I was thinking recently that single mothers tend to get a lot of criticism for the fact they have had a child without a father around, but hey, to me this is unfair, the question should be where are the fathers and why are they negating their responsibilities to the child?

At least the mother is staying and looking after the child, yet they get looked down on and criticised by society and the media, yet the absent man seems to get no such stigma.

I'm not defending the situation, I think married 2 parent families are the ideal, but I think its a bit rough that the women get criticised when its not by choice in most cases. They probably don't want to be in that situation either so why make things worse by criticising them? I think the focus on criticism should be on the absent fathers just as much, probably more.

Just a thought...!

[Edited 8/29/11 3:45am]

I think it's rediculous that companies (and society at large) are not trying to find ways to make being a single mother easier.

Ultimately, it's a choice of the person to have children, and a choice for them to chose to do so single or married. However, criticizing and chastising doesn't help a damned thing.

Simple things like flexible working hours, daycare (for really large companies that can afford it), and school and transportation services are just a started. Churches, and communities should look into helping as well. The 'nuclear' family doesn't work unless there's a father around. If there's no father (or mother), then community needs to help out in family matters, IMO.

"Do not criticize....go and help."

(unless of course it's that dreadful stuff currently masquerading as art in the artist forum)

[Edited 8/29/11 3:54am]

I was raise by a single mother & I turned out great [imho]! Anyone pre-judging a single mother is stupid. It always bothers me when i hear of people doing that. I have no jail records. I'm successful in what i'm doing & I take care of all 12 of my kids.....

I was about to criticize the absent father but he was, you know, absent.

imago said:

I think it's rediculous that companies (and society at large) are not trying to find ways to make being a single mother easier.

Ultimately, it's a choice of the person to have children, and a choice for them to chose to do so single or married. However, criticizing and chastising doesn't help a damned thing.

Simple things like flexible working hours, daycare (for really large companies that can afford it), and school and transportation services are just a started. Churches, and communities should look into helping as well. The 'nuclear' family doesn't work unless there's a father around. If there's no father (or mother), then community needs to help out in family matters, IMO.

"Do not criticize....go and help."

(unless of course it's that dreadful stuff currently masquerading as art in the artist forum)

[Edited 8/29/11 3:54am]

And widowing isn't a choice. Never judge a person without knowing her background. I was called "daughter of a hoe" when I was a kid.

I have reached a point in my life where I ABSOLUTELY don't give a F*CKING mind about other people's lives. I don't criticize/castigate about anything because I don't care about it to begin with. It's not live and let live. It's I LIVE and that's all that matters to me.

If only the whole world acted this way...

imago said:

I think it's rediculous that companies (and society at large) are not trying to find ways to make being a single mother easier.

Ultimately, it's a choice of the person to have children, and a choice for them to chose to do so single or married. However, criticizing and chastising doesn't help a damned thing.

Simple things like flexible working hours, daycare (for really large companies that can afford it), and school and transportation services are just a started. Churches, and communities should look into helping as well. The 'nuclear' family doesn't work unless there's a father around. If there's no father (or mother), then community needs to help out in family matters, IMO.

"Do not criticize....go and help."

(unless of course it's that dreadful stuff currently masquerading as art in the artist forum)

You say having children is an individual choice, then suggest that everyone should pay for that choice.

I chose not to have children. Why should I be on the hook (financially) for other peoples' decisions?

Don't get me wrong - I don't mind paying for public education (within reason). I figure someone else paid for my schooling, and having an education system is a "common good." But government-paid (or corporate-sponsored) breeding incentives? Not so much.

That said, I've never "castigated" someone for having a baby, regardless of marital status. As long as I'm not footing the bill, it's none of my business.

Genesia said:

imago said:

I think it's rediculous that companies (and society at large) are not trying to find ways to make being a single mother easier.

Ultimately, it's a choice of the person to have children, and a choice for them to chose to do so single or married. However, criticizing and chastising doesn't help a damned thing.

Simple things like flexible working hours, daycare (for really large companies that can afford it), and school and transportation services are just a started. Churches, and communities should look into helping as well. The 'nuclear' family doesn't work unless there's a father around. If there's no father (or mother), then community needs to help out in family matters, IMO.

"Do not criticize....go and help."

(unless of course it's that dreadful stuff currently masquerading as art in the artist forum)

You say having children is an individual choice, then suggest that everyone should pay for that choice.

I chose not to have children. Why should I be on the hook (financially) for other peoples' decisions?

Don't get me wrong - I don't mind paying for public education (within reason). I figure someone else paid for my schooling, and having an education system is a "common good." But government-paid (or corporate-sponsored) breeding incentives? Not so much.

That said, I've never "castigated" someone for having a baby, regardless of marital status. As long as I'm not footing the bill, it's none of my business.

I had not noticed that we castigate single mothers, I feel like they are seen as having the most difficult situation one can have, generally.

Maybe we want to remind women to make responsible decisions about sex and choice of partners, using protection, etc, but I don't think it's as bad as it used to be where we would look at the woman as a whore or something.

NDRU said:

Vendetta1 said:

I can't post like I want to from my cell but Genesia welfare is not a breeding incentivesve. I was on welfare when my first son was a baby and I wanted nothing more than to get off of it.

Ivy, I'm not talking about welfare. I totally understand (and don't have a problem with) having a safety net. I look at that as being for the children even more than the mothers.

What I'm talking about are things that are not safety-net related - like paid maternity leave that is mandated by government, 4-year-old kindergarten, etc. Basically, euro-style programs that are aimed at baby boosting.

Vendetta1 said:

NDRU said:

I had not noticed that we castigate single mothers, I feel like they are seen as having the most difficult situation one can have, generally.

Maybe we want to remind women to make responsible decisions about sex and choice of partners, using protection, etc, but I don't think it's as bad as it used to be where we would look at the woman as a whore or something.

People still look at us as whores. Or were easy and other such nonsense. Yes, women should be more responsible but the baby daddies get nary a mention in all this.

Sorry to hear that, the people in my life don't refer to single mothers that way, but I suppose I can understand that I don't know what it is like to be in your shoes all day every day.

IMO - a single mom who is raising children solo due to unforseen circumstances (widow, abused wife, etc.) deserves praise for her efforts and as much help as the community can afford.

However, a single mom who is raising children solo because she thought it would be "cool" to have a baby or tried to trap a man, deserved not only to be castigated but controlled. Children are not like puppies, that you can get one and then let it loose in the woods when it gets too tough to deal with (I know people who've done that to dogs btw). I am 40 years old, and since I was a child, I have been hearing sermons about the importance of families and chastity and all that jazz. Yet I know too damned many women my age and younger (some much, much younger) who have born children because they wanted to keep a man or because they "wanted a baby". I can't stand it.

Just the other day I was at the park with my kids, and this group of teenagers was running down the street acting a FOOL like teens sometimes do...but one of them was a girl pushing a stroller in front of her. Couldn't have been more than 17, and acting like it, but with a little baby in tow.

My grandmother left her husband (my alcoholic grandfather who died before I was even born) with 6 children to support. She became a housekeeper/maid and moved in with her mother, dedicating her life to making sure her kids had food on the table and a roof over their head (this was in Honduras...no such thing as court-ordered child support then). Of course, it was a different world then...no clubbing, no texting, no manicures, or any other "necessities" of modern life...but my mom and her siblings grew up healthy and well-adjusted in spite of the circumstances.

So I guess I'm just saying...it's on a case-by-case basis.

TheFreakerFantastic said:

I was thinking recently that single mothers tend to get a lot of criticism for the fact they have had a child without a father around, but hey, to me this is unfair, the question should be where are the fathers and why are they negating their responsibilities to the child?

At least the mother is staying and looking after the child, yet they get looked down on and criticised by society and the media, yet the absent man seems to get no such stigma.

I'm not defending the situation, I think married 2 parent families are the ideal, but I think its a bit rough that the women get criticised when its not by choice in most cases. They probably don't want to be in that situation either so why make things worse by criticising them? I think the focus on criticism should be on the absent fathers just as much, probably more.

Just a thought...!

[Edited 8/29/11 3:45am]

That should not be the question at all.

smoothcriminal12 said:

TheFreakerFantastic said:

I was thinking recently that single mothers tend to get a lot of criticism for the fact they have had a child without a father around, but hey, to me this is unfair, the question should be where are the fathers and why are they negating their responsibilities to the child?

At least the mother is staying and looking after the child, yet they get looked down on and criticised by society and the media, yet the absent man seems to get no such stigma.

I'm not defending the situation, I think married 2 parent families are the ideal, but I think its a bit rough that the women get criticised when its not by choice in most cases. They probably don't want to be in that situation either so why make things worse by criticising them? I think the focus on criticism should be on the absent fathers just as much, probably more.

Just a thought...!

[Edited 8/29/11 3:45am]

That should not be the question at all.

Why not, that's exactly what society should be asking...

TheFreakerFantastic said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

That should not be the question at all.

Why not, that's exactly what society should be asking...

No, absolutely not. You've got it all wrong. Why is it that the fathers are negating their responsibilities to the child? Why do you assume that?...

smoothcriminal12 said:

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Why not, that's exactly what society should be asking...

No, absolutely not. You've got it all wrong. Why is it that the fathers are negating their responsibilities to the child? Why do you assume that?...

Perhaps because, in a lot of cases, it's true.

Not that they are "negating" their responsibilities, but that they neglecting them (which is the right word).

Genesia said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

No, absolutely not. You've got it all wrong. Why is it that the fathers are negating their responsibilities to the child? Why do you assume that?...

Perhaps because, in a lot of cases, it's true.

Not that they are "negating" their responsibilities, but that they neglecting them (which is the right word).

In a lot of cases it's also not true, so that's surely not a valid reason to lump "them" into one group.

Genesia said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

No, absolutely not. You've got it all wrong. Why is it that the fathers are negating their responsibilities to the child? Why do you assume that?...

Perhaps because, in a lot of cases, it's true.

Not that they are "negating" their responsibilities, but that they neglecting them (which is the right word).

Negate IS the right word....see 2. below. They are denying their responsibilities. You can say neglect too but I mean more the fact they are denying they are even responsible rather than neglecting them.

negate [nɪˈgeɪt]

Collins English Dictionar...Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

[Edited 8/29/11 13:41pm]

JoeTyler said:

I have reached a point in my life where I ABSOLUTELY don't give a F*CKING mind about other people's lives. I don't criticize/castigate about anything because I don't care about it to begin with. It's not live and let live. It's I LIVE and that's all that matters to me.

If only the whole world acted this way...

same her mate, so long as it doesn't come knocking on my door i couldn't care less.All that i have, i have worked hard for end of.

smoothcriminal12 said:

Genesia said:

Perhaps because, in a lot of cases, it's true.

Not that they are "negating" their responsibilities, but that they neglecting them (which is the right word).

In a lot of cases it's also not true, so that's surely not a valid reason to lump "them" into one group.

I think in a lot of cases, it IS true...how else do you explain their absence?!

TheFreakerFantastic said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

In a lot of cases it's also not true, so that's surely not a valid reason to lump "them" into one group.

I think in a lot of cases, it IS true...how else do you explain their absence?!

There are MANY other reasons...trust me....not everything is in black and white.

In a lot of cases it also isn't true, so still, why should we lump them all in one category?

smoothcriminal12 said:

TheFreakerFantastic said:

I think in a lot of cases, it IS true...how else do you explain their absence?!

There are MANY other reasons...trust me....not everything is in black and white.

In a lot of cases it also isn't true, so still, why should we lump them all in one category?

Give me examples....in general the situation is that the man disappeared after the fun was over....

Genesia said:

Vendetta1 said:

I can't post like I want to from my cell but Genesia welfare is not a breeding incentivesve. I was on welfare when my first son was a baby and I wanted nothing more than to get off of it.

Ivy, I'm not talking about welfare. I totally understand (and don't have a problem with) having a safety net. I look at that as being for the children even more than the mothers.

What I'm talking about are things that are not safety-net related - like paid maternity leave that is mandated by government, 4-year-old kindergarten, etc. Basically, euro-style programs that are aimed at baby boosting.

I understand what you're saying Genesia, but living in Europe I would hardly say that these programs aim at baby boosting rather than the strengthening the nuclear family, which we see as a good for the overall betterment of society. Men are also encouraged to take paternity limited leave in order to ease moms back into the workforce. Plus it allows the fathers to play an active and nurturing role in a chld's formative years. Kindergarten actually begins at age 2 here, and I'm not opposed to it all. This country is trying to ensure that the young will be academically prepared to compete globally, and I'm all for it.

TheFreakerFantastic said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

There are MANY other reasons...trust me....not everything is in black and white.

In a lot of cases it also isn't true, so still, why should we lump them all in one category?

Give me examples....in general the situation is that the man disappeared after the fun was over....

In general...lol...here we go again....that is NOT the "general" situation.

I'm not giving out need examples. It should be pretty obvious what alternate scenarios there can be in a situation like that. Not everything is the fault of the evil bad man.

smoothcriminal12 said:

Genesia said:

Perhaps because, in a lot of cases, it's true.

Not that they are "negating" their responsibilities, but that they neglecting them (which is the right word).

In a lot of cases it's also not true, so that's surely not a valid reason to lump "them" into one group.

In MOST cases it actually is... this is why the welfare system, or (DTA) was established. Deadbeats run off and did not take care of their own this is why a little organization titled the DOR started suing men. It was a rampant issue that was out of control until the government stepped in to help custodial parents take care of children.

smoothcriminal12 said:

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Give me examples....in general the situation is that the man disappeared after the fun was over....

In general...lol...here we go again....that is NOT the "general" situation.

I'm not giving out need examples. It should be pretty obvious what alternate scenarios there can be in a situation like that. Not everything is the fault of the evil bad man.

I'm not saying it is, I'm just questioning why we castigate single mothers when often they seem to be the ones that are actually being responsible by still caring for the kids once the man has disappeared.

TheFreakerFantastic said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

In general...lol...here we go again....that is NOT the "general" situation.

I'm not giving out need examples. It should be pretty obvious what alternate scenarios there can be in a situation like that. Not everything is the fault of the evil bad man.

I'm not saying it is, I'm just questioning why we castigate single mothers when often they seem to be the ones that are actually being responsible by still caring for the kids once the man has disappeared.

Well think about it like this...how do you know that's really what happened? Society generally adheres to the belief "there's two sides to every story", right? So if the Mom is the only one around, then the only side you're going to hear is hers, true or not.