Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

First Comes Junior In a Baby Carriage (4 in 10 Births by Single Moms)
MSNBC Newsweak ^ | 6 Dece,ber 2--6 | Debra Rosenberg and Pat Wingert

Posted on 11/26/2006 5:02:22 AM PST by shrinkermd

....More American women than ever are putting motherhood before matrimony. New data released by the Centers for Disease Control show that nearly four in 10 U.S. babies were born outside of marriage in 2005—a new high. These unwed moms aren't all teens—last year teen pregnancies fell to their lowest levels in 65 years. Some—like 44-year-old Mary Lee MacKichan, who used a gay friend as a sperm donor—are professional, older women who want to have babies before their biological clocks run out, but most are low-income twentysomethings. (Unwed births among 30- to 44-year-olds are up 17 percent since 1991; among those 25 to 29, they're up 30 percent.) And some 40 percent of those moms aren't going it alone—they're cohabiting, at least for a while. That's creating a major shift in what a generation of children are coming to call a family. "Marriage is still alive and well, but it has a lot of competition," says Wellesley College sociologist Rosanna Hertz, author of "Single by Chance, Mothers by Choice."

Ironically, sociologists say, marriage may be on the decline precisely because it has become so idealized. People expect more from marriage than they did a century ago, when it was mainly a practical arrangement to provide financial stability for women and a place to raise children. "Now it's not only love and romance but also self-fulfillment and personal growth," says Pamela Smock, professor of sociology at the University of Michigan. Since there's no longer much of a stigma attached to getting pregnant outside of marriage, many couples have replaced "shotgun weddings" with "shotgun cohabitations

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: genx; moralabsolutes; mothers; reasons; single
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-460 next last
To: shrinkermd

The bastard-I-nation.


421 posted on 11/28/2006 6:41:50 AM PST by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cogadh na Sith

"Creating new things makes you an intellectual.
Thinking new things makes you an intellectual.
Becoming a new thing makes you an intellectual."

Are you a fellow Rand fan?


422 posted on 11/28/2006 7:00:18 AM PST by CSM (Americans are getting more and more childish and looking for Big Mommy to take care of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: JenB

Here's the other catch that I'm not seeing on this thread so far...maybe it's down further.

My best friend in high school had parents who did not have comperable educations. Her father was a plumber (making VERY good money) and her mother had at least a college liberal arts education. It was all good while their kids were growing up because when you have kids, you go to school events and you can always talk about your kids.

The problem was, once the nest was empty and it was back down to the two of them, they had to face each other again. These two had absolutely nothing in common. She liked the theater and classical music. He liked hunting, college football, and country music. They didn't have any common interests and as a result, they got divorced as 30 years of marriage because they realized they couldn't stand each other.

Yes, they should have stuck it out, but my point is, you're more likely to be happy when you marry someone of comperable education and with comperable interests because you have something to talk about, you have some activities you don't mind doing together, and you're more likely to have compatible goals. I can't begin to tell you how many times I've been told this and it makes sense.


423 posted on 11/28/2006 7:39:04 AM PST by ark_girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ark_girl

Absolutely that's important! I like to do things with my husband and we're very compatible personalities. Same taste in books, movies, entertainment in general, we're both total geeks, and we understand and respect each other's jobs, which is huge. My mom never quite understood what my dad does all day and I know that had to be tough.


424 posted on 11/28/2006 7:50:38 AM PST by JenB (43,604/50,000 - www.nanowrimo.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: ark_girl

I don't think education matters as much as common interests.

My dad has a degree in engineering, and my mom didn't go to college. Yet, they have been married for over 50 years. When they were younger, they were into sports: golf, bowling, tennis. As they have gotten older, they both love playing games: boggle, bridge. Almost every single night they play boggle together.

My husband and I have similar education, but we don't actually have as many interests in common as my parents. It makes it hard now that I'm not working, and he is.

I think we'll be okay because some of our common interests we just can't do right now. We both love to travel, and with 3 kids we just can't afford that. Once the kids are out of the house, we'll easily be able to hop in a car and go on vacations.


425 posted on 11/28/2006 9:41:01 AM PST by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: Accygirl

Do you know why moms bake cookies? It's to make our kids happy and to teach them how to cook. It is a lot more rewarding to bake cookies with my kids than anything I ever did in the work force.

(By the way, my last year of work I was rewarded as one of the top 20 employees at my work. I was one of only 2 women rewarded. My husband worked at the same company and never got this reward.)

It doesn't sound like you want to do anything maternal which is fine. However, you talked about having kids even if you hadn't found a mate.

If you don't like to cook, bake cookies, be in the PTA, clean, etc, then don't be a mom. These days women do have choices, and they don't need to be a mom to have a satisfying life.

By the way, baking cookies is a lot more fun than dragging your kid to a birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese.

We went to a birthday party for a kid of a single mom at my husband's work. That kid was so messed up. Most of the time he slept in the same room with his mom. The party seemed like an adult party. Most of the people were adults except for my kids (who barely knew the kid). He had 1 friend from daycare at the party. There were no activities for the kids, just grown up food and then a cake. My kids commented about how strange the party was and they were only like 5 & 7.

Just don't bring a kid into this life if you don't want to spend time with him doing kid related activities. It's an okay thing to not have kids.

Either that or marry a guy that loves doing things with kids. My brother was the stay at home dad. He never worked. He battled cancer, but he was never than ambitious. He loved kids, and he was very involved in his kids lives. His wife is a VP of a company, and is very ambitious. They were married for over 25 years, and had a great marriage. He died 2 years ago, after he raised 2 wonderful kids.


426 posted on 11/28/2006 9:56:23 AM PST by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: Accygirl

You might be interested in this thread. It's about women who choose to be childless. There are several freepers who have decided not to have children replying. You might want to check it out.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1745283/posts


427 posted on 11/28/2006 10:34:54 AM PST by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: Accygirl
Because the same human principles apply... Some people are racist and need to be told this is not okay for society, just like some people are sexist and need to be told that's not okay.

More intellectual sloppiness. Because of slavery, blacks have a unique history in this country which may possibly justify some special consideration under the law. Women do not have a similar history.

Your argument, such as it is, has been used to promote all sorts of social engineering. Right now, for example, homosexuals and other sexual deviants are arguing that they too have been the victims of discrimination just as black people have, and the government should do something about it.

As for some people being "sexists", I would challenge you (1) to define what you mean by sexism and sexist, and (2) to explain why it is the job of the federal government to tell people that sexism is not OK.

Gender discrimination laws protect women from getting fired because they get pregnant or getting paid less for men for the same work.

Why is it any concern of the government's what a private employer pays his employees? If the employer and a particular employee negotiate a mutually agreeable pay rate, no one else should care. After all, it is an agreement between consenting adults.

As for laying off a woman for getting pregnant, that too should be governed by the conditions of the contract negotiated between the employee and the employer. I see no reason why the government should be involved at all.

Choices that were made for them. That's the difference. Women who chose to go to college and have a career would find it near impossible to get a job in the corporate world other than being a secretary.

Nonsense. Who made these choices for them? There were no laws against women going to college or being employed outside the home. There were no laws against them starting their own businesses.

What you cannot seem to grasp is that an intelligent woman might freely chose to forgo a corporate career to be a wife, mother, and homemaker. You assume that the only reason any woman would have done so is that the choice was made for her. Not only does that show an distressing ignorance of recent American history; it also betrays an appalling disdain for Americans of an earlier generation.

428 posted on 11/28/2006 11:40:14 AM PST by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 414 | View Replies]

To: CSM
"Not so. Especially when they jump ship every 3 years, like you have stated you plan to do. "

And helping drive a company into the ground is going to look real good on their resumes or get them really nice recommendations??

"e-read this thread, my post to you and your response. If it isn't clear to you, at that point it would be useless for me to have any further communication with you."

What exactly in my post to you suggests elitist snob? I'm sorry, but I don't make the rules... I only follow them.
429 posted on 11/28/2006 4:15:19 PM PST by Accygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 420 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
"More intellectual sloppiness. Because of slavery, blacks have a unique history in this country which may possibly justify some special consideration under the law. Women do not have a similar history."

Women were treated like second class citizens by the Western world for a fairly long time.

-Women weren't allowed to vote in the U.S. until the the 20th century.

-They weren't allowed to take out a loan from a bank without their husbands' or fathers' permission, receive a divorce, or own their own property until the mid 19th century.

-And the Supreme Court in cases during the late 19th century said it was okay for states to bar women from practicing law or serving on a jury. The decision to bar women from serving on juries was not overturned until the mid-1940s (U.S. vs Ballard).

- Married women could be refused admission into colleges into the 1960s; this was actually the policy at Georgetown. And there were actually college that refused to admit women because they were women. Women weren't permitted to attend the University of Virgina's College of Arts and Science until 1970 and then only under court order(Kirstein v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia).

Sounds like women were certainly considered second class citizens for a very long time to me?

"Your argument, such as it is, has been used to promote all sorts of social engineering. Right now, for example, homosexuals and other sexual deviants are arguing that they too have been the victims of discrimination just as black people have, and the government should do something about it."

Gays chose their behavior; women cannot choose their gender. Therefore, why shouldn't there be laws protecting women from discrimination because of their gender, which they can't change.

"and (2) to explain why it is the job of the federal government to tell people that sexism is not OK."

Obviously, based on some of the comments on this thread alone, there's still lots of people who hold sexist 'tudes and who would discriminate against women if given a chance.

"Why is it any concern of the government's what a private employer pays his employees? If the employer and a particular employee negotiate a mutually agreeable pay rate, no one else should care. After all, it is an agreement between consenting adults."

If you're paying a man with the same skills and experience and the same job much more, then it definitely is discrimination.

"As for laying off a woman for getting pregnant, that too should be governed by the conditions of the contract negotiated between the employee and the employer. I see no reason why the government should be involved at all."

Again, why should women be in fear that they'll have no legal protection if they get pregnant? Many families need both salaries.

Moreover, before the EEOC was created, companies could decide to not hire women because they're afraid that the woman might get pregnant five or six years down the road although she might not want kids.

(P.S. most salaried jobs, especially entry level jobs, don't have negotiated contracts. An employer has a right to fire employees at will).

"Nonsense. Who made these choices for them? There were no laws against women going to college or being employed outside the home. There were no laws against them starting their own businesses."

There were most definitely social norms and mores against it. And there were no laws preventing private institutions from banning women from jobs or higher education because of their gender.

"What you cannot seem to grasp is that an intelligent woman might freely chose to forgo a corporate career to be a wife, mother, and homemaker. You assume that the only reason any woman would have done so is that the choice was made for her. Not only does that show an distressing ignorance of recent American history; it also betrays an appalling disdain for Americans of an earlier generation."

Oh, women in earlier generations most generally were forced by society into a narrow role. That's a fact. (See above).
430 posted on 11/28/2006 5:15:39 PM PST by Accygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: Accygirl

There were/are colleges that didn't admit men also(Texas Women's University and others).

Have you ever read Proverbs 31:

A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies.

11 Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value.

12 She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life.

13 She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands.

14 She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar.

15 She gets up while it is still dark;
she provides food for her family
and portions for her servant girls.

16 She considers a field and buys it;
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard.

17 She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks.

18 She sees that her trading is profitable,
and her lamp does not go out at night.

19 In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers.

20 She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy.

21 When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet.

22 She makes coverings for her bed;
she is clothed in fine linen and purple.

23 Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land.

24 She makes linen garments and sells them,
and supplies the merchants with sashes.

25 She is clothed with strength and dignity;
she can laugh at the days to come.

26 She speaks with wisdom,
and faithful instruction is on her tongue.

27 She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness.

28 Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her:

29 "Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all."

30 Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised.

31 Give her the reward she has earned,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate.

This woman works and takes care of her family.



431 posted on 11/28/2006 6:56:18 PM PST by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: CSM
Are you a fellow Rand fan?

Not really. I love the ideas, but hate the woman and found the books tedious beyond tedious....

432 posted on 11/28/2006 7:09:33 PM PST by Cogadh na Sith (There's an open road from the cradle to the tomb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 422 | View Replies]

To: Accygirl
Sounds like women were certainly considered second class citizens for a very long time to me?

Even if I were to accept your examples as representative of life in the United States, I would point out that all of them pre-date the 1950s for which you have expressed such great disdain.

Gays chose their behavior; women cannot choose their gender. Therefore, why shouldn't there be laws protecting women from discrimination because of their gender, which they can't change.

Many homosexual activists insist that their sexuality is inborn and therefore not subject to choice. That argument, specious though it may be, seems to be gaining currency in some circles.

Obviously, based on some of the comments on this thread alone, there's still lots of people who hold sexist 'tudes and who would discriminate against women if given a chance.

You declined my challenge to define sexism and to explain why it is the role of the federal government to change people's sexist attitudes.

If you're paying a man with the same skills and experience and the same job much more, then it definitely is discrimination.

Discrimination, yes. It could also be a perfectly rational business decision. Again, explain to me why the federal government should have any say in the matter.

Again, why should women be in fear that they'll have no legal protection if they get pregnant? Many families need both salaries. . . . . Moreover, before the EEOC was created, companies could decide to not hire women because they're afraid that the woman might get pregnant five or six years down the road although she might not want kids.

As I have said already, such a decision might be completely rational, especially for a smaller company. Why should employers have to hire anyon they don't want to hire?

There were most definitely social norms and mores against it.

Perhaps so, although norms and mores were undoubtedly more flexible than you have imagined. In any case, people in a free society should have the liberty to live according their preferred social norms and mores. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to change people's attitudes about marital arrangements.

And there were no laws preventing private institutions from banning women from jobs or higher education because of their gender.

Nor should there be such laws in a free society.

Oh, women in earlier generations most generally were forced by society into a narrow role. That's a fact. (See above).

Forced? Nonsense. You really should talk to some women who came of age during the 1950s.

I called my mother, who was a teenager in the 1940s and 1950s, and asked her whether she was forced into marriage and homemaking. She said no; it was her choice. And if you knew my mother, you would know that no one could force her to do anything she does not want to do.

But we do not need to go back to the 1950s (much less the 19th century) to see that intelligent women might freely choose motherhood and homemaking over a corporate career. Women do it all the time today; some have posted on this thread. Have they too been "forced" to forgo a corporate career?

433 posted on 11/28/2006 7:40:39 PM PST by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: Cogadh na Sith
Not really. I love the ideas, but hate the woman and found the books tedious beyond tedious....

LOL. I hear ya. It took me 3 tears to get through "Atlas Shrugged". I just couldn't stick with it. Tedious doesn't even begin to describe it.

"Ann Rand never said anything in 10 words, that she could say in 100...or 1000." - Jotmo

434 posted on 11/28/2006 8:10:04 PM PST by Jotmo (I Had a Bad Experience With the CIA and Now I'm Gonna Show You My Feminine Side - Swirling Eddies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 432 | View Replies]

To: Logophile
"Even if I were to accept your examples as representative of life in the United States, I would point out that all of them pre-date the 1950s for which you have expressed such great disdain."

You're right! The two college examples that I pointed out were from the late sixties. Also, women could be kept out of the state jury pools until the Supreme Court struck it down in the early 60s.

"Many homosexual activists insist that their sexuality is inborn and therefore not subject to choice. That argument, specious though it may be, seems to be gaining currency in some circles. "

But you probably believe that homosexuality is a choice and gender isn't... So why would it matter what some activists believe. The point's still valid. Women cannot change their gender.

"You declined my challenge to define sexism and to explain why it is the role of the federal government to change people's sexist attitudes."

Because there's obviously a segment of the population that feels that women should be in the kitchen as witnessed from this thread, and these men have jobs
where they have to interact with women. I very much doubt that they would willingly promote a woman over a man.

"Discrimination, yes. It could also be a perfectly rational business decision. Again, explain to me why the federal government should have any say in the matter"

The Equal Pay Act and the Civil Rights Act say that a company must pay equal wages to men and women with the same qualifications and quality of work. It sounds to me like it's always a good business decision to pay people with equal qualifications the same amount. Otherwise, you might lose a valued employee to a better deal.

"Perhaps so, although norms and mores were undoubtedly more flexible than you have imagined. In any case, people in a free society should have the liberty to live according their preferred social norms and mores. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to change people's attitudes about marital arrangements."

No, but it's the government's job to make sure that those personal preferences don't affect other people's lives. Which is what sometimes happens when the govern. doesn't step in... During the 1940s and 1950s, "gentleman's agreements" (i.e. housing covenants, informal discrimination in stores) was the most prevalent form of racial/ religious discrimination in the North. It isn't that big a jump to think that women during the same period were affected by a "gentleman's agreement" of sorts in which due to the informal norms and mores of the time, male dominated universities accept women and corporations didn't hire them.

"Nor should there be such laws in a free society."

So basically you believe that it would have been okay for a college to reject a qualified applicant just because she's a woman. That's a perfect example of sexism right there.

"Forced? Nonsense. You really should talk to some women who came of age during the 1950s. "

Well, there was nothing else that she could do during the 1950s... Marriage and children were basically the only options for many women.
435 posted on 11/28/2006 8:46:06 PM PST by Accygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: luckystarmom

"There were/are colleges that didn't admit men also(Texas Women's University and others). "

Separate but equal is always unequal.

"Have you ever read Proverbs 31"

Yep, and I always felt that perhaps instead of praising her, the wife would appreciate it more if her husband did some of the chores.


436 posted on 11/28/2006 8:55:41 PM PST by Accygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Accygirl

How can you be so negative?

Maybe the husband was working just as hard or harder.

Did you ever think that?


437 posted on 11/28/2006 9:02:56 PM PST by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 436 | View Replies]

To: luckystarmom

Well, it sure seems like the wife in the Proverb is doing both the housework and her husband's job for him.


438 posted on 11/28/2006 9:27:20 PM PST by Accygirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: Accygirl

Your obvious distate for the guy who changes your oil is what makes you elitist, not valuing college. I value education, and I'm educated. I am however, no better than the guy who changes my oil, mows my lawn, changes my tire, etc etc.


439 posted on 12/02/2006 7:34:47 AM PST by Melas (Offending stupid people since 1963)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: Accygirl

Dear Accy,

You seem to be a man-basher. it is "gals" like you that inspired the phrase "a good womans like a good dog, you gotta train em right and kick em around once in awhile to show em whos boss".

enjoy the fruits of your anger




440 posted on 12/02/2006 7:57:51 AM PST by LC HOGHEAD (ROPE .... TREE .... JOURNALIST .....some assembly required.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440441-460 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson