Home · Maps · About

Home > OTChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

(959520)

view threaded

You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 14:24:24 2012

fiogf49gjkf0d
From the groovy days of the sexual revolution the New York Times was a leader in articles suggesting that women could "have it all": career, children and no pesky men hanging around. Many articles noted the increase in mother-child(ren) households and put a hopeful face on it.

One such article was titled "The Increasing Single Parent Families ... Despite Problems, They Find it Workable," by Georgia Dullea, 12/3/1974.

Somehow these brave women always managed to cope, sometimes with surprisingly helpful ex-husbands or friendly neighbors. One woman even had her front and back lawns magically cut by an anonymous neighbor.

Thirty-five years later, this Brave New World doesn't seem quite as shiny, and The Times now has a long article entitled "Two Classes, Divided by ‘I Do’". Too long to post, but it describes two women of similar background, each of whom started college, and work in the same place. But one woman finished college and married; the other got pregnant in college, dropped out, and continued to live with the guy. By the time she realized her life with this guy was going nowhere she had three kids by him.

What's impressive about this article is that it just leaves the situation hanging in the air, without the kind of policy prescription The Times would have suggested in the past: More quality day care, flexible work hours, more government help, "making men take responsibility" (ha!).

No not Fox News. Yes, The New York Times.

Post a New Response

(959525)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by Fred G on Mon Jul 16 15:03:36 2012, in response to You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 14:24:24 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Moral of the story: make contraception more easily available.

your pal,
Fred

Post a New Response

(959526)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 15:15:15 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by Fred G on Mon Jul 16 15:03:36 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Nonsense: Taking the example of the article, in college she surely knew about contraception, abortion is readily available, and if the woman had moral qualms about that, that doesn't explain the last two kids with the same man.

It's one of the great ironies of an era of freely available ways to avoid or terminate pregnancy (and I well remember the era before it) that unmarried pregnancy rises and rises.

your pal,
SLRT

Post a New Response

(959533)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by bingbong on Mon Jul 16 15:29:45 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 15:15:15 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
That's a result of a backlash that's now culturally ingrained. There was such a level of outrage at Roe in the late 70s and early 80s, prompted by the religious RW (now the teabaggers) that has all but destroyed the concept of marriage-centered family. Women decided to have and keep their babies. There was a whole generation of single parents that came up, and now it's their kids becoming single parents....partially because contraception and termination is far less accessible (you are so wrong about availability) to so many.

Post a New Response

(959543)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 15:43:58 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by bingbong on Mon Jul 16 15:29:45 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Did you read the article, bingbong?

Your thinking is stuck back in the articles of the '70s and '80s (and people I knew from then) when the biggest problem some people saw with out-of-wedlock births was overcoming the guilt they felt was being imposed on them by parents, society and your beloved boogieman, the RW.

The article, in The Times doesn't mention anybody's politics or social pressures, it presents the lives of two women who made different choices, and the single woman acknowledges this: "Ms. Schairer has trouble explaining, even to herself, why she stayed so long with a man who she said earned little, berated her often and did no parenting. [...] She was 25 when the breakup made it official: she was raising three children on her own."

But the only thing you and your political fellow travelers can understand is that it can only be the result of poor access to services and the RW.


Post a New Response

(959546)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jul 16 15:50:36 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 15:43:58 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Oh please, are you really expecting an honest discussion from her? Her solution to all of life's problems is to blame the right wing. Her one health problems were Reagan's fault and her misfortune last year was the fault of Pataki.

Post a New Response

(959552)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Jul 16 15:57:33 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jul 16 15:50:36 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
" Her solution to all of life's problems is to blame the right wing."


LOL.....while you blame the Liberals for all your troubles......

Post a New Response

(959556)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by AlM on Mon Jul 16 16:06:26 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 15:43:58 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Note however that all the issues that apply to a mother of three children who never married also apply to a mother of three children who is divorced. Both are exactly equally entitled to child support. Both are likely to be overworked and unable to give sufficient attention to their children.







Post a New Response

(959559)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by bingbong on Mon Jul 16 16:10:18 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 15:43:58 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Yes I did. I was also a young adult at the time, knew plenty of single mothers and the motivations behind what they did.

The single mothers of today have different experiences and different motivations behind what they are doing, along with societal acceptance which only came about in the 80s, during the height of the backlash against Roe.

Lack of access to services only exacerbates the problem. It is not the primary cause but could be an important ingredient to the solution.

Post a New Response

(959562)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 16:27:28 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by AlM on Mon Jul 16 16:06:26 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
This is so, except that the divorced woman may be more likely to get child support, simply because the man may be more traceable. The dude this woman hooked up with doesn't seem to be the kind you could find or sanction to get support.

But beyond that, what is your point? Are you saying that the fact that a marriage may not last means you might as well have kids without marriage at all?






Post a New Response

(959563)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 16:30:50 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by bingbong on Mon Jul 16 16:10:18 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
But looking to different causes doesn't address the premise of the article; that marriage has distinct benefits if you have that choice.

The single woman may have felt she did not have a choice with her first child; but she didn't have to compound it with two more.

Post a New Response

(959566)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by AlM on Mon Jul 16 16:35:25 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 16:27:28 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Probably divorced men are slightly more traceable. They are also on the whole probably more responsible than men who never got married but have one or more children.

My point is that most of the problem with single mothers is not due to the greater societal acceptance of unmarried mothers. Rather, most of it is due to the greater acceptance and prevalence of relationships that include children and don't endure long enough for the kids to grow up. Many parents clearly feel less obligation to "stay together for the children."



Post a New Response

(959571)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 16 16:42:22 2012, in response to You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 14:24:24 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
The reason is that nowadays it's the upper-class women that are married and the lower-class women are single mothers.

There is no real policy to prescribe here.

Post a New Response

(959577)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 16 16:48:54 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by Fred G on Mon Jul 16 15:03:36 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Contraception is readily available. I think a more bold action would be to encourage abortions such that women consider abortion as the default response to an unwanted pregnancy for more women. Abortions should also be covered by Medicaid and Medicare* and parental consent/notification laws should be abolished.

*Medicare is available to people under 65 who are disabled. Such women may retain the ability to bear children.

Post a New Response

(959578)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jul 16 16:49:50 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Jul 16 15:57:33 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
I have no troubles, stupid. The day I retired my take hope p[ay went up substantially.

Post a New Response

(959583)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 16:51:58 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by AlM on Mon Jul 16 16:35:25 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Well, I am in general agreement with your point, especially in the generic sense that "Many parents clearly feel less obligation to "'stay together for the children.'"

However, I think you're quibbling a bit to say that "most of it is due to the greater acceptance and prevalence of relationships that include children and don't endure long enough for the kids to grow up." While I find that undeniable true, the willingness to have children without marriage in the first place is a huge component of that whole given the recent reports that more than half of births to women are to unmarried women.

And how do we begin to make this socially unacceptable, all these years into the crisis?


Post a New Response

(959584)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 16:54:51 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 16 16:42:22 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Notwithstanding the article describes two young white women of similar background. What's different were their choices, not their class.

Post a New Response

(959586)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by Fred G on Mon Jul 16 16:55:55 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 15:15:15 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Nothing really explains the last 2 kids, whether they were planned or not. As AlM pointed out, it could be the same result if she were divorced and the husband disappeared.

your pal,
Fred

Post a New Response

(959587)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by Train Dude on Mon Jul 16 16:56:04 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by streetcarman1 on Mon Jul 16 15:57:33 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
I have no troubles, stupid. The day I retired my take home pay went up substantially.

Post a New Response

(959589)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 17:03:08 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by Fred G on Mon Jul 16 16:55:55 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
It's not the same because the danger of continuing to have children out of wedlock is more predictable than that your husband will up and disappear after three children.

Post a New Response

(959600)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 16 17:13:18 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 16:54:51 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Yes, but the point is that the one who had the child did so just like lower-class women do.

Post a New Response

(959606)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 17:20:07 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 16 17:13:18 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Becoming lower class because you became a single parent is not the same as becoming a single parent because you are lower class.

Post a New Response

(959610)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by Fred G on Mon Jul 16 17:25:24 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 17:03:08 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
I don't think either is more predictable than the other. Men abandon their families, married or not.

your pal,
Fred

Post a New Response

(959612)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 16 17:28:42 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 17:20:07 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
So? How hard is it to understand that their newfound opposition to single parents is based on elitism?

Post a New Response

(959613)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 17:29:02 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by Fred G on Mon Jul 16 17:25:24 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
So we disagree, even though were pals.

Post a New Response

(959615)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by bingbong on Mon Jul 16 17:31:55 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by AlM on Mon Jul 16 16:35:25 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
I disagree. Had it not been for the backlash against Roe, as reproductive rights were being firmly established in the mid to late 1970s, we probably would have a generation now that accepted contraception as routine, and fewer out of wedlock births across the economic spectrum. These women drove the acceptance of single mothers as a defiance of the attempts to backlash them out of economic opportunity and back to the 1950s. You forget how vehement the RW of the time was about working, successful women, a battle that still isn't over.

No person should have to tolerate an unhappy relationship, whether or not its actually violent. That is bad for the children as well. Divorced men are far more likely to be active in support of their children simply because they reached a point of maturity tin attempting to build a relationship that the father in the NYT article did not have when he 3 kids came along.

The first and foremost answer is wide acceptance and availability of contraceptives, family planning medical facilities and realization that their use is best for young sexually active people, while childbearing come slater once solid relationships are developed so the children get the best possible chance their parents can provide. Just because two humans are capable of reproducing doesn't mean they should. Especially when young.

Post a New Response

(959617)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by Fred G on Mon Jul 16 17:33:41 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 17:29:02 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
No problem, pals part company sometimes.

your pal,
Fred

Post a New Response

(959621)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by bingbong on Mon Jul 16 17:59:31 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 16 16:48:54 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Not in roughly 45% of the country (abortion is unavailable in almost 75% of the country) affordably. Many insurance policies still do not cover contraceptives. For an underpaid population this is often unaffordable.

Fortunately ACA will change this. Why all the opposition remains is beyond me. Not everywhere's like NY.

Post a New Response

(959632)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by Fred G on Mon Jul 16 18:45:39 2012, in response to Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 16 16:48:54 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
I agree, and should have said "birth control" and not contraception.

your pal,
Fred

Post a New Response

(959642)

view threaded

Re: You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting

Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Jul 16 19:38:35 2012, in response to You've Come a Long Way Baby -- NY Times Position on Marriage for Women Shifting, posted by SLRT on Mon Jul 16 14:24:24 2012.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Love the name "Steavon" which is for Steven I guess.

This article sums up why the left is pro-abortion and has been all along. It was never about "Woman's rights". I applaud the left on this issue. Bible-thumping Baptists are eventually going to change their ways, and we're going to have a nation of pro-abortion Republicans.

Post a New Response


[ Return to the Message Index ]