Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    I always get confused whether it's okay for a woman to answer a note in
    mennotes, or if we are just really invited guests, and should only be
    reading, but, this topic is worth answering, so I will :-)
    

    Children out of marriage...  

    Biblically it is wrong. Being a Christian, and a ministers' daughter,
    that has to be said up front. I'm not going to argue the statement, nor
    back it up. I'm just going to let it stand as an issue that I strongly
    believe in.

    That being said, I'll go onto to issues that I am willing to argue,
    debate, stand by, or change...

    I used to think that having kids out of wedlock was the worst thing in
    the world.  I guess I still do if you are under an age where you can
    not provide for a child, and give it the emotional and financial
    support that that child deserves.

    Would I do it ever? No. (read that No period!).. do I feel like I have
    done it? Yes. (read that yes period!)...  Is there any difference in
    the fact that I am raising my kids alone, without any *real* father
    around? Is it different that the girls have a father that I was married
    to at the time? Somehow, it just doesn't seem like there really should
    be a difference about now.

    Do I think society as a whole will ever really accept that a female is
    pregnant without whispering to someone during her pregnancy "You, know,
    the poor dear isn't married"...????  No, I don't think that I will live
    to see society come to that much openness. Would I even be the someone
    to say something like that? Probably. 

    Why probably?  Because I still believe in marriage, and I still believe
    that children are meant to be shared, and loved by two parents, and
    that the two parents should be together. I may not be living what I
    believe in, but that doesn't stop me from wanting to believe in it.

    Charles, my personal bottom line is: I'm glad you married Janice before
    you both had the baby. 

    
    
    I think it is wrong to deny a child both of it's parents.  Most of the
    kids that I know who were born out of wedlock are no longer living
    with both parents.  The parents tried to work things out, but without
    a marriage license there was not real incentive for staying and trying
    to work things out for the benifit of the child involved.
    
    It is becoming more accepted by society though.  Still unless the
    parents are committed to putting the child involved first before
    thier wants/needs/desires, then they should consider other
    alternatives.  Children need both a father and a mother, and
    each parent has to be active in the child's life.
    
    My opinion,
    Mi

    I think society isn't ready to accept unmarried parents yet, so it may
    attach a stigma to the child as it grows up.  In addition, if the
    unmarried parents feel that by not getting married they don't have as
    strong a family commitment as if they were married, it may threaten the
    cohesiveness of the family and the financial/time/energy commitment 
    of both adult partners to the raising of the child may become an issue
    more rapidly than if they were married/dedicated/devoted to making it
    work forever, if at all possible.
    
    -Jody

    In as much as traditional family values are possible I would infinitely
    prefer to see a child raised with the benefits of those traditional
    values.  I yield to "society" on this one, for the time being.  If male
    "A" and female "B" are living together and bear a child, if A+B feel
    that they will continue living together and form a happy union - I
    would prefer to see the union "legalized"...

    On the other side of the coin I hate like hell to see a child raised in
    a "union" where they're not really wanted.  I would *not* want to see
    A+B for what is commonly known as "for the child's sake".  For the most
    part I doubt seriously that the union will be successful.

    This hits very close to home.  A 19 year old relative just married a 17
    year old girl friend because he got her pregnant...this union has
    *disaster* written all over it from the beginning.

    What is truly sad is that this even has to be discussed these days -
    it's too DAMNED easy to NOT get pregnant if you don't really want
    children.

    Sigh..Jerry

    Children born out of wedlock suffer more because of the stigma placed
    on the circumstances of their birth than anything else.  This stigma
    may be either directed at them or their parent/parents. 

    It's a shame that our society will judge a persons suitability as a
    parent by their marital status rather than their capacity to love and
    care for a child because of some outdated dogma. 

    Any fool can get married.  And any idiot can conceive.  And a marriage
    is no guarantee of a stable, loving environment.  It's been my
    experience that people who raise children out of wedlock, especially
    those who do so on their own make good parents because they have made a
    conscious decision to turn their backs on other options and have
    committed 100% into loving their offspring. Society looks down on these
    people more so than people who marry, have babies, then divorce.  Art
    Linkletter was right: People are funny. 

    I only wish the adults who are quick to judge the child's suitability
    as a human being, or the parents level of morality, could be as well
    adjusted and well behaved as the children I know who were born and
    raised out of wedlock. 

    Kris 

    
    
    Another point to ponder is that the majority of children born out
    of wedlock were not planned.  That in and of itself is setting
    a strike against the child and the parents.  A child is NOT going
    to force the parents to love each other contrary to many women's
    beliefs. (please note: I state women because I know of several men
    who have been screwed over by women who purposely got pregnant to
    trap the man.  Sure the man should have protected himself, but none
    of them did.)  Also, most women today still feel that if they
    become pregnant that the father is going to look at the pregnancy
    the same way as they do, but when they find out that the reaction
    is quite the opposite, they can't understand it.  Sure reality 
    often shatters this myth, but usually not until it happens to them.
    
    
    If a couple has a good solid bond before the child arrives, there
    still is no guarantee that the bond will remain solid.  The arrival
    of a child either pulls the parents together or it tears them apart.
    
    
    re dual income families.  Unfortunately this is getting to be
    the norm for families today.  It only serves to create more
    challenges to being a family.  But I see alot more positive
    in it than negative due to the fact that it forces all of the
    people in the family to behave more like a family when they
    are all together at one time.  ie making dinner is done by
    all people involved instead of traditionally by the mother
    who was home all day with the kids.  Sure most parents would
    love to have the ability to spend more time with thier kids,
    but that is not realistic anymore.

Re: .1

Gale's question about whether women are "guests" here is addressed in note
1.18.  If anyone has further questions about that, please feel free to send
me mail.

				Steve

    Because of my religious beliefs I don't believe that sex outside
    of marriage is right and proper. Having children out side of
    marriage always struck me as more then wrong. It's foolish. Children
    require too much care and commitment to risk to a casual relationship.
    I know of people who have been living together for years and years.
    Perhaps their commitment to each other is as strong as a marriage.
    If it is I don't understand why they don't get married. The ones I
    know, for the most part, don't have children. I know one couple who
    have said that they would have gotten maried if they'd wanted children.

    I don't believe that society is anywhere near as hard on children
    born out of wedlock as it used to be. This is good. It's not the
    childs fault after all. Society is also more accepting of people
    living together and having children outside of marriage as well.
    This doesn't seem too healthy to me. It's all part of a trend away
    from responsibility and commitment which I think is basically
    destructive to people and society.

    Would I have a child out of wedlock? Not hardly. If my son so much
    had sex with a women he was not married to I would be very displeased
    and not the least bit accepting of the action. 

    		Alfred

    
    I think that society should back off from marking relationships
    with bible or G*d-sanctioned seals of approval.
    
    There is no state religion here, no should there be a defacto religion
    "standard" for the public to meet. Christians are certainly free to
    sanction their own unions with whatever ceremony they desire, but they
    have no right to demand that others do so. 
    
    There are civil laws that require parents to support their kids and
    I have faith in the love of parents for their children. I would
    not want yet more interference in our lives from yet more christian
    ministers and preachers who seem ever-eager to interject their 
    philosophy and their teachings into our lives. Let them keep their
    religion withing their own churches and not attempt to legislate 
    on my behalf.

    How unusual, I'm fully in agreement with Bob Holt on this one; society
    should back off.  But, since we all know that there are and always will
    be people who consider it well and good to push their moralities upon
    the rest of us, we must recognize that society won't "back off"; there
    will probably always be individuals who presume to judge an unmarried
    pregnant woman, or an unmarried couple who have children, whether their
    impulse comes from their religious backgrounds or whatever.  I'll let
    such people choose what's proper for them (in fact, for consistencies'
    sake my ethics *require* that I support other people's personal moral
    choices), but I won't accept their criticisms or judgements of what 
    I consider to be my moral behavior.  That's my business.  No one else
    is concerned with what will make me happy or with what will give
    meaning to my life, so I don't grant anyone else jurisdiction over the
    choices I make to reach those ends.
    
    So recognizing up front that one will be dealing with disapproval from
    intruding busybodies is important.  One can't wish the interference
    away.  By the way, I'm implicitly supporting someone who might choose
    to have children out of wedlock, if that isn't obvious.  That decision
    will hopefully have been taken with full realization that the
    disapproval of others will be there, and the parent(s) will hopefully
    have been girded for the struggle; to defend their own choice, their
    own views of doing what is right for their own life or lives.  None 
    of us are hermits; the choice to go ahead in the face of expected
    disapproval implies acceptance of the challenges, acceptance of one's
    own strength to deal; it implies wonderful self-confidence and
    integrity, and deserves respect.  
    
    I have a less-than-favorable view of the institution of marriage in
    this western society.  While it has certain strengths and benefits,
    the legal and cultural expectations of this institution act to me as
    dead weight, introducing far more baggage into a relationship between
    two people than I will tolerate in my relationships.  It isn't for me.
    (I recognize that other people feel far differently, and I salute them
    in their different perspectives and whole-heartedly endorse their
    decisions to enter that institution if they so choose.)  But does my
    personal recognition about marriage imply anything at all about whether
    or not I should, could, want, need, or desire to become a father, or to
    raise children?  Not in my opinion.  I recognize that traditionally the
    two stations (father and husband) are a joint station in this culture;
    I recognize that should I realize that I want to be a father, I'll
    either have to rethink my position on marriage (unlikely) or accept
    that challenge mentioned above, to do it in the face of societal
    disapproval.  Then, there is the additional difficulty that since I'm
    male, I'd need to convince someone else of my views, to the extent that
    they'd trust me enough to bear my children.  Or, if I realize that what
    I want to do is raise children, perhaps adoption would work for me.  I
    can't imagine that society would make it easy for me to adopt, either,
    though, so that's got its own set of problems.  Whatever.
    
    In terms of the questions you originally raised, Charles, I guess I say
    this; what any individual decides they should do, to make themselves
    happy and give meaning to their lives, is something I can respect. 
    I've already made my decision about marriage; and at this time, I'm
    not really thinking about becoming a father either.  But someone who
    decides to become a parent without the trappings of marriage is making
    a decision with which I can strongly empathize, and more power to them.
    
    DougO

    As a girl who grew up without a father, I am strongly against pregnancy
    outside of marriage.  It had a major impact on my life, to be sure.  My
    father abandoned mom and kids when we were infants (I'm a twin).  I
    consider my stepfather to be my dad, and he's a wonderful dad.  But I
    know that a lot of the situations that I've faced in the past and
    handled badly stem from the fact that there was no male influence in my
    life, or stems from the revolving door of seeing my natural father use
    and abuse mom by "setting her up" periodically to take him back.  We
    are Catholics and divorce is frowned upon.  Now I live in major fear of
    "true" commitment with a man, and am totally scared to death of
    marriage.  It doesn't mean I won't want it someday, but I'm scared to
    be abandoned *myself*.  Because nothing is ever a sure thing ... and
    you can only depend on *yourself*, *never* a man.  At least that's what
    I've learned, and continue to learn, the longer I date and the longer I
    see unhappy marriages (which abound down here in Washington, DC).  
    
    Conversely, someday, even if I never marry, I'd love to have a little
    girl, and will probably try to adopt one from a foreign country (or a
    handicapped child) when I'm in my 30's if I can.  I know this sounds
    hypocritical, but for a child who's been abandoned, having at least
    *one* parent is better than having *no* parent at all, ever.
    
    Tammi

    re .13, Um, no, Herb.  When I was talking about society should back
    off, I'm referring to the real-life situation as experienced by an
    unmarried person making this decision, and what kind of judgemental
    people that person is going to encounter.  I recognize fully that here
    in the notesfile, we're all giving our valid opinions and I don't
    consider your expressed opinion as my target, or foil.  I understand
    you to be answering the questions of the basenote from your own
    upbringing and background, I honor your opinion as honest, and I'm 
    just engaging in civilized opinion-offering of my own.  I hope we 
    all can continue to do so :-).
    
    DougO

    re .15, Herb, well, I can't speak for Bob's .10, but I thought I
    indicated other possibilities than Deist or Christian, when I said

    .11> whether their impulse comes from their religious backgrounds 
    .11> or whatever.

    and

    .11> I recognize that traditionally the two 
    .11> stations (father and husband) are a joint station in this culture;

    Thus, recognizing religion, tradition, and <whatever> as people's
    sources for feeling the way that makes them act as stipulated.

    > My position also has nothing to do with morality either; unless one
    > wants to imbue with morality the notion that children are important.

    Hmmm...Herb, I went back and re-read your first entry, and this to me
    has a strongly moral flavor:

    .6> So what does it say about the priorities of the parent who choses
    .6> to have a child/children outside of marriage?

    I read that as somewhat condemnatory, as if you had the right to judge
    the priorities of other people...tell me, what *does* it say about
    those people's priorities?  My opinion on this general sort of question
    was expressed in this fashion, earlier:

    .11> I won't accept their criticisms or judgements of what I
    .11> consider to be my moral behavior.  That's my business.  No one 
    .11> else is concerned with what will make me happy or with what will 
    .11> give meaning to my life, so I don't grant anyone else jurisdiction 
    .11> over the choices I make to reach those ends.

    I see our positions as possibly (not necessarily) contradictory.

    DougO

    I can't believe people still think about this.  Who cares who's married
    to whom or not?  I don't think Goldie Hawn & Kurt Russell care - or
    Farrah & Ryan - or does money exempt people from other people's
    judgement?  I know I wouldn't care a fig, why should I?  The question 
    is or should be, nothing more than whether or not she who has a child 
    takes good care of it.
    
    If it's nice to have a second parent around, is a third better and a
    fourth better still?  Two-parent families haven't been the norm for
    the majority of human history.  Marriage is an artificial institution 
    created to "attach males to families", Margaret Mead's words.  She says 
    that in every society there's the problem of "what to do with the males".  
    Modern society answers that question with marriage, giving men both a 
    focus in their lives and a reason to work which will both minimize their 
    "disrupting" influence, leaving women safe to do their work and which 
    will even give them, the women, some assistance in their work.
    
    Which means men are not traditionally or by default, "attached", (beyond 
    the obvious!  ;-)  ) to the women they impregnate.  And I think we can see 
    plenty of evidence of that even today.  How many men truly believe
    monogamy is a natural state for a man?  It's a psychological reality that 
    sexual interest in a partner generally wanes around 4 years, give or take 
    a few.  Please don't fill me with stories of "well I still love her after 
    21 years" or anything, exceptions don't disprove the rule.  Look around 
    your own lives and see how stable things are for the majority.
    
    Marriage is a relatively recent societal convention and as such I just
    don't place that much importance on a father's presence beyond a
    woman's peace of mind, (if she requires it to be a secure woman and a 
    loving mother), and the ability to contribute financially.  If men were 
    so important in parenting, this race would have died out purty durn early.
    It's only been in the last 10 years or so that men in general began to
    even have any interest in their kids for heaven's sake.  So for all
    intents and purposes, kids have grown up fatherless practically
    forever.
    
    If you think 2 parents are "required", you're responding more to the
    tenets of your society than to human nature.

>    Do people in any of these categories have much sense of what is needed
>    and/or where the priorities should be? I don't think so

Herb, forgive me, but are you saying you think that only by going through a
heterosexual marriage can you have some "sense of what is needed" and
"where the priorities should be?"  Is there something in the marriage
ceremony that suddenly transforms people, (only hetero people and probably 
only same race people, too?), into possessing "enough" parenting knowledge?

>    And my personal bias is that people -call them parents- 

So your definition of parent is not someone who has a child?  In your mind,
only married people can be parents????  Wow.

> who CHOOSE to remain single and bring up their children that way are
> exhibiting selfishness and distorted thinking. 

Oh, Herb, you seriously need some perspective on this.  ANYONE who chooses
to love a child has chosen the most important role in life and is *anything
but* selfish.  Would you say that if someone wanted to adopt a refuge from 
a war-torn country, and was stable and able to afford it, that this person 
must first be required to find someone to marry them?  Double wow.  Let's
talk about selfishness and distorted thinking.
    
    And then let's talk about the men who abandon their wives to this fate.
    What do you think of these women?  Did they suddenly lose their ability
    to nurture?  Are they selfish for not immediately running out to find
    another "father figure"?

    
    

    My values have changed over the past 18 years that I've been on my own.
    Then I would never have considered it.  Now it makes no difference whether
    you are married or living together.  If one partner wants to leave they
    will, still leaving a single parent.
    
    My youngest as I have mentioned before is about to move in with her
    boyfriend.  There was a scare a couple of weeks ago when she thought
    she was pregnant.  Was I worried, nope, the `kid' has her head screwed
    on correctly.  Did she want me to accompany her, no she said Andy
    would.  Now, this guy stands beside her no matter what and if they
    decided to have a family and not be married, I'm still behind them.
    
    Yes they are only 20, and no they don't have plans for years, and yes
    they still discuss everything with both mothers.  What difference does
    a piece of paper make.  If he wanted to leave she'd still be left
    alone.
    
    My values have changed as I have.  Commitment is so important, something
    you can have even without with the piece of paper.
    
    So Charles in answer to your question.  I do believe in children
    between two people who are committed to each other, and you don't need
    to be married.  This of course is in my opinion.
    
    ...dale  

    RE: .20
    Read Herb's reply again (.19).
    
    
    It's my belief it is up to the individuals involved to decide what is
    right for them.
    Personally, I would marry before I had children.  At this stage of my
    life I feel I would need the security(?) of marriage before bringing a
    child into the world.  I feel marriage is a greater commitment that
    living together, it does make it just that little bit harder to get out
    when the going gets tough.  But who knows, when it comes to the crunch
    I may be very happy and secure in having children without being
    married.  It's very hard to say what *I* would do.  One thing I would
    make certain of is that I was financially secure and could provide for
    my child.
    Yes, one day I want "that bit of paper" that tells me someone is
    willing to publicly commit to me for life (hopefully).
    
    		Holly.
                      

    rep .18 

    I think you underestimate the capacity a man has to bond to a woman or
    his family.  I think you very much underestimate the role of a father. 

    Much of what you've written is anti-male stereotype.  If the only
    reason the institution of marriage was founded and perpetuated is to 

.18> minimize their (men's) "disrupting" influence, leaving women safe to do
.18> their work and which  will even give them, the women, some assistance in
.18> their work

    and if men are naturally polygamous then marriage is a concept which
    has no benefit for men.  If that's the case, such a practice would
    never have even been considered in a male dominated society.  So either
    society isn't as male dominated as some would have us believe or
    Margaret Mead (or your interpretation of her work) is faulty.

.18> Please don't fill me with stories of "well I still love her after  21 
.18> years" or anything, exceptions don't disprove the rule.  Look around  

    If  "exceptions don't disprove the rule", then sweeping generalizations
    such as "Men are better scientists (or artists, or engineers, or
    doctors, or polititians, or writers, or musicians, or CEO's...) than
    women" must also stand as unarguable and we can disregard the
    accomplishments of, yes, Margaret Mead, Marie Currie, Indira Ghandhi,
    Margaret Thatcher, Margaret Atwell as anomallies of a less gifted sex. 
    If that's the case then an employer is justified in selecting a
    man over a woman for most jobs.

    Sexist arguments are fundamentaly invalid no matter which way they are
    directed because they fail to individualize members of the sexes.  I
    would like to think that having inserted into the collective psyche of
    society the concept that women are capable of performing "men's work",
    our society, especially those who regard themselves as feminists, might
    begin to believe that a man can actually love and nurture their
    children as much as a woman. 

    Kris 

    
    This subject has recently taken on a very personal meaning for
    my husband an I. About a month ago, our oldest son told us that
    he is pregnant. An interesting way of putting it I thought. He
    and his SO Holly are going to have a baby in late December or
    early January. No they are not married, nor at this time planning
    on it. Would I prefer that they were, to be honest, yes, because
    I think it makes things a lot less complicated and is easier for
    the child. Do I want them to get married just because they are
    pregnant, no. Would I have rathered they chose abortion or adoption?
    Definitely, NO!

    It seems to me that they have made the most responsible choice
    they could in a difficult situation, and I'm proud of both of them.

    My son commented that he wasn't sure when the 'right' time in ones
    life was to have a kid, but since this one wanted to come into his
    life at this time, that maybe this was the right time to be a father.

    and I know he will be an excellent and involved father, I've seen
    him with his younger siblings.. heck he was helping with diapers
    and bottles at age 3... and he wants to have a large family, mostly
    adopted as his father and I have done..

    I love him, and I'm learning to know and love Holly.. and I will love
    my grandchild, further my parents and my husbands parents are delighted
    to be great grand parents.
    
    If I had reacted negatively I'd have spoiled my and my families chances
    of getting to know and love the next generation.
    
    Or as my Mom in law said..
    
    a baby is a baby..

    Bonnie


    P.S. My only problem :-) :-) is that I'm *much too young* to be
    married to a grandfather :-) :-)

    p.p.s.

    anyone with baby furniture to give away or sell cheap let me know.

    It's happening to me too.  My daughter is expecting a baby any day now.
    She's due July 3rd.  She is living with the father - someone she has
    been "going with" for 4 years.  There has never been anyone else but
    this person for her.  Likewise he seems devoted to her, but they are
    both sooooooooo young.
    
    I have supported them both (emotionally) since I first heard of this
    pregnancy.  I even gave my daughter a "baby shower" inviting all of our
    relatives as well as his relatives.  All of the relatives from both
    sides came to the shower.  I was (pleasantly) surprised.
    
    One of my aunts, a real stickler for what is "proper", did raise some
    havoc upon receiving her invitation to the shower.  She took it out on
    my mother (her younger sister).  When my mother explained to me what
    Aunt Edie was putting her through, I just said "Ma, just tell her that
    if she doesn't approve - she doesn't have to come - just send a gift!"
    My mother laughed, and seemed to relax a bit with that comment.  My
    Aunt Edie came to the shower, and had a wonderful time.  She & Bobby's
    grandmother seem to hit it off right away.
    
    Some of my friends (really acquaintances) disapproved of my giving a
    shower for this "type of daughter" (one that would get herself
    pregnant), but I argued that THIS BABY needs things, and I knew that
    relatives and friends could help get these items, and make the going a
    little easier for this young couple.  Also, I love my daughter very
    much, and would do anything for her.
    
    Whether society agrees with me or not, makes little difference to me.
    Does that make me arrogant.  Guess so.  I'll do whatever it takes to
    assist my daughter and her SO with this tremendous undertaking..
    They could have taken the easy way out and gotten an abortion, but it
    goes against their upbringing - to respect human life.  True, they
    shouldn't have gotten themselves pregnant to begin with (at this young
    age), but that is water under the bridge at this point.  We must deal
    with reality here which says that within the next 10 days there will be
    a new human life to love and to cherish and to nurture...  That's the
    bottom line.
    

    Chris, it's a sincere conclusion I've drawn from the situations I've
    seen in my lifetime.  Whatever else it may be is strictly
    unintentional and coincidental.  I don't believe I'm required to hide 
    my head in the sand just to avoid noticing a "sexist" situation.  I
    still believe the majority of humans who have ever lived and even the
    majority of those living today have been raised successfully without
    benefit of an actively parenting father.  Since my words are not 
    responsible for that situation, I'm sorry that my saying them bothers 
    you but I'm still gonna say them. 

    	As others have indicated, I've "lived it," too - for the past 19
    	years.  I was the unmarried daughter that my parents loved for
    	having the guts to raise my son alone when the relationship with
    	his father broke up well before his birth.

    	It wasn't the best time in my life to be having a baby - I had
    	very little education or job experience.  But I was very committed
    	to making a life for my small family, so I went to college when
    	my son was a year old.  I graduated when he was 5 (and he attended
    	my graduation with my Mother.)  My Father would have been there,
    	too, but he was out of town on business that day.

    	My son told me recently that he feels lucky to have had me as a
    	parent.  He may not have had the most conventional family life
    	in the world, but he's always known how much he is loved (by me
    	and my whole family.)

    	Isn't that what counts?

Given the number of children who grow up in single-parent households anyway,
I don't see that as a specific problem in relation to having children outside
of marriage.  However, at least in the US, there are precious few legal
protections for the child or the father in such situations.  If a couple
intends to have a child without the parents being married, I would advise
visiting a lawyer to work out some sort of legal agreement regarding
rights and responsibilities.

There was a minor fuss when a prominent Boston TV newscaster announced that
she was having a baby and she was not married (nor living with the father).
It was her choice and she had the resources to pull it off.  Eventually
people stopped worrying about it and left her in peace.

Though I would not willingly father a child outside of marriage, that's
simply what's right for me.  I make no claims about what is right for
others.  As long as the parents have the resources and the dedication and
the love necessary, and as long as the child's legal protections are in
place, I don't have a problem with it.

				Steve

    	RE: .30  Herb

    	While your friend's story is certainly sad, it doesn't qualify as
    	a story about a parent who deliberately chose to raise her child
    	alone.  Per your note, this boy's parents *DID* marry each other,
    	but the "piece of paper" didn't insure their attitudes nor levels
    	of commitment to their child.  LOTS of unmarried parents have done
    	far better than these marrieds did.  Marriage is not THE key.

    	Anyone can be a good parent or a bad parent (whether they marry
    	or not,) and any child can (unfortunately) decide to end his or
    	her life, whether the child's parents were married or unmarried.

    	Your condemnation of unmarried parents isn't fair nor accurate,
    	and it must be obvious to you by now that you've stepped on the
    	toes of a number of people here who have lived through it (them-
    	selves, or with their children's single parenthood.)

    	You're certainly entitled to your own opinions on this matter,
    	but go easy on the judgmental stuff about life decisions, Ok?
    	Some sensitivity about your co-workers LIVES might be in order
    	about now, don't you think?

    	RE: .33  Herb

    	Well, I'm very relieved to hear that you don't think that the ability
    	or willingness to nurture is tied to any particular lifestyle or 
    	marital state, if that's what you really think.  Your notes still aren't
    	very clear on this point.

    	> .19 I intended -and believe it is clear enuf- to be communicating the
    	> difference between doing ones best to cope with unfortunate reality on
   	> the one hand and opting for situations that make it more difficult 
    	> for children to get very, very important nurturing. 
    
    	Sometimes, the unfortunate reality is that women are faced with having
    	babies alone.  So, a woman who launches into single parenthood because
    	the father doesn't choose to participate is doing the thing you find
    	so noble in widows and divorcees - she's doing her best to cope with
    	the situation.

    	> It is my feeling/belief/understanding that the long term impact of the
    	> lack of nurturing is of fundamental importance in the developmental
    	> process. 

    	Ok, I agree, but I don't think that single parenthood (or two-income
    	familyhood) equates to a lack of nurturing.  It all depends on the
    	attitude and commitment of the parents (and not their marital status
    	and/or whether or not both parents work.)

    	> And that chosing a path that results in the child being denied
    		   ^^^^^^^
   	> nurturing is frequently selfish and short sighted. A result of having
    	> an agenda whose priorities are out of kilter.
    
    	This can happen when the parents are married with one parent staying
    	home full-time, too!

    	> Of course many people have done just-fine-thankyou under adverse 
    	> circumstances, and many others have done just-horrible under in spite
    	> of quite favorable circumstances.
    
    	Quite true.  So why would you want to make comments about how some
    	marital states and/or number of incomes per family amount to an
    	indication of selfishness/short-sightedness/wrong-priorityness??

    	It depends on the individuals doing the parenting.

    	In my opinion, some of the worst harm to children born out of
    	wedlock is done by seemingly well-meaning, but terribly judgmental
    	people who look down on families with non-traditional lifestyles.

    	I'm thinking in particular of my ex-parents-in-law.

    	My ex-husband's step sister was a single (unmarried) parent who
    	did everything she could to spend time with her daughter (and
    	loved every minute of it!)  She worked as a teacher so that she
    	could be home when her daughter got out of school.  During the
    	summer, she worked as a cocktail waitress at night so that she
    	could spend all day with her daughter during the summer recess.

    	She was a wonderful Mom with a very happy little girl.  The only
    	people with problems were her father and step-mother.  They didn't
    	like it that she wasn't married and liked it even less that she
    	worked.  They hounded her constantly with the message that her
    	lifestyle wasn't good for her daughter.

    	Finally, when the little girl was 8 years old, the Mother couldn't
    	stand the guilt anymore, so she gave her up for adoption to the girl's 
    	paternal grandparents.  The mother and daughter were both devastated
    	(and neither will probably ever recover from the trauma of it.)

    	These same in-laws hounded me about the fact that I worked for a
    	living - yet, I couldn't help noticing the way they treated their
    	own youngest child, who was the same age as my Ryan.  No, the
    	Mother didn't work, but she regarded her time during the week as
    	her own, so she didn't spend time with her daughter until she
    	started dinner at 5pm.  She did her housework on Saturday, so the
    	little girl spent the days at other kids' houses.  Sunday was the
    	Mom's day to go to Church then take a nap, so the little girl was
    	off at other peoples' houses that day, too.  The Dad was a golf
    	pro, so he worked Saturday and Sunday (except for an hour for
    	church, too.)

    	Hell, I spent far and away more time with Ryan than either one of
    	these upstanding citizens spent with their little girl.  My ex's
    	stepsister spent far and away more time with her daughter, too,
    	until she was demoralized into giving up (due to my ex-in-laws'
    	prejudice about unmarried and/or working mothers.)

    	The most important thing is not whether the parents were ever
    	married or whether they both work.  The key is to how they
    	address parenthood.  
    
    	Married one-income families simply DO NOT have a monopoly on love or 
    	nurturing.

    RE .19
    
    ****** WOW, I agree with you! ****** someting I don't do with you
    often. 
    
    Be honest (everyone else, not you Herb). Look at children. A single
    parent has an awful time raising a child as Herb said trying to meet
    the nuturing needs and the financial needs. A friend of my wife's has a
    daughter wo turned out great, one of the nicest young women I know. But
    to do this the mother was on WIC, Aid to mothers with dependent
    children, welfare, etc. She grew up in a place I doen't even like to
    visit (In Framingham FWIW). I think if you look at children you can see
    something missing. The 'Super Mom' idea is really a mith. You can't do
    it all (and my wife agrees with this 100%).
    
    	The idea that the man is simply a 'stud' is repugnant to me and at
    least some other men. An personally, I don't like the idea of paying
    both monetarily and socially for their 'studliness'. The idea of that 
    'man' who shows up once in a while to give it to the ole lady and then
    is not seen child support wise or personally is totally disgusting to me.
    
    Steve

    
    re -1
    
    Steve,
    
    You're correct that the idea of the man as simply a stud is gross.
    But the fact of the matter is that the majority of single
    mothers are single mothers due to the fact that the fathers of
    these children left the scene.  It may be due to death, divorce,
    abandonment, whatever.  The father is absent.
    
    Having grown up as one of 4 kids in a single parent family I know
    what it is like to be one of these kids.  Sure it is hard on
    everyone involved.  But to this day my mom has always made
    her children her number one priority.  Yes she was lucky that
    we have a large extended family and we were able to grow up
    in the same house as my grandparents.  I watched her go on
    welfare shortly after dad died.  She was devistated, but she
    did not let it get the best of her.  She worked hard to get
    off of welfare.  We all were raised in what I consider one 
    of the best situations.  
    
    I agree that the single parents have a hard time with the financial
    needs, but strongly disagree about the nuturing needs.  We were given
    more than any friend I know who comes from a two parent family.
    It would seem to me that most single parents are a hell of alot
    more committed to thier children than most folks give them credit
    for.
    
    
    Mi

    RE .39
    
    I think you example is different. You mentioned that you had an
    extended family including your grandparents. Many grandparents (that I
    see) love their grandchildren maybe even more than their own children.
    Sort of a second chance. So if this was the case in you family, it
    would have been different than a sterile baby sitter or day care.
    
    The 'stud' situation is as you say very true. It is not right, but it
    is accepted for reasons that escape me. Maybe there will be an
    awakening. Remember how many years drunk driving was quasi acceptable,
    then pooff, MADD, SADD, manditory loss of license. Maybe the same thing
    will happen here. A true man takes responsibility for his actions.
    
    Steve

    
    re last two
    
    I think that most single parents do look to others to help them
    in thier struggle.  Only I think there may be a greater difference
    between those of my age raised as single parent children vs those
    children who are being raised as single parent children today.
    Back then the availability of day care was not as great as
    it is today.  Also, there were not as many women working so
    there were alot of "available" resources to watch/love/care for
    the children.
    
    
    But from what I have seen the single parents of today are still
    searching for the extended families to help them out.  In fact,
    my boyfriend's daughter's mother moved back into her parents
    house.  Thier daughter, though being raised separately by each
    parent, is flourishing in the environment of both homes.  In
    each home there is a core group to love and nurture the child.
    So I guess it all depends on the individual involved.   
    
    As a side note, I only know of one single parent who is a father.
    He is one of the best father's I have ever seen.  He too displays
    the same qualities in caring for his child that I watched in
    my Mom.  Only he gets so much sh*t from folks cause he is a
    man.  Maybe one day this too will change and everyone will
    start to look at the best interest of the child!!
    
    Michele

Re: .42

>    As a side note, I only know of one single parent who is a father.

Well now you know two.  And there are a lot more of us out there...

			Steve

    
    re -1
    
    Steve,
    
    Acutally I know of several divorced single fathers.  The
    single father I referred to in .42 is the only parent in
    his situation as the mother was not willing to take
    on the responsibility.  She dropped her responsibilities
    the day thier child was born. 
    
    I get upset when folks make comments about fathers as parents.
    As far as I am concerned, as long as the child is loved and
    well cared for it doesnt matter who does the loving/caring.
    
    
    Michele

    Also appropriate to the topic on living together (463).
    
    	-- Charles
    	
    [Reprinted with permission.]
    
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (DAVID E. ANDERSON)
Newsgroups: clari.news.trends,clari.news.group.blacks,clari.news.sex,clari.news.top
Subject: Census finds delays in marriage continuing
Keywords: census, government, lifestyle trends, trends, blacks,
	special interest, sex, human interest
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 90 19:08:17 EDT
ACategory: washington
Slugword: census
Priority: daily
Format: daily
X-Supersedes: <Ucensus_148@clarinet.com>
ANPA: Wc: 665; Id: a1210; Sel: na--w; Adate: 7-11-12ned
Codes: yngpdxx., yntcdxx., ynjadxx., ynhxdxx.
Note: (adv 630 pm edt)

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Men and women are waiting longer than ever to
marry, a Census Bureau report said Wednesday, but the number of
unmarried couples living together has more than quadrupled since 1970.
	At the same time, the report said the number of children affected
by divorce, separation and out-of-wedlock births continues to rise and
less than three-fourths of all children now live with both parents.
	According to the report, a survey of marital status and living
arrangements in March 1989, the median age for a man's first marriage is
26.2 years, breaking the previous high of 26.1 years set in 1890. The
median age for a woman's first marriage was 23.8 in 1989, higher than
any previously recorded level.
	``At the beginning of the 20th century, the median age at first
marriage started a decline that ended in the mid-1950s,'' the report
said, ``reaching a low in 1956 of 20.1 years for women and 22.5 years
for men.''
	Delays in marriage are also reflected by increases in the
proportion of men and women who have not yet married for the first time,
it said, noting that the proportion of men and women in their 20s and
early 30s who have never married grew substantially during the past two
decades.
	``Between 1970 and 1989, the proportion never married at ages 20 to
24 increased by 75 percent for women and 41 percent for men,'' the
report said. ``The proportion for those in the 25-29 age group tripled
for women and more than doubled for men. For those in the 30-34 age
group, the never-married proportions tripled for both men and women.''
	At the same time, the report showed that the number of
unmarried-couple households continued to rise, from 523,000 in 1970 to
2.8 million in 1989.
	The majority of partners in unmarried-couple relationships -- 59
percent -- had never been married while 32 percent were divorced, 4
percent widowed and 5 percent were separated from their spouse.
	``The typical age of the partners was 25 to 34 years, 27 percent
were under age 25 and 17 percent were age 35 to 44,'' the report said.
``In six of 10 unmarried couple households, both partners were under 35
years of age,''
	The proportion of children under 18 years living with two parents
has declined considerably as the divorce, separation and births to
unmarried mothers take their toll on the conventional nuclear family.
	``Between 1970 and 1989, the proportion living with two parents
declined from 85 percent to 73 percent, while the proportion living with
one parent doubled from 12 percent to 24 percent,'' the report said.
	The report said black children are less likely than white children
to live with two parents, with jsut 38 percent of black children living
with two parents in 1989, compared with 80 percent of white children.
Among Hispanics, 67 percent lived with two parents.
	But it said for both black and white children, the decline in
two-parent living was greatest during the decade of the 1970s and has
slowed since 1980. For example, the proportion of black children who
lived with two parents dropped 16 percentage points during the 1970s --
from 58.5 percent to 42.4 percent -- compared with a decline of just 4
percentage points -- to 38 percent during the 1980s.
	``The demographic and economic characteristics of the parent ...
clearly reveal that children in one-parent situations are disadvantaged
as compared with their two-parent counterparts,'' the report said.
``Compared with children living with two parents, children living with
one parent are more likely to have a parent who has low income and who
is less educated, unemployed and rents their home.''
	_(_a_d_v_ _6_3_0_ _p_m_ _e_d_t_)

    
    
    Kelly,
    
    You seem to be very happy as a single parent.  Obviously, it was
    not something that you planned on doing.  But you made the decision
    for yourself and  your son Danny that you felt was the best.
    I was also raised in the same house as my grandparents and truthfully
    feel this is one of the best environments to bring a child up in.
    
    However, you said you made the decision to not include Danny's father
    in Danny's life.  This is something I can understand given what you
    had said about his dad, and I am not judging your decision as it was
    not my decision to make.  I was raised without a father also.  It
    bothers me a bit that you were the one who decided to not include
    his father in his life.  Now I understand that he is too young to 
    make that decision for himself, but don't you think that he really
    is the only one who should decide whether or not he wants his dad
    to be in his life?
    
    Please, please, please do not take this as an attack on you.  That 
    is not the intent.  When I was old enough to understand why my father
    (before he died) was not in my life, I was very upset that that
    decision was made for me and that I was not allowed to make that
    decision for myself.  It took along time before I could reconcile
    with my Mom for the decision she had made.  You may very well run
    into this from Danny at some point.  
    
    Good luck to the both of you,
    Michele

    
    Phew!
    	Well, a lot of this stuff has hit home with me & I find myself
    replying to my first "mensnotes". Yep! You've guessed it! I'm a
    single parent. A proud & biased one at that, my daughter, Jade,
    is the best five year old in the world!!
    
    I won't bore you with the details of how this came about, in my
    opinion, it's irrelevant. The fact is, I'm a single parent, have
    a beautiful daughter & wouldn't change that for anything! We have
    very little contact with Jade's father & for the moment, that seems
    the best thing for everyone.
    
    In a perfect world where everybody did the right thing, there were
    no single parent families, no divorce or separation, I'd obviously
    have a problem. This isn't the case though, people don't always
    get it right & it isn't the end of the world.
    
    I don't believe me not being married makes me less capable of being
    a good parent. I'd bring Jade up the same way I'm doing now, with
    or without a partner. I could easily dwell on  any regrets,
    difficulties, awkward situations etc, but at the end of the day,
    it's happened, I'm a single parent & have to make the best of it
    & do my best for Jade, & to be honest, I love it!!
    
    Jade is beautiful, bright, funny, demonstrative, well balanced,
    kind, polite, easy going & has so many endearing qualities, I find
    it hard to believe I'm doing anything drastically wrong!
    
    Anyway, I could ramble on & on about this subject, but obviously
    have quite biased views. Basically, I believe parenting has more
    to do with personalities than situations, & think in some cases,
    it could even be better to have just one loving parent. I don't
    believe people should stay together in an unhappy relationship, 
    for the sake of children, though ultimately I admire, respect &
    maybe envy, any "normal" happy family! 
    
    Ideally, I'd love for Jade to have had a father who loves her as much 
    as I do, wanted the same things I do, it could only be a bonus. I just 
    don't think it has to be doom & gloom without this! 
    Different strokes for different folks!
    
    Regards,
    
    Liz