Replies

I think an elementary school trying to do a dance for 6-year-olds is probably the beginning of the problem.

And then trying to explicitly define the parental roles seems obsessive to me. Does anybody really care which parent “dances” with the 6-year-old? Is it the job of the school to force a single parent to pick some other person to perform parental duties?

It’s like they were searching for problems. Seriously, are the male parents going to be upset that a mother showed up with her kid because she didn’t have a father?

And i think it’s great that the mother tried to be a “father”.

Note that they also ran a dance for “mother/son”. Now, I think it is fine that they have separate dances for the boys and girls, but it makes no sense to limit the parents, especially when they are specifically limiting them to the opposite sex parent.

Note that nobody is thinking there is anything “sexual” about this dance. But by forcing the opposite-sex parent rule, they are kind of implying it is, that some how even at age 6, and dancing with their parents, the child needs to be paired with someone of the opposite sex.

Further, in the grand scheme of “things done wrong”, acting as a single mother isn’t the worst. Sure, get married before having sex, then you have two biological parents. Get an opposite-sex person involved if you can’t have a husband/wife for some reason. But I’m torn as to whether a child is better with one biological parent, or two non-biological parents.

The biological connection is strong, and provides a security you just can’t get from an adopted situation, as good as it is to adopt, and as great as some adopted parents are. There’s a reason for the “drama” of “when do we tell the kid they are adopted”.

And you know what — men suck. Many men anyway. It’s hard for a single mother with a small child to get a man to look past the child, too many men can’t or won’t deal with another guy’s child, or just want a woman who can baby them and don’t like the woman having other obligations.