"It Takes A Village": And Could Somebody In The Village Please Stigmatize Willful Single Motherhood?
Some women -- sadly -- end up widows and struggle to raise children on their own.
But too many women raise kids in poverty and stick them with all the hardships that come with simply because they had sex without birth control -- without any family situation to bring children into -- and pumped out a bunch of daddyless children. That's just not right.
And here's how this works out for those children.
From The New York Times' "The Neediest Cases" file, John Otis writes about a mother of five children -- no daddies in the picture -- and no child support and no job:
Though Melissa Ferrer moved into her new home in July, she has refused to paint her sons' bedroom walls blue. She does not dare get too comfortable, a symptom of her years of homelessness.Ms. Ferrer, 33, is a single mother of five sons. All of them have spent portions of their childhoods in New York City's shelter system. What made the experience even worse, Ms. Ferrer said, was that her three youngest children -- Aiden Soto, 3; Angel Soto, 7; and Justin Ferrer, 8 -- are autistic. They also have attention-deficit disorder and anxiety disorders.
"It's not a good life," she said. "It's hard and it's stressful and it hurts. Not only for me to live that life but to see the children living that life and to know you're not stable."
...This summer, with the help of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of New York, one of the eight organizations supported by The New York Times's Neediest Cases Fund, the family moved into a safer, cleaner home in the Bronx. Drawing from the Neediest funds, Catholic Charities also provided $321 in school clothes for the children.
...Ms. Ferrer is responsible for paying the roughly $1,000 monthly rent. She receives $1,486 every month in Social Security disability benefits for her three youngest children, $270 in food stamps and $300 that Matthew pitches in from his job. She does not receive child support from her children's fathers, and because of her autistic sons' care requirements, she has not worked in more than eight years, since shortly before Justin was born.
"I never thought I'd see myself the way I'm seeing myself, struggling so much," she said.
That's because nobody thinks it's okay (or it serves one's career, in the cases of Sharpton and Jackson) to stigmatize single motherhood -- or even tell women that they shouldn't have children without a committed father in the picture to be there for them.
From 2012 data, around 70 percent of black children are born out of wedlock. About 50 percent of Hispanic children.
Why is this?
From Heritage.org's Robert Rector:
A major obstacle is that most low-income women plan to marry after having children, not before. Their life plan is the exact opposite of the normal sequence in the upper middle class. In the upper middle class, men and women still follow the traditional pattern: A man and woman become attracted to each other; a relationship develops; the couple assess each other and at some point deliberately choose to become lifetime partners; emotional bonds deepen; they marry and after a few years have children.In the lowest-income third of the U.S. population, this traditional sequence of family formation and childbearing is now explicitly reversed. Women first have children and then seek to find or build a stable relationship that will eventually lead to marriage. Typically, low-income single mothers do not see marriage either as an important part of childrearing or as an important element of financial security or upward social mobility. Instead, marriage is seen as a symbolic event that should occur later in adult life. Marriage is regarded as an important ceremony that will celebrate one's eventual arrival in the middle class rather than as a vital pathway that leads upward to the attainment of middle-class status.
Low-income single mothers "believe that marriage, not children, is what requires the years of careful planning and preparation and [that] childbearing is something that happens along the way."[40] While conceiving a child with a man you have known only a few months is not a problem, most non-married mothers believe they should get to know a man steadily for four or five years before marrying him.[41] The idea that you should carefully select a suitable partner and diligently build a successful relationship with him before conceiving a child is a foreign concept.
In many communities, the pattern of children first and (hopefully) marriage later is so entrenched that couples have difficulty understanding an alternative; but as a means for building long-term loving relationships and nurturing homes for children, this pattern is a disaster. While low-income young women earnestly dream of having children, a husband, and a house in the suburbs with a white picket fence, they have no practical plan to make this dream a reality. Sadly, their choice to have children before marriage and before forming a stable committed relationship with the child's father usually leads to the opposite outcome, dooming mothers and children to lives of poverty and struggle.[42]
In summary, the strong desire to have children coupled with the belief that it is not important to be married before having children explains the dramatic rise in out-of-wedlock childbearing in lower-income communities. While most non-marital pregnancies are not deliberately planned, they are also not seriously avoided. The unfortunate reality is that children are usually born haphazardly to couples in unstable, uncommitted relationships that fall apart within a few years after their children are born.
What we do is try to lower standards to get these children into jobs and (possibly) college -- a tactic which is racist and fails miserably.
And being black isn't the problem -- it's being disadvantaged from the get-go by not growing up in a family.
Black parents who marry are far less likely to be in poverty and to have children failing out of school and committing crimes. In fact, black families that are actual families are like other American families. From DiscoverTheNetworks:
Female-headed black families earn only 36 percent as much as two-parent black families, and female-headed white families earn just 46 percent as much as two-parent white families. Not only do unmarried mothers tend to earn relatively little, but their households are obviously limited to a single breadwinner--thus further widening the income gap between one-parent and two-parent families. Fully 85 percent of all black children in poverty live in single-parent, mother-child homes.While the overall black poverty rate remains about two-and-a-half times higher than the white poverty rate (24 percent vs. 10 percent), the "face" of black poverty has changed dramatically in recent decades. At one time, almost all black families were poor, regardless of whether one or both parents were present. Today, however, two-parent black families are rarely poor. Among black families where both the husband and wife work full-time, the current poverty rate is a mere 2 percent. Moreover, the relatively small (13 percent) income disparity between black and white two-parent families completely disappears when we take into account such factors as occupational choices, educational attainment, age, geographic location, and comparative skills.
Children in single-parent households are raised not only with economic, but also social and psychological, disadvantages. For instance, they are four times as likely as children from intact families to be abused or neglected; much likelier to have trouble academically; twice as prone to drop out of school; three times more likely to have behavioral problems; much more apt to experience emotional disorders; far likelier to have a weak sense right and wrong; significantly less able to delay gratification and to control their violent or sexual impulses; two-and-a-half times likelier to be sexually active as teens; approximately twice as likely to conceive children out-of-wedlock when they are teens or young adults; and three times likelier to be on welfare when they reach adulthood.
In addition, growing up without a father is a far better forecaster of a boy's future criminality than either race or poverty. Regardless of race, 70 percent of all young people in state reform institutions were raised in fatherless homes, as were 60 percent of rapists, 72 percent of adolescent murderers, and 70 percent of long-term prison inmates. As Heritage Foundation scholar Robert Rector has noted, "Illegitimacy is a major factor in America's crime problem. Lack of married parents, rather than race or poverty, is the principal factor in the crime rate."
Saw this on a regular posters facebook feed
The part I especially like is where he (the host) openly admits she (Ann Couler) is right on the facts, but since he doenst like the way the facts make him FEEL he argues against what he knows to be true
https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/videos/785590661578831/
lujlp at November 23, 2016 12:37 AM
I'm a huge believer in shame but the truth is we can't shame or stigmatize this behavior because those of us that find it concerning are not in their peer group. While we may find single motherhood extremely puzzling it makes perfect sense in the context of the pressures they feel from their community, especially I've come to see from their mothers who actively encourage it while simultaneously passively accepting it as destiny.
I really don't think a middle class white feminist espousing the societal benefits of single motherhood has any more effect than my personal fiery intense disapproval.
These low-income women live the lives they've been taught to accept and even when you provide avenues for them to "stop" they will only "stop" temporarily.
Perhaps I'm bitter because I saw a pregnant girl get publicly beaten up by her boyfriend only to bail him out of jail and drop the charges the next day. What is that unborn baby's future with such a piece of shit mother?
I live in a poor neighborhood where single motherhood is depressingly common. I might as well be an alien to these women. I no more comprehend their behavior than they bother to think that possibility that mine exists. The idea of not having children they can't afford or spend time with is tantamount to asking them to surpass the speed of light.
Ppen at November 23, 2016 1:37 AM
Ppen expresses it very well and correctly IMO and experience.
Additionally young black men's attitudes towards getting girls pregnant have been pretty consistent as "no big deal" since forever here in the States.
Improved societal racial attitudes in the '60's/'70's and "compassion" opened the door to exploding births.
I think there was an expectation by the white "hippies" that adoptions would cover those children trapped in poverty and who lost their parents due to drugs.
But as I remember a "black" movement was more concerned about children losing their "black identity" than they were about the actual day-to-day lives. So that became a "racial" attitude.
Of course Sharpton and Jackson were making money off of this situation and political Dems/Libs had their votes so "nobody" cared as long as the checks showed up. (Black "thugs" graciously helped the elderly get the checks cashed but who's looking.)
The "hippies" became middle-class and used their increasing income to adopt SE Asian kids and then those from the Ukraine.
Again, political Dems/Libs had the votes, Al/Jackson were good, SSI checks became direct-deposit (ID required), and poverty was big business for white businessmen. Black business died on the vine of "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." The NAACP lived off of political money so they were/are good.
In short the village elders fucked the young black girls as much as the boys/men did.
http://www.familyfacts.org/charts/205/four-in-10-children-are-born-to-unwed-mothers
Bob in Texas at November 23, 2016 4:57 AM
This isn't just about blacks. Look at the changes over time. This is an increasing issue among whites for the exact same governmentaly encouraged reasons. Give it a few more decades and there won't be a difference between black/white, hispanic/non-hispanic.
Ben at November 23, 2016 5:39 AM
It isn't for me or anyone else outside the black community to say (to black women); Sharpton and others with the ear of the black community need to put the word out.
Amy Alkon at November 23, 2016 5:51 AM
A generation of young boys have grown up without a father in an unstable household. Rappers become the boys heroes with song lyrics such as "Fuck the police" and "Slap that ho". These same rappers are millionaires and get invited to the White House.
No wonder the police are afraid of young black men.
Nick at November 23, 2016 5:56 AM
On second thought, I speak at an inner city school once or twice a year. I tell students this in a positive way -- that they need to set their own lives up before they have kids. I also tell them ways to get ahead -- get some kind of good job, even if they don't have family money and connections. Maybe I only get through to one or two. Maybe it's entirely too late, after kids grow up in poverty as children of single mothers who only can afford terrible neighborhoods with terrible schools. But maybe this is a message that needs to get out through more than just me, and maybe then it would be effective.
(I'm realistic -- I tell kids to try to work for somebody they can be an apprentice to and explain how they can fix broken skills, like going to the library and sitting down with volunteers like my late friend Kay or @MrsAbbotKinney, who currently teaches people to read or to read better.)
Amy Alkon at November 23, 2016 6:00 AM
What is defined as "shaming" in the (hopefully) post-PC era?
It is necessary to push back against people shutting down conversations by claiming to be insulted.
But it's not necessary to get angry or personal - just refuse to use some new locutions, and go back to earlier words:
Say "born out of wedlock" or "fatherless children" instead of "single-parent family".
When asked why, say:
"Because by definition a family must at least start out with 2 parents. And I reject the attempt to redefine family through PC language."
The language has been used to change the moral standard. Simply revert to language that expresses your moral standard - and explain that standard when a PC snowflake tries to shame YOU into silence.
No need to get angry.
It's their problem.
Make them own it.
Ben David at November 23, 2016 6:02 AM
When women complain that the dads of their kids don't do shit for the kids, it's entirely appropriate to ask them why they let losers cum in them.
Trust at November 23, 2016 6:48 AM
"Good mamas give their babies good daddies." No questions asked. This is what my me and my husband tell our daughters - because it is so very crucial. There is no room for errors of this magnitude when one is considering starting a family. My girls will also become familiar with planned parenthood should they ever require any of the services available there.
Jess at November 23, 2016 7:04 AM
"It isn't for me or anyone else outside the black community to say (to black women); ..."
Typical first response from Dem/Lib/Women's Rights.
HOWEVER, society in general (those that actually pay taxes) eventually say "Hell No" when they have trouble putting bread on the table.
After all, there are no Black/Hispanic/White Authority stating funds are not available but other parents are. You know, for the sake of the children and the Village funds.
It's not a new thing you know?
"President Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to "end welfare as we have come to know it"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
It is easy to donate to charity and recognize that it is really not your problem to solve.
Bob in Texas at November 23, 2016 7:48 AM
"Maybe it's entirely too late, after kids grow up in poverty as children of single mothers who only can afford terrible neighborhoods with terrible schools."
Not piling on but BEN CARSON anyone?
Anyone caught stating "acting white" is bullying in a racist manner and needs to be charged w/a hate crime.
However, just as w/"stop n' frisk" it's not my problem so why should I get bloody fighting it. I will assist someone but start it. Hell No.
Bob in Texas at November 23, 2016 7:54 AM
"Sharpton and others with the ear of the black community need to put the word out"
We really need black commentors here. Are you guys going to bring up gangter rap too? Something that has not been relevant since forever?
I hear plenty of black leaders comment about the problem. I almost want to provide a ton of links just so you guys will shut up about the supposed silence.
I'm going to put it this way- in Hispanic neighborhoods Jorge Ramos could be shouting to the heavens about unwed motherhood and it wouldnt make a difference. You need people who live there to actually set an example. If your own mother says its not ok to be treated like crap but constantly goes back to abusive men then what does a self appointed leader telling you anything have to do with your outcome? It will go in one ear out the other just like the platitude "get an education".
I really am clueless how to solve the issue. I have read plenty of books by poor people of all races who got out and this memtality transcends race and culture.
Poor Mexicans in Mexico have the same family dynamics as poor whites in meth country or poor blacks in the inner city. So to me welfare didnt cause this because welfare doesnt exist in Mexico and it is the exact same behavior--even when their kids are starving.. They still wont stop. Welfare is just a bandaid we use in a first world country to not have to deal.
Ppen at November 23, 2016 8:13 AM
Damn straight. Bring back the Scarlet Letter. Put it right on their foodstamps. Put on a row of them - one for each of the little bastards.
At least it's a better idea than toll roads.
Canvasback at November 23, 2016 8:29 AM
The biggest problem with government programs is that they make people with poor lifestyle choices beholden to no one, and independent of any real consequences for those poor choices.
You cant *shame* anyone into rejecting behavior that the government rewards financially.
Welfare, and SSI is a safety net for a few unlucky individuals but there is no way to keep it from benefiting large numbers of malingerers, fakers, con artists, drug addicts, and alcoholics.
Those steady government checks encourage the shortest of short term *no consequences* thinking.
I have someone who was raised on welfare living with me right now. I love her dearly, and she has many fine qualities, but she doesnt *see* what anything costs. Heat, lights, appliances, cars, satalletlte TV... all delivered by a magic unicorn or an ephemeral pot of gold somewhere. It is a tough mindset to get out of.
Al Sharpton wagging his finger isn't going to change anything.
Isab at November 23, 2016 10:01 AM
"You need people who live there to actually set an example."
Why should they do that when the course they have chosen is approved by "friends" and subsidized by government and society?
"What if blacks don't succeed because they can't succeed?"
"We must never, ever say or do anything that might upset them, as virtually everything does."
Radwaste at November 23, 2016 10:02 AM
"I never thought I'd see myself the way I'm seeing myself, struggling so much," she said.
That tends to be what happens when you mistake your uterus for a repeating rifle.
This isn't just about blacks. Look at the changes over time. This is an increasing issue among whites for the exact same governmentaly encouraged reasons.
Remember the human-litter-as-entertainment trend a few years back? It started with the family in the Midwest that had popped fertility drugs and had a litter of septuplets. From there people couldn't get enough of this crap in sob-sister magazines and on reality TV. It all came crashing down with the "Octomom," when it was no longer deniable that having chemically induced human litters was irresponsible at best and pathological at worst.
But everybody gotta right to have a baby!
Kevin at November 23, 2016 10:11 AM
I really am clueless how to solve the issue.
Stop subsidizing it, some making excuses for it, stop giving them passes when they break the laws cause you fell sorry for them
lujlp at November 23, 2016 12:19 PM
Trump's proposed tax plan would (slightly) lower federal taxes for single people without kids, while (slightly) raising them for others who choose not to itemize. Or, as Forbes says, "would hit single parents hard." (I'd say "would make single parents pick up more of their share of the tab.")
It's not much, but it's a start.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2016/11/04/donald-trumps-tax-plan-would-hit-single-parents-hard
Kevin at November 23, 2016 12:19 PM
Ppen: "I really am clueless how to solve the issue. I have read plenty of books by poor people of all races who got out and this mentality transcends race and culture."
Unfortunately IMO Ppen is right. This is just a subset of human behavior across all races and societies. And, no government should resolve it. The potential for abuse of that much government power is just too great.
Provide a safety net as best you can and pray.
I do think that those that purposefully profit from this (votes or money) deserve a special hell that's not the same one discussed in Firefly.
Bob in Texas at November 23, 2016 1:03 PM
Until I was in my thirties, I believed that the first duty of a mother was to protect their children from their father.
I had never known a good father,but there are so many of them, and I give thanks for them.
Perhaps low-income women have never known a good father. The fathers of their children seem happy to abandon them.It's not surprising that they have a low opinion of men/fathers, and would rather not have one in their households.
I hope this can change.
Phryne at November 23, 2016 1:37 PM
A very good book for understanding this phenomenon is Theodore Dalrymple's Life at the Bottom
Dalrymple worked as a physician at City Hospital and Birmingham Prison in England and assembled a collection of anecdotes about the people he treated, mostly the British underclass.
Conan the Grammarian at November 23, 2016 1:54 PM
I agree. No, not with your assessment of Trump, my Hillary-voting friend, but with the concept of user fees for transportation, to the greatest extent possible.
mpetrie98 at November 23, 2016 2:07 PM
Oh, fuck, that was meant for another post!
mpetrie98 at November 23, 2016 2:08 PM
I wonder if her kids are really on the autism spectrum or if that's just the diagnosis some school counselor slapped on them? The NYT story also talks about her bad knees from standing long hours, which doesn't make much sense, to me. Why can't someone set it in so her kids don't all go to different schools? I'd be more willing to donate if the NYT could help these neediest cases with some expert advice, job skills, teaching and/or coaching, rather than just $$$ from readers.
KateC at November 23, 2016 2:16 PM
Why is abortion so much more stigmatized than willful single-motherhood?
Jess at November 23, 2016 3:18 PM
The entire notion that a woman finds herself struggling with terribly negative emotional after-effects of an abortion isn't true for many women. From my understanding, it provides relief in the face of a more difficult prospect. Plus, it goes along with counseling at most clinics, opening up a dialogue and avenues for birth control, potentially changing behavior. It's heavy and leaves a mark, but it can change things for young women, even though it's not ideal.
Jess at November 23, 2016 3:31 PM
I don't know where you live Jess but abortion in the US is not that stigmatized. Single motherhood is only slightly less stigmatized if at all. There are emotional issues for most after an abortion. It causes significant hormonal changes that lead to those issues. After all, pregnancy caused those hormone changes in the first place. But I do agree, while abortion isn't great it is often better than the alternative.
Kevin, good job on missing the point and going off on a kid hating rant again. Kudos. Octomom had nothing to do with causing single motherhood issues (she is married you know) just like Honey Boo Boo has nothing to do with causing obesity issues.
KateC, as for why her kids are in so many different schools, if my experience is any guide it's for the money. Many places have signing bonuses for poor mothers to try and get them to enroll their kids in school. A well intentioned program with real world issues. A woman I know would put her kids in one school for half a year, pull them out and put them in another school after the cool down period had ended. Each time they enrolled in a new school she got a check. So the kids changed schools two or more times a year.
Ben at November 23, 2016 4:49 PM
Kevin, good job on missing the point and going off on a kid hating rant again. Kudos. Octomom had nothing to do with causing single motherhood issues (she is married you know) just like Honey Boo Boo has nothing to do with causing obesity issues.
Good Lord. Nothing I said could be construed as hating children. I was pointing out that for a while fertility-drug induced litters were being presented as heartwarming entertainment.
Kevin at November 23, 2016 5:22 PM
Goes both ways, you've got to convince men that they need to get married before fathering children as well.
Is there a financial reason so many poor people eschew marriage? I know MRA types tend to talk about assets division being unfair, but you'd think that would affect mostly middle to upper class types. And child custody and support is going to be an issue if you're married or not.
Is it a "you might lose your welfare benefits" type thing? If so we may want to reconsider the structure in which they are offered.
NicoleK at November 24, 2016 5:51 AM
PPen, why are you calling the MOTHER a POS? She is, but if the father is running around beating people up he is ten times as shitty.
Why all the blame on mothers and not fathers?
Guys need to man up as well.
NicoleK at November 24, 2016 5:53 AM
> While we may find single motherhood
> extremely puzzling it makes perfect
> sense in the context of the
> pressures they feel
There's no expression of cowardice for which this doesn't apply. It's a tautology, not an insight: Such sentiments are essentially meaningless.
Crid at November 24, 2016 7:59 AM
Let's not forget that post of all posts...
I especially enjoyed the fellow who professes to not be racist because he restrains from saying some things because of race.
Radwaste at November 24, 2016 8:59 AM
And of course, Fred has thought of this.
"Courage, it seems, is a gal who looks as if she had wandered off from the set for Biker Babes and has no virtues other than a functioning reproductive system and the frame of mind of a lending library. She is courageously going to let society give her money and look after her kids. Usually she has in her eyes the look of alert intelligence I associate with flat tires. She is combatively complacent about having brought forth a Dadless tyke."
Radwaste at November 24, 2016 9:06 AM
I don't know where you live Jess but abortion in the US is not that stigmatized. Single motherhood is only slightly less stigmatized if at all.
Ben
_________________________________________
I doubt that. First of all, in many parts of the country, just getting ACCESS to abortion can be incredibly difficult and costly, even IF you have the support of friends and family. That doesn't even include the potential problem of having to travel hundreds of miles, something a single mother very seldom has to do to get welfare.
Also, while talk shows vary widely, on an average talk show, if a woman felt the need to surprise the audience with something significant in her past life that even the host didn't know about in advance, which would she be more hesitant about revealing - the fact she had been an unwed mother, or that she'd had an abortion?
Granted, it's a lot easier to keep an abortion secret from most of one's friends and family, if one wants to. It's sort of like the difference between being a white gay person and being black.
lenona at November 24, 2016 5:05 PM
Or, I suppose I should say, it's like the difference that USED to exist - less than half a century ago - when gay men sometimes wore long hair, since it was easy enough to pass as hippies, but they did not come out of the closet if they could avoid it, since that could easily be deadly.
lenona at November 24, 2016 5:20 PM
I think all of that was from half a century ago Lenona. The vast majority of people don't have 'to travel hundreds of miles' to get an abortion. Rural folk do. But to be fair they have 'to travel hundreds of miles' to go to the store or date. As for birth vs. abortion, people like talking about babies. Would you surprise the audience talking about how you had some warts removed or corns taken off? No, it's boring. But people generally like talking about babies. Single parent or two doesn't change that.
Ben at November 25, 2016 5:02 AM
But to be fair they have 'to travel hundreds of miles' to go to the store or date.
_________________________________________
Even 100 miles are too much when you can't afford to take time off from work (never mind the 24-hour wait you might have to endure once you GET there, which might mean having to sleep in your car - obviously not always a safe thing to do), and unless you don't even live in a small town, you wouldn't have to drive 100 miles to get groceries, for one.
lenona at November 25, 2016 6:55 AM
I don't get your second point. How are you proving that abortion is not that stigmatized?
Women don't even necessarily talk to their closet friends about having had an abortion - aside from the one or two they might have gotten help from at the time, since they can't always predict how any loved one is going to react.
lenona at November 25, 2016 7:02 AM
True Lenona. Also, as for the supposed emotional strain - well once a woman decides she doesn't want to be pregnant, then the hormonal after-effects of an abortion aren't as tough to endure. Now if you're talking about a miscarriage, yes biologically that's a difficult thing to work through, because the woman wanted the pregnancy and baby and the body and mind take it as a huge loss. But mostly, when a woman decides to terminate the pregnancy she mostly feels relief once it's over. Plus as I mentioned, it goes with counseling and may end up really changing things for the better. Most women don't have more than one. They learn to plan better and don't want to go through it again. Yeah, it's gross, but so is this mess.
Jess at November 25, 2016 8:06 AM
BTW, it's been pointed out more than once that anti-abortion groups have done a LOT to destigmatize single motherhood, since one thing they weren't counting on was that single women who were pressured into give birth would start refusing, more and more, to be forced into giving up their babies.
There's plenty of testimony to suggest that being forced to give up a baby (as women so often were before the 1970s) is far more traumatic in the long run than choosing to have an abortion (and again, one hears far more often of poor young women who wanted abortions and couldn't get them vs. women who were "forced" into having abortions). From a letter to Utne Reader, Jan. 1992:
"....Every time I'm driving behind a car with a bumper sticker on it that says 'Adoption not abortion,' it's all I can do to keep myself from ramming into the back of the car. 21 years ago I, like Diana Selsor Edwards, unwillingly signed relinquishment papers giving up my child for adoption. I am 40 now, childless, and have never really recovered..."
The "Edwards" referred to is a mental health counselor. If you like, here's a 1995 paper of hers: "Transformations of motherhood in adoption : the experiences of relinquishing mothers"
https://archive.org/stream/transformationso00edwa/transformationso00edwa_djvu.txt
And, from elsewhere:
"Girls with bright futures--college, jobs, travel--have abortions. It's the ones who have nothing to postpone who become mothers."
lenona at November 25, 2016 9:40 AM
Women don't even necessarily talk to their closet friends
__________________________
I meant "closest."
Thanks, Jess - didn't see your post before my last one due to a complication.
lenona at November 25, 2016 9:43 AM
"PPen, why are you calling the MOTHER a POS?"
Honestly I hate enablers more.
This man would be rotting in jail, removed and ostracized from his community. Instead this woman did everything in her power to get him out, so he can give her kid another nice beating before he's even born.
He has made it clear he is going to hurt her child. Society has made it clear he will be removed (if she allows it). People where willing to give her donations to move away and cut all contact with the man. And instead she is following whatever psychological compulsion she has to continue being with him at the price of her baby being beat.
Yeah. The mother is the bigger POS to me.
PPen at November 25, 2016 11:07 AM
Yes, I think that too Ppen about people who voluntarily put up with abuse and violence. Also, part of the purpose of planned parenthood and other services is social outreach. They accomplish more through that regarding this issue than any preacher from the pulpit screaming about abortion and it's evils.
Lenona, good point on adoption vs abortion - talk about emotional after-effects.
Jess at November 25, 2016 1:40 PM
While I don't pretend to understand why some educated, middle-class women don't leave the FIRST time they get hit (aside from those who aren't afraid to hit back hard each time, such as the notorious Nancy Spungen, who may or may not have been killed by Sid), it's no secret that many women put up with it because they often have no money, nowhere to go, and/or they were taught from infancy onward that they were worthless. Add to that the mental effect that multiple beatings have and it makes sense, in a way.
Btw, here are "Maps of Access to Abortion by State":
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/maps-of-access-to-abortion-by-state/
As I understand it, the restrictions in maps 5 and 6 mean that many clinics had to shut down as a result. Which means more driving time for patients.
For more, Google on abortion access by state. Without quotation marks.
lenona at November 26, 2016 12:26 PM
And if anyone's still reading...
(the op-ed below is from April)
It's nice to see that at least ONE governor is brave enough to refuse to let the Colorado vision of birth control fade away...
In this case, it's the governor of Delaware, who wrote an op-ed. If any other governor or senator is working in this direction, please let me know.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/12/opinion/what-states-can-do-on-birth-control.html?_r=0
Excerpt:
...In a national survey, fewer than 20 percent of respondents said that their community health centers (on which many low-income women rely) offer the full range of contraceptive methods. And unplanned pregnancy rates among women at or below the poverty level are more than five times as high as among the most affluent women.
To address these problems, Delaware has formed a public-private partnership with Upstream USA, a nonprofit group that provides training and advice to health centers to improve reproductive health care and access to contraception. The initiative has raised millions of dollars from philanthropic sources, while the state has reallocated about $1.75 million from the Division of Public Health budget for the project. By the end of 2017, we will ensure that the nearly 200,000 women of reproductive age in our state have access to the full range of methods.
When Colorado pioneered a similar program, in three years it saw savings of $5.85 in Medicaid costs for every $1 invested, because mothers and babies ended up healthier. Although the State Legislature's failure to pass a bill providing further funding has hampered Colorado's efforts, the program's benefits -- better birth outcomes, a reduced teenage birthrate and millions of dollars saved -- are cause for celebration. With luck, the Legislature will change course this year.
Delaware's initiative will be subject to a rigorous evaluation process that will not only track pregnancy and birth outcomes, but also assess its impact on birth-related spending in Medicaid and private insurance plans. Changes in reimbursement policy can help...
(snip)
In other words, yes, there are teens and women who get pregnant on purpose, but there are plenty of others who are simply human, want to have sex, and previously couldn't get access to good bc - and now they can.
lenona at November 27, 2016 4:56 PM
Screw these stupid goddamn women. They fuck up their lives by having kids fly five deadbeats, they can suffer the consequences for 50 years. Idiots.
Does not matter to me. Just do not fucking MAKE ME PAY FOR IT.
Chester White at November 27, 2016 8:19 PM
Correlation is not causation, note how robert rector singles out blacks and possibly hispanics. Robert rector won't single out higher earning often white/asian unmarried professionals living in metropolitan areas.
The reason for marriage's decline is not welfare but no fault divorce, before no fault divorce people had to bribe,intimidate,or coerce each other so the government wouldn't force unhappy marriages.
Many catholics and christians believe children are a blessing and sex with contraception should be illegal or even out of wedlock. I agree subsidies including eitc should not favor having children over singlehood.
The nuclear family along with lower social spending in states like idaho&montana didn't make them any less poor and of course the minority population is low and they have the highest marriage rates. Robert rector likes to cherry pick his date.
Benefits from marriage are often financial in nature, it obviously is easier if utilities,rent,car,phone bill,household goods are shared and people contribute.
Also contrary to what robert rector says there are financial rewards to certain people who marry which is why gays fought for the right.
Alex at November 29, 2016 4:29 AM
Leave a comment