Poor Women's 'Magical Outlook'--Wm. Raspberry--WaPo

[Demeter]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/26/AR2005092600294.html?referrer=email

Monday, September 26, 2005; Page A23

Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas's new book, "Promises I Can Keep," explains -- in their subjects' own words -- why so many poor women opt for single motherhood.

It's not that they don't believe in marriage, or don't want it for themselves. They "delay" marriage until they think they have a reasonable shot at making it work. What Edin and Kefalas, both Philadelphia sociologists, found in their five-year study of 162 poor black, white and Puerto Rican single mothers is a near total disconnect between marriage and motherhood.

Unlike earlier generations, they don't look to marriage to give their children "a name" or for economic stability; they see it as a crowning achievement -- something to look forward to after they have their children, decent jobs and a house of their own. To marry earlier, they insist, is to leave themselves prey to the controlling and abusive men who are available to them in their inner-city Philadelphia and Camden, N.J., neighborhoods.
...

Can the young women of "Promises" be serious about placing marriage in such high esteem that they forgo it? Don't they understand that the script they've written for themselves may not play out so well for their children?"



There goes another MAN without a biological clock, pontificating. He doesn't get it--there is a limited window for women, and rather than never have a child, we choose to propagate our specific DNA, and the species in general. By not marrying, poor women avoid the ghastly emotional and legal battles that the middle class suffers (when the man goes bad on them): deadbeat dads, kidnappings, stalkings, physical, emotional and psychological abuse of the women and their children. Those middle class women who get an education, and work, and marry late have still no better chance at reaching their 50th wedding anniversary than the poor. And they end up poor, anyway.

The problem is not the women or their choices. They are making the best of a really bad deal: a society where male stupidity and cruelty reigns unchecked. Bush didn't invent psychopathy; he just makes it normal.

[SteppingRazor]

1. In defense of Raspberry...

This isn't the first such study, of course. Study after study has shown that children of either sex do better when they have a positive role model from either gender.

And, if you'll forgive me, male stupidity and cruelty is only one side of the coin. There's enough dumb, mean women to go around as well. The only thing that makes the men more relevant to the discussion is that we still live, more or less, in a patriarchy.

Raspberry, and the researchers he cites, aren't pointing the finger at poor women who have children and accusing them. The ideas being brought out here simply point out that many poor people have a skewed view of future possibilities -- and that's certainly true. Most of America has been conned into believing the American Dream, an idea that was always mostly mythical, especially so in the modern world.

[Demeter]

4. And so all the WWII Orphans Who Never Had A Father Are Criminals?

Women have been raising children alone for centuries. It is the culture that supports criminality, not the family. Fixing the family isn't going to fix the culture, either. If it were, we wouldn't ever have gotten into this hole in the first place.

The stupid, cruel, sick women have their children taken away by social services, those that survive the abuse. The "Father's Movement" is trying to take them all away. If a man has no interest in sustaining a marriage, what makes him fit to be a custodial parent? If he can't deal with an equal fairly, how is he going to nurture a child?

And as for skewed view of possibilities: what do you call the PNAC plan for American Empire? The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.

[SteppingRazor]

10. Huh?

What do WWII orphans have to do with anything?

If you could find a meaningful study that showed children of WWII soldiers who died in the war had less or equal likelihood of committing crimes, substance abuse, etc., than children of WWII soldiers who came home safe and sound, then maybe you'd have something. But as it is, all I can say is, How do you know children of WWII vets who died weren't more likely to have a negative socializing response?

And why do you immediately place the responsibility on the man for sustaining the marriage? Isn't that a 50/50 thing? What if a woman wants a divorce and leaves the marriage? Should she still be allowed to have children? Why/why not?

As for PNAC, again I fail to see what that has to do with the argument at hand, apart from similarly unrealistic aspirations (PNAC's idea of Pax Americana and the underclass' belief in the American Dream). But I think we can both agree that everyone who signed the initial PNAC document is a waste of air. :evilgrin:

[nofurylike]

11. "a positive role model from either gender" i presume you mean from

"each"?

either way, the role models do not need to be married biological co-parents.

"Most of America has been conned into believing the American Dream, an idea that was always mostly mythical, especially so in the modern world."
exactly. that is why those speaking in the book are breaking from those myths. quite positively, at that!


peace

[SteppingRazor]

13. I'm not saying a single parent can't raise a healthy kid...

I'm just saying what's more likely to work. You can have a perfectly "normal" nuclear family -- mom, dad, two cats in the yard, etc. -- and still grow up to be an axe murderer. By the same token, a single mom can certainly raise a kid into a completely successful, well-adjusted adult.

As for the American Dream mythos, the problem, as pointed out in the article, is that these women still buy into the Dream. They think they'll have a child now, and everything will turn out all right in the end. If they're content to be single moms and raise their children, great. But if they're so deluded into buying the American Dream that they think they'll have a child now, then become a huge success, then find Prince Charming, something's dreadfully wrong.

And if a bad-grammar taunt is your only comment, all I have to say is: :shrug:

This is a message board. No one's trying to write his or her dissertation here.

[nofurylike]

14. nooo. if you meant "either," i would have agreed with you. but i got from

the context that you meant "each." just making that assumption clear.

it seems to me that those addressing us in the book are saying that they are proceeding with their families *either way* the future might come out. and that they are breaking from those myths.
but i see that is just my opinion, from my take on the quotes from the book. i still ought to read the book before concluding that, i do agree.


peace

[SteppingRazor]

15. Ah, I see.

Point taken about the grammar.

As far as the book, the basic premise is that poor women choose to have children early because it is one of the few attainable goals they have -- economic success being a seeming impossibility for the time being.

As for this idea of them wanting to be single mothers and go against the grain, the book actually makes a case in the opposiute direction, saying that poor women generally revere marriage, and soo they don't want to just get married to their babies' father if he's not the real deal.

Promises I Can Keep posits that, rather than husbands or careers, poor women look to child-rearing as a measure of success -- primarily because the other two are unattainable.

If they do reach a level of financial success, the women will likely marry, the book further explains. It's an interesting read, if it's a subject you're interested in.

[nofurylike]

18. thank you for more info on the book. i ought to read it if i intend to

discuss it.


peace!

[WildClarySage]

2. Other studies, not to negate the results of this study, have shown that

younger urban women are having children because having a child is in itself the goal- that is, they are obeying the urges of motherhood that are instilled in them by society and their own families particularly, while not being similarly encouraged to finish school, marry or find meaningful work (in a community where meaningful work opportunity is virtually non-existant)- these girls find meaning in bearing and raising children and our failure as a society is in leaving them to realistically appraise their opportunities to make other dreams come true. This leaves them with the one dream, having and raising children one of their only realistic goals in life.

[nofurylike]

8. the book "Promises I Can Keep" is about those specifically breaking

that cycle, taking back the having of dreams, a successful future.


peace

[Demit]

3. Maybe because I never felt any extreme urgency to have children...

But I can't understand why women would deliberately have a child with no father in the picture. Why start a child out with that strike already against him. The motivation must be really strong, though I doubt it is propagating their specific DNA, or the species in general.

As open-minded as I think I am, I am disapproving of women who insist that they "have enough love for two parents." I can't help it. You're starting a child out with less than he should have. It's a deliberate thing you are doing. It's not fair to the child.

[Demeter]

6. I Don't see the Point in Waiting For Fairness

especially when it isn't going to happen. The species would be extinct before fairness gets another shot in this country. Our best chance at building in fairness went down with Clinton.

One has to decide on the suicide of not reproducing, or the crap shoot of hope. As Micawber was fond of saying: "Something will turn up!"

[Demit]

12. I'm talking about the selfishness of the woman herself in making the

deliberate decision to have a child alone. I recognize that the pull toward motherhood must be powerfully strong for a lot of women. As I said, I never felt it myself so I don't know what it feels like. But I doubt it is the political decision you are making it out to be.

I don't think your hyperbole of the species becoming extinct, or characterizing the act of not reproducing as "suicide", explains the decision that deliberate single mothers make. I don't think they are being altruistic. I think they are being very selfish.

The point in "waiting for fairness" is the child. The child whose mother has decided doesn't need a father.

[Demeter]

16. Selfishness?

There is nothing selfish about bearing a child. It is the woman's equivalent to enlisting, but the enlistment is for life. Anyone who thinks parenthood is selfish is quickly disillusioned. That's the point at which the marriage fails, by the way, when Daddy decides it's more trouble than it's worth. Sometimes Mommie throws in the towel, but usually, it's Daddy. Don't try to pretend otherwise.

Buying a sports car is selfish. Invading Iraq is selfish. Betraying your spouse is selfish.

Nine months of pregnancy and the rest of your life is not selfish.

[Demit]

17. Deliberately making the choice to have a child alone is a selfish decision

We are talking about women who go ahead with this decision despite there being no Daddy in the picture. Situations with a Daddy are irrelevant to the topic we are discussing.

You yourself are focused on what the decision means to the woman. Only the woman. Where's your concern for the child?

Wanting parenthood isn't selfish, per se. I'd be much more sympathetic to a single woman who moves to adopt a child already in the world. But women who reject that course because they either want to claim the experience of pregnancy, or want to see themselves in their child, are not thinking of the child. They are indulging themselves. It's a sad and selfish act.

[Demeter]

19. Your Sympathy Isn't Wanted, Just Your Intelligence

There are two choices when pregnancy occurs whether it's planned, wanted, or not. Terminate or give birth. There isn't any third option. Since pregnancy is a nine month process (in a good situation), one's decision can be screwed over by fate while awaiting the outcome. Furthermore, one's decision can be screwed over any time after the nine months. If you can see anything selfish in that, then you must have a massive capacity for selfishness, a level of narcissim that belongs in the Guinness book. I see only the tremendous risks any woman takes in the hope of producing another generation, and the great act of hope and faith required. Truly, it is better to be lucky than smart in this world (just ask GWB). But regardless, any pregnant woman must decide: can I do this, devote my life to the next generation, at this moment? Can I give up everything else, including my life, if it is required of me? Can I do it as an act of love? Because anyone who thinks she doesn't do it alone is fooling herself. And while a man in the picture is a bonus, HE IS NOT ESSENTIAL, nor are there any guarantees that the man will stick at it. There are some men who are born to be parents. They are exceedingly few, and their numbers are declining as the civilization declines. Being a good parent today is an act of will, not selfishness. There is a difference. Separate the means, and the end, and the intention.

[Demit]

20. You keep enlarging the topic beyond what I'm saying.

When a woman is deciding--DECIDING--whether or not to have a child even though she has no plans to include the child's father in his or her life, no pregnancy has occurred yet. She is not pregnant yet. So all the things you say a pregnant woman must decide is not relevant to what I'm saying.

Again, your focus is all on the woman and what SHE feels. The closest you get to even mentioning the child resulting from the decision is "propagating the species" or "producing another generation". Nothing about what this glorious risk might visit on the child she's producing. And you call my view narcissistic?

[WildClarySage]

21. I'm sure that the children of these women who are so selfish that they

wanted to open their hearts and lives to a child they wanted so much that they risked their financial and emotional stability to raise a child w/o a father, would agree that their selfish moms should never have had them at all since they all faced growing up to be criminals or worse without their father in their lives.

[Demit]

23. Women risking their emotional stability to have a child w/no father.

You said it. It's all about the woman! Her risk! Isn't she wonderful!

I edited this because I was just going to drop the discussion with a non-response. Then I read your post again and it is breathtaking in its focus. Again on the woman. She will be such a wonderful mother for deciding that her child doesn't need a father. Why, her child will THANK her one day! And if the child doesn't, the wonderful mother will just remind the child OF ALL SHE WENT THROUGH! Out of love for a person who didn't even exist until she decided to have it! Why, she thought about the risk to HER financial and emotional stability! But it was worth it, to HER, the noble creature, and besides, HER kid won't need a father because she has enough wonderfulness for two parents. So the kid will grow up wondering why he feels bad for missing a father, and guilty about wondering why his mother chose to do that but he better not bring it up because his mother was such a sacrificer for him, and he'll get the message that men must be bad somehow.

Oh. My. God.

[WildClarySage]

25. This is a very one-sided, glass-is-half-empty kind of

argument and I suppose you're welcome to your view of one-parent families, but I can't believe that anyone could argue that there can only be one kind of appropriate family and anyone who deviates from that is just being selfish, least of all on DU by someone who calls herslf 'open minded'...

This seems to be a very personal issue for you- I hope you can resolve your feelings of bitterness toward whomever this revolves around.

[sando]

24. Wow

What can I say as open minded as you think you are you have a ways to go yet regarding women who decide to raise a child on their own. There are also plenty of men raising children without the mother also and choose not to remarry as my cousin has, and his kids haven't suffered any emotional damage as a result. For that matter are you suggesting that women or men who have an abusive partner are being fair to the child? What happens to children in two parent families is often far worse than their being raised by a single parent.

[Demit]

26. Good heavens! I'm not talking about men choosing not to remarry,

or women who have an abusive husband! I am not talking about children who are already here! Who had a father, or mother, at one time. Who knew who their father or mother was.

I'm talking about one thing: single women, who are not pregnant, who make the DELIBERATE CHOICE to have a child without a man in the picture. Who deliberately get pregnant thinking that's just a fine way to start a child out in life.

All your scenarios of how well-adjusted kids can be when they are left fatherless by accident do not compare to the one where a woman decides to purposely create that situation for them before they are even conceived.

[sando]

30. Show me one case

Where the child did suffer.

[nofurylike]

5. thank you, Demeter, for your excellent rebuttal to that op-ed.

Raspberry, sadly, serving the caste system again.

and, huh??:
"...that question that the middle class have largely figured out: What do I do next?"

why, you be a lemming, of course. the middle class has blocked out and scripted your future...
well, should you have the money and privilege to step into the plan.

how many men could ever relate to it being growth to resist that plan?

arrgh

(btw, great name)


peace!

[Demeter]

7. Thanks! I Like Yours Better, Though!

[nofurylike]

9. :) thanks! they go hand in hand, i think, yes? but considering your OP,

and further comments, your name is just divine!


peace!

[Captain Hilts]

22. The link between single mothers and poverty is a strong one.

It's said that 76% of children born to minority women in Louisiana are without fathers in their lives.

And the poverty rate there is among the highest in the country.

Young women need to understand they have other attainable goals that are affirming.

[mntleo2]

27. If It's Any Help To Know

Most mothers in poverty WERE married ~ around 80%. Most welfare mothers (65%) were in domestic violence situations. There are more white women on welfare than any other race, not Puerto Rican or Black or any other ethnic group. Sheesh. Most poor women are WHITE. I am not saying this to denigrate poverty in other races, because proportionally other races are poorer, especially the women. I am a single white mother who was married for 20 years. I was not in an abusive situation, but I work as an advocate for low income people, and let me tell you, every single welfare mother I know was married.

Raspberry seems to forget these things. I am speaking for myself here, but I can say I am *not* alone. As a poor single mom, I would never choose to marry again, because, marriage does not work for most Americans nowdays, for whatever reasons, especially second marriages. Why should I expect a man men take care of kids not their own? As for the first marriage, it usually does not work well either. I think women willingly sell themselves into a sort of chattelhood by marriage.

As a single mother, I do not have to live with decisions not my own, I can see who I want and go where and with whom I want, when I want. I do not have to answer to anyone as to what I think, do, or where I go. Most women are doing several jobs ~ they are breadwinners, they are homemakers, they are child bearers, whether married or not. Much of the time, men do not help very much IMO. They often think it is a big deal because they pushed the button on a dishwasher, or picked up a pair of sox that was not their own. Look, I do not have TIME for that! I just need the dishes to get done, and the sox picked up, and it is easier to do it myself then have to praise some man like a two year old for doing something they should do anyway.

Please, please, I know all men are not the way I describe, but come on guys, many of you have to admit you think you are doing a big "favor" for your women when you do chores, while she is expected to just do those things, you do not even think about it. So, I can tell you why those mothers don't want to marry. They do not have time or energy for any more than they already have. If their lives were made easier, then perhaps it would be good, but often it is not. And a man bringing in more money is not always the answer either. They just become one more "child" to take care of.

I am not speaking just out of bitterness here, though I will admit I AM bitter. I wish I could have a loving egalatarian relationship with a man who would be a true partner. I love men, I really do, I have three sons and most of my friends are men, I prefer to be with men ~ as friends. However, I have found men are nice to have around ~ and then they need to go home. I like to cook for men, I love to hang out with them, once in awhile they are good to have as lovers, but I found that I cannot depend on men. They often do things when they "feel" like it, while the needs and demands of having a family do not operate that way. You have to do it whether you are sick as a dog, have no materials, or have three other things going on at the same time. Doing this consistantly is just not in a man's DNA.

My two cents

Cat In Seattle <---whose best friend is a man whom I love to death, but would never EVER have as a lover or marry!

[Porcupine]

28. Another DU dumps on dads thread. Pile on!!

Again and again I read and hear versions of "some men I know are good but MOST run out on their wives, children, families, responsibilities etc. Have any of you horribly oppressed women figured out that poor women are better off if they dump their mates?

Various social programs happily pay section 8 housing grants, food stamps, AFDC to divorced or seperated women that they will not pay to a married couple. I have a friend who was in an auto accident and horribly burned. Social workers actually advised the guy and his wife to divorce so the kids would get the maximum support.

Please note that in certain social strata the likelihood of a poor uneducated man gettting a stable job is far lower than a poor uneducated woman. So said man loses the job he had, stresses the marraige and boom he's out on his ass. Add to the fact that women prefer men with greater education and income than themselves as marraige partners and you have a epidemic of single moms.

note: I am a divorced dad who was forced out of his children's lives so my ex could capitalize on her affair with an older, wealthier man. She broke up his marraige also. I am a hard working, educated blue-collar liberal man who cannot even get a date because women just want more money in a mate.

Flame on.

[mntleo2]

29. Agreed!

I agree with this, Porcupine. I did not mean to dump on good men, because they are out there, like you. And I think women who look at a man's bulging wallet as the reason to marry, are just as sexist, perhaps more sexist, than a man who looks at her boobs. Why are women being more sexist if they think money is the most sexy thing about a man? Because they should know what that feels like and never do it to another human being! It is obscene IMO.

Maybe you have hit on the problem, Guy. Women, at least poor women, do not need some man to financially "take care of them" they need HELP way more than money. At least this woman (me) did. They often just do not know it (I unfortunately knew what I needed, I just could not ask some other man to take responsibility for a situation they did not make,lol).

But you are right...women often buy the crap that money is the most important asset in a man and this is sad, IMO. Women could learn a few things from a man's practicality and directness. Personally, I could give a rat's rear end about his money, I needed someone to depend upon, who works as a partner, who was willing to do things like get up in the middle of the night with a sick kid like I did. And pick up a pair of sox without thinking they had done a "favor" but just did what needed to be done AND then get up and go to work a paid job :). After all he can depend upon me to do that...

I often call women on their own sexism as you describe. Like a pretty face and big boobs, a bulging wallet does not a good partner make! I tell them they are overlooking the most important part of a partnership, a man who is a good solid friend and who has the willingness to get in there and do what needs to be done, TOGETHER. The rest can work itself out, IMO.

I hope you have moved on and realized your ex is missing out on someone special. It sounds like she is like millions of other clueless women; a selfish idiot who bought the "wallet" sexism that is so rampant. How sad. And it sounds like your kids would be better off with you than with her, while she is trying to "find herself". They need you more than ever now. I hope you are doing all you can to spend time with them to let them know what real quality is all about. Never EVER give up on your kids! They do not deserve her shallowness.

So I apologize on the dumping, Guy. I have seen what you are going through...my sister did much the same to my brother-in-law and now he is my dear friend, I gave up on her. I would have married him myself had I not been married at the time, and he was well, my brother-in-law, lol. I just want to slap women like that! Because I had to raise the kids we had, I am still friends with my ex (he broke up the marriage for a younger, educated, comfortable woman, who RAN as soon as she realized what she had gotten, lol). He is still an irresponsible ass, his kids know it, and I did not have to say a word, lol! Just suffice it to say I did not have to be spiteful, I just let things take their own course. :)

Cat In Seattle

[Demeter]

32. It's Men In General, Not Dads Specifically

and if your wife was the one straying, that was unusual and unfortunate for you. But most often, it is the family that is deserted by the man. Statistics don't lie, and if there were any way we could change it, we would have!

[Demeter]

31. You Said It, Sister!

Been there, done that, have the scars to prove it!

Men don't get it. Until they do, it's going to be hell for women and children.