Monday, June 11, 2012

Fathers "Optional"

I know the skin of the drum is pretty worn out, but I'm going to say it again as long as idiocy like this continues:

Children need fathers (and to be intellectually honest, mothers).  If you bring children into the world without one (mother or father), you are the epitome of selfish.  You are putting yourself and your own greedy desires to have children ahead of the children you so wish to bring into this world.  You really don't care about the child, you care about HAVING a child like "having" an SUV or "having" a manicure.  A physical item that is nothing more than a thing to you, not a human being.

Now I know that finding "the perfect man" (emphasis on "perfect," not "good") is quite a bothersome chore, and besides, "the lord will provide" one anyway, so you don't have to worry about it, but it is my humble prediction the young (and now, not-so-young ladies) will come to rue their decision to go it alone and become a "choice mom."  First, I believe they will COMPLETELY underestimate how much it takes to rear and bring up a child.  Both in terms of finances and labor.  They will get into the ring with a the little tyke and soon realize they really do need a tag-team partner to wrestle the challenge of bringing up a kid.  Second,  I also predict they will not realize until it's too late just how severely they've torpedoed their chances of finding a guy in the future.  It's one thing if you're a widow.  That would hardly faze a man if you're looking to date, if anything it would beget pity.  It's even one thing if you're divorced with one kid with one ex-husband.  I'll even say it's "one thing" if you have multiple kids from multiple dads.  But if you had a kid purposely with no intention of ever having a father you might as well claim you have Ebola, are a manic depressive and are prone to bouts of physical violence.  That will send any quality men SCREAMING in a mad dash away from you.

I'm not expecting things to change.  The importance of fathers and husbands have so been dwindled, and the "nobility" and "heroism" of single-motherhood (however it comes about) so championed it's no shock the "non-marrieds" are piling up.  I just have one question to ask about a missing variable in this entire equation-

won't somebody please think of the chilllllldreeeeennnnn?


tweell said...

They are, they are. Oh, you mean the real children, not their 'inner child'? Oops.

Arch said...

It never occurs to them that if they can't keep a man around or accept an imperfect man into their lives that perhaps they aren't empathic enough to make good mothers.

Zorro said...

What's the percentage of prison inmates who were raised by single moms?


beta_plus said...

FTFA: "Becca Bijoch"

At the risk of sounding bigotted towards insanely hot slavic women, I really hope that's a fake name.

Anonymous said...

Go out to and search for women in the Twin Cities metro between say 48 and 60 years old.

One thing you notice is the significant number of Never Married women who have children.

Anonymous said...

You can see that low class people do not understand concept of capitalism. Yet, they are proud of knocking up.

Jim said...

It's not father, it's baby daddy. That and baby momma are the terms of a dying society.

Thordaddy said...

The Big Lie is the existence of "single motherhood."

The uncritical definition of the term is mother raising child without father. But the liberated essence of the term is mother raising child ALL BY HERSELF. It is the inexplicable acceptance of this latter essence that "single motherhood" is then embraced and exalted.

Many mothers raise children without fathers, but ABSOLUTELY no mothers raise children ALONE in this country.

So "single motherhood" should be more properly understood as mothers who raise children without fathers, but INSTEAD USE brothers, sisters, mothers, dads, nannies, teachers, friends, co-workers, strangers, the State, etc. to raise their children.

This could be the way to devalue "single motherhood" in the eyes of all the enablers.

Anonymous said...

Not true. When Jennifer Lopez decided to become a choice mum a secret millionaire hunky dairy farmer appeared to woe her as soon as she had the insemination. ;-)

LS said...


Mark said...

"Go out to and search for women in the Twin Cities metro between say 48 and 60 years old.

One thing you notice is the significant number of Never Married women who have children."

And now they want you to help raise them. No thanks, I think I'll pass.

Anonymous said...

But wait you're wrong! Why there's an article on Teh Internetz all about it so it must be true:

Let's focus on all those "social fathers" taking a second look at the choice mom's budding teenage girls when the time comes...

Anonymous said...

"Many see marriage more as a way to split expenses than pool resources, according to The Marriage Project study."
You have discussed the economic impact of a "division of labor" type marriage before. This is the root of the issue with "co-parent" or "partnership" marriage instead of "traditional" Husband as head of household marriage.

"High divorce rates tell them to plan for the worst and to be ready to support themselves if needed."

So eliminate the option of divorce and you will see a return to division of labor marriages instead of split expenses marriages.