The demonisation of single mothers.

I have a fair few single friends who are my age and older, and I feel sorry for the females but not the males. All on pretty level footing with regards to attractiveness, finances and job. But my male friends can hook up with a much younger mate and still have a family, my gfs are needing to find someone and settle now!!

One of the blokes thought he had a child within his marriage but his wife had had an affair and lied and so he found out his son was not his when his son was two....

I think that absent fathers don't get as much stick because they are not recieving welfare. A single mother often is (although partly due to absent fathers actions) so they bear the brunt

BH has inadvertently hit the nail on the head, what society really despises about single mothers is age old, the control of procreation. What 'single mothers' have done is taken procreation out of the control of men. Throughout the ages men have decided whether to stick around (meaning women could not have children), whether to accept responsibility, whether to kill said child (Roman fathers would sit at the end of the bed and decide whether the child lived or died, surely not just the Romans). With welfare women can have babies regardless of men, with rights women can support their own children. If men take issue with this perhaps they should look to men to pay up.

Age old control is the key to demonising single mothers.

I don't agree that the answer is to divert tax money to mothers from men who earn lots.

It doesn't take away the dependency women with children have on men with earning power; it just shifts it from men they know and have relationships with to men they don't know in positions of power.

I'm sorry that I don't have a better answer to suggest; and I do understand that it partially solves the problem that is faced in the current system: but it doesn't do anything about the fact that the problems are mostly caused by the current system.

Sakura: Now I think that 'choice feminism' is much misinterpreted, particularly (surprise surprise) by mainstream media, as it is always reported as 'One woman is happy working in the sex industry/being SAHM/wearing lipstick therefore all women must be and would be if only Evil Old-Fashioned Hairy-Legged Feminists would leave them alone' whereas telling women that whatever decisions they make about their lives must be considered in the light of what impact they make on feminism is just another version of telling women they mustn't think of themselves, they must always put themselves and their needs and pleasures at the bottom of the pile.

I agree with that, but LittlePushka was saying that the single mother who grits her teeth should not analyze her situation in the context of patriarchy; she should just accept poverty, belittlement as part of her lot. In feminism, it's unacceptable for the choices to be a) comfortably well off because you've got a man or b) struggling because you're going it alone.
WHy should those be the two main options for mothers? It doesn't have to be this way.

Littlepushka does have a point in one way - the single mother who grits her teeth and gets a crappy part time job is going to be happier than the one who, depressed by society's single-mother bashing, looks around frantically for a man, any man, to be her new owner and give her status and therefore ends up with a cocklodger or other abuser.

apologies for my snippy response, LittlePushka It wasn't you, really. IT's just that there has been a glut of media in the past ten years telling women that they should focus on being happy with their lot as opposed to defying, or questioning, the status quo. YOur post implied that, although I realise that you were just advising to ignore the misogyny.
Ignoring misogyny has got it's good and bad points.

but yes, I take your point that women-as-a-group- need to embrace feminism and not join in with the woman-bashing that patriarchy indulges in. They shouldn't pander

NO, I got it the first time.

It's like poledancing: instead of feeling depressed that you've got your tits out for a bunch of leery men because that's the best (or only) economic option for you, look at it from another angle- as though it's empowering to have men at your feet. More empowering than becoming a lawyer or a politican or a banker.
Just change the way you see the world and voila! , problem solved

Sakura - Clearly, I did not say "women have to pretend society behaves differently"..what I said was, (and I paraphrase here for your benefit)that if women just got on and did what they want to do, without worrying or bleating on about what other folk ie society think about it, then we would have a shed load of happy women just doing what they want to do irrespective of what society wants them or thinks they ought to do. The shift in attitude would come as a result of women, figuratively speaking, flicking the V's at society.

The question should not be "Does my bum look big in this?" but "Is this the outfit I want to wear?"

Perhaps that is clearer for you.

so absolutely, women have always been the scapegoats for society's ills. WHen the truth is that, lets be honest, men have too much power and they are the root of the ills of society. Women's birthright needs to be returned to them, in the form of power, and monetary resources, so that men can't go on hedonous rampages, orgies of violence and environmental destruction.

LittlePushka CHoice feminism is (thankfully) being abandoned now. It's peddles the idea that women can choose to be members of the subordinate sex, when they can't. It has to be society that changes its attitude towards women, not women who have to pretend society doesn't behave the way it does.

Santa, what a great point!

At the FiL conference, it was mentioned that for centuries, women have had to carry the burden of shame for the crimes men have done to them. Men have been let off scot free.

Greer reckons that if men are going to choose to opt out of parenthood en masse then they should still be obliged to cough up and pay for their decision. Men, the richest of men, should be taxed and the proceeds distributed to mothers. I absolutely believe this is the mark of an evolved society.

OP, I have never myself experienced demonisation of single mothers. And I personally have a great deal of respect for single mothers whether they are so by choice or by circumstance.

It is my opinion (as indeed it is for breastfeeding in public or at work)that each and every woman should care much less about the label or stigma which society hurls at them and just carry on doing what they are doing regardless of any ignorance or intolerance. It is the only way to normalise (or, perhaps, exorcise!) the "demonic"!

I've just been looking up aboriginal conception. Read a bit about Spirit Children but don't really understand.

I have always wondered about the status of women in Austrlian aboriginal society, where the connection between sex and coception and birth had not been made. Anyone know anything about thaT?

it also touched on male gods usurping female gods around the same time. Sorry this is garbled. Will dig out the book for reading tonight, I really recommend it.

the theory that I took away after reading Womens History of the World, was that it was the realisation that men had a part to play in conception, which tied relatives closer together when before it had been much more communial. When men started seeing certain children as theirs they started to try and control them, and usurp the whole birth thing. Read it ages ago, probably hazy.
Also, history hasn't been a relentless drive one way or another. Womens rights have ebbed and flowed over time.
not sure how much sense that made.

Thank you

I dn't really know anything about the beginings of patriarchy or why it arose. Have never been interested in that angle until recently, as I hear a lot of "but that's what cave-men did, so it's natural" twaddle.

So, re agriculture - is that just one theory for the urge men suddenly had to enslave women, or are there others?

I'm interested by this, could you elaborate or point me in the direction of some reading?

Agree with SethStarkAddersmum re your post.

HB your 20.42 post was wonderful and I hope will be read by lurkers even if it was wasted on Bill.