Mother Talkers

Prudie a Prude About Unwed Mothers

by Elisa

Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:39:10 PM PDT

Editor's Note: This is one of two stories on the same theme. Check out Dana's response just below. -Elisa

I do not read Slate’s “Dear Prudence” column on a regular basis, but I was disappointed at her personal vendetta against single mothers. In case you missed it, she recently went on a tangent on how single mothers are hurting their children, calling single parenthood a "national catastrophe." (Hey, with the Iraq War and impending recession, this would not top my list of concerns. But there you go!)

Studies have found that children born to single mothers are vastly more likely to be poor, have behavioral and psychological problems, drop out of high school, and themselves go on to have out-of-wedlock children.

While I do not doubt that a disproportionate number of single mothers live in poverty -- who the heck can afford to live on one income anymore? -- it is important to note that the mothers in question are already poor. Many have no college educations and were already living in poverty before their baby’s daddy came along. The fathers are also poor. My conclusion would be vastly different from Prudie’s: These children are poor because their parents are poor. Period. It is overly simplistic to solely blame the mother’s marital status.

Also, I am a big fan of the institution of marriage for the emotional security and financial perks it offers. But the last thing I would do to a sister or friend is encourage her to marry a guy she does not get along with or might be in trouble with the law or be in such bad financial straits it actually holds her back.  

I was chagrined that Prudie dismissed all this, saying she cheered on the ultrasound technician in the movie Juno for making disparaging remarks about children born into these circumstances.

Since many working-class men do not offer the financial stability they used to provide, women see little incentive to marry them. As (Sen. Barack) Obama said, "[M]any black men simply cannot afford to raise a family." (The out-of-wedlock birthrate among black Americans is close to 70 percent.) I'm trying to follow the logic here. I can understand that a woman looking to get married may decide that a man is such a poor economic prospect that he's not husband material (even if a husband with a low income is better than no husband and no income). But how then is that same man, or a string of them, worthy of fathering her children?

That’s right. Shame these women into becoming better mothers. Way to go, Prudie!

Except for Obama’s mother, she conveniently never mentioned the many single mothers who manage to raise successful children, probably because the economics at play would defeat her argument. Single mothers like Obama’s mother who had her parents nearby to help or celebrity moms like Angelina Jolie who have money to hire nannies don’t seem to have trouble raising well-adjusted children. I suspect it has to do with the fact they had resources to raise their children, more so than their marital status.

Rather than continue to kick down low-income single mothers who are already in the hole, may I suggest a hand-up? Prudie’s column could have been a call for universal healthcare, scientifically-based sex education in high schools or funds for high-quality childcare to help out single mothers. Instead, we were subjected to this clueless dribble.

  • ::

Tags: Dear Prudence, Slate, Prudie, single mother, unwed mother, marriage, Sen, Barack Obama, poverty, childcare (all tags)

Permalink | 18 comments

  • Ah-ha moment for me (0 / 0)

    I had an ah-ha moment when I was reading Anne Lamott's book about her son's first year (title is Operating Instructions ... the rest is failing me even though I loved it). She is a single mother (her son must be in college by now) because her partner totally dropped the ball when she found out she was preggers - denied that the child was his.

    Anyway, the ah-ha moment for me was how she was able to put together this incredible support network of friends and her church to help her care for her son. Obviously the more loving consistent peeps in a kids' life, the better, and damn if Ms. Lamott was able to secure these peeps quite well.

    Her little family was surrounded by more carers than many insular nuclear families in my neighborhood, that was the ah-ha moment for me.

    by RachelD on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 12:59:21 PM PDT

  • Oh, brother (0 / 0)

    As a former single mother -- and worse, yet, I'm sure ... a teen mother -- I always hate these kinds of stories. Don't you wish we all knew what people like Prudie's "failings" in life were, so we could all publicly run her down for them?!

    That said, I read the column after you blogged about it, and I have to admit, she does make a point. Please don't kick me off here yet ... :)

    I do think it's less forgiving when older people, well into their 20s or 30s and old enough "to know better," purposely bring children into the world in the middle of tumultuous relationships. As in, knowingly getting pregnant to try to save the relationship or something. God, that never seems to work. And then, there's this little life who never asked to be born in the first place, but he's caught in the middle of his parents' big mess.

    by Kay on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 01:42:48 PM PDT

    • Of course... (0 / 0)

      having a baby when you are alone and broke is not desirable! I just think we should prevent that scenario rather than admonish women after the fact.

      I also can't help but think that older women who purposely put themselves in bad spots like this have deeper issues. A bad lapse in judgement? Low self-esteem? I can't say because I have not been in that position. But I agree with you that ideally people would be able to provide for the children they choose to have.

      by Elisa on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:45:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • married women do the same thing... (0 / 0)

      ...probably at the same rate. That is to say, women trying to save failing relationships by getting knocked up is not the exclusive province of screwed-up single gals.

      It's a bad technique--and a big gamble. But it has worked for some women. Pregnancy has successfully lengthened many a rotten relationship!

      On the flip side, pregnancy has also forced some women to get out of crappy relationships because they suddenly need to get serious and care/protect a child rather than an immature adult...

      by Amy on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 11:07:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • well said elisa (0 / 0)

    Prudie’s column could have been a call for universal healthcare, scientifically-based sex education in high schools or funds for high-quality childcare to help out single mothers. Instead, we were subjected to this clueless dribble.

    It is only divisive and unhelpful to stand in judgment of something that is not actually taking place in her own life. There are solutions to some of the problems facing single parents. I would have preferred to see her use her forum to talk about how to help make life better for single-parent families.

    by Stacey on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:05:32 PM PDT

  • What everyone dances (0 / 0)

    around is why we have an economy that requires two decently (not necessarily highly) educated people to hold down full time jobs in order to keep a family out of poverty.  

    And you know, "single parenthood" is nothing new....ofcourse, years ago, it came about because life expectancy was much shorter and parents, both mothers and fathers, often DIED while they still had minor children.  Did we castigate these people for reproducing irresponsibly?

    And ofcourse, I have to bring the personal into this, because right now, it is a bit personal for me.  My son and his girlfriend are going to be parents.  Yes, they are together, and marriage will be in the picture at some point, but most likely she will be a "single mother" when the baby is born.  Yep...they're young.  No, they don't have any money.  However, they will do like a whole generations that came before them did...they'll care for their baby, they'll continue their educations, and then they'll work to support their family.  That used to be how we did things...a good portion of the people my age and older that I know did it this way. Are there those who don't make it?  Sure.  However, their always have been...even those in "intact" families who followed some kind of traditional ordering of such events.  

    I'm not castigating single mothers or single fathers...in fact, I'm not making a judgment on marital status at all, but I must admit that I've always told my kids to be very careful about who they reproduce with.  

    by tjb22 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 02:45:42 PM PDT

    • good point (0 / 0)

      look at Europe, where the number of unwed parents is skyrocketing; good social welfare systems (if not always healthy economies) helps support the families and create better outcomes for children (if by better one means lower infant mortality, higher levels of education and all around measures of satisfaction).

      In Norway, I have heaps of cousins my age (and slightly older) who have had children and not been married; some have gone on to marry their children's fathers. Some haven't. Some split with the children's fathers. But there's no difference in living standard in those families, mostly because Norway has an unbelievable welfare system.

      by Rachel on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:21:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • You know, (0 / 0)

        I'm a realist.  We are our most fertile, and reproduce with the least amount of trouble, between the ages of 18 and 24.  Now, if we think we can "fool Mother Nature" and change biological behavior, we have indeed become extremely arrogant.  People are going to reproduce in their early 20's.  If we want to talk about preventing poverty, then we'd better think about structures and supports...truly, that's much easier than changing human nature.

        by tjb22 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:27:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • give Yoffe credit (0 / 0)

          she doesn't seem any more pleased with older single moms than with the younger ones... at least she's not ageist!

          Yoffe's themes do seem confused; is she mad at single mother-dom, or poverty? If poverty is her big beef, then she should logically be on the side of increasing social welfare systems. But she seems to be really mad at women who can't wait until the bonds of Holy Matrimony to reproduce, which is just stupid. Or at least ineffective. I don't think we should be in the business of legislating morality - too expensive and yields poor outcomes, IMHO.

          by Rachel on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:33:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • Its a very sticky field (0 / 0)

            to wander into.  I've been very happily married for almost 26 years.  Personally, I couldn't imagine choosing to have and raise a child on my own.  I say this as one who's raised children and knows exactly what all it entails....however, my life experiences aren't those of everyone else.  As I said upthread, "single parenthood" isn't even anything knew...75 or 100 years ago, a huge portion of children lived at least part of their childhoods in a "single parent" home...our eventual answer to this hardship?  Social Security support for widows.  And now, it truly goes beyond just social service support...in this country, we have an eroding wage structure that's threatening all kinds of families...and in fact, one could make the argument that this leads to divorce and yes, more single families.  Maybe we should put some effort towards a better understanding of why this is happening.  

            by tjb22 on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:38:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • there is a definite link (0 / 0)

              I think countries that have humane social welfare systems also have wage structures in place that reward work, and, not coincidentally, strong trade unions (to catch on a point you made last week). For example, here in Australia, there are good public services (no paid maternity/paternity leave yet, but that's coming with the Rudd government), and minimum wage is $11/hour. It is still possible (although trickier now due to housing affordability problems and inflation in food and petrol prices) to support a family on a single, working class salary.

              by Rachel on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:44:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  • Bring Back Margot Howard (0 / 0)

    I miss the old-skool Dear Prudie, Margot Howard (yes, I read her on Yahoo). Emily Yoffe is a real clunker IMHO. It's so easy to castigate; harder to help.

    by Rachel on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 03:22:10 PM PDT

  • Some people need to live in the real world. (0 / 0)

    Using a column to blast single parents, especially the single mothers, is a wasted opportunity. Back in the 50s & 60s it was almost unheard of to be single & having a baby. A girl at my high school in the early 70s was said to have a "stomach tumor"- 9 months later it was the cutest "stomach tumor" you'd ever see!

    I had thought with all the social "enlightenment" we would have moved past that. Remember when Dan Quayle went crazy blasting the tv show Murphy Brown? He forgot it was just a tv show & really went off on single mothers. He was afraid showing a successful & seemingly happy single mother would encourage a whole generation of unwed mothers. This would be the end of the world!

    That column could have pointed out where the weaknesses are in the support system for these women. My sister goes to college in a small town & the OB/GYN there won't prescribe birth control unless you're married. It doesn't matter if you are using the pills to regulate your cycle- no marriage, no birth control. At the college health clinic you have to ask for condoms & they only give them to guys. How many young people do you think will go through all that for safe sex?

    As for the columnist Prudie saying she supported the attitudes in Juno well, maybe she should rent the movie Waitress. That shows how a woman was happier after she left an abusive marriage to have & raise her child alone.

    One thing I have learned in life is that you have to be flexible in some things. Being a single parent is not always a first choice. We can't just sit back & tell women that they're sinful if they are unmarried & get pregnant, they're murderers if they have an abortion & then give them no other options. As long as people stick their heads in the sand & fight sex education for their kids then we can expect the trend to continue. They're going to learn about it some way & is that really a lesson you want them to learn the hard way?

    by alicetben on Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 07:57:44 PM PDT

  • I don't think Prudie really said (0 / 0)

    single mothers are sinful. I don't think she was merely castigating them either. Obviously we need to support children and ther Moms or Dad as much as we can. However when I take my daughter to school there are lots of Moms there that have multiple children with multiple fathers, one woman older than me (I'm 31) was telling me about her "last" abortion, shortly beofre the birth of her youngest child. "Because the father already had enough kids running around out there."

    All I could think was, "You know how babies are made, right?"

    I am standing in judgement a little. Its one thing to be a confused teen/young adult. Its quite another to be continuing risky behavior well into adulthood. And I am not speaking from a pearl-clutching horrified sheltered place here. My sister was an unwed mother, my cousin has had EIGHT children with various men. Could they be making better choices for themsevles and their kids, YES! Children are precious and they require time, emotional commitment, money, and stability. Its obvious that TWO parents can provide that far better than one can. I have single Mom friends too. I support them, I baby-sit, I help buy groceries, I have taken sick kids to the doctor so Mom could work. I have been the husband/partner they never had. Obviosuly single paretnhood can be done successfully and two people can be terrible parents, but I look at this as trying to increase the odds for kids. Books and newspapers in the house increase literacy, two parents increase chance of economic stability.

    I also hope and pray that LGBT parents get the right to marry, most of my G/L friends are terrific partners with wonderful relationships. Marriage would also give them legal protections in custody disputes should their relationships not work out. Its horrible that they are not given equal protection under the law, but I don't think two men or two women who are "technically" single because they cannot legally married is the same thing at all.

    by Suzanne77 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:54:40 AM PDT

  • I can't find the stat. (0 / 0)

    I've read, though, that daughters of single mothers are often more self-confident and succeed very well in school.  

    Anecdotally, since Barak Obama has come up, I must say that, like him, I've met and read about so many children of single mothers who have such an awe and respect for their moms.  Barak Obama seems kind of typical of this type--he admits that it has hurt him emotionally to grow up without his father, but clearly his financial status, education, career success and character have not suffered at all.  

    I sympathize with emotional pain but notice that, if a person seem to do well outwardly, many don't seem to.  So why are they up in arms about this?

    by Erin on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:56:22 AM PDT

Permalink | 18 comments