Unwed motherhood is a crying shame

Kathleen Parker Columnist

Published in The Orlando Sentinel on April 05, 2000

Sometimes you don't have to work very hard to come up with a clutch-your-throat, spit-out-your-coffee subject for a column. Sometimes just the facts will do.

Did you know that half of all babies born in the United States in 1998 were born to unwed mothers?

Choking yet?

What was once a rarity -- a mistake made by the ignorant or the immoral -- has become a cultural trend. These days we even celebrate unwed motherhood as though we've managed to do something remarkable rather than something unforgivably selfish.

We're especially rewarded when a famous person behaves infamously. Madonna and Jodie Foster come to mind. Who can forget the People magazine cover a few years ago that featured a pregnant Foster and the breathless headline: "And Baby Makes Two!"

Now nearly half the women in U.S. maternity wards are following the stars. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, about 1.29 million babies were born to single women in 1998. Donna Shalala, the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, called the trend "troubling."

In my tribe, "troubling" is what we say when the crab grass is taking over the yard. When half the babies in America are being born outside of wedlock, we use words like "outrageous" and "tragic."

These aren't teen moms. In fact, teens are behaving better than grown-ups these days. The teen birth rate is down. It's twenty- and thirtysome- things who are making stray dogs blush.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, a private research group, reminds us that unwed motherhood doesn't necessarily mean "no dad." Many women are living with a "partner," according to a spokesperson for the institute.

Ah, "Mommy and Partner." So generic. So open-ended. So millennium.

The growth of mommies 'n partners as a family substitute is being attributed to two cultural trends: Women in their child-bearing years aren't willing to rewind their bio-clocks while waiting for the right dude to darken their door, and the more relaxed attitudes toward unwed mothers.

Who's relaxed? I'm almost hysterical. As a mother of sons, I wonder whether my boys will find a woman willing to marry and raise a family.

Remember when guys suffered Fear of Commitment? Today, young women suffer Contempt for Commitment. Gloria Steinem's maxim springs to mind: "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."

It is almost axiomatic in such a culture that if a woman doesn't need a man, her children don't need a dad. Oh, the occasional superfeminist might concede that children need a "father figure," but few see the superior value of a wedded family over a partnering arrangement. Divorce, after all, is almost inevitable. And then what?

Maybe this: male abstinence. Don't laugh. Dr. Gerald Rowles, a family consultant and psychologist, is suggesting that on his pro-family Web site (dadi.org). In a spinoff of Rudyard Kipling's poem, "If," Rowles has created a new male credo: If you aspire to be a man, father, husband, he writes, then you must exercise a man's freedom of choice -- abstinence.

Rowles calls abstinence a man's "most powerful victory in the 'gender wars' -- the conquest of his own body." In a world in which women devalue men and fathers, where women hold the high cards in divorce and family-making decisions, it may have been inevitable that men would begin guarding their bodies and that which is uniquely their own.

Just like women once did.

-- Bob Bastard (@ .), April 05, 2000

Answers

Angel On Earth

Once upon a time there was a child ready to be born. So one day he asked God:

"They tell me you are sending me to Earth tomorrow, but how am I going to live there being so small and helpless"?

And God answered, "I chose an angel for you. She will be waiting for you and will take care of you."

"But here, in Heaven, all I ever do is sing and smile and laugh. That's enough for me to be happy." "Your angel will sing for you and will smile for you every day. And you will feel your angel's love and be happy."

"And how am I going to be able to understand when people talk to me if don't know the language that men speak?" "Your angel will speak to you using the sweetest, most beautiful words you will ever hear; and with much patience and care, your angel will teach you how to speak." "And what am I going to do when I want to talk to You?" "Your angel will place your hands together and will teach you how to pray."

"I've heard that on Earth there are bad men. Who will protect me? "Your angel will defend you, even if it means risking her life."

"But I will be sad because I will not see You anymore." "Your angel will talk to you about Me, and will teach you the way for you to come back to Me, though I will always be beside you." At that moment there was much peace in Heaven. Voices from Earth could already be heard, and the child asked softly, "God, if I am about to leave now, would you please tell me my angel's name?" "You will call your angel: Mother."

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.corn), April 05, 2000.

Wouldn't it be nice if the angel's name was Dad?

-- brock gannon (brockgannon@gnc.net), April 05, 2000.

Yes, indeedy!!!! Dad's a very good name for an angel.

-- IMHO (Redy@or.not), April 05, 2000.

Oh, and by the way where will my Angel and I live? In a place called welfare state.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), April 05, 2000.

You know....whoever wrote this has a completely jaded view. I hardly think this person has the experience to say such things.

Do you actually THINK that your average American girl dreams about having a child out of wedlock, and then barely scraping by to make ends meet? Only in Hollywood, babe. This is not reality.

I think that most women, myself included, would prefer to have a traditional family. But sadly, things don't always work out the way we plan them to.

If the author were right, then why on earth would there be so many absent fathers and why would the Family Support division of the D.A.'s office be so back-logged with cases of women who were abandoned while pregnant or shortly thereafter, Abandoned by the men who promised to love and honor them? Do you realize how many men are NOT in any way trying to take responsibilty for their children; financial or otherwise? Let's see the statistics on that.

I do agree whole-heartedly with the idea of men practicing abstinence. Guys SHOULD learn to "keep it in their pants". I mean, you DO know where babies come from, right?

It takes two to tango.

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.corn), April 05, 2000.

"And who will care for my Angel and I, especially when I am small and Mother Angel must devote herself to me?"

"Another Angel, one who will defend you both from any and all threats, who will strive always to provide for you both, one who will love you both more than his next breath. And you will call this Angel: Father."

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), April 05, 2000.

I agree completely, Cin.

Sifting: Women in their 20's and 30's who are bearing their first children are typically NOT on welfare. Don't confuse women who WANT a child before their child-bearing years end with teenagers.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 05, 2000.

1. A and B enter into an agreement or interaction 2. A and B are aware that ipso facto C is involved 3. C is a member of the set A-Z. 4. C becomes an active participant, although involuntarily. 5. A,B,D through Z scream kill C.

Winners, all of us.

-- another governent hack (keepwatching_2000@yahoo.com), April 05, 2000.

uh...Hack, say that again?

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 05, 2000.

Chris, he's saying everyone gets mad at the government.

-- (I know@I .saw), April 05, 2000.

I flipped that post off without doing it justice and speaking my mind. I am damn sick of people here blaming the government for everything that ails America. The government is representative of America, and if some of you people don't understand that, I suggest you get a lot more education like "another government hack" did.

STOP BLAMING THE GOVERNMENT FOR EVERYTHING THAT'S WRONG IN THE WORLD.

-- (I know@I .saw), April 05, 2000.

I think A and B are male and female, and C is child who is killed (aborted) by A-Z (society). How close am I?

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.corn), April 05, 2000.

No way, cin. C HAS to be the government! (We'll let the hack tell us which is the case.)

ummm, maybe you look at the world though your eyes (which are just slits) and hack and I look at the world though larger, more experienced eyes?

(No disrespect intended, I kinda sorta understand the view of a single mom like yourself.)

-- (I know@I .saw), April 05, 2000.

Cin:

Exactly what I thought. I really do think we are right!

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 05, 2000.

Alright, hack,

It's time for you to come clean. What did you mean by "C". Is it a baby, or the government?

-- (I know@I .saw it), April 05, 2000.

Slits?

Aren't you referring to your date lastnight? Or would that be sluts? Tomato/tomaato. =) (giggle)

-- cin (cinlooo@aol.corn), April 05, 2000.

Cin and Dee:

Beautifully written....

What puzzles me sift (i believe it was you who brought up welfare) is why would ANYONE think people make babies to collect?

1.) Welfare has changed drastically. 5 YEARS MAXXXX

2.) If women do NOT participate in work program, they are cut-off, yes it takes time, but they do get cut off.

3.) Why would ANYONE think you could survive on the welfare $$$$?

having had grown up on welfare, minus 'angel' dad, who needed to be on a frigging milk carton, I can tell you welfare was NO picknic.

Anyone know what its like to eat melba toast crackers straight for a week? Nothing to go with them but water? I DO....

I am NOT saying their are not still 'cheats', but I cant comprehend ANYONE getting pregnant for a check...those daze are gone....

rant off.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 06, 2000.

Consumer

I generally have agreed with your thoughtful posts in the past but I must take exception to your take on Babies for Income. It would be difficult for me to believe that any thinking person could ignore the current state of our welfare society in the U.S. For many (make that hundreds of thousands) poor black girls growing up in projects throughout the country, their only hope for escape is to become pregnant, while unmarried. This opens up a host of programs for them, which includes public housing, ADC, food stamps, etc. Unfortunately, this is the best job that most of them could hope for and has become a way of life. Do not think for a second that so-called welfare reform has had any major impact on this situation. Throw into the mix the dependency that most of these girls have on drugs and the dealers that supply them and the game gets real ugly. I get to see this sewer up close and personal so I tend to be amazed that there could be intelligent people who refuse to acknowledge this situation. You have no idea how many of these babies are born with a drug dependency and the cost to the taxpayer to get the child healthy enough to be released from the hospital ($30,000.00 each, minimum). I am envious of those of you that are un-educated to this long-time and proliferating problem. Who should want to think about something so insidious? Just dont be so foolish as to think it is not happening.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), April 06, 2000.

. A,B,D through Z scream kill C.

Well I am Z and I am offended. I have never screamed such a thing. Where is the sensitivity?

Best wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), April 06, 2000.

Sifting is right Consumer, it's happening just like he says, I cared for both these moms and babies in hospitals. I worked in a hospital a stone throw from a ghetto. It's so awefully terrible and a vicious cycle, I felt I was a drop in the ocean for helping, and I burned out quick in there.

Hack, I still don't understand your A to Z comment.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 06, 2000.

1. A and B enter into an agreement or interaction

Now that ones fairly easy... can anyone say sex?

2. A and B are aware that ipso facto C is involved

WAG....If A and B are careless, or unlucky... a baby?

3. C is a member of the set A-Z.

Another WAG... set A-Z would be the pop of the USA

4. C becomes an active participant, although involuntarily.

If I'm right about 1 thru 4, c is concieved

5. A,B,D through Z scream kill C.

Hack is against abortion... QED :-)

Winners, all of us.

I won't get into that....

-- another governent hack (keepwatching_2000@yahoo.com), April 05, 2000.

-- Netghost (ng@no.yr), April 06, 2000.

I worked in a Section 8 apartment complex in Minneapolis for 7 years. Getting pregnant was the way to an independent life. Pregnant, unemployeed, get a 1-bedroom apartment all utilities paid for $61/month. Most spent that unemployment check on a bed, TV, and cable. Food stamps could be sold to get money for cigarettes and beer to keep the boyfriend close. There was a program a mile away that offered free lunch and supper and had a clothes and food shelf. All needs were taken care of. Wait a couple years, have another kid and graduate to a 2-bedroom, much more room for parties.

A few women tapped into the ADD goldmine. Get your child diagnosed with ADD and get a monthly payment for taking care of a disabled child. One woman bought a car with her extra money, after buying all new furniture.

We had a 3-generations deep suburb of Jackson, Mississippi since the benefits are much better here. They were a clan but had their children sired from outside.

The complex had 24/7 armed security. It cost the owners 1/3 of their gross, but the government let the rents be set so they'd get a 10% profit.

The five-year cap has its limitations if you don't know how to work it. But if you're smart, welfare is a goldmine.

-- John (littmannj@aol.com), April 06, 2000.

sift, john, and chris,

I DO agree it 'can' be very lucrative but what if you go back and re read my post, you will see also I mentioned 'cheats'. Hey, I am a street wise grandma (as of today...smile). I concur with ALOT of what you all had to say....but I still can NOT comprhend it.

I have a niece who has slipped thru the cracks, and still on...hence I said it does take time.

As for addicted babies, I've seen my share also, it is heartwrenching.

I will concede, you all pointed out things I've NOT thought of.

The money is still NOT what it used to be and I will stand on my original post of 'it is IMPOSSIBLE' to live on the 'cheese check' alone.

Also many do live with men who support them to cheat.

Why cant we SPEND MORE money investigating and CUTTING TOTALLY OFF FOREVER THE CHEATERS?

I am paying for taxes, as well we all are. But lets not stereotype who it is doing the system....not all live in the projects.

MANY live in the suburbs.

Consumer,,,,,who is not trying to kick the anthill, but reckon I just did......lol.

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 07, 2000.

Good morning Consumer and congrats there Granny! Ive got to go with the others that have painted the dark picture of our welfare society. I dont believe you quite understand the enormity of the numbers and just how huge this problem is. You must think outside of the box when dealing with this group or be doomed to underestimate the reality of it all. The low-income housing projects in this country are nothing more than breeding farms with an underlying drug culture woven in. The vicious cycle repeats itself over and over and there is no real cure at this stage. What kind of job could these poor girls get that would come anywhere close to the benefits available to them as unwed Mothers? What chance do you think the welfare children have to become normal citizens? Ill answer that for you.just about zero.

-- Ra (tion@l.1), April 07, 2000.

I don't get it. The article is about women, aged 20 -30 having babies without benefit of marriage. It is not about teen moms. It states that 50% of all babies born to this population of adult women are born out of wedlock. Unless someone has statistics showing that 50% of all new mothers between the ages of 20 -30 are ethnic minorities, I'm not sure what the racial identity of the mother has to do with this. The same goes for welfare fraud---are 50% of all new mothers between the ages of 20-30 welfare moms? I don't have statistics to prove otherwise, but I doubt it.

The premise of the article (and if the 50% figure is true, I find it shocking) seems to be that our culture is glamorizing what used to be a stigma---illegitimate births. We may disagree that this premise is the de facto cause of the rise in illegitimate births among the population that is the focus of this article, I'd like to see some facts that would point to welfare or ethnicity as the cause. As long as we can think that the problem is "them", and not "us" we are unlikely to find effective solutions.

-- (don't@get.it), April 07, 2000.

Dear Dont,

Personally I believe 'most' glamorize unwed births.... Define glamorize.?????

Shift does happen though. (tee hee) Back when I had my 1st son, in order to obtain child support (21 yrs ago) and yes I was unwed, it was not known as "Paternity Test", it was written and I still have the origianl document as follows:

Charge of Basterdly....

I'm sure we would ALL in a perfect world want to see all be happily married and making the babies at their own expense.

Futhermore, I do take offense at the remark of glamorize.

I became a very young grandma yesterday and yes this child's parents are NOT married.....

My son works, he is only 19 and doing the VERY BEST he can. Could he of done better, HELL yes. Furthermore, I raised him the BEST I could.

Tell me what you suggest I do.....forget I have a darling lil grandchild just because his parents arent married? Sure....

Or, should they get married because they made a mistake by having unprotected sex? Then later get divorced? Remember now, hes 19 and she is 25!!!!!

rant off

Rational,

Get your point, some I agree others I dont. I didnt do to bad for a high school drop-out, unwed mommy.....19 got a GED, today work for an Insurance Agency and have a license to do so. True not all work out so well, but I am blessed.

Still all in all I'm sorry guys perhaps I'm naive but I still dont comprehend having babies for the cheese check......toooo much work... LOL>

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 07, 2000.

Glamorize? Perhaps, perhaps not, but certainly publicize.

Madonna and Jodie Foster have both been recent "cover girls" for the joy and wonder (dare we say "glamor"?) of unwed motherhood. Current television offerings (e.g., "Family Law", "Judging Amy", "Jesse", "Oh Baby", "Providence", and "Frasier") all present central characters who are single moms and a significant percentage of those have never been married. That certainly reflects the statistics cited elsewhere in this thread.

I would hope we would focus the discussion on this phenomenon, rather ranging farther afield and including the issues facing ALL single moms, whether by choice or by circumstance (i.e., those who are divorced or widowed). It is the wisdom of that choice of unwed motherhood (and its impacts on US society) we are discussing, not the needs of single parents per se, which is an equally worthy, but different, topic.

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), April 07, 2000.

DMB..

This thread was started with the following header: Another factoid for Mr. Decker to sweep under the rug - half of US children born to unwed mothers

And the lead sentence for the article went like this:

Did you know that half of all babies born in the United States in 1998 were born to unwed mothers?

What does this have to do with the infinitesimal number of trendy elective births by single moms? These make up such a small portion of the 1.3 million babies born to single women that it is ridiculous to even factor into the national problem. To discuss Madonna and Jody Foster is to divert from the main topic. The subject here is about the overwhelming number of births created by the women trapped in our welfare society, not the few celebrities that can afford to have as many kids as they desire. Welfare moms may start off young but are very active in their 20s. Look about you and ask the hard questions. This is not about some cutesy little phenomenon but a long-standing problem that is getting worse by the year.

-- Sifting (through@the.rubble), April 07, 2000.

Sifting -

Hmmmm... Not sure where all that heat came from. I was attempting to show that unwed motherhood was in fact being encouraged by the media, and I was in no way characterizing it as "cutesy". It is not the numbers of "trendy elective births", it is the impact of having media role models of this type in such profusion that should be a concern. Madonna encourages many multiples of foolish "copycats".

You state: ...The subject here is about the overwhelming number of births created by the women trapped in our welfare society...

The original post makes no reference to the percentage of unwed moms who are on welfare, nor do the majority of posts on this thread touch on this aspect of the issue. You introduced it, in fact, and if you wish to discuss that aspect, go right ahead, but please avoid reframing the entire topic for your own purposes.

The author of the article which began this thread makes no bones about her dismay at the recent statistics on unwed motherhood, and I am in full agreement with her. I suspect that you and I may be in substantial agreement as well, so I must confess to being at a bit of a loss at the tone of your latest post.

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), April 07, 2000.

Congrats grand-mom Consumer!!

And, I LOVE your attitude!

Let me explain why, it might also help you understand the problem in the ghettos and the welfare culture vicious cycle.

Welfare was meant for people like you (I believe you said you used it), and your niece. It's meant to help people in a pinch, who are not proud to be on welfare and don't like it and want to get out of it as soon as they can. Good people with good ethics, like you. I can't see your niece living off welfare for the rest of her life because she has you as an aunt and I'm sure the rest of the family have similar values and standards as you have. You're a woman with heart and gumption, you fell pregnant at a young age when you weren't prepared to provide for the child, but that's an oops, a big one, but an oops all the same. I admire your resolve.

Now Consumer, if you ponder what was explained about the ghetto welfare culture, you realize that this type of mom DON'T have your values ethics and morals, they were raised INTO the welfare culture, tought to take advantage of it and not feel shame. Some eventually get out of the ghettos and that culture, but it takes a lot of outside help in the form of education and encouragement, which is IMO what is too short of for these people. I did my little stunt in a hospital as best as I could to help these moms, but like I said I burned out emotionaly. They need more help and attention that is currently available, and I was a drop in the ocean.

You did your best with what you were able to provide for your kids while raising them, and I'm sure were you given more support and help you would have done even better. That's the way it is for all of us, me included. We were taught a good basic moral standard growing up. These welfare culture moms weren't, so now they need to learn those values as adults from the rest of society.

I must run, hubby just got in and we're going out to dinner to celebrate your new grand-child (well, I'll toast to you and yours anyway ;-) )

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), April 07, 2000.

Chris,

Very nicely explained. Thanks for the congrats and the toast....

My anniversary is tommorrow, toooo broke after grandbaby to celebrate now, but BELIEVE me, we WILL and SOON.....

Hope ya had a nice dinner......

-- consumer (shh@aol.com), April 09, 2000.

All of you:

Does anyone care to post the statistics of welfare recipients by race? I am sure you will see that the VAST majority of welfare moms are caucasian.

Does anyone care to post the figures involved in welfare fraud? Or better, does anyone care not to make broad sweeping generalizations about what it is that is causing our country to be ill?

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), April 16, 2000.