Single moms... what do you feel?

[Anahita]

Re: Single moms... what do you feel?

I think you make great points, Karoaper.

Personally for me, good parenting skills in women are very attractive and I suspect it is so with many other men out there. So if the single mom can show herself to be a good parent on top of being whatever defines a good woman in general, I think she could be more attractive than a woman without children who can't demonstrate such a skill. I think certainly the choice of men has to change. Perhaps older more mature men would have to be chosen in place of younger ones who would be more likely to prefer someone as inexperienced and new to the parenting world as themselves. Then again, even that is not necessarily fixed in stone.

Also, Sip, the fact that a mother would put her kids in front of her man is obvious and natural. That's the way it should be. I mean after a man and his woman have kids, the same thing will ensue. The children become the central thing. Certainly that doesn't mean that they don't passionately love each other anymore or don't like kinky sex in the kitchen ( ). It just means they care for their children a little bit more.
...

I often wonder if some men might be frightened of the idea of dating a single mom because they worry they'd be put into some kind of parenting role. I can't speak for other women, but I wouldn't want to even introduce my child to someone that I am dating for a long time (maybe 6 months). I'd need to know that there was stability in that relationship before I'd even introduce them (and I'd still introduce him as my friend.) I'm not looking for a dad for my kid (again, I don't know about other women), but I am looking for a person with certain qualities that I would want my child around (these are the same kinds of qualities I look for in friends.)

There is just this inherent natural thing that kicks in ... you will ALWAYS be second in line to the kids. Furthermore, the chemistry of the brain of a single mom works very differently compared to a woman (with no kids) that is interested in dating, and maybe forming relationships. Of course this basically applies to young moms with young children. If the kids are teenage or older, then I don't think this really applies.

I don't know what you mean by being second in line. Of course she will always be thinking about what is best for her child. But, avoiding single moms across the board doesn't make sense to me. I don't avoid dating someone because of their career. For example, I recently was dating a medical doctor. While we were dating he flew to Prague and Japan and other places for conferences. His work schedule (often 15 hour days) was very demanding. He could be paged and need to leave to go to the hospital for an emergency. [Given that I spent yesterday in the hospital because I broke my knee cap, I'm even more thankful for doctors. Also, if I don't seem to make sense, I'll blame it on pain meds.]

Though I did feel that I came second in line in terms of priority sometimes, I knew how important his work was to him (and all those who depended on him.) I broke it off with him, but certainly not because of his work schedule. I certainly wouldn't avoid doctors simply because their career might put me second in terms of time priority. Nor do I think men should avoid moms (they've got a pretty demanding and important job, too!)

Do you think that's similar?

[TomServo]

Re: Single moms... what do you feel?

Reba.

[Anahita]

Hold this thread...

Atta boy. And sorry Anahita! Didn't mean to mess up your thread.

That reminds me of a song, Undone: The sweater song.

"I'm me, me be. Goddamn, I am.
I can, sing and Here me, know me.

If you want to destroy my sweater
Hold this thread as I walk away."

Can't a single mom wear a nice sweater, now and then?
"Silly me." (That's a Reba song, I think.)

I wonder what % of men think like Sip or like Karoaper or One-Way?

[Anonymouse]

Re: Single moms... what do you feel?

It's interesting how there were no such phenomenon as 'single moms' in the 19th or 18th century or the Middle Ages. That is not to say that there weren't the occasional moms who were single, but the proportion of single moms these days makes it a uniquely modern, and almost uniquely a Western phenomenon. Why do you think there exists single mothers?

[Anahita]

Re: Single moms... what do you feel?

It's interesting how there were no such phenomenon as 'single moms' in the 19th or 18th century or the Middle Ages. That is not to say that there weren't the occasional moms who were single, but the proportion of single moms these days makes it a uniquely modern, and almost uniquely a Western phenomenon. Why do you think there exists single mothers?

Off the top of my head, I can think of many potential reasons.

For example,

The church did not recognize divorce.
A woman couldn’t divorce her husband because of infidelity, abuse, or other reasons.
Women were not permitted to own property or be the head of a household.
Women did not have equal access to education.
Women didn’t have equal power in relationships (she was viewed as the property of her husband, or her father prior to marriage.)
Her right to make choices in all aspects of her life was limited.
Women couldn’t vote.
Child support didn’t exist.
Birth control options were limited.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Single moms... what do you feel?

Off the top of my head, I can think of many potential reasons.

For example,

The church did not recognize divorce.
A woman couldn’t divorce her husband because of infidelity, abuse, or other reasons.
Women were not permitted to own property or be the head of a household.
Women did not have equal access to education.
Women didn’t have equal power in relationships (she was viewed as the property of her husband, or her father prior to marriage.)
Her right to make choices in all aspects of her life was limited.
Women couldn’t vote.
Child support didn’t exist.
Birth control options were limited.

I practically agree with most of what you stated, however, I disagree on the idea of having equal power. In any relationship, one person always holds more power than the other, whether emotionally, mentally, or even legally. This neverending myth about equality is exactly that, myth. There is absolutely no reason for anyone or thing to be equal. In fact, nothing is. My tirade against the notion of equality is as old as when the X-Files first aired.

[Anahita]

Re: Single moms... what do you feel?

I practically agree with most of what you stated, however, I disagree on the idea of having equal power. In any relationship, one person always holds more power than the other, whether emotionally, mentally, or even legally. This neverending myth about equality is exactly that, myth. There is absolutely no reason for anyone or thing to be equal. In fact, nothing is. My tirade against the notion of equality is as old as when the X-Files first aired.

Equal opportunity is a more accurate concept, maybe? The perception of fairness and equality matters, too. A problem I see with equality (in consideration for rights at least) is when what is, and what ought-to-be, don’t jive.

This all reminds me of when I was teaching at a big university and a tenured male professor told my female colleague that she was going to need to choose between academia and having children. She was understandably taken back and told me about it. After all, the majority of male professors have children. Why that double standard?

She now has three small children and tenure, as well!

[Anonymouse]

Re: Single moms... what do you feel?

Equal opportunity is a more accurate concept, maybe? The perception of fairness and equality matters, too. A problem I see with equality (in consideration for rights at least) is when what is, and what ought-to-be, don’t jive.

This all reminds me of when I was teaching at a big university and a tenured male professor told my female colleague that she was going to need to choose between academia and having children. She was understandably taken back and told me about it. After all, the majority of male professors have children. Why that double standard?

She now has three small children and tenure, as well!

The problem with equality is that it's impossible to exist for no one knows what it is. What do you mean by equality of opportunty? Surely you do not believe that everyone has the same opportunities. There are so many variables that affect outcomes we cannot even begin to quantify them. They range from age, gender, race, intelligence, culture, location, qualification, associations (who you know), economic. There is nothing that can absolve the differences inherent in humans, and it applies to marriage, as well as any other human bond.

[Anahita]

Re: Single moms... what do you feel?

The problem with equality is that it's impossible to exist for no one knows what it is. What do you mean by equality of opportunty? Surely you do not believe that everyone has the same opportunities. There are so many variables that affect outcomes we cannot even begin to quantify them. They range from age, gender, race, intelligence, culture, location, qualification, associations (who you know), economic. There is nothing that can absolve the differences inherent in humans, and it applies to marriage, as well as any other human bond.

[Bolor mardik tsnvum en azat u havasar irents' arzganapatkut'yamb u iravunk'nerov. Nrank' unen banak'anut'yun u khighch - mimyants' petk' ē eghbayrabar veraberven.]

This is somewhat a semantic issue. I think I understand your point. Mine is more about basic human rights (born with) and peripheral rights (that are granted based on some standards). Everyone in the world is equal in terms of dignity and human rights, but many people are denied that. The fact that some are denied equality doesn’t mean that ought to be. The moral agents with the capacity to ‘grant’ rights to moral subjects also have responsibilities. The idea that all human beings are born equal doesn’t mean that all have the same intelligence, backgrounds, and so on. Children and adult individuals are equal (in basic human rights that all people ought to have), but children do not have the right to vote or drive a car. Children do not have the ability to properly exercise rights in the latter (vote and drive.) Women, however, do have the ability and capacity to (for example) vote. Denial of equal voting rights to women historically was not due to a woman’s lack of capacity to exercise that right. Denial of that right was meant to preserve the power structure for men only.

You are right that not all people have equal rights or opportunities. I think you talking about what is and I am saying more of what should be (and many of the other factors you mention are similar issues). Many women around the world are still denied even basic human equality.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Single moms... what do you feel?

[Bolor mardik tsnvum en azat u havasar irents' arzganapatkut'yamb u iravunk'nerov. Nrank' unen banak'anut'yun u khighch - mimyants' petk' ē eghbayrabar veraberven.]

This is somewhat a semantic issue. I think I understand your point. Mine is more about basic human rights (born with) and peripheral rights (that are granted based on some standards). Everyone in the world is equal in terms of dignity and human rights, but many people are denied that.

I don't deny, nor disagree with you, that I would rather the world be like the one you described above, but that is not the way it is. I stopped believing in that when I was in junior high and exclaiming in my essays these flawed notions of "rights" and "equality", basically all that stuff they imbue you with in school without making your mind question things.What you are describing is the way the world ought to be. You have simply assumed equality without having to demonstrate how in a world of differences we are all equal. In fact, equality (whatever that is) can never exist.

The fact that some are denied equality doesn’t mean that ought to be. The moral agents with the capacity to ‘grant’ rights to moral subjects also have responsibilities. The idea that all human beings are born equal doesn’t mean that all have the same intelligence, backgrounds, and so on.

I never stated which way things ought to be. If you go back through our discussion you will see that you stated that. I simply stated the way things are. How are all human beings born equal? That humans are born is not disputed, that they are born "equal" is. For what is after all meant by the word "equal"? It's rather vague to me. Are all humans born with the same capacities? Different children are born in different geographies, different socioeconomic ladders, different races and cultures, and different life situations. Some children are born to abusive parents, or an alcoholic father, out-of-wedlock births, some are born with debilitating conditions and diseases, others prematurely, others perfectly healthy. Moreover, on a more psychological leve, are all children born with the same love? Some children are born as "accidents" some are born with the love and want of parents who planned and wanted children. We can never probe into the soul and mental interior of children to know that they are born equal for to the parents of baby John, he is the best thing, but I am sure we don't care as much about baby John as his parents. Likewise, your child is worth more to you than President Bush. So how can we possibly quantify objectively what the worth and birth of each child is?

Children and adult individuals are equal (in basic human rights that all people ought to have), but children do not have the right to vote or drive a car. Children do not have the ability to properly exercise rights in the latter (vote and drive.)

You state that children and adult individuals are equal in basic "human rights" yet state that they cannot vote or drive a car. That is a contradiction. The latter negates the former. You have still not defined what you mean by equal. Do you mean by the fact that they are human and deserve and ought to have rights? If so, it only appeals to the way things ought to be and is no reflection of the world that is. Whereas we do hold in high esteem ideals of fairness and treating everyone with dignity, and we do try to strive for it, we cannot because that would be impossible. We would contradict our own existence and there is no way we could put aside "being human" for some vague ideal. The notion of equality or egalitarianism contradicts human reason, experience and perception. For we as individuals have subjective experiences and cannot possibly quantify things objectively, much less treat everyone the same (hence the notion of "objective journalism" is bunk). Egalitarianisms logical conclusion at a basic level is that no song or story is worth hearing more than another. On a complex level it means that no one is more wiser and worth listening to more than another and all values are the same. But since we humans place individual and subjective values on different things and since life is a subjective experience you cannot claim the equality card.

Women, however, do have the ability and capacity to (for example) vote. Denial of equal voting rights to women historically was not due to a woman’s lack of capacity to exercise that right. Denial of that right was meant to preserve the power structure for men only.

Voting is not in anyway a sign, or indicator of equality. In fact, it can certainly mean the other for voting, as goes with democracy. It is the tyranny of either the majority over the minority or the minority over the majority. It doesn't grant, guarantee, or create "equality", on the contrary, it disempowers certain people over others, creates divisions, the politics of victimhood, the politics of classes and races. In many ways, the argument can be made that there is no difference between having the "right" to vote and not having the "right" to vote.

You are right that not all people have equal rights or opportunities. I think you talking about what is and I am saying more of what should be (and many of the other factors you mention are similar issues). Many women around the world are still denied even basic human equality.

Women are not alone. Please do not try to claim women as the only sufferers by somehow excluding women as a category in itself of victims. Everyone is a victim and there are many a millions of victims the world over from every gender race class culture. No one is immune from the world's experience of suffering and unfairness. To assume that women form their own category or "consciousness" assumes that all women think the same and are nothing more than an unthinking blob. Everyone suffers, life is not fair, and nothing is equal and never will be. Those that want things to be so, must learn to deal with it.