Knocking Yourself Up, The ongoing debate over going it alone

Newsweek ^ | 11-5-07 issue | Lorraine Ali

[varyouga]

Some women laugh about turkey basters replacing Mr. Right. The ongoing debate over going it alone.

"Sex And The City's" Carrie Bradshaw once asked, "What if Prince Charming had never shown up? Would Snow White have slept in that glass coffin forever? Or would she have eventually woken up, spit out the apple, gotten a job, a health-care package and a baby from her local neighborhood sperm bank?" Though it's hard to say how Disney would have grappled with a no-show prince, if Ms. White were to awaken alone today, it's possible she'd take the advice of Louise Sloan, author of the guidebook "Knock Yourself Up: A Tell-All Guide to Becoming a Single Mom."

[varyouga]

Something tells me that people who can’t get someone to “knock them up” shouldn’t reproduce in the first place.

The advantage of sex is that it removes undesirable genes from the genepool.

[MNJohnnie]

Note to “Carrie Bradshaw” generation. Trying being a woman comfortable in her skin one time instead of trying so hard to be a guy.

[Aquinasfan]

She offers practical advice on choosing the right donor and informing prospective grandparents in chapters titled "Oops, I Forgot to Have a Baby" and "Trysts With the Turkey Baster."

Aaaaaaah, the utopia promised by the Feminists over 40 years ago has finally arrived. Thank you Gloria Steinem!

[trumandogz]

I guess she could be getting knocked up the old fashioned way and having abortions.

She is giving life to a human soul.

God Bless her.

[FormerLib]

Is it improper to refer to such children as “little basterds?”

[Disambiguator]

Is it improper to refer to such children as “little basterds?”

Maybe, but we also need to re-think the whole "stork" thing in light of the use of turkey basters.

[Disambiguator]

Here's a previous thread about Louise Sloan and her adventures with her turkey baster.

[Michael.SF.]

Paging David Crosby:

[donna]

Really! What kind of a creepy man goes along with this. It is so degrading for all involved.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

“Single mom” is a misnomer — the state is the silent partner. Low-income women in Canada are often better off financially single than married. They qualify for heavily-subsidized social housing, free day care, etc. If they’re not working, they receive generous welfare payments (compared to single persons). If they were working — they can get up to a year off, with almost full salary, for each pregnancy. Plus, of course, all of the other state benefits, including free medical care.

Child rearing used to require a partnership between father and mother — now the state is the only partner many women think they need. Men still have the privilege of paying taxes -- they just have no role in the children's lives.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

I should clarify that the year off with pay comes with jobs in government or with some large corporations. Otherwise, employment insurance covers about 60% of the wages for a year.

[AndyTheBear]

...now the state is the only partner many women think they need.

Years ago I experienced an awful display of just such an attitude. We were dropping our first child off for a couple hours each day at a family day care run by a very nice lady (my wife and I worked different shifts, and they had a little overlap).

At the day care there was a single mother who had many children by many fathers. The state was paying her daycare expense and paying for her to go to job training etc. She was a holy-terror in launching complaints at the poor woman running the day care. The kicker, she spoke of "my Government" as if it were a person belonging to her the way a husband would. As in "My Government is paying you to watch my child...". All the while seeming oblivious to the idea that it was "our" government as well (as evidenced by the mandatory financial contributions that support it).

I felt both sorry for her and disgusted at her at the same time.

[SampleMan]

Why get a husband, when mamma gubment will take care of you and your babies?

[Zetman]

Really! What kind of a creepy man goes along with this. It is so degrading for all involved.

My understanding from reading the article is that many/most of these women are going to sperm banks to receive the necessary "genetic input" from anonymous donors. I have been told that sperm banks actually pay desireable men to "make deposits", so I assume the answer to your question is that the men are doing it for the money.

These men may eventually regret their decision to earn a little extra spending cash. One radio host I listened to a few years ago actually advised men NOT to make "deposits" at a sperm bank. He said that there is a rising incidence of women getting pregnant from anonymous sperm bank fathers, and then deciding a few years later that there is too much financial hardship in being a single parent. Some of these women are beginning to sue the sperm banks to reveal the anonymous identity of the male donor, and then going after the male donor in court for child support. According to this radio host, many of these women have been successful in these efforts, and then number of women doing so is rising. So, many of these women are deciding that the man is not as unnecessary as they originally believed.

What a crazy, screwed up world we live in !!

[CholeraJoe]

Da-da!

[Red Dog #1]

Dan Quayle was right about Murphy Brown.

[MEGoody]

The advantage of sex is that it removes undesirable genes from the genepool.

Look around you. Sex does nothing of the sort. In fact, the 'sexual revolution' has guaranteed that more undesirables would be produced. We had a whole LOT fewer of them when sex was considered by society to be reserved for marriage (and marriage was for life).

[OB1kNOb]

So this is what our so-called enlightened educated society has been reduced to contemplating. (shakes head and mutters to self about a handbasket and a hot destination)