The demonisation of single mothers.

[SantaIsAnAnagramOfSatan]

Hi,

I've ended up talking about this in various threads but have never dedicated a thread to it.

So, i'm looking for your thoughts. How do we see this in action? What are the views of single mothers? How are they propagated? Why are they propagated and why do they attract such demonisation?

I'd also like to hear about where you think the feminist vision saw single mothers, did it predict their would be more given the increased freedom women would have in their lives and their ability to leave male partners or choose to not have one without being financially or socially (though that hasn't held true entirely compared to 1960's it's at least possible to live this way) ruined?

Is women being able to have children alone a part of the feminist outcome - if women have more control over their bodies and reproduction surely it was an inevitable outcome? And is it in your mind a positive or negative thing in terms of feminism?

I'm actually going away for a few days now but hope this will attract lots of thoughts for me to read when i get back.

As for me, to put this in context, i am a single mother of a pre school boy. When i found out i was pregnant (unplanned) at 30 i decided that i was happy to be and wanted to keep the baby but that i didn't want to stay in the problematic relationship with the father. Therefore i've been a single parent from the outset.

I have framed this as about single mothers rather than single parents as it is my experience that single fathers are seen very differently, imo as heroes and glorified whereas single mothers get the demonisation treatment in popular culture.

Look forward to reading your thoughts.

well, exactly HB!

I thing the more sahd's and shared parenting Dads there are will help equality.

Also if more men take extended paternity leave and flexible working then there would be no logic in employers discriminating against women as men would be just as likely to require flexible working which some employers seem reluctant to accommodate.

It's going to help in some ways, Truck.

The problem for me is, that as a radfem, there is a little more to it than that. It is always going to be the woman who falls pregnant, and who knows how often a woman fails to get a job because of her potential to become pregnant...
We will never know the answer to that.

The truth is, women have to fit themselves into the economy like square pegs into a round hole.

The role of care-giving itself needs to be valued more... and men doing it will achieve that. BUt if it is only valued because men are starting to do it, then that may not be a good sign for women. Fatherhood will become more than ever, and motherhood will still be as trivialised as its always been.

We are deep in the realms of radfem analysis, so don't worry if you don't get what I'm banging on about. Many women probably don't either.
But yes, paternity leave will be a very good start.

Personally, though, I think we need a radical overhaul of the entire system, to put the focus of society back where it should be: on raising the next generation, not on making money to buy lots of tat made by toddlers in the third world!!

Sakura.

I do get radfem I think. I think I'm just coming from a more personal point.

I just want to make sure my children have equal relationships. I want my DS to be an equal parent and be fully involved with his DC and not to slip into being main wage earner and that the woman does all the child care and housework.

and I want my DD to realize she is equal (better?) than anyone and not to slip into the stereotypical role of doing all the housework and childcare etc. even if she works out of the home.

I also don't want either of them to be financially beholden to anyone and if they are in a crap relationship that can't be sorted, end it and that there is no shame in doing that.

Just to add I have no problem with how anyone lives their own lives sah or woh. Their choice is their choice.

Yes, there's no contradiction between anything you've written in your last post, and radical feminism.
I think if we all aimed for that it would be a good start . It's just that I honestly can't see a way out for women under the current system. It's a massive debate, taking into account the class system, the capitalist system under which we live. Patriarchy(male dominance) and capitalism feed off each other, and if women support capitalism in any way shape or form, I believe they feed very the system that oppresses them.
One example of this is: does a woman, (or indeed a man) turn down a prestigious, high-status, well-paid job because they know that corporation exploits vulnerable women abroad? A rad-feminist would have no choice but to turn it down.

The thing is though, that once he has children, a man doesn't need a woman either.

I do think that female society would find it quite threatening if there were a large number of single fathers all getting along quite happily and saying 'I'd only want a woman if she had tits and didn't interfere with my cricket'.

I'm muddling around at the moment trying to work out why I am still a feminist - you can probably tell.

That's a tough one, I would have said take the job and try and change the company from the inside?

Fat chance of me getting offered the job though.

'Can you travel for work, no.
Can you do stay away overnight, no.
Can you be flexible with hours, no.
Oh and if the DC are sick I can't work that day.

Ah, we'll just slide your CV in the bin then. '

Again I think I'm more basic, I have to go to work, to pay for the children's (and my) needs, house, food et al.

I would love to see capitalism smashed, but I am a bit of a left winger or 'Class war' as I've been called at work.

This is fascinating for me to read...I have been working on a script which I want to take into hostels for teenage homeless Mothers to work on with me, the class issue mentioned by Grumpla is what got me started on this....in one sense it IS more acceptable for working class women to become single Mothers...at least within their own circle.

Wthin the wider community, the treatment of younger single Mothers has been like a witch-hunt and it has sickened me for a long time the way younger and in many ways vulnerable single Mothers have been treated by the press.

It's thought of as fine to take the piss out of them in TV comedy sketches, to nickname them things like "Pram-Face" and even to abuse them in the street.

Why?

"That's a tough one, I would have said take the job and try and change the company from the inside?"

Welcome to radical feminism, Truck
Yes, that is certainly a feasible direction.
ANd only an option for the middle classes.

Shahnah single mothers represent the downfall of patriarchy, in many ways. They are feared .

From Sexual Politics (Kate Millet):

"As co-operation between the family and the larger society is essential, else both would fall apart, the fate of three patriarchal institutions, the family, society and the state are interrelated. In most forms of patriarchy this has generally led to the granting of religious support in statements such as the Catholic precept that "the father is the head of the family"...Secular governments today also confirm this, as in census practices of designating the male as head of household, taxation, passports etc.
Female heads of household tend to be regarded as undesirable..."

There is a lot more to it but the gist is that if you get enough female heads of household, the entire pack of cards will collapse.

I mean the house of cards that props up the patriarchal institutions.

Maktaitai, there are 2 ways of looking at that:

1. So what if men don't need women? That's good, it means that if they're with them, they're with them because they want to be, not because they need to be - adn that's a good thing, surely we want people to be together because they want to be together?

1. Men already don't need women once they've had children. Hence the large number of them who do actually say "they're OK as long as they have big tits and don't interfere with me cricket" (figuratively speaking!) The only thing they need them for in the current system, is to bring up their children so that they can pursue their careers unhindered by their children's need to be care for - which by and large, is what happens, no?

I'm not worried by a world in which men and women don't need each other tbh. I'd rather have one where they want each other and so therefore treat each other with respect and kindness.

Sorry there might be another way of looking at it too, but those are my 2 ways so far...

"I'm not worried by a world in which men and women don't need each other tbh. I'd rather have one where they want each other and so therefore treat each other with respect and kindness."

I completely agree with this. My ex used to get really upset because he felt I 'didn't need him'. I always used to argue that this was a brilliant thing - it would mean that if we were together it would be because we wanted to be, not because we needed to be. We obviously aren't.

I'm quite happy being a single mum; I'm actually trying for another baby :)

makaitai - don't lots of them behave like that already though?

The lp topic for example has a few of us (by us I mean lp's not me specifically) who've been left in the lurch by a man who has decided he doesn't want to be a parent any more and is able to walk away.

Any so many posts on MN about men in relationships, married with children, who act like they aren't a parent...just carrying on as they have always done and leaving their wife to do all the childcare/housekeeping etc?

"Wthin the wider community, the treatment of younger single Mothers has been like a witch-hunt and it has sickened me for a long time the way younger and in many ways vulnerable single Mothers have been treated by the press."

Agreed, Shanahan. I know of quite a few young mums who put me to shame with their all round sortedness and parenting ability.

Yes it's almost as if society wants younger mothers to fail - put up as many barriers as possible to success and then point and vilify when surprise surprise, sometimes things go belly up.

Should point out her that only 7% of lone parents are teenagers. You'd think 90% of us were the way the meejah talks.

I took maktaitai's post a bit differently, to mean that if there were loads of single fathers around raising the children, and doing it happily and cheerfully, would women really want that either. And the answer I suspect is usually no.

HB also the press has made it so that when they shout "teenage mums" people are programmed to have an image of a 14yo school drop-out with a fag hanging out of her mouth drop into their mind.

But of that 7% you are looking at a lot of 18 & 19 yo, women who may have finished their education and be married (gold star in DM world for marriage), the stat is rubbish when connected with the image. If they mean deprived 14yo having babies then use the stat for that ie it's really low and not sensational enough.

And I'd love to know what proportion of that 7% are 18 or over. I think the term 'teenage' has all sorts of connotations, none of them good in this context.

Great minds ISNT!

"I took maktaitai's post a bit differently, to mean that if there were loads of single fathers around raising the children, and doing it happily and cheerfully, would women really want that either. And the answer I suspect is usually no"

But why shouldn't they be, ISNT?

Because reading threads on here I think that when relationships fail most women want to retain custody of the children.

Re the teenage mums I am sure lots of younger mums make an excellent fist of it, it's more a comment on the manipulation by some parts of teh media.

ISNT, you're right about the teenage mums stereotype. That's kind of what I was getting at.

Also, as HB says, most lps are actually in their mid 30s, and are so because a relationship has ended.

I'm sure somebody posted stats to that effect on MN somewhere.

Stats here

Ah, interesting angle ISNT.

I just can't imagine that happening under our current system, because you would need a whole load of men willing to take responsibility for childcare, willing to change the law and workplace so that they could take proper paid paternity leave and fit work into childcare commitments and of course, raising the status of childcare such that they would be willing to do it.

In itself, it sounds like it would be a Good Thing, because as Sakura points out, as soon as men start doing something, the status of it goes up.

But I also can't imagine it happening because on the whole, men are less willing to live without women, than women are to live without men. (See the oft-quoted order of happiness index: Married men, single women, married women, single men.) Under a patriarchal system, it's pretty obvious why that is, but under a system where an equal number of men to women were actually genuinely doing childcare (rather than fobbing it off onto their Mums or new girlfriends and then imagining that they're doing it themselves) I wonder if that would be the case? Would men be happy to live without women? Would women be keener on living with men/

If they were, I still think that would be a Good Thing - I return to my mad ideal idea of how nice it would be if everyone lived together because they wanted, rather than needed each other.