Single mothers devalue fatherhood?

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

I don't think a woman should have to settle into a relationship just to fulfill her desire to have children.

No one has to do anything, but at the same time, you can't always have what you want.

As long as you have a male who is willing to provide you his sperm, have at it.

Though I must say as a male, I have restrictions to what I am willing to do:
* I probably wouldn't donate my sperm.
* I would not take any responsibility for a child I cannot raise (wouldn't put myself in that situation)
* I would not consider a relationship with a women who has a child. I tend to believe that there's always an equivalent woman out there without a child (it sounds terrible, but it's my life)

 

[athenian200]

I really don't see anything wrong with it, especially seeing as most women end up single mothers these days, anyway.

I don't think single mothers devalue fatherhood. I think men have already devalued fatherhood by increasingly being unfit fathers whose presence would make the child worse off than just having a mother.

There is such a thing as a good father. It's just that most of them are self-destructive, cruel, tyrannical, or all three. It wasn't always that way, but that's how it is now.

Also, I think that "fatherhood" shouldn't be treated as some kind of magical mantle that gives someone a special value. It just means you managed to get a woman pregnant. Congratulations, that's such a big achievement, you deserve a medal. /sarcasm

The thing is, regardless of whether women do such things or not, single mothers will exist. Whether they're created by divorce, getting pregnant outside of marriage, or getting artificially inseminated. I would think that a woman who chose to get artificially inseminated would likely be better prepared for motherhood than a woman who just got abandoned or impregnated.

The existence of single mothers doesn't devalue "fatherhood." That would be like saying that the existence of single fathers devalues motherhood. And there are single fathers that raise good children. What single mothers do, is show that one person CAN raise a child if they know what they're doing. That's it.

Children need a father, especially boys, anyone who says otherwise is a damned fool.

You know, I might actually respect your opinion if you explained it logically rather than asserting it as absolute with obscenities and insults. It makes your position look so weak that you can't back it up with logic, not even strong enough to stand in your own mind without your anger and disgust behind it.

 

[Questingpoet]

I think the question is too general. If on an individual level, a single mother tells her child that his or her father is not important or relevant because she (the mother) is not involved with him or doesn't need or require his presence or support to raise the child, then yes, she is devaluing him. I won't address the Jennifer Aniston/Bill O'reilly incident because i think that's ridiculous. I'm not sure why she responded to him.

In any case, fatherhood is being devalued in our culture, whether we want to admit it or not. Women are given more support and preference when custody cases arise just because they're women, not necessarily because they are better parents, as an example. Many single moms hold the kids as financial ransom - "won't see the child unless i get money".

So, i don't think the question is whether choosing to be a single mother automatically devalues fatherhood, at least in my opinion. There's no doubt a woman can raise a healthy child on her own. My issue is when women teach their kids directly or indirectly that men are simply sperm donors or "child support". So, it's not an issue of moms or dads being better parents. Both offer something unique, valuable, and important. Devaluing one because the other is not present is not a great message to teach children.

This^^^. Also, what Billy and BB said. Children do need both parents. And young boys definitely need a man around, even more than young girls need a woman around. I mostly say this from my own observations, but have read studies on it too. But that's a subject for another thread that I have just found to be true. I hate to ever side with Bill O'Reiley because I can't stand the guy, but I'm afraid I fall more on his side of the argument here. Just because a mom makes a conscious choice to go out and get (artificially) inseminated does not automatically mean she'll be a great and loving parent. Some people really have no clue what they are getting themselves into.

No, I think every effort needs to be made to provide a child with a solid family to support them. Two parents is best, nature chose this pairing for a reason. Even if the two are same sex, they will bring different perspectives to the family--and raising kids is hard work. An extra mind and heart to help raise them is huge.

And I really feel if you just HAVE to have a kid and can't find a proper mate by 35 or so, why not adopt then? You are taking a kid out of what is an unloved or unwanted situation and you have your child to love and raise as your own. Aren't those the two most important things in that situation. Normally a child is the culmination of two peoples love, the ultimate sharing and bonding. Since that's not the case here (no bonding of two), why not help out a child and society as well?

 

[bamf]

I wonder if there is an egg-donor and surrogate mother program for men?

 

[sassafras]

As much as people rag on gender roles being an antiquated concept, it doesn't change the fact that, even though it may be entirely a social construct, each gender has its strengths and weaknesses. Having strong exposure to both in terms of parents or other adult role models promotes a well-rounded upbringing.

However, that's not to say that a child needs a male and female parent and case closed. Personally, I'm of the opinion that children need a family. It doesn't matter what the family unit looks like; it could be nuclear, mixed race, two mothers, two fathers, grandparents, very close family friends, extended family, etc. That's not only a lot of love and support, but different experiences and parenting styles to learn from. I don't think there is anything wrong with a child having a single parent; I just think that it generally takes a whole village to raise a child... and the more people involved, the better for the kid.

I think any one is who is about to become a parent must take into account whether or not they're prepared to take on not just the joy of having a child, but also prepared to take on the responsibility of being parent. That means having or making the resources (not just financial, but emotional, physical, mental and communal as well) to raise these kids to grow up to be well-round adults. That's the only, real ideal that any parent should strive toward.

 

[Kavalan]

In short answering the OP yes. But it isn't the only thing and it is not found in every case of devaluing. It is to a degree any and all reasons brought up and are dependent on case by case situation. Sometimes the very reasons that would devalue it in one case could strengthen it in another.

People are the problem and always will be.

On a more personal bit I would be hard pressed to raise a child on my own in my desired field. I wouldn't be able to be there all the times I would want to. Which would be hard especially if I'm all they got.

 

[Siamese cat]

And I really feel if you just HAVE to have a kid and can't find a proper mate by 35 or so, why not adopt then? You are taking a kid out of what is an unloved or unwanted situation and you have your child to love and raise as your own. Aren't those the two most important things in that situation. Normally a child is the culmination of two peoples love, the ultimate sharing and bonding. Since that's not the case here (no bonding of two), why not help out a child and society as well?

Because in most countries to adopt a kid you have to be married.

And I don't see anything wrong in a woman's desire to give birth if she can and is mature enough for raising a child. I haven't experienced it yet, but most women I know say that it was a magical feeling.

I don't think that a father's role is any less important than a mother's but saying that single mothers are devaluing a fatherhood is a bit too much.

 

[Questingpoet]

Because in most countries to adopt a kid you have to be married.

And I don't see anything wrong in a woman's desire to give birth if she can and is mature enough for raising a child. I haven't experienced it yet, but most women I know say that it was a magical feeling.

I don't think that a father's role is any less important than a mother's but saying that single mothers are devaluing a fatherhood is a bit too much.

I see your points here SC. I agree that goes a bit far. It's the spirit of that message, that TDHT said so well, that I side with. Kids need a family, not just a single parent who WILL struggle to raise one alone.

 

[Trifoilum]

Depends on the will of the mother herself. While I don't disagree with her opinions per se; I personally would choose otherwise on the basis of safety; from the beginning, two people is better than one. If that's not the case, then you obviously can try to be single. But why gave yourself the handicap?

Also, this is the first time I've heard Miss Aniston's name spoken without the addition of Mr. Pitt and Mrs. Jolie's name. Good for her. *runs*

So, i don't think the question is whether choosing to be a single mother automatically devalues fatherhood, at least in my opinion. There's no doubt a woman can raise a healthy child on her own. My issue is when women teach their kids directly or indirectly that men are simply sperm donors or "child support". So, it's not an issue of moms or dads being better parents. Both offer something unique, valuable, and important. Devaluing one because the other is not present is not a great message to teach children.

*coughs* Pardon me, and it's probably just me, but I see the similarity with this and the argument against gay couples adopting... And I think both cases (gay couples and single mothers) could raise good children without giving them any undertones about 'normal' parenthood.

Aaaand since I missed explaining my point; in the end it depends on the parent.

 

[Gaze]

I'm going to bring up a very controversial point - *don't hurt me*

Many single women and fathers today, especially those who can afford to raise their children without any need for financial support from anyone, are technically still not raising them "alone." We've kid ourselves in believing that all "single" parents are raising their kids without significant social help or assistance. Many are raising their kids through nannies or support from family members. They may not want to admit that if it wasn't for hired help, family, or friends, or an employer whose willing to work with them, they don't know how they would do it. Even most nuclear families struggle to raise kids even with all the hired help money can buy.

 

[Gaze]

*coughs* Pardon me, and it's probably just me, but I see the similarity with this and the argument against gay couples adopting... And I think both cases (gay couples and single mothers) could raise good children without giving them any undertones about 'normal' parenthood.

I see where you're going with this, but that's not my argument. My point is related to the role of fatherhood not being as appreciated as motherhood. Fact is, gay or straight, there is no reason to demean fatherhood or motherhood.

 

[Trifoilum]

I see where you're going with this, but that's not my argument. My point is related to the role of fatherhood not being as appreciated as motherhood. Fact is, gay or straight, there is no reason to demean fatherhood or motherhood.

*nods* Ah, I see. I get your point.

 

[Blind Bandit]

Honestly I see a single parent going alone on purpose is being selfish. I was raised in a single parent home for a long time. Its very hard when you don't have a parent at home regardless of gender. I do think that kids need more than one person. One person can't do it all.

 

[TheLastMohican]

In an interview to promote the film Aniston made this comment "women are realizing it more and more, knowing that they don't have to settle with a man just to have that child." O'Reilly then came back with his thoughts on her perspective. He finds it destructive to society and stated that it diminished the roles of fathers.

There may be shortcomings to having only one parent, even if that parent is not having trouble managing time and resources. The psychological dynamics of duos and trios may have significant effects upon childhood development. Until there is some research on this, however, I would not make or act upon any such assumptions.
Did O'Reilly offer any explanation as to why he believed that diminishing the role of fathers would be destructive to society?

Children need a father, especially boys, anyone who says otherwise is a damned fool.

Why do you think that a child "needs" a father?
What happens if a child does not have an active father?
How does that compare to a child having a father who is a bad role model (being abusive, irresponsible, or generally dysfunctional)?

 

[slant]

Honestly I see a single parent going alone on purpose is being selfish. I was raised in a single parent home for a long time. Its very hard when you don't have a parent at home regardless of gender. I do think that kids need more than one person. One person can't do it all.

I preferred my single parent home to having two 'parents'.

Think about it: When parents mismatch and are fighting constantly, and CAN'T get through their issues, they have a couple of options to fulfill the two parent household stereotype.

1. They can stay together. This results in significant trauma. My parents threw bookshelves at each other and cussed at us when we tried to meddle in their fights.

2. They can divorce, and whoever the child lives with may remarry. This is disastrous to children; I watched my dad go through six girlfriends in six years when I was growing up as a child. Worse, the women he dated almost always had children of their own. I remember my father one year bought his girlfriend's children presents and not us. He made my mother pay for presents for us so he didn't look bad.

My mom, on the otherhand, did not date at all. I trust her more and as a child felt like her home was more stable. I knew I would never have to worry about my mom's new boyfriend and kids. Also, I've met lots of single mother parents who's young children have been molested by people who she is dating.

You should never put your children at risk like that.

Sometimes, a single parent household is better than a two parent household, even if you are pour and don't have everything else the rich kids have.

 

[Faye]

I'm going to bring up a very controversial point - *don't hurt me*

Many single women and fathers today, especially those who can afford to raise their children without any need for financial support from anyone, are technically still not raising them "alone." We've kid ourselves in believing that all "single" parents are raising their kids without significant social help or assistance. Many are raising their kids through nannies or support from family members. They may not want to admit that if it wasn't for hired help, family, or friends, or an employer whose willing to work with them, they don't know how they would do it. Even most nuclear families struggle to raise kids even with all the hired help money can buy.

That is definitely a valid point Res, but it is one we often forget about because we (at least myself, and most people I'm sure) don't have a high enough socio-economic status where hiring nannies is an option. Family works if you have it, but many families I know are spread too thin for that (particularly middle class whites), and many bosses don't care to work with people. But if you do have those things, then that is to the benefit of the child.

Politicians will always overlook these things though.

 

[Stu]

Bill O'Rielly is morally corrupt. Emanations from his pie hole need to be treated as noxious fumes.
In reality, most women who rear children alone and work full time live under the poverty line. (and I did say most) They and their children suffer the traumas that poverty metes out.
Women of means who choose to engage in child rearing without a man, or another woman, are not socially destructive. Vicious attacks on their moral character do not defend the honor of men who earnestly engage in parenting.
Our economic system routinely punishes women for raising children and that is far more destructive to society than anything O'Rielly can ever say.

 

[Lumi Spitsbergen]

Single mothers devalue fatherhood?

I don't know. On the surface I can see how a single mother might, but this has not been my experience by and large.

Now, to be fair, I was raised by both of my parents who, though incredibly weird (just, trust me on this one), were/are full of love and quite supportive of each other and concerned with the well-being of their children. Sometimes too concerned.


BUT! Back to topic, most of the single mothers I've known have placed emphasis on having if not the dirty, low-down, bio-dad's influence, at least a "father figure" they could count on to be there for her child(ren).
Often times this does include going to great lengths to make sure the "real" dad can be around the child. My next door neighbor, for instance, oftentimes will completely change around her schedule, shell out cash, and if necessary be away from her daughter or take off work just so that her little girl can spend a certain amount of time every year with her dad who lives in Ireland (fortunately his family is also very supportive and loving to the girl).
I remember one of my old best friend's mother changed jobs so that she could move closer to where her dad lived just so that her kids could have a reliable father figure while the bio-dad was out... ummm... being free.

I might not be the best source, but I've eyes in my head, and it doesn't seem to me like single mothers devalue fatherhood.

 

[Lumi Spitsbergen]

Why do you think that a child "needs" a father?
What happens if a child does not have an active father?
How does that compare to a child having a father who is a bad role model (being abusive, irresponsible, or generally dysfunctional)?

Better to have no dad than an abusive dad. But it's still better to have a dad or father figure than none, I believe. Not even especially for boys. I think girls benefit just as much, though in different ways.

 

[Shai Gar]

If you have a kid at 35, you will be 50 when the kid is 15.
That's a big problem, as anyone who can remember being 15 will attest.