Have you seen that she's now accepting donations?

http://www.thenadyasulemanfamily.com/

A question to ask is which one smokers or single mothers cost the public more.

Lets play "The Law of Unintended Consequences" GAME
Thousands of millions of variations like such...

Children from single mothers are more likely to go to jail. So included the cost of housing them in a jail cell, property damage and such related to said crimes. Lost taxes because they are in prison.

Smokers have a high chance of diing in a house fire. Cost to society - possible tax payer and future taxes. Building damage. Good chance that building is not privatly owned by the smoker so building cost has to be payed by insurance company - so insurance rates go up.

Single children from single mother generally do worse off in education. Thus said children will fill basic low educated jobs earning low wages. Low wages means not paying taxes or very little in taxes. Thus government gets less money.

Smokers pay taxes. Taxes used to pay for smoker related health costs. Whoops sorry that tax was used for high education, infrastructure, debt, pork barrel projects, etc. Thus more smokers means more taxes that the goverment needs.

Now come on Amy, admit it, you only used the word "litter" to see whether you could get a bite from the Leftbehinds over at Sadly Pathetic. Okay, she may not be a person of colour but they might dig up something else that makes her a protected minority. Looking forward to their response. Or not.

How DARE you preach your morals, bigot!

A woman needs a man like a fish needs a race car or some shit like that, right?

Oh, and fight the patriarchy!!!!

Do I sound like a feminist yet?

Brian, you crack me up! o.O

The women is so flagrantly stupid that her saying anything intelligent is a statistical anomaly. Sorry I'm trained to ignore them as a general rule. Be that as it may.

NYT is one of the most liberal shit hole mags in the country. They are the same group that thought communism was great idea after one visit to the Soviet Union, under constant party supervision. So they are cherry picking with the intentional single mothers of the upper middle class. I still think that the disparity has more to do with positive male role models then actual father. I'd like a link to these studies you reference or at least a source.

The NYT article that the flagrant retard (Coulter) refers to details the lives of several women who adopted kids. Not the same as going and getting turkey bastered at a clinic. Also are you honestly comparing that fucking mental case with 14 kids on the public dole to a lawyer with private insurance and nannies for two kids?

Brian, you are the "One Liner" Genius!

We are now entering the era of the child as a fashion statement.
Fathers not needed.

I read the Ann Coulter article last week, and thought she made an excellent point. If the single mothers in the NYT story adopted the kids, that makes it a little better, but unless they were all special needs kids, they could have been easily adopted by one of the thousands of infertile couples waiting to adopt. And using these rich, successful women as an example of the wonders of single motherhood is dishonest. To continue with the smoking theme, it would be like the NYT doing a story on a man who lived to be 100 after smoking a pack a day since he was 15. The idea given to the reader is "You can do it, too!"

"And Rad, I don't know why child protective services hasn't already stepped in, by virtue of what we already know about her."

This is the question I've been asking!!! In any child care scenario; an at-home day care, child care at the YMCA, nursery at Sunday School, sitters for Mom's Day Out or MOPS, what have you, there are specifically mandated ratios in age group blocks. Newborns up to one year old? You must have one adult for no more than three babies. Toddlers? One adult for no more than five toddlers. So on and so on. Suleman has ignored this. If she were running a day care she'd have her license yanked. Arrogant how she has declared everyone will have to help her with the day-to-day care. Better to ask forgiveness than permission?

I used to work for DCFS, doing at-home visits for at-risk families. These kids aren't just in danger of neglect. She's going to blow her stack at some point and it won't be pretty.

I don't know about California, but in CT you can make an anonymous complaint, and DCF will be there the next day to conduct an investigation.

So... are we bashing ALL single moms here, or just the single women who purposely decide to have a baby without a father in the picture? Because it seems to me that the single moms who didn't CHOOSE to be that, the ones who started out with a partner, should be given a bit of slack here.

I have to say, the Madoff comment pisses me off as being totally irrelevant. Madoff had a father, he didn't commit crimes as a teen or twenty something, and his crime was greed based, not (arguably I guess) socially-dysfunctional based. I guess she thought she was being funny, but really she's manipulating facts to support her argument.

> single moms who didn't CHOOSE to
> be that, the ones who started out
> with a partner, should be given
> a bit of slack

The problem is that by outward appearences, almost all of these single mothers will claim to be victims of deception and bad fate. But the numbers tell the truth. It's just not possible that feminine naiveté could excuse suffering on this scale. This is happening because people --adult people, women-- want it to happen.

There just isn't that much "slack" to give.

Hasan, I don't undestand your complaint at all.

"There just isn't that much "slack" to give." ~Crid

I'll keep that in mind, Crid, considering that I'm one of those women.

Actually, one family I worked with had no formal complaint filed against them; the family had 6 kids under the age of 7. Keep in mind this was 15 years ago. Both parents had tried to get "fixed" after kid #4 but couldn't afford it; oh irony, here come the twins. They were preemies and spent months in the hospital, which bankrupted the family. They applied for aid. Assessments by hapless grad student volunteers from DCFS (read:UNQUALIFIED) like myself were part of the deal.

I don't think it works like this anymore, such scrutiny would be considered an invasion of privacy, dehumanizing, humiliating, racist/class based/ blah blah blah, just give 'em the money.

"In any child care scenario;" There is one exception to this rule and that is if they are all your own children.

"but unless they were all special needs kids, they could have been easily adopted by one of the thousands of infertile couples waiting to adopt." No there are far more children in the system just in the US than will ever be adopted.

Even if CPS is called assuming that the investigator is rational (by dint of the current spot light if nothing else)they will consider what is better in the interest of the child. Trying to find foster care for 14 kids at least 3 disabled with all the stigma of the case would be damn near impossible. You would not be able to place them in permanent homes until after the legal shit storm this crazy bitch would start. One she might actually win if there were enough fundy in the presiding judge, thus paying for all the kids.

Sandy- It's good that we all understand each other.

"The problem is that by outward appearences, almost all of these single mothers will claim to be victims of deception and bad fate." That depends on how they got there. If you decided to keep the baby and he just left that would be your bad decision, his too. If he died (assuming you didn't kill him) you should get some slack.

Sandy, I think this is mostly about single mothers by choice, the ones who want a baby and to hell with what's best for the kid. If my husband died or walked out on me tomorrow, I'd be a single mother, too. So if that is your situation, then of course you get slack.

the ones who started out with a partner, should be given a bit of slack here

That depends Sandy, on if their partner died or left because he never wanted kids and didnt want a life with a woman who got "accidentally" pregnant

Unless the father died or walked out after the birth every single mom is so by choice - whats wrong with giving a child up for adoption?

> That depends on how they got there.

No Vlad, it depends on what they claim. Which is what I said.

How so?

Oh poor me we were all set then hubby got hit by a beer truck going the wrong way on a one way street making deliveries in a dry county. VS
Oh poor me I've had multiple babes with multiple men who said they would love me but left when (insert excuse here) and I'm all alone.
VS
It's the white man keeping be down and pregnant.

Assuming no one is lying.

"keeping be down" should read "keeping me down"

Thank you Vlad & Karen. That is, indeed my situation. Guess it's time I brushed this chip off my shoulder.

"whats wrong with giving a child up for adoption?"

Oh, Loojy, you're gonna draw fire for that one, just not from me. I agree with you. Possible answer? Why give up a child for adoption if you don't have to any more? We have all the support in place that you'll need. God forbid someone should be forced to make a tough decision.

Oh, and for anyone who wants to jump my @#$^ for this, understand that I am one of the kids given up for adoption. My mom made the right choice. I had a better life than I would have if she'd kept me (I know, I've seen where and how she lived). She thought living on welfare was reprehensible and refused to drag me into it.

Sandy, you're a prisoner of fate in a world that doesn't care. It's been going on for decades, but divorce couldn't have been predicted in your case... Sure, it's tragic, but children's hearts get broken sometimes (and their welfare gets diminished), and that's just the way it goes. It's not like judgment has anything to do with it....

Listen, I feel bad about being so personally sarcastic, but but do you understand how *crazed* it is to hear this same appeal to pathos millions of times?

Someone, somewhere, is fucking something up.

Crid, you don't need to feel bad about being sarcastic, and yes, I do understand how crazed it is to hear so many times. Like I said, I have a chip on my shoulder. (My mom once told me I needed to do something about it, and I said, "I think I'll name it Hubert.")

As for my kids' welfare being diminished, I know that is usually the case (I'm a child of divorce, myself), but I plan to do everything in my power to make their lives better. Right now they're both at the top of their classes (they're in 3rd & 2nd grade) and I stress to them how important education is. I intend for my girls to be the exception to the I-come-from-a-single-parent-household-so-now-I'm-a-lowlife rule.

Whoops, there goes that chip again! Down, Hubert, down!

IMHO, this seem to be a lot about intent, and how everyone is comparing apples to oranges. Losing your partner for some reason can make you a single parent. I'm not decrying that. The issue is, did you mate with someone who wasn't intending to be your partner to start with? Or did you never intend to have a partner? Everyone has a choice, it's just how early is the choice... If you have a partner who leaves that you could have reasonable expected to stay, that's sad, for you and the kid.

But if you just don't care, well, there's your problem. I think the rich single mommy, prolly arent going to turn out tons of criminals. They have the wherewithall to help the kid be a decent citizen, regardless of the vaguries of not having 2 parents. The poor who decide to have a lot of unprotected fun? They made their decision RIGHT THERE. They didn't protect themselves. Even if you are married and pop out a number of kids you can't afford, you have a problem, and you are making it MINE.

That protection IS a decision. [Obviously not talking assults and such] It isn't very expensive at all, and a number of places you can get it free. But why should you bother if somebody is going to take care of the kid at some level. It's a taxpayer you have never met? How nice for you.

This is a lack of interest in a future. Your future, the kids future, everyone's future. Aren't you planning to live into the future? then why don't you care? Sure if you get preggers as a teen, you prolly aren't mature enough to think about the future, but you can surely tell if you've made a mistake by touching the hot stove.

Making Single Motherhood this monolithic thing where Rich women who can afford it, are treated with the same word as a welfare mom with 5 kids and the 6th on the way, is part of the problem.
If you can't afford the kid, YOU CAN'T AFFORD THE KID.
It's really not that hard.

/rant...

Crid,

You don't understand my complaint? Let me back up then...

Coultier states, "Then there is the Times' reversal of cause and effect, which manages to exonerate the single mother while turning her into a victim: 'The biggest reason that children born to unmarried mothers tend to have problems -- they're more likely to drop out of school and commit crimes -- is that they tend to grow up poor.'

First, the reason the children 'tend to grow up poor' is that their mothers considered it unnecessary to have a primary bread-earner in the family."

A little more from the actual article reveals... "There are indications that in choosing platonic intimacy with female friends over the romantic version with male ones, Fran in New Jersey and Eileen in Atlanta may be making the better bet for their children. Sara McLanahan, a sociologist at Princeton, has been studying the effects of divorce and single parenting on kids since the 1980s. Fundamentally, her work reveals the risks of instability. The biggest reason that children born to unmarried mothers tend to have problems — they’re more likely to drop out of school and commit crimes — is that they tend to grow up poor. Children of divorce may also experience a drop in income, and their mothers are at a heightened risk for depression, which in turn raises the risk of mental-health troubles for the kids.

No one has shown, however, that there are similar risks for the children of college-educated single mothers by choice..."

The Times is specifically differentiating between what I'll call a stereotypical single mom, uneducated and poor, and the women in the article, college educated and affluent. Coultier lumps them together. And did an uneducated, broke woman really have her baby because she found it "unnecessary to have a primary bread-earner in the family."?

She continues... "Second, the Times simply made up the fact that poverty, rather than single motherhood, causes anti-social behavior in children. Poverty doesn't cause crime -- single mothers do. If poverty caused crime, how did we get Bernie Madoff?"

Coulter accuses the Times of not providing facts. Although the times is drawing reference from sociologist Sara McLanahan's work, they don't link to it, so fair enough. I'll ignore that she didn't even link to the original article, ( www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/magazine/01Moms-t.html ) but where does she link to her supporting evidence, that single mothers cause crime? Did she read this report?
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07343t.pdf
Did she even read the first sentence, "Economic research suggests that individuals living in poverty face an increased risk of adverse outcomes, such as poor health and criminal activity, both of which may lead to reduced participation in the labor market."? Seems more like she just spoke out of her ass.

Finally, my original nitpick, "If poverty caused crime, how did we get Bernie Madoff?" I don't know if Madoff lost his dad when he was young, but take the name of any criminal who had a "normal" family during childhood and insert it into my version of her ridiculous sentence... "If single mothers cause crime, how did we get John Wilkes Booth?"

In conclusion, my response to you was better researched then even one sentence in Coultier's meaningless rant. You don't like the Times? Don't read the Times!

"No one has shown, however, that there are similar risks for the children of college-educated single mothers by choice..."

Bullshit, and studies have proven it. Girls with no fathers are more likely to end up pregnant as teens. Boys with no fathers are more likely to commit crime. Socioeconomic status notwithstanding.

Okay, my last statement is unfair, she did do some research, she just didn't link to it. Must have been to busy appearing on Fox. Here's a piece Time did on the one study she directly refers to...
http://www.americanvalues.org/coff/media/time.pdf

Ok, I raised a son by myself.. not by choice.. but my choice was NOT to go on welfare. I was still young. I got a job. Continued to upgrade my job skills and got better jobs. He had the benefit of uncles and granpa in the picture and learned from early on .. life is yours. Choose right! He is grown man now, never in trouble, smart as a whip and supporting himself. It can be done. But yes, it takes work and sacrifice. I am raising girls now, with a partner. Would not want to do it alone again, I can tell you that. It's all good now. STill hard, what some of these mothers like the crazy litter b*&^%%, is that it is hard. Those kids wont get what they need from mom even if a dad where in the picture. Irresponsible. You can't care for 14 babies correctly with two people - let alone one!

I'm not sure we can compare a 40-year-old lawyer who decides to have a kid or 2, with an unemployed woman who has 14 kids. The comparison seems a bit bizarre.

And yes, fatherless kids are MORE LIKELY across the spectrum to get in trouble, just as poor kids are more likely to as well. So poor fatherless kids are the worst off, but I'm not sure that rich fatherless kids are worse off than poor, 2-parent kids.

> I do understand how crazed it is to
> hear so many times

Understand, I say it too... I have a divorce of my own. No kids, but I'm part of the problem

At work more later

Sandy, pay no attention to the moaning masses. They like to think other people are somehow responsible for their inability to get laid.

My wife was raised by a single mom who took her two kids away from an alcoholic father, sacrificed for them for years, and produced two fine, upstanding citizens. As a recent father, I am AMAZED at how she did it -- I previously lacked the proper perspective to see how difficult it would be to raise a kid on your own, let alone two, let alone well.

Now personally, I'd be inclined to blame this case of single motherhood on a man who's ability to care and provide the most basic of support to his family deteriorated over a period of years. But I guess there are some who only ever blame the mom. The suggestion that she should have put these kids up for adoption is among the most ignorant statements I can imagine, but one must always consider the source....

"But I guess there are some who only ever blame the mom." Your joking right. This was not an accident this women had 7 kids she could only support on the public dole and then had more intentionally. How can this possibly be anyone's fault but her own? In other cases I agree but in this one?

"I previously lacked the proper perspective to see how difficult it would be to raise a kid on your own, let alone two, let alone well." And you don't think that having even one more kid when you already have 7 as a single parent is anything but reprehensible stupidity?

Scott, thanks for your concern, but I'm not taking any of the comments personally. Hubert (the chip on my shoulder) reared his ugly head at first, but he's been beaten down now. I know that I'm doing the best that I can for my girls, and I'm not being supported by taxpayers, so I know that the frustrations expressed in this thread aren't directed at me.

Being a single mom has its own frustrations, though, and I can't understand why any woman in her right mind would CHOOSE to take those on. I thought that the germ-seed that I'd married was The One and that I'd never be divorced, or else I wouldn't have had any kids with him. Being a child of divorce isn't fun, and I never wanted that for my kids. We are better off without him, though, even if right now the finances aren't as good.

"Your joking right. This was not an accident this women had 7 kids she could only support on the public dole and then had more intentionally."

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm talking about single moms who don't deserve our criticism, who raise kids properly under tough circumstances not of their creation.

I'm assuredly NOT talking about mentally fragile baby factories who produce a stable of kids solely for the media blitz or as a poor substitute for self-esteem.

"I'm talking about single moms who don't deserve our criticism, who raise kids properly under tough circumstances not of their creation." I support those too. Then something like Sulmakenbabies comes along and single moms get lumped in with her. Single moms who are making the best of a shit situation. In this case blaming the mom was very appropriate.

No arguments from me. My initial post of 12:57 was entirely about my wife's mom and her experiences. Sorry if the paragraph breaks and heavy on the pronouns made it unclear.

heh, even Oliphant is calling them a litter now...
Oliphant

She is the emodiement of abusive motherhood, deliberately and artificially creating fatherless children who will suffer varying degrees of serious disabilities and consequent physical, emotional and psychological turmoil. This is the opposite of loving motherhood, where mitigating a child's unnecessary suffering is central and instinctive. The sight of "octopussy", with her Angelina Jolie artificial features on the talk show circuits shows the tragedy of celebrity worship, the willful abuse of children for celebrityhood and financial gain. There is no debate--the vast preponderence of research over the last forty years show children thrive best when raised by biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. She's robbed her children of their father and their health and wants taxpayers to pay the bills for her abuse and neglect. She and her doctor should be excoriated by the media for their crime against humanity.

> not sure we can compare a 40-
> year-old lawyer who decides
> to have a kid or 2, with an
> unemployed woman who has 14 kids.
> The comparison seems a bit bizarre

Do you seriously contend that the years between 20 and 40, and a law degree, are what make parents competent?

Listen, this is not a con like DuWayne is so fond of pulling.... My oldest friend in the world is a lawyer who had his daughter in his late 30's. And his daughter's a sensation. But a child born to that couple would have been a sensation whenever she'd arrived, even if he was still in the programming business and smiling through younger, whiter teeth.

I mean, your own conclusion mocks your premises:

> I'm not sure that rich
> fatherless kids are worse
> off than poor, 2-parent kids.

Nicolek, what you're saying is just crackers. Ritz. Triscuits. Saltines.

> But I guess there are some
> who only ever blame the mom.

Scott, you've given no evidence of feminist (or even humanist) bonafides to be so smug. In several realms of public life, we've chosen to view masculinity as the horrifying monster that must be brutally squashed rather than as a series of impulses that can be tamed. To project a cartoon like that onto events like these --almost entirely feminine in execution-- is just not proportionate. A woman did this. No man tried to pull multiples out of her like this.

> Being a single mom has its own
> frustrations, though, and I
> can't understand why any woman
> in her right mind would CHOOSE
> to take those on.

The failure is in your imagination. It's tranparently, statistically, indisputably obvious that uncounted millions of women eagerly choose that life of "frustration," no matter how obviously it scars the children. Only once the babies are breathing on their own are their fathers described as "germ-seeds". The woman on the cover of the gossip magazines this week is a profound expression of the problem. But if she'd just mangled three souls instead of fourteen, no one would care.

> I'm talking about single moms
> who don't deserve our criticism,
> who raise kids properly
> under tough circumstances
> not of their creation.

Just for fun, give us a number. What proportion of divorcing parents include these women who didn't have (and ought not have had) any anticipation that these men would fail as loving fathers to their children?

"under tough circumstances not of their creation" ... ummm, yeah. I'd love to see a circumstances/vs. of-own-creation meter held up next to a stupidity meter.

> I'm not sure that rich fatherless kids are worse off than poor, 2-parent kids.

Know what percentage of kids in families that earn more than $75,000 per year in the U.S. are living with both parents?

More than 90 percent.

Throw in the divorce factor, and the fact that there just aren't that many rich fatherless kids in the U.S., whatever the NYTimes may want us to think, is pretty clear.

Also, only about 6 percent of married-couple families are in poverty - and that figure includes recent immigrants who are, if my neck of the woods is any indication, working long hours to improve their lot in life. Oh, and also, only about 10 percent of mothers with college degrees or higher are currently without husbands (and that figure includes widows).

(Data source: Kay Hymowitz's Marriage and Caste in America. Amy and Crid, if you haven't read it, you might want to pick it up.)

We hear a lot about the widening inequality in American society. One reason for that is that the behavior of the poor and the behavior of the well-off in terms of day-to-day life choices have veered away from one another at a rather extreme rate. The people who are comfortably off tend to live within their means, get married before they have kids, and stay married if they have kids. The people who are not comfortably off don't tend to do those things. And in each case, the behavior is self-reinforcing. And so the gap widens.

I went to One Of Those Schools for college - in fact, one might say I went the THE One Of Those Schools for college. My classmates were a delightful hodgepodge of backgrounds, ethnicities, personalities and interests. But you know the one thing almost all of them had in common? At the moment they received their acceptance letter, they were living with their two married parents. I went to a sporting event recently between my school and another One Of Those Schools. There was a program at the event giving backgrounds for all of the players. Virtually all of the players were listed as having parents with the same last name - i.e., virtually all of the players came from intact homes.

I don't think that the kids of the single-moms-who-visited-a-sperm-bank that the NYT loves to write about are going to hold me up at the convenience store. I do think, though, that articles like those that make single motherhood look like a growing norm for all income groups adds to the misperception that single motherhood is no big deal and worthy of celebration. The people who pay for this, by and large, aren't the kids of NYT readers - they're the children of people with far less resources who decided that the marriage thing wasn't really important.

Is it always better to stay married? Of course not. Bring your kids up in a household with an abusive partner - physically or "just" emotionally - and they will be at fairly high risk of seeing that behavior as the norm for relationships. (Ask Chris Brown about that. Or Rihanna.) If you're married to a chronic gambler who won't quit, or to an alcoholic, the best thing you can do from a cold, hard financial point of view may well be kicking your partner out of your home. But the data seem pretty clear: If you want to die better off than you were born after reproducing along the way, you will be far more likely to do so if you follow the old-fashioned method of waiting to have kids until you're married and staying married once you become a parent. You may think that's wonderful, or that that's horrible, but it's very real.

A kid born to a married couple in the ghetto who live off of food stamps is better off than a kid born to a self-sufficient single lawyer in a nice suburb? Parents aren't the only factor in how the kids turn out, Crid. A lawyer (I said 40-year-old because that is a "type" of single mother one often talks about, not because 40 is better than 20... though 20 is awfully young to have kids, but Suleman was in her 30s and she is a twit)

And let me rub this in a little more abrasively:

> He is grown man now, never
> in trouble, smart as a
> whip and supporting
> himself.

There are righteous, admirable women who raise their children with higher aspirations than that. And they make those aspirations happen, most often by giving the children loving, competent fathers.

I'm glad your son's not a marauding drug addict. But I'm always appalled by people who tell stories of children in deprivation that end with '...but he turned out all right,' as if 'all right' was the standard we're targeting, and anything greater is only dumb luck.

Marion: Funny you should mention it. (Great minds think alike... Or at least enjoy the same cites.)

> Parents aren't the only factor
> in how the kids turn out,

Did I ever, ever, ever say that they were?

(Reviews message stack) Nope...

Or are you just dancing?

A kid born to a married couple in the ghetto who live off of food stamps is better off than a kid born to a self-sufficient single lawyer in a nice suburb?

There are very few kids born to married couples in the ghetto who live off of food stamps. Because there aren't many married couples with kids living off of food stamps in the ghetto for prolonged periods of time (with the possible exception of recent immigrants who move to states with extensive benefits). People who end up trapped in any type of ghetto in the U.S. are, overwhelmingly, the people who don't get married before they have kids. There have been studies indicating that fatherlessness has an impact on children that goes beyond the financial, but the problem with trying to do a study on how well-off fatherless kids compare with well-off two-parent kids is that there are relatively few well-off kids who are totally fatherless. If you want to discuss extreme cases, you certainly don't need my permission, but the comparison you're setting up is one that is rarely going to occur in the real world, because people who are likely to get out of and/or stay out of the ghetto are people who are far, far more likely to get married than the people who stay in.

(But Marion! Parents aren't the only factor in how kids turn out!)

More to the point, a 40ish lawyer who decides to singularly dominate her child's life without surcease isn't likely to be interested in soulcraft anyway.

Love that... "nice suburbs". Well, then!

"A kid born to a married couple in the ghetto who live off of food stamps is better off than a kid born to a self-sufficient single lawyer in a nice suburb?"

Both of those are outliers. Not really a great starting point.

Question for the group: Define fatherlessness, please? Is that no man at all in the picture? Is a child whose parents are divorced but who spends lots of time with both mom and dad, and who has relationships with extended family, also doomed to the same statistical horrors?

> Define fatherlessness, please?

This corner of the group says: Thou shalt not pussyfoot or "define deviancy down". The motives of anyone who demands precious wording are suspect!

Do we really need to explain what fatherhood means? Is the memory that distant? I want people to acknowledge that fatherhood is a lifelong, loving and intimate relationship.

A Disneyland Dad is not a Dad. A masculine figure viewable only in predictable patterns or schedules is not Dad. This is not just about the 'relationship' the kid has with the man, as if the mother weren't a factor in other perspectives. A guy who's not teaching his daughters how a grown woman is loved by a man may not be a Dad, either...

And we can go on and on until you're ready to pick a fight, but what's the point?

Is there any doubt that people who quibble about this are just looking for science-y-sounding excuses to excuse adult laxity?

It's been my (limited) experience that marriage and family are rigorous, demanding experiences, no matter what... But especially so when they're successful. They ought not be attempted by people asking whether some particularly difficult chapter is going to be on the test. It is!

And fer chrissake, the horrors aren't "statistical"... They're happening to human hearts! I go apeshit when women talk this way.... Yes, it's better to have a loving, grown man watching over you from the word go! It really is!

A few more points:

*It wouldn't shock me to find that the NYT article was, in fact, discussing women who had adopted. Ann Coulter is not known for her keen adherence to the facts if they fail to support her case, let us just say. That having been said, the paper has run multiple articles talking about single women who get knocked up by choice, and I do think it's fair to see this latest article as part of their greater effort to portray comfortably-off single women becoming parents as part of a rapidly growing norm.

*Only three percent of women with college degrees or higher will become never-married moms. Given that this figure presumably includes women who adopt - and, given the way that infant adoption works in the U.S., most who adopt out of kin will either be adopting kids from struggling countries or kids from foster care, as most healthy pregnant birthmothers want their kids to have two adoptive parents - that means that lawyers getting knocked up through sperm banks can be seen as statistical outliers. And yes, I do feel differently about single parents who adopt over single parents who create new lives that only have one parent from the get-go, given that most of those situations are ones in which the kids in question are better off than they would have been without the mom's involvement.

*I don't want single mothers put in stockades. What I object to is the normalization and glamorization of single motherhood. Presenting single motherhood by choice as something that indicates grrrrrrl power!!!! is, IMHO, not a good thing, and the statistics back me up. We've always had single parents, but in the past, 1) single parents made up a relatively small percentage of parents overall and 2) we lived in extended rather than nuclear families. Past a certain level, society has trouble compensating for single parenthood; throw the move toward nuclear families into the mix, and you've got a recipe for trouble. I think if we were presenting single motherhood as something that was tough while not withholding admiration for women who managed to do a really good job of it, instead of presenting it as a sign of female empowerment, we'd have a different sociological picture.

"Yes, it's better to have a loving, grown man watching over you from the word go! It really is!" Yeah ok, I'd like a list of the people who have argued against this point. This is the same thing as when congress voted to unanimously condemn the events of 911 well not shit was someone expecting a descending vote.

"Do you seriously contend that the years between 20 and 40, and a law degree, are what make parents competent? " Well the 20 years life experince would make you a much better parent then you would be at 20. As far as the law degree it is much better to have the degree before the kid shows up than trying to get it after.

As pointed out earlier single middle and upper middle class mothers by choice are rare. We have no way of knowing how their kids will turn out statistically since they are an insignificant portion of the population. "there are relatively few well-off kids who are totally fatherless." to put it another way.

Can it be done well? Yes. Should it be done? It depends on the available support structure. Just like 2-parent homes you should stop and think, can I afford to raise this child properly, emotionally, financially, physically.

> What I object to is the
> normalization and glamorization
> of single motherhood.

Word! Sister!

> I'd like a list of the people

Well, don't get all McCarthy.

> who have argued against
> this point.

Almost no one has, directly. That's *my* point. It's always about quibbling and these other weird new values of empowerment and whatever. For example:

> Can it be done well? Yes.

Don't be so fucking glib, Vladdy.

"It's always about quibbling and these other weird new values of empowerment and whatever." The hell does empowerment have to do with it, and what values? No one is arguing that it's the best option but it's not a horrible one either.

I'm not being glib ... ok looked up definition. Fair point no more glib. Criddy ... dosn't quite role of the tongue as well.

It's not an easy question but that exactly why condemning wealth voluntary single moms is off base as glorifying baby pooping ghetto bunnies though to a much lesser degree.

My venom flies true in Watts AND Bel Air. Ask anybody!

Could a one-legged center lead the Phoenix Suns to the 2013 NBA Championship? Yes.

....But you wouldn't wanna bet on it, right?

"My venom flies true in Watts AND Bel Air. Ask anybody!" Yes but is that venom equally valid in both?

Yes.

That's the rub as it's a matter of opinion. I don't see any studies of rich two parent households vs rich single parent house holds. If you have that study please share.

okay this is a little off topic but I just have to say something about vlad's remark that 40 year old is a better parent than a 20 year old based on life experience.

In my experience, which is not inconsiderable, the 40 year olds tend to treat their children like playthings. They are the ones who give their kids everything they never had to the detriment of the child. They are the ones who rarely teach their children to say please or thank you. They are the ones where you see the children climbing on booths in restaurants,kicking the seat on the airplane, giving them ten options on what food they want, who never ever discipline them or if they do, it's half hearted and half assed. Because they just can't say no to Junior because it's just sooo hard.

I live in an affluent area, so I see this particular type of parent constantly. I believe that when a child is young and they are misbehaving little cretins, it is solely on the parents at that point.

okay, rant off

okay this is a little off topic but I just have to say something about vlad's remark that 40 year old is a better parent than a 20 year old based on life experience.

In my experience, which is not inconsiderable, the 40 year olds tend to treat their children like playthings. They are the ones who give their kids everything they never had to the detriment of the child. They are the ones who rarely teach their children to say please or thank you. They are the ones where you see the children climbing on booths in restaurants,kicking the seat on the airplane, giving them ten options on what food they want, who never ever discipline them or if they do, it's half hearted and half assed. Because they just can't say no to Junior because it's just sooo hard.

I live in an affluent area, so I see this particular type of parent constantly. I believe that when a child is young and they are misbehaving little cretins, it is solely on the parents at that point.

okay, rant off

Maureen, you and I definitely travel in different circles. Where I live it's the opposite. The young ones act like actual parenting is just too damn hard and/or they can't be bothered. Easier to give in to the kid, no matter how much us 40+ moms and grandmas shake our heads and point out that it's long-run harder when it encourages the bad behavior they hate so.

Like I said, I have a chip on my shoulder. (My mom once told me I needed to do something about it, and I said, "I think I'll name it Hubert.")
...
Whoops, there goes that chip again! Down, Hubert, down!

My online persona is in love with your online persona.

I have had the exact experience as T's Granny. The younger the mom the faster the pawn the rug rats on Grandma to go clubing.

I know this is a persistent topic on this site, and I've argued it enough here to know that many of you simple will not see the issue differently. Yet, it still galls me that those are, for those most part, people who don't even have children and therefore aren't familiar with the child-rearing process or in close observation of other parents on a regular basis - in schools, playgrounds, and ballgames - like those of us who are parents.

And what I have to say is that those of you who are most critical seem to have an overly romanticized, mythical view of fathers - married or otherwise. Not that there aren't some great dads out there. I have the utmost respect for active, loving dads, but the plain truth is that it is mothers - single or not - who are the most deeply and intimately involved with childrearing.

Show up at any PTA meeting or school event and count how many dads are actually there. Among my (mostly affluent) married friends, the fathers are rarely around - they're typically working. The time spent with their kids is minimal, usually vacation-oriented, so the "Disneyland Dad" applies to both married and divorced dads. From the kid's perspective, it is basically the same.

However, none of these affluent kids are likely to go rob banks, and their money guarantees them many opportunities that poor children simply do not have.

Yet, I think their happiness and emotional adjustment is not shaped just by having an "intact family". I see a lot of troubled kids from intact homes. But if at least ONE parent is actively involved and communicative, that child tends to do well in life no matter what.

And that parent is USUALLY a mother. So, I strongly doubt that these affluent kids with single mothers are really going to turn out so much worse off than affluent kids with involved mothers and distracted, workaholic, emotionally-absent dads. I would love to see an objective study proving that assertion.

Of course, the best family is where you have BOTH parents actively involved, but honestly folks, this is truly the exception not the rule, and it has nothing to do with marital status. In fact, I often see divorced dads who are more involved than married dads because they try to have more quality time with their kids.

The biggest advantage intact families have is monetary - often two incomes, or at least a major breadwinner and a SAHM, which saves on daycare and adds stability. But, based on what I observe in the real trenches of parenthood, it is not merely the element of having a father which makes the most difference in a child's life...at least when other factors such as money are balanced.

"The younger the mom the faster the pawn the rug rats on Grandma to go clubing."

As I've mentioned before, my school district has the highest pregnancy rate in the state, though I tend to think someone's not counting right in Chicago. We have so many teen mothers in high school it would make your head spin. And they all live with mummy and daddy who make it all right for them. I saw three of these same teenagers at Buffalo Wild Wings Tuesday night with their Apple I Touches showing off their baby pictures. THERE'S a mindbender for you. They're probably getting free diapers and formula, but they've got a helluva lot nicer digital setup than I will ever buy.

"overly romanticized, mythical view of fathers" or you have a pessimistic self serving view of them.

Children have worse outcomes with reduced family wealth, and family wealth is very strongly correllated to marital status. In addition, children of single parents and broken homes simply have significantly worse outcomes than do children of intact families when controlling for wealth.

This is a study that specifically controls for wealth:
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9218127

Middle-class kids growing up with two biological parents are “socialised for success”. They do better in school, get better jobs and go on to create intact families of their own. Children of single parents or broken families do worse in school, get worse jobs and go on to have children out of wedlock. This makes it more likely that those born near the top or the bottom will stay where they started.

So basically, children of single parents or broken homes are hit with a "double whammy".

http://www.reason.com/news/show/34578.html

Research by the ton finds that children raised in single-parent homes are at greater risk of poverty, school dropout, delinquency, teen pregnancy, and adult joblessness.

All those problems disproportionately affect blacks, but before you decide that race, rather than marriage, is the active ingredient in the witch's brew, consider a few other points. First, poverty correlates more strongly with a family's marital status than with its race. According to Census Bureau data, a two-parent black household is more likely to be poor than is a two-parent white household, but both are far less likely to be poor than is a mother-only household of either race. In other words, if you are a baby about to be born, your best odds are to choose married black parents over unmarried white ones.

Second, recent research finds that, dire though the consequences of single parenthood often are for black children, the consequences tend to be even worse for white children. "The consequences of family disruption are smaller for disadvantaged black and Hispanic children than for disadvantaged white children, both in terms of percentage points and in terms of proportionate effects," write Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur in their 1994 book, Growing Up With a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps. They add that a middle-class income is no shield. "The chances that a white girl from an advantaged background will become a teen mother is five times as high, and the chances a white child will drop out of high school is three times as high, if the parents do not live together."

...

This is not to say that most children in single-parent families become teenage parents or drop out; most don't. It is to say that the long-term presence of two parents--in other words, marriage--is a better predictor of a child's life chances than is race or income, and that illegitimacy and single parenthood are risky no matter what your race or income. Indeed, Sawhill notes that the proliferation of single-parent households accounts for virtually all of the increase in child poverty since the early 1970s.

Why is just stating the truth self-serving, vlad? I'm not pessimistic. I just think it's the reality that most men (though not all) feel that childrearing is mostly a "woman's job." That's probably rooted in biology and eons of evolunary programming, but it's true nonetheless. Wishing it not to be so doesn't change it.

I'm not taking away from the many great dads who DO have made that cultural shift and maintain an active role.

Show up at any PTA meeting or school event and count how many dads are actually there.

Thts because when they show up they are looked at like child molesters

Among my (mostly affluent) married friends, the fathers are rarely around - they're typically working

Yea what an asshole working to put a roof over his familly's head, mother fucker should be killed for being such a selfish ass by working to provide for his familly

>> I just think it's the reality that most
>>men (though not all) feel that childrearing
>>is mostly a "woman's job."

Bullshit - if that were true you wouldnt seen men spending thousands to ensure their monthly visitation

>>That's probably rooted in biology and eons
>>of evolunary programming,

OR the last fifty yrs of feminism saying men can never do anything right

>>but it's true nonetheless

Again bullshit

From my observations, among affluent families, it goes like this: Preschool - almost every kid is from an intact home, and fathers are more active. This pretty much continues throughout the early elementary years. Kids are cute, and the couple is usually still procreating, so most couples remain intact during this period.

By late elementary/middle-school, couples start to fall apart. The less-involved dads seem to disappear. The bulk of the childrearing falls to moms.

By high-school, probably close to 50% of the parents that started out in that hopeful preschool class aren't together anymore. Some dads are still involved, but it seems many have lost interest. Moms are still bearing most, if not all, of the child-rearing duties.

The family structures change, but there's still a benefit to the early years of having the family be intact.

Yet, what I sense is that these statistics are comparing the outcomes of kids who NEVER had a father in their lives to those who ultimately end up in a single-family home by their teen years.

That is not a fair comparison, especially when you're talking affluent kids vs ghetto kids. It's apples to oranges!

"Thts because when they show up they are looked at like child molesters" No but there are other reasons. First as one will notice at PTA meetings that are not children present so either the kid is with the nanny or with dad. Second most dads see the PTA as pointless or incomprehensible. There is a fundamental communication difference between men and women. So with most the teachers being female it would make scene that the parent going to the meeting is female. I got dragged to one and quite frankly it was a waste of time. A lot of pointless politics that got very little done and wasted an evening I could have spend with my child were I the dad. "Yes we would like to do X but we don't have the money is a common theme at these as well"

Everyone swooned around the mom with the most power(ful husband) and the whole thing degenerates into an ass kissing session. What she wanted got done and everyone else was ignored. So conclusion: make sure your the most powerful parent involved (cultivating ethnic stereotypes works well here) and you get your way. That is best served by being a warlord in business and spending the night with your son/daughter than sitting in on a pointless political display.

From my observations, among affluent families, it goes like this:

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

"The less-involved dads seem to disappear." Or he's sick of the wife's lazy nagging and just stays the hell away from her.

"This is not to say that most children in single-parent families become teenage parents or drop out; most don't." Just as a counter point.

Well, we can't have any discussion if we must discount experience in favor of questionable "data". I've raised a child to adulthood, in an affluent area, so I think my observations count for something....as opposed to people who have no children, and aren't even around children on a regular basis.

I'm just saying you think you know what's happening, but you're not even there.

And it's not just PTA meetings - it's classroom volunteering, school awards, play practice (where I'm headed now), music lessons, dance lesson, guitar lessons, playdates....and on and on.

It's almost any school event that doesn't include beer. The kids are usually there with mom - not home with dad. Ask a mom who their teen's best friends are - what their grades are like - what's going on in his/her life - and you'll get an answer. But many of the dads leave all that kind of stuff to mom.

Most fathers AREN'T as involved as you all would love to believe. I'll take grief for saying that - but it's true.

Which is not to suggest that there isn't a psychological benefit for a child just knowing that a dad is THERE...even if he's mainly in the background. But the bulk of parenting is still largely done by the mother, and in my experience, even more so as the child reaches the teen years. A lot of dads are MIA at that point...and a lot of kids end up in single-parent homes by that age, even when they start out in two-parent ones.

But from what I've seen, at least among affluent kids, that doesn't usually translate into the sort of maladjustment and social dysfunction being predicted here.

lovelysoul given most divores are initiated by women who then go on to interfere with the fathers visitation, is it really any wonder that numbers show a decline in the presence of fathers?

Ever wonder why they never give numbers on WHY the dad isnt around in those studies?

I think it's simplistic to believe that would be involved in most cases, lujip. In fact, anyone who suspects that probably hasn't raised a teenager. Trust me, once they hit puberty, it's the rare mom who would interfere in visitation. Most moms I know would LOVE a break.

Go vist glennsacks.com

Lovelysoul - I live in the land of married AND single moms -- and some single dads, actually -- and I'm going to back you up 100 percent. It doesn't take a court order to volunteer in the classroom or head a fundraising program for the school or come out to water the playyard trees and weed once a month. And I rarely see dads helping out. Instead I see working moms -- married or not, the schools we attend aren't upscale enough to have many stay-at-home moms -- rushing around during their lunch hours or taking unpaid time off to participate in their children's education.

Dads: COME ON DOWN! Your influence does matter. This week a dad helped with the Valentine's Day project for two entire hours and the kids were literally in awe of his presence. He rocked that class! Helping him were four mothers -- all of us employed just like him.

Lujip -- Do you blame the woman in absolutely every instance? Sometimes dad disappears because he got a new family and kinda sorta left the kid who loved him like crazy behind. (No, that's not my case.) I don't know one mother -- not one -- who doesn't wish the ex would spend more, and more, regular time with the kid. None of them , by the way, get big bucks in child support and none get alimony.

Also, can I see the study that says most women go on to interfere with visitation?

Crid -I do think there's a difference between "fatherless" and "Intact family-less," a lousy expression to be sure. I think it's possible for a child to see how a man loves a woman (queue song) and a woman loves a man through his or her parents' next relationships or through extended family or friends. Again, not optimal, I agree. But sometimes someone HAS to leave, or someone dies, and I just refuse to believe those kids are doomed for all time as a result.

MikeMagum - Thank you for providing citations. I'll go look them up. I'm a firm believer in knowing the underlying statistics, too. For instance, fives times as great as what? Enough to really mean something?

Again, I'm not saying an intact family isn't the best situation for everyone, including the exhausted single parent. I'm not saying all men are bad or all women are great. Good parents come in both packages. And sometimes both parents stay together forever and do a crappy job of parenting anyway.

They dont do studies on why fathers spend time only the amount - that should tell you something

In all seriousness: What does that tell me, lujip?

Also, this is a direct quote from you, so my next question is: How then do you know that most women interfere with the fathers visitation?

"given most divores are initiated by women who then go on to interfere with the fathers visitation, is it really any wonder that numbers show a decline in the presence of fathers?"

Then again, like I said, most of the single moms I know only wish the fathers would spend more time -- or any time at all -- with the kids. Maybe you've found your own circle of bitter fathers to reinforce your own circumstances.

SIngle moms are always going to come up with arguments against data that suggests they aren't doing what's best for their kids. SOmetimes, depending on the situation, being a single parent may be best-although that's probably because you made a serious mistake at some earlier point in your life-but it's rarely the case that single parenting is best or as good as being reared in a family.

My DH works a lot, and is very involved when he's home. Which I'll admit, isn't as much as would be ideal. But the girls know he loves them, and is there if they need him. And as they get older they'll know he's there if they fuck up too, to catch them which is one reason why girls are less likely to get pregnant young or unwed when they have dads. Another reason is they don't have to go looking for male love. The unconditional, unsexual male love they get from dad gives them a really firm base to judge future relationships by. They can look for healthy love, instead of just needing anything that looks like love.

momof3, you need to understand that your view is probably what my view would've been 5 years ago. I don't care how strong you think your marriage is, it can fail. And your kids, that you've lovingly raised in a two-parent home, will then be designated as being from a "single parent home".

But that just doesn't tell the full story - as they'd like it to be told.

For those who criticize, it's all about the father, but they discount the many men who simply leave, growing tired of the responsibility - which is much more common than the guy who is fighting for visitation.

I rarely see those guys, and neither do you, JulieA, and that's because we are REAL parents raising REAL children.

I know many single moms - very few (if any by choice). Among reasonably well-educated and affluent women, there are very few who set out to be single parents. It just happens to them.

So, quite honestly, it isn't surprising that some intelligent, financially independent women think, "Hey, look at the statistics - we are likely to end up single parents in the long run anyway, so, let's just skip the whole messy, emotionally traumatic divorce and have kids with a male friend or relative in their lives."

I don't know if I would do that, but I can't condemn those who do, because, quite frankly, that's what I see in the end - by the senior year of high school, it's just the mother left.

And so maybe we should just accept that men are not typically hardwired for parenting - and, perhaps, that we've expected too much from them. I truly think that expectation has ruined a lot of marriages. Many men are generally not hardwired to be nurturing, hands-on parents. They are lost and rebel against that job. They feel uncomfortable in that role.

And I personally don't blame them....coming from the South and knowing that it's only been within the last 50 years that men have been expected to be "superdads" rather than the traditional role of breadwinner.

"I know many single moms - very few (if any by choice). Among reasonably well-educated and affluent women, there are very few who set out to be single parents. It just happens to them."

I find that last sentence interesting: it just happened. A person gets pregnant through sex; barring rape or other unusual circumstances there are 2 people who consented to that sex and are responsible for the resulting pregnancy. A marriage ends because at least one of the spouses fails to live up to their end of the marriage contract. It doesn't just end on its own.

But apparently, "it just happens". No one had sex outside of marriage and now has to deal with the consequences of an unplanned pregnancy; they just magically woke up pregnant through parthenogenesis. No spouse left the other, they just woke up one day and somehow they weren't married anymore. There are no actual decisions by someone who led to a child with a single parent.

Which brings us to this:

"For those who criticize, it's all about the father, but they discount the many men who simply leave, growing tired of the responsibility - which is much more common than the guy who is fighting for visitation."

Nope. The vast and overwhelming majority of divorces are no-fault divorces, and females initiate no-fault divorces at a rate greater than 3-1 compared to males. 77% of no-fault divorces in the US are initiated by the famel. That is not the man "simply leav[ing]", that is the woman leaving and taking the children with her.

Ask those single mothers, assuming they were ever married, whether they or their husbands initiated the divorce.

As for fathers helping out in school as much as mothers, I can say that in my own marriage, my wife does significantly more in that respect than I do. She is much more involved in the school parties and play dates than I am, and we both work full time...but there is a difference in how we look at work. Me working is a requirement, her working is a choice, an option. She has turned down higher paying jobs because they lacked the flexibility to allow her be as active as a mother during the day. Until fairly recently, she never viewed working as one of her responsibilities. She would take contract jobs that lasted several months and then take several months off, or she would quit a job when she didn't like it anymore. I never viewed my work as an option, and I was always worried about keeping my job, and the income and health care benefits that come with it. I don't have the option of choosing a job with more flexible working arrangements so that I can drop by school during the day.

Mike, it's great having you around. I started a response here earlier this evening, but that "It just happens" just brought it all to a stop. When you've gotta scrape that much muck off the windshield, it's easier just to park at the curb. (1,000,000+ plus divorces per year in the United States, and they all [or some meaningful proportion] "just happened." Judgment was not a factor. Nope. Just happens. Nothing to be done.)

> I don't see any studies of rich
> two parent households vs rich
> single parent house holds

Vladdy, I have great respect and gratitude for the relevant (!) statistics that Mike M has brought to this discussion. But you, V-man, don't strike me as the kind of guy who spends a Thursday night scouring comb-bound graduate theses from the social sciences with an HP calculator.

Secondly, it's a moral question, not a statistical one. You don't need to distrust your own eyeballs.

Thirdly, this fascination with money as the solution to an absent parent is an insanity that speaks more to personal impulses than thoughtful policy. I'm much more concerned with human hearts than family finances. My favorite paraphrase of a thought appearing earlier is "If poverty caused crime, Bel-Air would be a seminary." But we see that it's not.

> -I do think there's a
> difference between "fatherless"
> and "Intact family-less,"

Yeah maybe, but why could you care? That's like selecting between leukemia and a hard tumor for your child. Wouldn't you prefer to skip the decision? Wouldn't you want to skip it for everybody's kids?

> Again, I'm not saying an intact
> family isn't the best situation
> for everyone

Great! Stop there! Grab a Sharpie and redact the double negative on your computer screen, so that it reads like this:

> I'm saying an intact
> family is the best
> situation for everyone

Same meaning, right? Excellent! That's your policy. What's best is best. You don't have to make special wordings for people who want to quibble. You don't have to add "Unless Dad's a violent drunkard!" (Such a "family" is essentially "un-intact" anyway.) You don't have to worry that you're showing less compassion to people for whom things haven't worked out so well. Your policy is a plain standard for how things should be done.

Adults who never really grew up wanna pretend there are all these special circumstances that permit them to bend the rules, and their children's spirits should adapt. In particular, there are broadly-educated but profoundly-stupid forces in our culture asserting that icky masculine nature either (A) shouldn't exist or (B) can be made to go away. These forces must be resisted. It's like pretending Ponchartrain won't rise over New Orleans.

We gotta be careful with language.

> But sometimes someone HAS to
> leave, or someone dies, and I
> just refuse to believe those
> kids are doomed for all time as
> a result.

Don't speak too quickly, and don't be too manipulative with your own wording. Nobody said "doomed for all time". But children can be badly and often permanently wounded by these outcomes. (They certainly can be diminished by nearby deaths, a circumstance with which I have some familiarity.) Don't let propulsive optimism diminish the appreciation of tragedy. There are too many excuse-makers who will take advantage of your enthusiastic nature. You've made it clear they aren't your fellow travelers!

"Don't be so fucking glib, Vladdy."

Well said, Mr. Cruise.

Crid, you're more worthless than I am.

When I say "it just happens to them," what I mean is that the majority of my divorced female friends did not plan or want to end up divorced.

The majority of my divorced friends - many who were married a long time - caught their spouses cheating. That's what happened to my 20 yr marriage also.

Did I initiate the divorce? Yes. So, your stats are not surprising in that regard. Women often are the ones who FILE for divorce.

My ex did not want a divorce. Even after months of marital counseling, he wanted me to just accept that he had a 25 yr old girlfriend...a mistress. Hoping to save my marriage, I even TRIED that...invited her over for a glass of wine so we could chit/chat, become friends, maybe do lunch every week...how liberal...how "new age"...

Then, some sane part of me went, "What the hell are you doing?!" And I got out. But I never WANTED a divorce for myself or my children.

Many of my female friends ended up in similar, untenable circumstances. Perhaps it is partly BECAUSE we are more affluent, but I think the same scenarios play out everywhere.

Yet, unlike other socio-economic groups, I do believe most well-off women would like to remain married if their husbands didn't act that way. I truly do. These women have nice lives, with picture-perfect families, and they aren't generally looking to bail out.

It "just happens" when they walk in on their husbands screwing the receptionist...or the gardner...or whoever (both these cases actually happened to my friends).

It's also true that among affluent men the temptations of a full-blown mid-life crisis are more available. They can buy the sportscar and the hot girlfriend, so it may happen more often in this socioeconomic group.

But when it "just happens", it is usually devastating to families.

And don't come at me with accusations that I didn't please my husband, etc. I'm 15 years younger, slim, fit, and fed his every sexual desire. So, I really don't think there was any way I could've prevented the 25 yr old atom bomb that exploded my marriage.

It just happened. :)

I don't think anyone's advocating staying in marriages where's there's abuse, ongoing adultery, or addiction. Those aren't intact family situations. Much as my ego would love to say that if my man cheats I'm out of here, I think the truth is I would work like hell first for my kids, which apparently lovelysoul did.

Some guys are assholes and you can't work it out. The issue being brought up, though, is that there were signs he was an asshole PRIOR to familymaking. There were. Maybe if many of your acquaintances didn't look for a man with money first (affluent) and looked for a good guy, they wouldn't have such shockingly high rates of infidelity in their marriages. Maybe if they shopped less and payed more attention to the guy and what he was up to. Who knows? But a guy that tells his wife to accept the girlfriend was an asshole his whole life, and narcissistic, and there were readable signs for a woman looking. It didn't just happen.

Don't you have the guy with rape issues? I think a guy who wanted me totally at his whim, would be a really big red flag to me, very early on.

And yeah, my marriage may fail. We've done all we can to lower the odds. We both really wanted the kids and really love our life. And we both put them first. Having a childless first marriage end in divorce, I can sit back now and tell you each and every sign my 17 year old self ignored, that he was an asshole and things were going to end badly. They were certainly there.

Wasn't on the computer at all yesterday or I would've responded to this sooner:

"Only once the babies are breathing on their own are their fathers described as "germ-seeds"." ~Crid

I wasn't referring to all fathers as "germ-seeds" Crid, just my ex. And I referred to him that way because it's nicer than some of the other things I could call him. My Life Story is off topic, so I won't use this thread to tell all. Suffice it to say that this particular "germ-seed" got caught doing some VERY bad things and is now in prison serving 30 years (and I think he got off light). If he had been the person he portrayed himself to be we would still be married. And just to clarify, my kids were 6 & 4 when I found out what he was. They'd been "breathing on their own" for quite some time.

"My online persona is in love with your online persona." ~Pseudonym

Thanks, I needed to hear that more than you know.

"Ask those single mothers, assuming they were ever married, whether they or their husbands initiated the divorce." ~MikeMangum

In my case, I initiated it. Would I have if he hadn't shown his true colors? Probably not. I'm not the kind of person to say that my divorce "just happened," though, so maybe I'm not a good one to ask.

You know what some men as asshole and cheat simply becuase they can, but a lot of men cheat because they arent getting enough attention at home.

Most men arent wordy, they play out their emotions thru action and not dialogue physical and emotional intimacy are very closely linked for males.

The reason most men have affairs is becuase they are looking for an emotional connection they arent getting at home any more

http://www.oprah.com/slideshow/oprahshow/20080827_tows_cheating

I disagree with that lujlp. My ex and I were best friends. We communicated all the time and had a very solid connection.

Like a lot of men, he cheated because he wanted to be adored in that just-met kind of way...when you think the other person is perfect and has no flaws, which is hard for any wife of 20 years to pull off anymore.

They know you see them as they truly are, warts and all, and rather than being grateful that you still love them anyway, some men begin to resent it. So, a fresh, impressionable set of adoring eyes is alluring, especially when they exist in a 25 yr old body, which, let's face it, few long-term wives and mothers of multiple children can easily compete with.

But, as momofthree nailed it, my ex was also a narcissist. And all I can see that I could've done differently is not have married him in the first place.

That is why I have often suggested that we need to do more to educate young people about character signs. Narcissism, particularly, is easily confused with charm.

But if I had had a little more pych training, I *might* have seen some of the warning signs, though it's genuinely hard to say. Narcissists are tricky.

IMO, people should wait until at least 30 to marry, and they should have mandatory training in psychology first. Picking a mate is one of the most critical decisions we make, and a lot of people clearly screw it up.

Yet, you know, marriage is also one of those things where you are a complete success until you are an utter failure. For 20 years, we seemed to have one of the strongest marriages around - lasting even despite his "issues". Friends came to us for marital advice. We were that couple that would never divorce.

So, it's hard to say we should've never been married because, by most standards, it was a success for a long time. And that is the case with a lot of my friend's marriages. They LASTED. There had to be positive qualities to last for so long.

It just would've been nice if the husbands hadn't made the choice to cheat. As far as I know, most were not long-term adulterers. They just got old, scared, and insecure, and they forgot to put their families, particularly their children, first.

> I wasn't referring to all fathers
> as "germ-seeds" Crid, just my ex.

I don't care about your opinion of "all fathers". The point is that you're saying it about the one(?) man on the planet by whom you chose to give your children life. (Millions and millions of other similarly-embittered single mothers are saying similar things about similar men. It's as predictable as weather.) The rest of society is expected to regard these complaints about him as interesting, probative and individuating. This exercise gets tiresome. It's not helping the kids, either.

Is it? Listen, I'm no expert on child development or divorce or even human feeling. So it would be great to read comments in here from a grown woman, a loving young grandmother (or mother of near-adults) from within a full, sturdy, supportive klan who's made thoughtful observation of how family works.

Specifically as regards a scenario like this one.....

[Scenario begins-------]

Let's say you're a little kid. Not necessarily a religious kid, who'll have other rhetoric about life's origins and meaning floating around, but just a normal kid.... Pop culture, neighborhood, friends at school, some extended family. You're growing up and learning (amongst other hip-pocket principles) that there are two sides to every story.

All you know about how kids get here is that there's a mother and a father involved. So far as you can tell, half your identity comes kinda randomly from each parent. And every day, science class reinforces this understanding of yours.

And let's say your parents are divorced. You see your Dad once a week, or every six weeks, or not since four years ago, or whatever; the point is this man is not an intimate figure in your life. Maybe Mom's got another guy hanging around and you like him or you maybe hate him, or she doesn't and you wish she did or you're glad she doesn't because the last guy was a monster or you loved him, and he broke your heart when they broke up.

So adult masculinity is a bit of a mysterious force in your life. You can't really tell what grown men are about from watching TV, and the grown men who you see in daily life are incidental figures who can't be approached and are sorta strange. Your ideas about what your father's soul was like are not nourished by good information.

And let's say this single mother of yours describes this man as a "germ-seed".

What is she saying about the probabilities for your character? What options is she giving for your appraisal of hers?

Will it mean something different if you're a boy than if you're a girl? What does it mean to your little brother? Or did he have a different father?

(Flip all genders to suit your taste)
[-------Scenario ends]

Again, women who are truly, truly equipped with emotional insight are encouraged to comment.

'Cause to me, talking like that is just batshit insane.

"Do you seriously contend that the years between 20 and 40, and a law degree, are what make parents competent? "
Crid, while I won't say that the years will definitely make someone a competent parent (and a law degree either), I think it will improve the chances. I'm pretty sure I would make a better parent now than when I was raising my girls simply because I have a little more patience and understanding than I used to.

"I'm 15 years younger, slim, fit, and fed his every sexual desire. So, I really don't think there was any way I could've prevented the 25 yr old atom bomb that exploded my marriage.

It just happened. :)"

"is that there were signs he was an asshole PRIOR to familymaking"

I think momof3 nailed this one. Lovelysoul, I don't blame you for your failed marriage, but a guy that marries a woman 15 years younger than him likely has issues. I'm divorced too and I could claim 'It just happened', but if had had any sense when I was younger, there's no way I would have married her.

Gosh, you know, if we could just have this amazing psychic perception and ability to see into the future. But we're fallable human beings, who make mistakes, and it's kind of unrealistic to expect that this won't apply to our relationships either.

Yes, I see now that men who marry younger women usually have issues...or perhaps I should say ALWAYS have issues because one would have to be absolute in that belief to rule out all potential suitors, so as not to make a romantic misstep.

But someone will invariable write in now to say that they are 15 years older than their spouse and have been happily married for 50 years or something, so it doesn't often work as a broad application.

Still, I did set that standard when I was dating again. I politely told men who were more than 10 years older that I just don't believe that age differences work. Some became quite offended, and of course, they all maintained that they would be the exception, but I stuck to my age cut-off. Experience has certainly taught me that it's safer that way.

And crid, I don't know how we're supposed to deal with the issues you describe. I try not to ever badmouth my ex to my kids, but they both come to me and badmouth him themselves.

My daughter says he treats her like a trophy -only interested in showing her off when it makes him look good, but generally disinterested in what she has to say when they are alone...which is, of course, typical narcissistic behavior.

Yet, if I explain that, if I say, "Your dad's a narcissist". Then, I become a badmouthing mother. So, I just listen and tell her it isn't about her...that it isn't personal.

But I often feel that I'm failing her by doing that. Doesn't she deserve a full and truthful explanation? Maybe it would help her understand that she isn't at fault...that her dad has specific issues which cause him to behave that way.

I mean, what are we mothers to do when our kids have dads who are genuinely flawed?

Your answer always seems to be, "Don't have them in the first place"...but, obviously, the kids are indeed here, and that doesn't help solve the dilemma.

> Gosh, you know, if we could just
> have this amazing psychic
> perception and ability to
> see into the future.

Your sarcasm isn't appropriate. Millions and millions of couples, none of them psychic, are able to approach mating with humility and discipline, avoiding such outcomes.

lovelysoul, my school didn't have a PTA, but if it had had one, my mother would have been on it and my dad would not. He tried to make it to our sporting events and to other big moments, but he wouldn't have had time for ongoing projects demanding a big commitment, because he worked a whole hell of a lot. But trust me, my dad has had an enormous influence on my life - how I feel about myself, how I relate to guys, how I view the world, etc. etc. He also is responsible for the fact that I was able to get a kick-ass education without accumulating a crushing amount of debt, which has paid off in my adulthood in countless ways.

Is that the perfect way to raise children? No. But there is no perfect way. Does my father wish that he could have spent more time with us? Sure. But he wasn't avoiding the primary day-to-day stuff because he didn't think it was fun enough - he was working to provide for his family.

I am not, Freya knows, saying that all those guys who stop showing up at the PTA meetings you attend are exactly like my dad. Sometimes fathers do get less engaged. Sometimes they have midlife crises. Sometimes they get unhappy when their wives can't go through pregnancies and still have perfectly flat bellies. But lack of attendance at PTA does not equal lack of involvement in a child's life and/or influence over that child's development.

I'm sorry your ex turned out to be a narcissist. The fact that you didn't throw him out a window indicates that you are more mature than I am. I wish I could tell you that his behavior and personality won't affect your kids in the future. I can't. That doesn't mean that they're DOOMED; I know plenty of people with screwed-up parents who have made healthy lives for themselves. If the parent of the gender to which you connect romantically is a jerk, and you decide that you only want romantic partners who are the opposite of that parent, you can end up with a wonderful mate. But, if you haven't already, you might want to tell your kids that they should ask themselves about every person they date for any length of time, "Is this person like my father?"

But I often feel that I'm failing her by doing that. Doesn't she deserve a full and truthful explanation?

No. You're giving her the truth, which is that the reasons her father acts the way he does have nothing to do with her. I have a bias in favor of therapy, as it's done me enormous good over the years, but...if your kids aren't in therapy, well, this is what it's for. Sorry for the unwanted "advice," but I find that therapy is most helpful in situations where people are damaging themselves (or are in danger of doing so) because of motives that they don't understand, and just shining a light on those motives can help a lot.

Really, crid? Then why are divorce rates so high? If people are making such wise choices in mates then that wouldn't be the case.

I suspect it gives people a (false) sense of security to believe that divorce only happens to those who are completely foolish and lacking insight. People tell themselves this so they don't have to consider the possibility that one can, indeed, be blindsided...that divorce can, indeed, happen to them too.

I find this particularly true among women. The whole, "men only cheat when they're not emotionally connected or not getting it at home," thing. The married wife thinks, "well, we're emotionally connected, and we're having sex, so that can't possibly happen to us."

In reality, midlife infidelity doesn't usually conform to such neat theories, and many of the divorces that result are truly suprising. So, it's wishful thinking to declare all marital demise as predictable...and a bit insulting to put the entire onus on the wronged party for not being a better judge of character 20 or 30 years in advance!

That may apply to me, but it doesn't to many middle-aged wives who truly thought they had married good, family-oriented, trustworthy men only to discover that the aging process turns them into different people entirely.

It's hard enough to predict how life will shape our own personalities over the course of 20 or 30 years, much less how it will shape our spouse's. So, I think it's very unfair to hold all divorced people to this nearly impossible standard.

The fact that some couples avoid divorce isn't purely attributable to good judgement, prescient insight, or planning...there's a sizable element of luck involved.

Marion, I appreciate your advice. Thanks. I was only using PTA as an example. I know there are many great dads who sit those out and do other things with their kids.

And I don't know if it's just pure luck, but my kids have come out of this amazing well. They had some therapy, but they seem to have remained well-adjusted despite everything.

My daughter is actually on her first "date" tonight, and she specifically chose a boy, who, in her words, "respects girls and boundaries." lol I am so proud of her maturity and poise.

I mean, we all have to, at some point, accept our parent's flaws and shortcomings anyway. No parent was ever perfect, and it's part of the maturation process to come to see them as individuals, however detached, unstable, or imperfect. I think my kids developed that understanding a lot earlier than would've been ideal, but it seems to have made them stronger and more mature than their peers.

And they do know that are loved by BOTH parents. Mine is a more stable, predictable, communicative kind of love, and I really believe that if kids have at least one parent like that, they tend to thrive regardless.