Coretta Scott King and Wendy Wasserstein have left us, much too young in both cases. Readers can easily find many obits and tributes on the ‘net.
I’ve long been a fan of Wasserstein, and remember the birth of her now seven year-old daughter, Lucy Jane, as the occasion of a bitter fight with a dear friend. As is well-known, Wasserstein spent many years in her forties in fertility treatments, anxious to have a child. In his obituary in today’s Times (rather annoyingly titled "Witty Voice of Feminist Self-Doubt"), Mike Boehm writes of her as a woman whose need to nurture led her on an eight-year journey through fertility treatments that culminated in motherhood at the age of 48. Somehow, that description bothers me a bit, and I can’t figure out why. Is it vaguely condescending? Would I mind it as much if the obit was written by a woman? I’ll mull it over. Is it the verb "need?"
Anyhow, when Wasserstein’s account of her journey to motherhood appeared in the New Yorker back in the summer of 1998, I got into a huge fight with a buddy about the ethics of becoming a single mom at Wasserstein’s age. I enthusiastically supported Wasserstein, while my friend accused her — and other older women like her, who conceive children artificially and while single — of profound selfishness. It was strange how heated the argument quickly became, and my friend and I realized that the story of how Lucy Jane came to be exposed a basic fault line in our worldviews. At the time, I was in the midst of my conversion process; my friend was a much more conservative Christian than I. While I was genuinely moved by Wasserstein’s steadfast refusal to let either aging or singleness deter her from her dream of motherhood, my buddy saw her actions as evidence of narcissism and upper-middle class privilege. My friend — at the time a recently divorced father — said bitterly: "Women like Wasserstein think men are expendable. We’re more than sperm donors, you know."
I’m not a bio-ethicist. My recollection of the fertility techniques Wasserstein actually used is vague. I thought I had her book "Shiksa Goddess" somewhere (it has the original New Yorker essay about Lucy in it), but apparently it got misplaced in my last move, or lent to a student, or it walked off into the ephemera. But even now, as an evangelical Christian, I am — at least in principle –untroubled by the notion of a woman in her late forties conceiving, bearing, and raising a child without the help of the child’s biological father. Yes, certain fertility techniques that involve the destruction of embryos bother me enormously, but I can hold that discomfort in tension with my firm belief that the role of science in allowing women to bear children at an older age is a good and positive one.
So many men in my family were only ready for fatherhood in their forties or fifties! The older fathers I know are, for the most part, infinitely more patient and more involved in their children’s lives than those guys who had children in their twenties. I can only imagine how disastrous it would have been had I had children in my early marriages when I was still lost — like so many of my brothers — in an angry, inarticulate, self-absorbed and quite extended adolescence! I’m fifteen months from 40, and only now do I find myself longing for children; only now do I sense within myself the reservoirs of patience and selflessness that I know good parenthood will require. Of course, as a man, I have relatively little to worry about in terms of fertility. (Yes, I know about sterility and tight bike shorts, thanks.)
And I know so many women in my life whose journey has also been a long one! Some chose motherhood young, while others — for countless reasons — chose to wait. And like many folks my age, I have lots of friends struggling with the anxiety and heartbreak of infertility. It’s true that biology is not kind to aging women who long to bear their own children, but it’s also true that one of the chief tasks of science and medicine is to alleviate the cruelties and the injustices of the natural world. Social conservatives urge women to have babies young, and some — like my friend seven years ago — make nasty jabs about forty-somethings who will go through hell for the chance to become mothers. They call it "unnatural", forgetting that our resistance to countless diseases is the product of innumerable "unnatural" modern medical treatments. Nature calls for a quarter of women to die of complications from childbirth; nature calls for 40% of children to die before reaching adolescence; nature tells us that women can’t have babies at 48.
As a man who longs to be a father, I don’t feel myself rendered superfluous by artificial insemination. The way in which Lucy Jane Wasserstein came into the world was not a reflection on men’s collective shortcomings. Wasserstein — as her plays and writings make clear — genuinely liked men. Many women who choose as she did also like men. But love and marriage are but one path to parenthood. To put it in Christian terms, the agape love of parent for child need not be connected to the eros love of parent for parent. Wasserstein went through hell to have Lucy Jane, and then endured considerable criticism after her child’s birth. But her commitment to creating new life and raising her daughter reflected a vital feminist principle: the insistence that women’s lives are not governed by inexorable and unalterable biological processes, and that marriage to a man — for all the joy it may bring to some — is not the only road to motherhood and happiness.
The saddest part of this has to be, whatever the ethics of her birth, the eight-year-old child that’s left behind. No one can guarantee they will live to see their children grow up, but it’s a horrible fear for a single parent.
“To put it in Christian terms, the agape love of parent for child need not be connected to the eros love of parent for parent.”
But is it not better for the child to be grow in the presence of an agape love of parent for parent? You are moving in sociological circles, but the theologian in me balks at your assertion. There is a piece of the imago dei that is present in the man and the woman that is only made whole when the two are together. Removing that piece short-changes the child from seeing true love and fidelity lived out before them.
Hugo, as a 40+ female who is just back at work after giving birth to my third child, thank you for this post. Dan, on principle, I think it’s wrong to pit the better against the best. Unless you want to argue that the world, or Lucy herself, would be better had Lucy not been born, arguing about what constitutes the “ideal” family structure is not relevant. Women who are single parents rarely disdain marriage; instead they are frequently achievement oriented women who themselves feel disdained by men. Many wore themselves to the bone trying to pursue the traditional path to family and finally gave up. I am so happy that technology now allows them to fulfill their parental aspirations.
my friend accused her — and other older women like her, who conceive children artificially and while single — of profound selfishness.
how funny. many people accuse me, a 25 year old woman in a committed relationship who says she doesn’t want to bear children, of profound selfishness.
pardon the expression, but sometimes it really does feel like “damned if you do, damned if you don’t,” doesn’t it?
Right on, kate d! For women the only really “acceptable” choice in many people’s eyes is to have kids by 35 at the latest while married to a man and of course to become a full-time stay-at-home mom.
Unfortunately, none of us can guarantee our children the perfect upbringing. While I think it is terribly sad that Wendy Wasserstein’s daughter is orphaned at such a young age, I am also guessing that she will count herself fortunate to have had such a loving mother.
I’m about 95% with you on this, but it seems to me the missing component here is a call to fight for a greater social acceptance/understanding of adoption as a “real” way to have children (and to increase access, and decrease costs, and so on, to adoption). The way you phrase this–all about science to correct injustice and nothing about adjusting the social understandings of adoption to correct injustice–seems a bit out of balance. This arguably perpetuates a sort of essentialist natalism about children that is hardly an unqualified good from a feminist perspective (which is not to say feminists shouldn’t fight for it as a choice).
in the interest of full disclosure, I am a white male who is also a Christian, and would be considered more conservative than Hugo on most (if not all?) issues. My frame of reference comes from that position.
I am not about to say that Lucy shouldn’t have been born, and I certainly will not posit a full condemnation against women who choose to go a different path. However, I don’t find it helpful to build positions on each and every particular - there is always somebody who is an exception, and it ends up being a pointless argument. I have to come at it from the other perspective - is there a “best” position? And if so, how can I (and we all) strive to help as many as possible in our world live into that position? As a follower of Christ and a person of the Word, I can’t get away from the fact that there is a strong biblical argument for Divine Order, and that order includes both men and women in a committed relationship (please note: space and time don’t allow for much nuance at the moment, but at least know that I am not arguing the Focus on the Family Position here).
In a nutshell what I’m trying to say is this: I agree that pointing fingers and saying “you were wrong to do what you did!” isn’t helpful; in fact, it’s unhealthy and morally wrong. But I have a problem with going completely the other way and saying “Hey! Ra Ra for you for bucking tradition! Since you wanted to do it, it must be okay!”
Since you wanted to do it, it must be okay!
C’mon. No one’s suggesting this as a general principle. Hugo (and Wendy Wasserstein, more importantly) gave plenty of specific reasons why, in fact, this particular desire fulfillment effort was OK, not *simply* because it was desired.
Dan, thanks for your clarification. There is much that is winsome and compelling about the notion that “God’s best” is one man, one woman, in an permanently committed monogamous relationship. That has been the position of Judeo-Christian orthodoxy for a long time.
But even if we accept the premise that this is the “best”, do we not do a tremendous disservice to people by suggesting that any alternative is woefully inadequate? Is it possible that God’s grace and love are so abundant that many different notions of what constitutes “family” might also be “best”?
I tend to think of the term “best” the way I think of the word “favorite.” My pastor, Ed Bacon, often says “I’m God’s favorite. You’re God’s favorite. We are each God’s favorite.” It’s a lovely contradiction, the notion that we are each the favorite of the Lord — and yet it’s based on a sound understanding of Scripture and tradition. I think “best” works the same way. A married couple, living together in faithfulness, can look at each other and say “We are living out our call to holiness together”. Wendy Wasserstein, with a different understanding of “the best”, came to a different conclusion. The end result — new life, longed-for life, cherished life.
The problem with arguing ideals is that the world never lives up to them. Even in a two-parent, stay-at-home-mome household, there are always problems. Some little, some big. After all, nobody is born a natural perfect parent, and infants don’t come with an owner’s manual.
We can argue all day about this hypothetical pie-in-the-sky “perfect home” but I think it’s worth keeping in mind that it will never exist.
Maybe instead of demonizing single parents, older parents and other non-traditional families, communities should look for more ways to help support them. Oh I know, nobody wants to waste time and money on “someone else’s kid” but that’s half the problem in our society these days. A lot of people like to stand on their soapboxes and condemn, but few like to actually help out.
Personally, I think the kid in the single-older-parent home who is nurtured is far better off than the kid in the “traditional” home who is overlooked, dismissed or abused.
As for women over 55 or so having kids, well there’s always the issue of the fact that mom may or may not survive to see junior graduate from high school, but I don’t really have an answer for you. Some people die at 56, others live to be 96 or 106. Some people get smashed to bits in a car wreck at 26. You can never honestly guarantee to your child that you will always be there, no matter how much you love them. That’s true for all parents, no matter what age they are.
As a 48-year-old who desperately wants to get pregnant and for whom fertility drugs haven’t worked, I admit to being selfish but I can’t help but identify with Wasserstein’s situation.
I have heard the argument before that it’s not fair for an older woman to have a child because she might not live as long as a younger woman. Of course, you never hear that when an older man has a child– presumably I suppose because the older man is not bucking biology and because there is of necessity a younger woman still in the picture. Still, one would think, that if the ideal situation really is a two-parent household, people would also worry about an older man becoming father and possibly dying when the child is still young. Yet we never hear any kind of griping about older dads.
I don’t know why Wasserstein chose to have a child in such a way that guaranteed that the child would never have a relationship with her father, so I’m not qualified to dissect her motives. However, I do wish to point out general similarities between prostitution, pornography, and artificial insemination in cases like Wasserstein, inasmuch as these practices degrade human relationships by reducing one partner to an object. Granted, the outcomes and intentions differ. However, all these practices use human beings instrumentally. This aspect of artificial insemination disturbs me far than the contemplation of my own superfluity.
Did Hugo grow up with a dad around?
I am not sure I understand where you are coming from Charming Billy. IF someone donates an organ, isn’t he or she “being used instrumentally?” What’s wrong with that?
And as someone who did grow up with a dad around, I can assure you that a two parent home is not always the ideal situation either. I would have given anything when I was growing up for my mother to divorce my father and raise me as a single parent! I prayed daily for her to do so. (And I’m not just picking on dads. It can work the other way as well.)
So I am absolutely with Hugo– I don’t think it is fair to measure someone’s desire to give life or nurture a child as a single parent against some ideal. Most families DON’T live up to the ideal. Even if you could convince me that a two-parent home is generally preferable, I think that a single parent can say, well, I have so much to give in so many areas that I think I would be as worthy a parent as anyone around even if I can’t provide that “ideal” two-parent environment.
My concern is that as a society we’re so pronatalist that we’re willing to sacrifice women’s health so that they can give birth. Is there a link between Wasserstein’s years of fertility treatments and her cancer? Do fertility treatments raise a woman’s risk of getting cancer? We don’t have good answers to these questions - why not? I do know that in my own experience, the correlation between fertility treatments and cancer seems high.
Cleis, there’s no good data analyzing the link between fertility treatments and cancer. The studies that have examined the subject tend to look at correlations between fertility drugs and breast, uterine, and ovarian cancer, not lymphoma (which is what Wasserstein died of).
Hugo, the part of you post which I find most striking is this: my buddy saw her actions as evidence of narcissism and upper-middle class privilege.
I’m not on board with the narcissim argument, but fertility treatments really are the province of the upper middle class. They’re far too expensive to be widely available. (Insurance almost never covers such treatments.) The older a woman is, the less likely fertility treatments are to be successful, meaning (potentially) more rounds of drugs, etc. Given that a round of IVF costs approximately $15,000, there’s no way the average person is going to be able to pay.
As someone who’s lived for the past 5 years in bioethics land, I can tell you that the subject is in no way settled, and a large part of it has to do with the lack of regulation of fertility clinics. (Arceli Keh is the oldest woman to give birth in the U.S., at age 63, and I can assure you, she caused, and continues to cause, a lot of controversy.
Aldahlia: My parents divorced when I was small, but I saw my father regularly.
While I can see reasons to have reservations about some varieties of fertility treatment, I have difficulty seeing the age of 48 as a sufficient moral barrier in itself. The average woman reaches menopause at about 50; though the odds are small, a woman could have a child at 48 without any fertility treatment at all. Either Elayne Riggs or I could, in principle, become a mother in the usual way, even if it’s unlikely that either of us will. And either of us, if we do get pregnant, is a good deal more likely to survive till the child grows up than not. In fact, given my family history, I’d actually have a darn good chance of still being alive when the kid is 40.
Hmmm….I’ve seen this attitude displayed towards “older” women who had their children without fertility treatments, too. Hell, I’ve heard this same thing myself when I had my daughter at the extraordinarily advanced age of 32 (hey, in central Illinois, it makes you the oldest mom at drop-in by a long shot!). Yes, even down to the “aren’t you worried you won’t live long enough to see her grow up?” (a worry that has no age, I’m afraid). I think it’s the barrier-breaking that is assumed that gets folks’ shorts in a twist. That, and short memories (both of my grandmothers had children in their mid-forties, back when it was considered perfectly appropriate to continue one’s childbearing into those years).
Thing is though, just about all of the older women who undergo fertility treatments in their forties is because they spent their twenties and thirties trying to do it the “traditional” way, and it didn’t happen. This isn’t “brave, pioneering women forging new paths” or any other sterotypical “selfish career-bitch” veneer—it’s women who simply want a slice of life most of us get to take for granted.
For women the only really “acceptable” choice in many people’s eyes is to have kids by 35 at the latest while married to a man and of course to become a full-time stay-at-home mom.
Heh. I’m exactly that. It’s not all that acceptable in my community. It’s seen as incredibly selfish! I am, however, EXTREMELY urban.
When it comes to family and childbearing, everyone’s got an opinion. Which, of course, they’re happy to share.
((Anyone want my opinions???? PLLLEAAASEEE???))
I realized, after the first two years of parenting, that people invest a lot into their kids but it’s an extremely limited career in time. So they’re wandering about, hoping to bump into someone they can “teach”.
You’re right . . . some segment or another is going to see every woman’s choice as “selfish.” Whether we have kids, don’t have kids, stay home with the kids, don’t stay home with the kids. I think this is related in part to the notion that women are supposed to be living “for” others. To the extent our choices can be linked to our own needs or preferences, we are violating that cultural mandate.
Happy Feminist,
You wrote:
“I am not sure I understand where you are coming from Charming Billy. IF someone donates an organ, isn’t he or she “being used instrumentally?” What’s wrong with that?”
The difference between organ donation and artificial insemination is that in the latter case an invaluable and essential human relationship is whittled down to a bare minimum.
What I’m arguing here is not that having a dad around is always better than being raised by a single parent. For the record, after my father left when I was 8, my mom went back to college, got a full time job, and raised four kids on her own. I’m now happily married and have 2 kids of my own. So I have a pretty good idea of what a single parent can and can’t do.
So “where I’m coming from” isn’t a blanket condemnation of single parenthood. And I certainly don’t wish to condemn anyone’s desire to have children. Wanting children is like wanting to breathe; it’s not morally culpable per se. In fact it’s praiseworthy.
However, I do think that when women choose to forego not only marriage, but also any possibility that they or their children will ever have a relationship with the father, this decision is morally questionable. Firstly, because all things being equal, a child benefits from a father’s presence. Yes, you and I both seem to know something about less than ideal fathers. However, everyone seems to agree that having an adequate father around is better than not father at all. Sorry, I won’t accept your challenge to convince you of that fact since I regard it as established.
Secondly, to me, at least, it’s clear this choice displays a profound indifference, or blindness, to the emotional, social, and moral richness of fatherhood. In spite of Hugo’s emotional resilience in the face of artificial insemination, this choice does indeed say that the invaluable and essential relationship of father and child is largely expendable. When parents think it’s ok to deprive a child of this good, I have to wonder what other goods they might consider expendable. It makes me doubt judgment of anyone who would seriously make the argument you formulated thus:
“I think that a single parent can say, well, I have so much to give in so many areas that I think I would be as worthy a parent as anyone around even if I can’t provide that “ideal” two-parent environment.”
I’m not questioning your judgment personally. However, this argument is fails to convince. It concedes, rather than questions, the desirability of two parent family. In other words, it argues that while one understands what’s best for one’s child (the two parent family) one would be such a good parent that one doesn’t in fact need to provide what one has just conceded is best for one’s child.
this choice does indeed say that the invaluable and essential relationship of father and child is largely expendable
It’s not all about you.
it’s important that individuals garner a viewpoint and belief system that ‘makes sense’ to them, however, it is entirely offensive to implicate / project this personal viewpoint unto others.
myself and countless others were raised in households where women refused to leave abusive relationships because “the best” for their children required they stay. i myself have experienced this i can say very confidently that those people should never have married - it would have spared the many of us the scars that burden us to this day. much of this burden would never have evolved, had they divorced sooner.
and then i have also watched as non-abusive, unhappy couples walk miserably through the steps of parenting while their children pray for divorce or a fast track to independance.
what defenders of gods holy union appear to forget, is that this is an ‘ideal’ and not necessarily a reality. few can contest to experiencing this ideal.
i chose to have a child on my own. i did so after a long and extremely hard journey of self-reflection, contemplation upon the relationship i had with the father, and all the while with an entire universe of challenging assumptions to combat: continuing my pregnancy alone will “flush my life down the toilet”, “will be unfair to my child” et al. these assumptions are rampid and exist as if by osmosis in our society like looming black curtains. the degeneration of our characters and self-esteem onsets the moment we consider parenting alone - whether by leaving a spouse or continuing a pregnancy.
i took up that journey and i very thoroughly considered, wieghed in and deliberated. i am quite certain that no woman could escape this experience when seeing themselves as having to make that choice. and i made the choice. and it was the right choice for myself and for my son and this has shown itself to be true through the ten years that have now passed.
i will enjoy a meaningful and ‘blessed’ relationship, when it occurs. not because of my age or a pressing desire to have children, or because someone/anyone else expects it of me. allowing that relationship to occur in ones life is quite different than endeavoring to manifesting it from thin air. this indeed is not within the control of any one woman or man. to attempt to “make” this of less suitable relationships in order to procreate - that, is more in tune with crafting a “sperm donor” situation. not the opposite.
The Happy Feminist wrote: “I have heard the argument before that it’s not fair for an older woman to have a child because she might not live as long as a younger woman. Of course, you never hear that when an older man has a child– presumably I suppose because the older man is not bucking biology and because there is of necessity a younger woman still in the picture. Still, one would think, that if the ideal situation really is a two-parent household, people would also worry about an older man becoming father and possibly dying when the child is still young. Yet we never hear any kind of griping about older dads.”
Perhpas you never hear these arguments about older dads because dads in general - older or not - are considered superfluous by feminists; for them, if the woman wishes to have a ‘father figure’ for their child, any surrogate male figure will do. Thus, arguments about the relative value of having fathers around, older or not, are moot because feminists see little value in fathers (other than the slave labor and paycheck they can provide for the mother) in the first place.
Charming Billy, the alternative faced by Wasserstein, I would be willing to bet a lot of money, is (a) never have children or (b) have children as a single mother. Single women who decide to accept the responsibility of parenthood are not “whittling away” a child’s relationship with a father when they procreate any more than when they adopt (which many single women do, probably more than those who elect the fertility treatment route). Parenthood is or should be about children, not parents, and if a woman (or man) can give a child a good and loving home, then the fact that the home isn’t “ideal” by some cultural ideal that is often less than ideal and very often less than well documented, just doesn’t matter. Please keep in mind: most single women find themselves in this situation, they didn’t seek it out, and they are far more likely to have been rejected by than to reject men.
mr bad
with all due respect, you don’t hear about this contraversy with older men because becoming a widow is the only ‘acceptable’ circumstances in which a single mother is produced. this indeed is a more common occurrance then women pursuing scientific measures in order to become single parents. then there is the case of male officers leaving widowed spouses in numbers, or young men simply walking out when they discover they aren’t ready for parenthood. these things also happen more frequently (according to stats) than there are ‘feminists’ ousting the father figure before taking on childrearing.
but in all cases, women take the brunt of fault for raising children in ‘unstable homes’. oh - except in the case that your husband dies, here the woman is then pitied, as opposed to scorned.
you make too broad generalizations, i’m afraid.
Right. What Barbara said. I think the problem is that people tend to see single motherhood as a choice women make just to spite men or because they don’t value men. But as mythago said, it’s not about you.
These women for whatever reason find themselves single and wanting a child and able to provide a lot for that child. I don’t think they’re saying, “mwahahaha, I shall have a child and deprive the father and that child of their bond with each other as part of my evil male-hating plan, mwahahaha.” I say go for it. I also say people should focus on what these mothers are giving their children as opposed to what their children may (or may not) be missing out on.
Mr. Bad, I don’t only talk to or read things by feminists. I talk to plenty of other people. It’s the NON-feminists who snipe at older women who become parents but who never mention the Tony Randalls of the world. (I believe he had his first child at 78 or so, and died when that child was about 6 or 7.)
I don’t believe that feminist devalue the father-child bond. I would feel the same way about a man who was trying to become a single father.
Ricia,
The view I’m presenting isn’t addressed to women who are single parents because they continue a pregnancy (I applaud this decision) or divorce. It’s addressed specifically to those who use artificial insemination. I think you’re right that those who choose a less than suitable arrangement in order to procreate are choosing something comparable to artificial insemination. That’s my point: both arrangements forego the full benefits of a valuable and important human relationship.
Barbara, I agree with you:
” Please keep in mind: most single women find themselves in this situation, they didn’t seek it out, and they are far more likely to have been rejected by than to reject men.”
However, I think it’s still the case that women in this situation who choose anonymous artificial insemination are deliberately forgoing the benefits of a relationship with the child’s father. These are simply the facts of the matter – that’s how the procedure works. Furthermore, how can anyone say that even if the woman in question is a wonderful single parent, that this choice (a choice that doesn’t arise if she chooses to adopt) does not make a profound difference in the life of her child?
On the other hand, saying that parenthood should be about children, not parents, seems to me like saying that marriage should be about the husband, not the wife, or vice versa.
People speak of the “ideal” two parent family as if this means either scarce or unattainable or some kind of Platonic ideal. On my view, it’s neither; it’s a reality. I’m simply saying that it’s an established fact that, all things being equal, children do better when both parents are involved and stay involved in their children’s upbringing. That’s all. It’s not meant to be used a stick to beat single parents with. My “ideal” admits of and expects all sorts of irregularities and inadequacies provided that both parents are merely present and give a damn. It’s an “all things being equal” definition that takes into account both the reality of difficult relationships as well as the reality that children tend to do better when parents stay to together. This situation is attainable, though admittedly becoming scarcer.
Mythago,
Like you, I find anonymous artificial insemination troubling. I believe this choice is morally questionable; although I’m open to the possibility that it’s not blameworthy in every case. However, I find your dismissive characterization of women who chose this option unhelpful.
Charming Billy, single mothers who are mothers via DS (donor sperm) aren’t “choosing to forego” a relationship with father; they are choosing to become a parent by the means that is open to them. I guess they could trick a male friend into doing the insemination, but that doesn’t seem quite fair. All of our choices have consequences, never more so than when they involve creating new members of the human race. If I chose to have 14 children it would have an impact on each and every one of them and many people would find it quite blameworthy of me. (I know inhabitants of such families who felt more like workers in a factory, remote from their parents, than members of a happy boisterous family.) Many people could take the same view you do towards fathers (or mothers, I presume) apply it to money and wonder why the heck poor people have children, and even if they have one or two, why should they have more than that when their resources are so inadequate.
Questioning the childbearing practices of other people always risks being fraught with arrogance and cultural blindness. The only arrangements I condemn are those in which parents abandon their parental responsibility. Don’t get me wrong, I am not a single parent, my husband is a great dad, and I am awfully glad I don’t have to go it alone, that my children have a great role model, and so on. But that doesn’t translate into me wishing the whole world would be just like me. And I can’t overlook, again, that most single women I know just felt too strong of a desire to have a child, and too sure that a suitable mate wouldn’t come along on a timely basis. Indeed, by waiting so long, many of these women actually show that they likely agree with your premise — they were waiting for the right man, but he didn’t show up. I don’t think this is a problem for the ages, in other words, if it’s a problem at all.
ricia pd said: “with all due respect, you don’t hear about this contraversy with older men because becoming a widow is the only ‘acceptable’ circumstances in which a single mother is produced. this indeed is a more common occurrance then women pursuing scientific measures in order to become single parents. then there is the case of male officers leaving widowed spouses in numbers, or young men simply walking out when they discover they aren’t ready for parenthood. these things also happen more frequently (according to stats) than there are ‘feminists’ ousting the father figure before taking on childrearing.”
Really? And what would those “stats” be? Got a citation?
Serial anecdote does not equal proof.
THF, I’m sorry, but whether you believe it or not is irrelevant, the fact remains that feminists have indeed been devaluing the father-child bond for decades now. It is only recently that some (few) feminists have been backtracking on this. So as I said, perhaps this is why discussions of the type we’re talking about don’t occur.
Well, even if you’re right Mr. Bad, I think it’s an unrelated issue to the question of why old (and I mean really old fathers) aren’t usually castigated for became very old fathers, whereas old mothers are blamed for waiting too long to have kids.
Happy Feminist, don’t get defensive because of Mr. Bad. He’s done nothing more than make bald assertions and gross generalizations about an entire class of women who hasn’t even (conveniently) defined. I’ll take serial anecdotes as proof any day over Mr. Bad’s alternative logic.
Charming Billy, Now I don’t get your distinction between adoption and anonymous artificial insemination.
In the latter situation , it is not just the woman choosing to forego a relationship with the father. Presumably, the father chose to forego a relationship with the child and the mother when he donated his sperm.
Not defensive! Just talking! But thanks . . .
Barbara,
Since anonymous DS rules out having a relationship with the father, women who choose this procedure are, by definition, choosing to forego such a relationship. Even if they would have preferred a different arrangement, they chose this one.
A teenage father abandoning his infant child and a wealthy older woman choosing anonymous DS to have her child are both deciding, albeit influenced by significantly different circumstances and motivations, to deny their child a paternal relationship beyond the bare biological minimum. I think the motivations and the circumstances matter, but in neither case do they render the decision to forego a meaningful paternal relationship trivial or insignificant. I think it’s fair to discuss and evaluate these decisions. Doing so is far from “wishing the whole world would be just like me.” Indeed, an honest discussion of these matters might just as well can into question one’s own choices.
Happy Feminist,
It’s this: a single parent choosing adoption and a single parent choosing anonymous artifical insemination both choose to raise a child alone. However, a woman who’s chosen the latter has by definition ruled out any relationship with the child’s father. (Or vice versa; but unless you’re Michael Jackson and pay someone to bear your child — anyone got a problem with that? — it’s almost always a woman.) When you adopt, you don’t make the decision to deprive the child of a parental relationship. The child already has no, or is considered to have no, meaningful parental relationships at all. So you’re providing the child with a relationship, not ruling one out. The key difference is that with artificial insemination, you’re responsible for the fact that the child will never know the father. Adoption doesn’t bring this responsibility.
OK - but I guess I come to my original point. I think that even if a two-parent household is generally preferable to a single-parenth household (and I concede that you are probably right on that score), I don’t think it’s the be-all and end-all.
It is also true that a higher-income home is probably preferable for a child than a lower-income home. But that doesn’t mean poorer people shouldn’t have children or that poorer people are morally wrong for having children or that it’s morally wrong for a parent to work at a non-profit when he or she could make more money for the child at another job. What I am saying is that parents who can’t provide the ideal, or who don’t want to provide the ideal, still have a lot to offer as parents and I don’t think that it’s wrong for them to become parents.
istm as I read through these posts that the “pro-” side all seem to be focusing in on the mother, her desires, her wishes, her fulfillment, while the “anti-” side seem to be thinking more of the child. I realize that’s a false dichotomy we’ve set up, but I still find it troubling that those who rush to support the single mother’s choice to bear a child don’t seem to have the child’s interest in mind. The child is the truly innocent player who will have to live with the mother’s choice the rest of their life. Perhaps someone who has been through this experience could share why they truly felt that raising a child alone would be in the child’s best interest? I’d be glad to listen.
No, Charming Billy, I don’t quite get the point of why it’s useful to “discuss” whether a household headed by a single woman who has chosen to have a child is not an “ideal” arrangement. It wasn’t ideal from my father’s perspective to have 4 instead of 3 children; to start having them after being married less than a year, or to have them so close together. It wasn’t ideal, from my perspective, that someone as angry, anxious, paranoid, and insecure as my father should have children at all. You should meet my brother, after half a lifetime of being called inadequate for not being just like my dad but better, he has chosen, quite properly in my view, never to have children. And you know, even though my childhood was, to be nice about it, emotionally unsatisfying, on balance, I’m glad I was born and I’m sure my younger sister (the unexpected fourth) is glad she was born. I even think my brother is glad he was born. Certainly my children are glad I was born.
There’s no reproductive adequacy court in session, yet, and it’s a good thing. I don’t see the point of using Platonic reasoning to judge, above all, the choices of a small minority of affluent single women who’ve met just about every other challenge life has thrown at them without the support of a husband or boyfriend. I really don’t.
Dan, the best interests of children gets thrown around a lot, but it’s a standard that only applies in custody determinations. I don’t see how you can ever say that it’s in the best interest of a child not to have been born. (Well, not unless someone had a child in order to groom them for a life of sexual slavery or something like that.) People have children for all kinds of reasons, sane and otherwise, and, often, for no reason at all, or certainly no reason other than, “I’d like to be a parent.” Why they did it is often mysterious and even more often banal; we should judge parents by their devotion to parental duty. Anything else strikes me as unfair and probably hypocritical. You just can’t generalize too much about this.
In my estimation, as La Lubu said rather eloquently, these women want what almost all other women and men take for granted as a normal slice of life, frequently after having tried to get there the old fashioned way. They aren’t being selfish, certainly no more selfish than I was when I decided to have children with my husband.
Hrm. I think I’m the only self-described feminist here that thinks Wasserstein was wrong to do what she did. I have to agree with Dan. Kids aren’t all about “What I want.” What she did wasn’t fair to her (now orphaned) daughter. I totally agree that single mothers can parent adequately (I come from a single-parent situation), and I don’t see anyone arguing for “staying in a bad marriage for the kids” here, because that’s honestly not the issue. There wasn’t a marriage for her to stay in.
aldahlia, I guess from my perspective most people having children do so for a mix of selfish and other, usually inscrutable, reasons, but in all cases, the “reasons” are simply gloss to what is a strong biological imperative. I wouldn’t have done what WW did, I don’t think I would have had the chutzpah. But you also don’t know what arrangements she has made for her daughter, and she is hardly without resources or, from what I undersand, extended family.
What she did wasn’t fair to her (now orphaned) daughter
That rather depends on what she did, doesn’t it? The affluent, older single mothers I know (well, I know one of them) planned from the day of conception or even earlier to have a number of secure, stable, loving adults of both sexes in her child’s life, to serve as alternate role models and to help out with childcare, of course, but also to stand by in case of tragedy. If Wasserstein officially designated the person or people who were to adopt her child in the event of her death (as any responsible parent does) and made sure that her child had a close, loving relationship with them when she was alive (likewise), then no, she didn’t do too badly.
I think that fifty is a reasonable upper limit of procreating-age for decent people of both sexes to adhere to, but Wasserstein had her child before passing that limit. (Men who have children well after fifty are, of course, the ones who despise and devalue fatherhood: they’re demonstrating by their actions that a senile father or a mentally present one, a dead father or a live one, it’s all the same to them.) The unfairness of having a child after that age is the unfairness of expecting a twenty year old to spend her time with her parents at a nursing home, or to take on the heavy burdens of care for the elderly with no time to prepare or choice in the matter. That’s an awful thing to do to somebody.
But it’s not what Wasserstein did; had she lived, she’d have been 68 when her daughter was a self-reliant adult. Not senile, not helpless, not too old. It is reasonable to expect to be unable to parent a child by 75; it is not reasonable to expect to be dead by 55.
Barbara,
You took the words right out of my mouth. I noted earlier that I’m not trying to apply a platonic ideal to this situation. However, when you’re discussing general cases it’s helpful to use “all things being equal” (or Ceteribus paribus, if you want to be fancy about it) reasoning. That means you consciously confine your discussion to what generally holds true while prescinding from particular exceptions. Particulars may be admitted as shedding light on the general conclusion, but are not seen as rendering the conclusion false. True, there’s always the danger that this sort of discussion can become meaninglessly abstract. But so far that hasn’t been one of your objections.
I no more than you wish for a reproductive adequacy court. That is precisely why it is not only “useful”, but important, to discuss these matters. Society has too great a stake in the reproductive behavior of its members to license just any old thing without evaluating it beforehand in some fashion or another. That’s why I prefer a society that evaluates novel social arrangements through informal discussion before one that adjudicates them formally.
Happy Feminist,
I agree with your point: “What I am saying is that parents who can’t provide the ideal, or who don’t want to provide the ideal, still have a lot to offer as parents and I don’t think that it’s wrong for them to become parents.” But I have to confine my agreement only if I can exclude “don’t want to provide the ideal.” I mean, if you have a notion of what the ideal is – and I mean ideal in the sense that it’s something you know that you and everyone else is morally obligated to do – then of course you should do it. But I think you meant, “don’t want to provide an ideal that they regard as mistaken.”
I’m not arguing that there’s an “ideal” family in the sense that one size fits all. Even less was my intention in making my original objection to anonymous DS, namely that it trivializes parental relationships, to beat to anyone up. If I object to theft, it’s because I think there’s something wrong with it, not because I want work a hardship on thieves.
I realize that’s a false dichotomy we’ve set up
Yes, it is. Why, then, go on to argue from it?
THF said: “Well, even if you’re right Mr. Bad, I think it’s an unrelated issue to the question of why old (and I mean really old fathers) aren’t usually castigated for became very old fathers, whereas old mothers are blamed for waiting too long to have kids.”
THF, I dispute your assertion that old fathers aren’t usually castigated about having children with younger, many times much younger, women (and will cut you slack on your original allegation that we “never” hear this). Hugo has had several scathing criticisms of older men who pair with younger women, and he’s not alone by any means. Such men are usually portrayed as pervs, pedophiles, exploiters, etc. What I was trying to point out is that you feminists yourselves practice double standards in this regard, however, predictably feminists dump on the male of the pair and not the female.
Barbara, I was and am only speculating in response to THF’s original query as to why we usually don’t, “never,” etc., hear about older men with younger women, as should have been clear from the fact that the very first word I used in my original replay was “perhaps.” Then again, maybe feminist logic and reason is different than that used by us normal people, so I’ll cut you some slack this time for not ‘getting it’ even though it should have been obvious.
Mr. Bad and others: to be clear, I’ve never suggested that older men who date and marry younger women are “pervs”. I’ve merely pointed out a number of problematic aspects of such relationships.
I’ve known some wonderful men in my own family who became fathers in their fifties (Moms were in their late thirties/early forties). They did die before becoming grandpas, but they also gave their children gifts of wisdom and patience that younger men might not have been able to give. Let me go on record as firmly opposing any notion of an upper-age limit to parenthood.
“Since anonymous DS rules out having a relationship with the father, women who choose this procedure are, by definition, choosing to forego such a relationship. Even if they would have preferred a different arrangement, they chose this one.”
What about the men that chose to be donors? Why place the blame on just the woman, and not on the man that chose to be an anonymous parent? Personally, I don’t agree with infertility/IVF/surrogate motherhood, etc- but that’s my personal opinion and I fel that others have the right to those options.
As for Mr. Bad, I don’t think women denigrate the father-child bond. Europe in many ways is a lot more of a “feminist” place than the US in *some* respects- and they have much more liberal policies regarding maternity leave for birth/adoption of a new family member for both the men and women. I’ve rarely heard women complain about pushing for longer leaves for fathers to take care of their family- in fact, most feminists I know have welcomed such ideas.
As for Wendy, RIP. I have admired her writings. As for her decision to have a child- that is her decision and frankly none of our business, especially if the care of the child was carefully planned and provided for in case of her death. When it comes down to it- the choice for men or women to have kids at any age, young or old- should be focused on whether the child is adequately cared for and loved, not any other factor.
Let me go on record as firmly opposing any notion of an upper-age limit to parenthood.
I was speaking of a voluntary limit for people who care about their potential children, not any kind of external control.
You don’t find anything immoral - anything whatever - in the notion of a person choosing to procreate in the full knowledge that there is a better-than-average chance that they will be dead before the child reaches adolescence?
This is not what Wendy Wasserstein did, and I am not criticizing her. But it is what people twenty years older than her are doing when they choose to have children. Nobody wants to think about their own impending death in terms of statistical realities, I understand that. But pretending away those realities is not ok. You don’t get angry about this, fine. People who were privileged to go through elementary school, high school, and college with live parents don’t, usually.
I don’t think one can ever be certain of being in an ideal circumstance to procreate. Marriages break up, people become (mentally or physically) ill, people die, jobs get lost, brains get damaged, etc etc.
To be honest, I don’t really understand how anybody has the guts to procreate at all. It’s a big act of faith no matter what, and kudos to everybody who does it with love and commitment.
the assumption that one can define adequate parameters for the level of “selfishness” that is acceptable in deciding to have children can only be based on never having to raise them.
i already alluded to my own childhood above, add to it that i’ve have indeed seen the results of thoughtless, self absorbed trecks into parenthood - those results are unacceptable parenting methods. i experienced this in a married couple.
how is it that anyone here proposes we establish a hardcopy forsight on whose having children “selfishly”? how could this ever be prevented?
in fact parenting is an extremely large, extraordinarily challenging endeavor. for many, many, many reasons. those whom take up issue with a woman or man deciding to do so on their own may take comfort in knowing that it’s plight for which they will pour all their enegies into. because. just like any individual whom decides to have a child (married or not or single), they too want and work for the very best for their children. which also usually includes an effort to nurture and sustain adult male presence in their lives. i have in fact witnessed these efforts (very successfully, in fact) by a lesbian couple raising children.
most all parents, regardless of marital status, seek balance, security and opportunity for their children.
those whom decide to go it alone, have obviously committed themselves to this plight with more than enough awareness (given cultural attitudes) that it will not be easiest journey. now when we add in the concept that most individuals prefer to take the path of least resistance… we might attribute a little humanity to our debate subjects.. and consider for a moment that seeking artificial insemination in order to be a single parent (an expensive and exhaustive method) - then we can (in most cases) assume that this individual has far more complex motivations than simply to “exclude a man” or to diminish men in general or to rob men of their importance.
we all agree that children need emotional, mental and physical well being. that is what any parent sets out to provide. if their is more than one of you, and you are both content in this plight, count your blessings and don’t take it for granted. furthermore, don’t assume it is due to some fault of others that they should happen to walk upon some other path.
reality isn’t this black and white.
You don’t find anything immoral - anything whatever - in the notion of a person choosing to procreate in the full knowledge that there is a better-than-average chance that they will be dead before the child reaches adolescence?
Is your criterion really “your odds of dying before your child is a teenager are above the average”?
My mom was and is a great parent, but until recently, was horribly bad at picking partners who weren’t abusive, crazy, or insane. If she’d realized that about herself earlier, she may have had kids who were less vulnerable to her partner choices. I think someone like my mom - who Really Wanted Kids and had a number of reasons to want to have them - might well have been making a very considered, fair, and healthy choice: given her track record of partner picking.
Everyone has a pretty unique set of cards, psychologically and economically. People generally try to do what is best for themselves and their kids (if they’re not abusive, crazy, or insane). Sometimes they fail.
I advocate everyone getting their noses out of everyone else’s underpants.
I guess, the thing is this: feel morally outraged about whatever family structures people create, if you want to - but do you want legislation forbidding the Wassermans of the world? If yes, it’s an issue for debate and social policy. If no, then really? It’s just your feelings about someone else’s underpants.
Sorry:
might well have been making a very considered, fair, and healthy choice IF SHE’D USED A DONOR instead…
ahem.
Kids aren’t all about “What I want.” What she did wasn’t fair to her (now orphaned) daughter.
You know, you’re right—-kids aren’t all about “what I want.” But that is a big part of parenting, whether we want to admit it or not. Parenting requires a lot of patience, maturity, and sacrifice. If you don’t really, really, really want children, you’re better off not taking that dive. A part of it is definitely, “what I want”.
With that said, I’m having a hard time understanding this point of view. Is it “selfish” to die before your children do? And if so, how do you prevent this “selfishness” from taking place? Is it “selfish” for Wasserstein to die at 55, but not “selfish” for a mother to die at 32 of cancer, or a car accident, or any number of other unpredictable ways of dying? Is it only “selfish” for the unmarried to die? Are soldiers, police officers, firefighters, construction workers, miners, etc. “selfish” for getting killed on the job, if they have children? Where is the “selfishness” line drawn—or is it only drawn for those who used fertility treatments? Or are young women who use fertility treatments exempt? What??
Know what I noticed here in this thread? The verbal dance of motherhood—you know, the one where you have to declare your motherhood status, and the reasons for that status. Single mothers are expected to trot out some story justifying (our) single motherhood. Something that is supposed to mark us as “good” single moms, not “bad” single moms. Go to any blog, any board, any thread about motherhood, and you’ll see what I mean. Hell, I do it too. I did it at my daughter’s school, so she could be recognized as a “good” kid, from a “good” home, instead of some reprobate future criminal. And I hate it. Sometimes….sometimes I hate it enough not to do it, and get labelled as the “mom with a ‘tude”. Doesn’t matter. Doesn’t matter what I do, ‘cuz I’m walking away with a label one way or another, and that label will say far more about the person placing it than it ever will about me or my child.
Anyway…..more to the point….if it isn’t wrong for single women to be mothers, then why the special (negative) treatment of Wasserstein and those women like her, who chose artificial insemination and a family rather than childlessness? Because frankly, there isn’t any appreciable difference in the logistics of single-parent-by-way-of-insemination and single-parent-by-way-of-abandonment, or single-parent-by-way-of-prison, or…pick your poison.
“feel morally outraged about whatever family structures people create, if you want to - but do you want legislation forbidding the Wassermans of the world? If yes, it’s an issue for debate and social policy. If no, then really? It’s just your feelings about someone else’s underpants.”
Personally, the last thing I want is Congress passing laws about who can and can’t have children. I would never advocate for legislation in this area. But, I agree (obviously) with those above who say it’s wise to at least have the discussion.
Look - I have had girls in my youth group who have come from pretty rough situations. A couple come to mind who have fathers who are abusive, alcoholic, emotionally withdrawn, and more likely than not, the signs were there back when their mothers chose to marry them. Would I ever want to say to these girls “It would have been better if you hadn’t been born”? No way. I love these girls, have used them as leaders in our group, and am continually amazed at how they have flourished and grown in very trying situations.
But I’m still going to say “It’s generally better if women don’t marry abusive, alcoholic, emotionally-withdrawn men and make babies with them.”
Is your criterion really “your odds of dying before your child is a teenager are above the average”?
No. Way above the average, yes. Which, if you are a Hugh Hefner or a Tony Randall, they are. This is why I distinguish between a 48yearold and a 70-year-old.
Is it “selfish” to die before your children do?
No, and no one has said so. Dying before your children do is natural and expected. It is selfish to plan to die before your children are anywhere close to adulthood. See Saul Bellow, for example, who had a child at 84 and died at 89. Likewise, it is not “selfish” to have a child and then get hit by a car - or even to forget to plan for the possibility - but it is wrong to have a child and then deliberately throw yourself in front of a car.
And no, this is not about shaming single mothers, because this is not something that women are generally physically able to do, whether they want to or not, even with fertility treatments.
And there’s a hell of a lot more to this than just chance of death, too, La Lubu. If you’re 40 when your parents become unable to live alone and care for themselves, you’re likely to have a house to welcome them into, money to feed them with, a spouse to help care for them and keep them company. If you really can’t handle it, maybe you can pay for a live-in aide or a nursing home.
If you’re 20 and in college? Not so much.
And watching senility or Alzheimers slowly erode your parents’ minds is no fun for anybody, but again, it’s a lot harder for a 20 year old than a 40 year old. And it’s not something you can help out with from a dorm room.
“Oh well, we all die sometime” is not an adequate response to these very real issues.
looks like my last post didn’t make it
this is for mr bad
i’ve easy access to Canadian and UK doc’s, but I did pull out some US data for you
i imagine you can do the math and draw your own conclusions
Canadian Family, stats
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/971014/d971014.htm
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/analytic/companion/fam/canada.cfm
Demographic Trends in the UK
First report for the project
WELFARE POLICY AND EMPLOYMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF FAMILY CHANGE.
Naomi Finch
“The vast majority of fathers are married and living with all of their dependent biological children changes in family life mean that some fathers may be never married, no longer married or re-married. With the rising divorce rate and the increasing number of lone-parent households, absent fathers have been increasing. The term absent fathers refers to fathers who, as a result of separation or divorce either have only infrequent contact with their children or lose touch with them all together. While absent mothers also exist, they are not as widespread because they are most likely to care for children after divorce and separation.”
“It is apparent, however, that most lone parents re-partner and are no longer lone parents. Bradshaw and Millar (1991) found that about 7 per cent of lone parents had had at least one child by a second child-bearing relationship and 1 per cent had a child from a third child-bearing relationship.”
“22 per cent of fathers had lived with their youngest or only non-resident child for less than a year, although 23 per cent had lived with them for at least 5 years.”
“Bradshaw ’s study demonstrated that over half of non-resident fathers saw his children less than once a week and 21 per cent had not seen their child in the last year.”
“over the last 15 years single never married mothers as a proportion of all family types with dependent children have dramatically increased form 3 per cent to 9 per cent”
“However, the largest proportion of lone mothers have been previously married; that is they are divorced, separated or widowed.”
Major trends affecting families in the new millennium Western Europe and North America
Robert Cliquet
“In the United States, births to unmarried women accounted for one third of all births in 2001″ (this includes common law couples)
“The first in-vitro fertilization in the United States was performed in 1983. By 1998, 0.7 percent of 3.9 million were the result of assisted reproductive technology (Schieve et al., 2002)”
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3634/is_200005/ai_n8898131#continue
“Earlier analyses of NSFG data have documented that among all individuals with self-reported fertility problems, those who pursue medical help for fertility problems are a highly selected groups Given the high costs of infertility services (which mostly remain uncovered by private health insurance or publicly funded assistance), service-seeking has become more common among women of higher socioeconomic status. That is, serviceseeking is more prevalent among married, older, more highly educated and more affluent women than in the general population of women with impaired fertility.”
Assisted Reproductive Technology and Pregnancy Outcome
http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/green_journal/2005/v106n5p1039.pdf.
“Those patients undergoing ART were significantly older, were more likely to be married, and had more years of education.”
you’re likely to have a house to welcome them into, money to feed them with, a spouse to help care for them and keep them company
…children of your own to care for, the health problems of middle age starting for you AND your spouse, the demands of a career (which are quite a bit different than those of college)…
But I’m still going to say “It’s generally better if women don’t marry abusive, alcoholic, emotionally-withdrawn men and make babies with them.”
It’s even better if abusive, alcoholic, emotionally-withdrawn men get help for their problems before they start marrying and making babies.
Well, sophonisba, perhaps we’re just coming at this from different perspectives; I’m coming from a perspective where I still don’t earn enough money to hire live-in help in the event that my parents would need that (not exactly an abstract question for me either, as my mother is has terminal cancer, my father will be unable to deal with any future medical aspect of home care such as injections, feeding tubes, oxygen, or even lifting her around as he has a bad back….and my folks don’t live within driving distance, nor do they live in an area where I could find employment….but I digress). I operate on the assumption that nothing is ever going to go the way you plan it (have several contingency plans—you will need them), nor are you ever going to have what you need (so enjoy what you have—others have even less).
No one knows when their time is going to be up. No one. My mother was first diagnosed with breast cancer when I was nineteen. Granted, I was already out of the house, but still. My personal finances are better now than then, but not anywhere near affording personal care, or buying what insurance doesn’t pay for. Where I come from, it’s reasonable to assume that the only aspect of care you’ll be able to provide for your parents is providing your own physical assistance after work—you know, come home from work, and start the second shift for your parents, the same way you do for your children. And so it goes.
I’ve been on threads where people like me were called “selfish” for having children period, because we can’t afford big houses out in the suburbs, or the “best” schools. And yes, I’ve been called “too old” for having my child at 32. I’ve had people (who know nothing about my mother’s age of diagnosis) tell me I should be worried about being physically able to raise my daughter into adulthood, or surviving even. That I’ll be “in my fifties”, which is supposed to translate into “death warmed over”. Criminy. I’m a non-smoking gym rat. What do these people tell the couch potatoes?
My grandmothers both kept on having children into their mid-forties. Guess who has been the most assistance to them during times of physical illness or disability? The older children (like my mother) they first had? No, the youngest children—the ones of my generation. The older children had already grown old enough to have difficulties of their own.
Yeah, I think people ought to try to lead as healthy a life as they can. But illness, accidents and death happen to all of us, despite our best efforts to avoid them. You can only hedge your bets so much. Yeah, I think you should be somewhat prepared for children before you have them. But again, there’s only so much “preparing” you can do. There isn’t any amount of insurance, or preparation, or detailed planning that can protect you from having to deal with the Crises of Life. Crises will happen. And then you go from there. Life is a crapshoot….or it is from my perspective.
I’m sure there’s folks out there reading this and wondering how I could have possibly wanted a child, knowing that maybe I could be diagnosed with breast cancer just like my mom. My perspective is that I could die at any time, from any thing. I try to live my life in a way that will lower my risk….but I only have so much control.
And isn’t that the real issue here, control? Isn’t that what upsets the naysayers of Wasserstein’s motherhood—the fact that she had some control over her becoming a parent—-and why women like me are generally given somewhat of a “pass”, because our circumstances of motherhood indictated some lack of control?
See, I’m coming from a background where one has a limited amount of control over the circumstances of one’s life. Some, yes….but not a whole helluva lot. A background where you learn to roll with the punches, go with the flow. Folks who have a little more control, a few more options, learn different lessons in life. And that’s ok. I’m not judging that. It’s just not a perspective that I can reasonably fit into my decision-making. To do so…to some of the extents I’ve seen it carried to in other Internet venues….would be to come to the conclusion that I shouldn’t do anything, because I couldn’t plan or control all the contingencies. And that’s not the way I want to live my life; nor could I wish that kind of stunted, limited life on anyone else.
Personally, the last thing I want is Congress passing laws about who can and can’t have children. I would never advocate for legislation in this area. But, I agree (obviously) with those above who say it’s wise to at least have the discussion.
Urm. I agree about discussion to an extent; and that these sorts of things challenge us to determine why (for example) we value our own underpants. What’s lovely about our particular style. What we might recommend to others as worth a try.
My real issue is judgement. Now, granted, I know that you personally have said you’re not wishing to be judgemental. However, we’re pretty darn focussed on Wasserstein’s choices, rather than the statement that some guy felt that men were being seen as expendable. These are different *issues*. One is personal to somebody who we don’t know, and whose sins as laid out here are no bigger than any one else’s. Beams in eyes, and all that jazz.
In this particular issue, various people have suggested that sperm donation to make babies actively cuts the father out of the picture.
I’d argue this: that the guy who’s jizzed into a cup for the purpose of making a woman pregnant and then walked away, $50.00 richer, has already made a pretty clear statement about what he’d like his parental involvement to be. Think of Wasserstein as “adopting” sperm, if you’d like, but really - the dad’s already entered into a parental contract. Was HE devaluing his sperm? I don’t know. I’d say that there was a male in the picture who made a pretty definitive statement.
Should that guy care more about his DNA? Should sperm not be commodified? Should Wasserstein care that the men in her life, if any, have a DNA connection to her child?
I’m saying the “shoulds” are contextual and largely irrelevant.
If there are men saying they’re uncomfortable with their semen being seen as a commodity, well. Hey. That’s a different discussion. Ditto the roles of fathers in society: there’s an interesting discussion. Is there a crisis of fatherhood? Are the roles changing too quickly for people to catch up? Are men trying to figure out where they fit? Interesting questions worth discussion.
That’s not what is being discussed, overall. What is being discussed is whether women *should* buy semen for the purposes of pregnancy. It’s judgemental to a particular sub-set of women who go this route.
( I just pulled the $50 for sperm out of a hat, btw. I don’t know the going rate for sperm, or if the guy donated it out of a sense of genetic pride, or if he donated it because he has a kink about sperm banks.)
the guy who’s jizzed into a cup for the purpose of making a woman pregnant and then walked away, $50.00 richer, has already made a pretty clear statement about what he’d like his parental involvement to be.
Word. Funny how we only wag fingers at the buyers, but the sellers? Do we really have such low expectations of men that one can’t possibly expect them to do better?
^^ I mentioned that in my post earlier. It’s okay for a guy to donate sperm and relinquish responsibility but it’s selfish and commodifying if a woman uses the sperm.
It seems as women, we’re screwed if we do and screwed if we don’t. As a woman that does not want children, I’ve been called selish, cold, inhuman, etc, etc. A friend of mine is a single mother and it’s amazing how she get s the “you’re so involved …for a single mother” “you’re so good …for a single mother” comments as well as condescending remarks (IMHO, they’re all condescending). She’s a doctor, and she chose to adopt before getting married. OTOH, there is a male doctor at her hospital. The male doc’s ex is a stewardess and gone frequently, so he has full custody of the kids. Instead of getting condescending remarkes, he’s showered with praise. My friend and I agree that it’s great that he gets praise- he’s a really great father and my friend is proud to have him as a collegue as he’s a wonderful doctor. However, he never gets the condescending remarks… he’s admitted that people would say negative things about single mothers in one breath and then praise him with another…
ricia pd, thanks for the effort, but your citations do not support your allegations re. widows and single parenthood, i.e., that being a widow is the only ‘acceptable’ form of single motherhood. In fact, as far as I can tell, there’s no info in there at all about widows.
Catty, comparing a male sperm donor to a woman who choses to undergo artificial insemination is ludicrous. Men are simply supplying the potential to create human life while women are actively chosing to do so. As should be clear to all but the most naive, it is women - and only women - who have this kind of reproductive choice. And notably, it is women - and only women - who can abort these embryos (or “products of conception” as abortion proponents lovingly choose to call them) if they so choose.
Question: what are the practical, on-the-ground differences, between older parents….and say, older grandparents raising their children’s children (a fairly common sight where I’m from, due mostly to the ravages of drug and/or alcohol addiction and/or incarceration)?
Should we be discouraging these arrangements? Perhaps it would be better for social workers and school personnel to gently, periodically remind Grandma and Grandpa that they aren’t doing these grandchildren any favors, because their grandchildren will be heartbroken if anything “happens” to them? That it would be better for these children to enter the foster care system, so they wouldn’t develop these pesky bonds?
Or is this ok, because it is unplanned? Seriously. I’m wondering where the line is drawn. Because I know I wouldn’t want to be the one dragging Jr. off to the group home, away from Grandma and Grandpa and the only home s/he’s ever known. And if I wouldn’t be willing to be a part of that, what right do I have in frowning on older parenting in general, considering that the logistics are the same?
That—and have any statistics been complied on how adults of various ages cope with the crises of life? I’m not at all sure that dealing with Alzheimer’s or terminal illness of one’s parents is any easier on a forty-year-old than a twenty-year-old. I’m not sure that twenty-year-olds are having more nervous breakdowns or “self-medicating” than forty-year-olds in these situations. Age tends to weather you somewhat, true. But the typical emotional changes of age—like having greater patience, not being so quick on the trigger—how does that really translate into being more able to bear the slow (or rapid) decline and physical suffering of one’s parents? The visceral impact of my mother telling me the time-frame of her disease felt the same to me as I approach forty, that it did when I was nineteen, and the prognosis wasn’t all that hot (there have been significant advances in breast cancer treatment since the mid-eighties; my mother was one of the lucky ones).
What I’m saying is, I don’t think there’s a way to quantify, or qualify, the emotional pain of seeing someone you love suffer. It doesn’t really have an age. And resiliency in these scenarios can’t really be predicted on any basis other than “have you gone through this before?” Even then, y’know?
mr bad
the stats back up the ‘point’ of my post, but next time you’ll have to do your own research…
you’ve also missed the point of another post or two, re: artiificial insemination and your contention that the process is intended to deminish/belittle the quality and necessity of a man’s involvement. men give their sperm willingly and sign off on their participation from thereon - and get paid. the women (usually married and experiencing fertility issues, in fact) pay over and over and over to sums far into the thousands, in order