what seemed like a stable and well-chosen match."

What part of this is what Crid said?
You must have hit a nerve, pal, to get this back.

You out there know that single motherhood sucks, it sucks big time, and that it is encouraged by bullshit stories of being "courageous" and by government subsidy.

Print that out where you can see it.

> How do we really know all these perfect
> and wise friends of yours exist?

You can't even discuss this without distorting it into absurd proportions. I describe people as thoughtful to choose wisely, and you're compelled hear them described as unapproachably "perfect". That's where your head's at. Every neuron in your skull is programmed for defensiveness and excuse-making.

You don't want to confess that anyone ever found happiness, ever. It's important to you that nobody else should even be allowed to try.

Tell us a story... How did you choose your signature? When you typed it in that very first time, did it strike you as being a little, y'know, immodest?

> That's beside the point. They
> have them. So what now?

For starters, let's humiliate their incompetent parents... Those selfish, infantile, pain-generating ego-bots who brought all this suffering and distraction into the world through their narcissism and short-sightedness.

That way, it's much less likely to happen again.

I strongly disagree

Then you'd be wrong.

A child needs parents to teach healthy choices.

What a child needs is irrelevant when the parents available are incapable of providing it. You cannot willy-nilly replace parents. Yes, the foster family has psychologically healthy adults who give three squares and help with homework. But if the child is of any age, the imprinting has been done and imprinting is very very difficult to overcome. Nigh on impossible.

Leaving a marriage where Mom or Dad is a mean shitheel or a drunk is showing the kids that both the kids and the parent deserve better.

That may be what the parent is attempting to teach, but that is not often what the child learns.

Are you going to advertise that you believe children to be emotionally "Little Adults"? that the only difference beetween kids and grownups is that kids don't have pubic hair? That children see the world exactly as adults see it, with an adult's understanding and perspective?

Because that is what your little fantasy is built around. "Oh, because *I* believe we're better off without a grouchy, yelling man in the home, so will the kids"???

Check out the statistics for children of divorce sometime. Regardless of the rationale, children of divorce fare worse than children of similar circumstances who remain in intact families.

Its not romanticizing it to say that if Daddy loves his bottle ...

Nice equivocation.

Pay attention: A child will romanticize a missing parent. It doesn't matter the reason the parent is missing. Off to war? killed in a mining accident? drunken asswipe kicked out of the house? philandering floozy running off with a boyfriend? The child romanticizes the missing parent, and either seeks to become that parent, or seeks to attach to that parent through a proxy.

I was that little girl growing up with the parents who stayed together.

Irrelevant. By attempting to extrapolate a single example to the world at large you are committing one of the worst fallacies of intelligent understanding of an "issue".

Statistically, no matter how far outside the safety of "normalcy" you feel you were to have undergone what you did, the chances are better than even that if your mother had taken you all and left, you'd be worse off now, and you wouldn't have the ability to discern "normalcy".

How could you possibly think that's healthy?!

I seriously object to discussing subjects with those who either refuse to read what I write, or who pretend to read it and inaccurately characterize it in order to create an army of strawmen. It causes me to start making the impolite - but supportable - suggestions that the person is either brain damaged or intellectually dishonest. Let's not go down that road.

Nowhere did I say it was healthy; in fact I said the opposite. But this is not - despite your facile and self-serving attempts to make it so - a dichotomy. It is not a debate between some notional fantasyland of "healthy" and some photographic negative fantasyland of "unhealthy".

It is MORE healthy, versus MORE UNhealthy.

Once again - and DO pay attention this time - being in a home with such a shitheel is not healthy for anyone involved. But breaking that home because of the shitheel is MORE unhealthy for the children.

Statistically, they fare worse.

This is sour grapes moistened with the dew of your own special cowardice

I really like this simile. Fair warning: I'm gonna steal it at some point.

Crid believes at least most of his friends have chosen wisely. This either means that none of them have ever divorced, or when they do divorce, he dismisses this as some misjudgement that occurred, even 20 or 30 years ago. Yet, the reality is that a certain percentage of his now married friends - even those he considers to have chosen wisely - will eventually divorce before death does them part.

My point is really that from a biological perpective, many of these unions are "successful", even so. After all, the fathers have stuck around to nourish and protect the young to an age of independence, which, historically, was adolescence - not 18 or 21, as we deem it.

Early man likely didn't stay with one woman or family for life, especially if he reached middle age. His job was to protect the young, and when one family was fully grown, if not before, he was starting another. I think we still see a version of this scenario playing out today, though it is our relatively recent marital rules and societal norms that make it wrong.

Let's face it, our life expectancies have extended the length of marriage to an almost impossible degree. Beyond childrearing, couples don't have much reason to stay married except for love, and I'm as much a believer in the happily ever after as anyone, but love simply doesn't last with many couples. Not because of bad choices they made 20 or 30 years ago, but due to what each of them are contributing or not contributing NOW, or how life has changed each of them over time.

I'm not for single parenting. I just think Crid is being naive to suggest that HIS friends are somehow wiser than the rest of the population and will inevitably stay together. He can't know that, and I suspect he'll be surprised when a few of them do divorce. And I hope he won't say to them, "Well, you should've seen this coming 30 years ago!" That's an insult to the many years when they got it right. Couples can wisely choose each other, raise families, then discover that the glue that holds them together is just no longer there.

> believes at least most of his friends
> have chosen wisely.

Why translate "plenty of women who chose husbands wisely" into "most"?

> I'm not for single parenting.

Of course you are. You can't, for all the tea in China, say "Parents should marry well" without adding seven chapters of excuses and exceptions and forgiveness and transparently bogus savvy. You are very, very much for single parenting.

> I really like this simile.

I've done better this week: "Reading the LA Times in recent weeks has been like fondling a patient in a hospice" got no fellow-commenter love, but I was proud of it. Tough room.

Like Kristen said, you can be against single parenting without condeming all single parents. It's not so black and white.

We can fight single parenting on two fronts - prevention, which is your big thing, and I'm all for it - encouraging better choices be made up front.

But there's a second line of defense and that's supporting marriages in general, which I do believe our culture fails miserably at.

I think a certain unknown percentage of marriages could be saved. They don't fail because the couple chose badly or one of them is abusive, etc. They fail purely because there's so little support and acknowledgment of the realities involved. They fail because the couple doesn't know that it's normal to sometimes feel ambivalent, bored, bitter, or restless. Our media is telling them only the happily ever after part, and so are you, Crid.

By continually insisting that it's all in the choice of partner, you fail to acknowledge that marriage is genuinely hard. No matter who you marry there'll be times when they absolutely drive you crazy and make you wonder why you chose them in the first place. And that's ok. That's to be expected. It doesn't mean you chose badly. It means you're living intimately with another flawed human being, just as they're living with you, and these difficulties can ultimately be weathered.

That's not the message that society is sending though. No, cultural pressure is not an excuse, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore its impact and not try to change it.

> We can fight single parenting on two fronts -
> prevention, which is your big thing, and
> I'm all for it - encouraging better
> choices be made up front.

> But...

See?

Corporations should ... provide more services such as childcare.

This means all pay for the choices of the few.

I'm for companies making child care available at the cost of the parents. Not as a law, but as something cool for companies to do that would essentially make parents want to be employees for life.

Kristen, I don't really wish to argue with you too much over this, because even though I disagree somewhat with how you conceptualize these problems, you nevertheless seem to be a good genuine person. I am sure you are a good mother also, and you seem to be happy to do your best with the cards you have been dealt.

And the thing is I feel that you are basically honest and genuine in how you approach these matters, as opposed to some other people around here who basically have no shame in peddling any disingenuous or mischievous claim in order to advance their favored views or win an argument at all costs.

There is always a danger that we become so determined to win an argument above all else that the human element gets lost. You seem to be a good, caring woman and I am genuinely sorry that you haven't been treated that well by the men in your life. I have also found you to be one of the more astute commenters here on a number of issues.

I can't stop...

> Our media is telling them only the
> happily ever after part, and
> so are you

Me? I'm the one telling them that happily ever after DOESN'T happen... That sensible people select partners with the understanding that it's a lifelong project where things go wrong. You're convinced young women should live only by navel-gazing daydreams, and to the pandering media which engender them... And in the next breath, you condemn the world for not telling the truth.

Math is a favorite tool of blog commentary analysis: You spent 28 words claiming adherence to principle, and 210 taking it back.

It's your job to stay with your partner, not to expect business to pick up after your accidents. -Amy

That's true, but in their defense, many single parents would've stayed with their partners. Their partners left them. - lovelysoul

Bullshit, women file for a large majority of all divorces

Wow, impressive that you have time to count words, Crid.

I think you believe you are sending that message, but the one that mostly stands out is: Too bad, you should've chosen better! As if it's all in the choice of partner, which maybe 50% of it is, but there's another 50%.

Actually, it's not hard to make marriage last, as long as your partner isn't packing his/her bags. You can choose almost any partner and do that. Many couples have dysfunctional relationships that go on for decades, until one of them dies (or they kill each other). The trick is in making it good, keeping it healthy.

How come nobody has the sense to realize that the one who files isn't always the one who leaves?! Especially, when there's infidelity, it's typical for the wounded party to file, not the cheater. The cheater is too busy having fun, and often wants their cake and eat it too. It's also a way of allowing the dumpee a little dignity. Embarrassing enough to be left, so at least you get to be the one to file.

I would think most men let women file anyway, as kind of an act of chivalry. I don't need to be the one to divorce you, you divorce me. That doesn't tell you anything about why the marriage is ending.

A-rod's wife filed. Sandra Bullock will file. Elin will file. Almost every wife I know filed. But they didn't WANT the marriage to end.

I'm sure my employer would gladly pay a woman $.76 on the dollar to do my job. Export controls are the only reason some Indian isn't doing it for $.25 already.

Corporations cannot become more family friendly. Attempts to make them so will just accelerate the movement of jobs to such labor ane environmental nirvanas as India and China.

> you have time to count words

Software thing... Shift F9 on Textpad. It's wicked convenient, and often illuminating: How much does this person really care about what they're saying? Where's their energy?

> you are sending that message,
> but the one that mostly stands
> out is: Too bad

You think the focus is to show sarcasm to adults, to personally taunt them as unfortunate? No; the focus is on what's best for children. They have actual souls too, spirits that ought to be protected by those who care for them. It's not all about you.

I never suggested it was about me. You always make it such. I'm suggesting that we, as a society, could do more to support marriages, which would certainly benefit children. Everyone says, "It's hard work and tough times", but few give any practical advice regarding HOW to do the work and what tough times we're talking about."

We have generations of kids now who've grown up with no functional role models for how to have a positive relationship, yet we just assume they'll figure it out, and if they don't, we can chastise them for picking bad partners or none at all. That clearly isn't working.

Right. So next time you've said "It's important for people to marry well", STOP TALKING. This will give people the opportunity to understand that you mean it.

I can say it all I want. You can say it all you want. But it doesn't mean much unless we can show them what that is. You and I had the benefit of good parents. You (apparently) didn't marry, and I still managed to screwed it up...so, obviously, even positive role modeling only goes so far. And that's for those of us who were lucky enough to have it. Think about the kids today who have never known an intact family or seen a working marriage. It's not enough to say, "Choose well!" They don't have a clue what we mean.

Happily divorced for many years, no kids, and thanks for asking.

> even positive role modeling only goes so far.

First of all, as I've noted so very often in these comments, "role models" is shitty, underperforming language for the meaning of parents in your lives.

Second, by saying "it only goes so far" because your example may have been a failure is to miss the point.

It's not all about you. It's not all about you. It's not all about you.

> They don't have a clue what we mean.

We should show them. Thank you for your attention to these matters.

You mean you didn't "choose well"? (sorry, couldn't resist).

I know, I know - you didn't have kids, so it's totally different. However, it is kind of nice to know you aren't infallible. Now, if we could just translate that into something resembling empathy for other mere mortals, it would be great.

God, I am so late to this party.

Just this to add. Original article whines: "I would currently love nothing more than to get married and focus on taking care of my husband and having children for the next few years. But I have just nearly finished a bachelors program and internship and now am going to work for a year and then go on to grad school."

Translation: "I don't want to make hard choices."

Seriously, if you're a young woman and raising a family is your long-term goal, its not that hard to avoid an overpriced college education, get qualified in a decent-paying field, spend less than you make, have fun dating around, and then get married debt-free. THEN you'll have no problem "taking care of your husband and having children." Maybe you'll return to work. Maybe you won't. But let's not pretend that you're somehow trapped into a career path that precludes kids. You've chosen it.

Thanks, Nick. I try to be a good person though I don't claim to be perfect of to have all the answers to life. My intent is not to argue as much as to show a different face to some of the discussions. Not all men have treated me poorly and as I have gotten older and I have accepted responsibility for where my choices led me. That is not to say that I blame myself for my ex husband's abuse, but to say I realize that I made a choice to enter into a marriage and have kids with him despite some things that should have been red flags. And that is sort of my point. I was raised a certain way and he could have smashed me over the head with those red flags and I would have accepted it because that's what I was raised to believe was normal.

Never would I claim that single parenting is the ideal for any child. What I say is that it happens for many different reasons, not all selfish. I am trying to show my children a different model as they grow up so that they make different choices that are healthy. I know many wonderful fathers and not a day goes by that I don't wish I had the emotional maturity when I was younger to either wait or to choose differently. But for now, I do the best I can and I have children that aren't perfect but are pretty nice kids with pretty good heads on their shoulders. I want them to be productive members of society and not a drain.

> you didn't "choose well"?

For the mother of my children? I chose brilliantly....

> if we could just translate that into
> something resembling empathy

Only for children. Merely naive spirits are in trouble.

> What I say is that it happens for many
> different reasons, not all selfish

Mostly selfish. Especially where you see numbers like these.

> pretty nice kids with pretty good heads

That was your aspiration? As a parent? Is that what you told your partner going in? Your friends? Your kids, as they were old enough to listen?

________________

Know why I like being a sumbitch about this?

Because: Why not?

Because all other corners of the society –Including the conservative strongholds, AND EVEN THE CHURCHES– are being pussies about it...

....As if they had revenue on the line, as most all of them do. (The remainder are just zombies.)

There's a certain threshold above which "inclusiveness" of social prejudice translates directly into "wrong"... You wouldn't believe how many people used to think slavery was as naturally righteous as springtime's cleansing rain.

Oh, Crid, get it out. Get it all out. I thought I remembered a time when you were able to engage in a reasonably intelligent discussion. I notice you used only part of my words because, I guess, it sounded better for the point you keep trying to drive home. We all get it. You are against single parent homes. Single mothers are selfish and evil. Single mothers have single handedly destroyed society, caused the economy to crash, global warming, etc, etc. Am I getting warm? When you take off your superhero cape and have a moment to relax, I'll ask you again for your solution, a realistic solution, not just some dribble you spout.

> you used only part of my words because,
> I guess, it sounded better for the point you
> keep trying to drive home

Don't get defensive. If you can imagine a technique that better engages the case you're trying to make, be sure and let us know what it is. These quotes are direct, and my adherence to context is spotless (and readily available for confirmation by readers in any case). No one's putting words in your mouth. If your words embarrass you when stripped naked, keep 'em indoors.

> I'll ask you again for your solution, a realistic solution

MARRY WELL. Approach this fundamental adult responsibility with adult seriousness... And if it turns to shit, don't imagine that adults deserve the patience shown to children, or that the suffering children endure from divorce is something for which they, or the rest of society, should be expected to show wizened patience.

> not just some dribble you spout

Confused imagery. A spouting or dribble, one or the other.

Big picture? Remember that EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD AGREES WITH YOU. The (pandering) churches, the (pandering) Democrats, the (pandering) Republicans....

First, my only aspiration for my kids was not that they're nice people. You left off the rest of my comment, the part where I want them to be productive members of society and not a drain. So you are only partially right about my words. When you ask for confirmation make sure you aske them to read till the end. Please. I ask nicely for fear that you will say that single mothers lack manners along with your long list of grievances.

Crid, here is where I agree with you and I have agreed all along and said it all along. People need to marry well. People need to choose partners well. People need to pick the person they choose to reproduce with well. But there's a big gap between point A and point E and that is where the problem lies.

My ex-husband's niece had a baby a year ago. She is 18 and unmarried. Her parents were the stick it out for the kids kind. I worry for her and for her child because I see a pattern there, a pattern of unhealthy lifestyle choices. I'd join your shame parade except she's a young girl who wanted to have a child in the immature mistaken belief that once she had someone to love who would love her back, that life would be easy. I could give you severeal examples like that and btw, all from intact families just as I'm sure you can spout many examples from single parent homes. Again, I'm not singing the praises of single parent homes over two parent homes. I'm simply again using a personal example that it happens in intact families quite a bit, something you refuse to acknowledge in any of your comments and I do so only because I know how you love when I make it personal.

There needs to be some intervention early on to prevent those young girls from thinking a baby is a cure all. Again, I can see the huge mistake she made and I feel for both her and that baby. And btw, the father of the child took off and wants no part in raising or supporting the child. I also have no desire to hang a Scarlett S on her back and ban her and her child from society. I have compassion and would like to prevent those situations as much as possible. That is where I ask you for a realistic solution. You give smarmy answers and no real solution and really no intelligent discussion.

> it happens in intact families quite a bit,
> something you refuse to acknowledge
> in any of your comments

That's because by definition, it's impossible. Broken families can't be "intact"...

Unless you're confusing the adults with the children... And you are. (See also LS, above, who thinks this is about taunting adults as one would a misbehaving child.... She WANTS to regard mothers as children. But a misbehaving child and a misbehaving adult aren't the same, and we have to remember which is which.)

Here's how it works. When a young woman becomes pregnant, she and her contemporary-or-elder partner, no matter what their ages or relative maturity, are magically transformed: There's a flash of light, and a cascade of shimmering Disney crystals, and a crack of brittle thunder from the nearby hills... (Some older texts record a momentary odor of lilac and Asian spices, but these observations are unconfirmed in modern studies.)

And in that precious millisecond, they're instantly converted from children to adults.

It's not me, the bitter blog commenter, who makes this transformation happen. It's not the weeping baby Jesus, or an angry, bearded God in robes, or even a dispassionate Charles Darwin. It's the natural world that does this to them.

But at this distance, it's important for you to understand that as a taxpaying bitter blog commenter, my compassion and support and jurisprudential impulses are limited. That's just the way it is. I don't have the resources to care for everyone in the world. I have to assume that adults are watching out for their own best interests, saving my concern for those least able to care for themselves, the children.... The REAL children, not the fucked-up adults who might now petition for patience and understanding from their own babies.

I don't deny that children of loving homes can grow up and make mistakes... Why would I? Why would that matter? The important thing is that everyone do well. And when people don't do well, let's not be ashamed to say "You fucked up"... And not let people glibly excuse themselves by saying 'Gosh, these things happen...' Let's PLAINLY forbid them from saying these things to their own children, as if those kids weren't the victims of malfeasance.

Social pressure can make this go better. Time to turn up the harsh. Let's try it for fifteen or twenty generations and see what happens.

As a taxpaying blogger there's a lot of things I'd rather not pay for either. I'd much rather have my taxes go towards educating young kids and having resources for them than to pay for those young kids to go to a juvie home and eventually jail. Funding got cut recently for the Youth programs in Nassau County but the cops who are retiring with tremendous pensions and benefits are being rehired back by the county as part-timers to do office work on an hourly salary. Those cops are retiring at 20 years and had been paid the second highest police salary in the country besides some of the other perks they enjoy. That's county money going to fat cats as opposed to outreach programs that would prevent kids from hitting the streets, doing drugs, and maybe even a few from getting pregnant. I'm sure that's not going on just here in NY. Last time I checked, California was possibly in worst shape than NY, but citizens managed to raise money to save the Hollywood sign. How about helping those kids from the intact and single families that have nobody to show them a better way?

> How about helping those kids from
> the intact and single families that
> have nobody to show them a better way?

Yes! For starters, Let's scorn failure.

I'd just like to point out that "single parent" is not synonymous with "freeloader". There are plenty of single parents who are supporting their own children without help from taxpayers (and, with what I pay, several more).

I think we can all agree that poor single parents are a drain to the system, and we need to do all we can to prevent this. Amy's program sounds wonderful.

Amy, what you do is wonderful! I don't know how it works in California, but where I live, most of that funding comes from the local legislator. A letter campaign from local constituents would be a nice start. That makes them pay attention.

I really hate how this one ended.

There are people, apparently, who'd rather see generations of children suffer completely unnecessary, lifelong emotional dislocations while they, with a hailstorm of compassionate-sounding rhetoric, pretend to be concerned with the big picture.

Reducing the amount of actual suffering through the most obvious, effective, humane and SANE method available holds no appeal...

They'd rather imagine themselves on the vanguard of a whole new kind of human nature, one where the suffering caries no voltage... As if human nature in children was ours to modify.

This is pathetic. History will judge us harshly, as we judge the slaveholding forefathers.