Courant Promotes Unwed Motherhood
January 28th, 2007 by Peter
“It was hard. Because even in 2007, there’s still a stereotype and stigma attached to it.”
But Sindland is among the women who may help wipe out that stigma and redefine the American family. She’s one of a growing number of women over 35 – when fertility rates begin to steeply decline – choosing to become single mothers.
Well, at least this time the paper’s admitting that the cause it’s promoting–in this case, “wiping out” the stigma of unwed motherhood–is part of an effort to redefine the American family. More:
The number of out-of-wedlock births has reached a record high in the United States, with nearly four in 10 babies born last year to unmarried women, according to a recent report by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The increase was seen in all racial groups.
Unlike two decades ago, teenagers are not driving the trend – they’re having fewer babies. It is fueled, in part, by women in their 30s and 40s, many of whom had put off marriage and family for careers. And single mothers are fighting to remove the stigma of raising children out of wedlock…
Despite efforts by social conservatives to promote traditional marriages, the Ozzie and Harriet stereotypes of the 1950s – a mother who stays home while the father works – are much less common today. With many marriages ending in divorce, and more couples living together without marrying, married couples have become a minority, accounting for 49.7 percent of households, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
With many no longer considering marriage a prerequisite for having children, single mothers are integrating into the mainstream and getting nonjudgmental attention in the media, including celebrities like Angelina Jolie and photographer Annie Leibovitz.
Yes, and we can now add local TV reporter Shelly Sindland and the Hartford Courant to our “single mom celebrities getting nonjudmental attention in the media” file. But the Courant and other media outlets are not doing women and children any favors by celebrating this trend. Most women do not have the financial and other resources celebrities do to protect themselves and their children from joining the statistics associated with single motherhood:
Marriage may not immunize children from social ills, but children of divorce or unwed mothers are at much greater risk of poverty, welfare dependency, crime, academic underachievement and illegal drug abuse. Yet of the 4.1 million babies born in this country in 2004, more than a third were to unmarried women. But the illegitimacy rate is 69.5 percent for black children and 48 percent for Hispanic children. The poverty rate for children of married couples is 8 percent; among single-parent households it’s 35 percent. Cause and effect are unmistakable.
The Courant’s use of that Census statistic on married couple households becoming a minority in the U.S. is also interesting. Here, the paper appears to embrace the statistic as a good thing that will help “wipe out” the stigma of unwed motherhood. But just last week a Courant editorial suggested it was a bad thing–and, indeed, a reason to pass same-sex “marriage” because, the paper said, “society should encourage more stable families, not fewer.”
I’ve said before in this space that the Courant only supports “marriage” if both parties are of the same sex. I meant it as a joke. But, as is so often the case with the Courant and the anti-family agenda, truth is stranger than parody.
Hey Peter, are you being fair?
First, I’ve met Shelly Sindland. She is a very nice, capable and professional person. It sounds to me like she never thought she could get pregnant, and once a semi-miracle happened she decided not to have an abortion, but instead to go down the more difficult rode of being a single parent. I commend her for her bravery!
Then, in terms of the Courant, I don’t see them as taking a side on this one. They are just reporting a trend. Certainly they are not celebrating it.
Frankly, I’m with you in thinking that becoming a single parent is potentially a selfish act. But with so many people I know being divorced parents, it’s hard for me to be too judgemental on this one. In the case of these single women giving birth in their late 30’s, early 40’s, I bet the statistics are far different from the unwed parents giving birth as teenagers or young twenty-somethings.
Finally, as staunch anti-abortionists, you all are unwittingly promoting unwed motherhood among the latter group above. Otoh, it is precisely b/c I am concerned about the welfare of children born under those circumstances that I am reluctantly in favor of abortion. Children shouldn’t be brought into this world without the safety and security of a reasonabe household. (Not necessarily perfect, but moderately stable.) fwiw.
TrueBlue,
Suffice to say that women who become pregnant are already mothers, single or not. Abortion doesn’t make them un-mothers, it makes them mothers of dead children. It is unfortunate that some children are born into unstable family environments, but ripping those children from their mother’s womb can hardly be reasonably considered the compassionate alternative.
I’m sorry. I just don’t understand how someone can be called a mother until they actually have a child.
Acorns aren’t trees, caterpillars aren’t butterflies, and embryos aren’t children.
You and I will just have to agree to disagree.
TrueBlue,
Yes, Shelly’s all the things you say. She’s had me as a guest on her Sunday morning show three times and is always a gracious host. My post is less about Shelly and more about the Courant.
You say the article is not taking sides or celebrating this, merely reporting a trend. I disagree. Even the Courant’s “divorce party” article allowed a sentence or two on the negative effect that “trend” may have on children. The “unwed and unashamed” piece did not quote even a single source with a different point of view, nothing about the negative effects on women and children that I mention above. It was even more propagandistic than the divorce party article.
I have to say, your war against the Courant diminishes your organization. You sometimes make good points from a worldview that I disagree with, but harping on the Courant on the basis of so little makes you look unhinged. There’s no “anti-RepAm” blog out there despite their incredibly biased editorial posture, because a) the degree to which a newspaper is biased is the same degree to which they’re unreachable, and b) being single-minded in focus just makes you come off as a crank.
Promoting single motherhood is BAD for women because it indirectly sends men the message that women can do “everything themselves” and does not promote responsible fatherhood. Feminists should NOT promote single motherhood – instead they should work on promoting marriage and other arrangements that focus on responsible fatherhood.
Why do I feel so outraged about this? It’s because I came from a single mother household myself! My mother was often too tired, stressed-out and angry at the heavy burden of raising 3 children largely on her own to be the kind of mother she really wanted to be. It would have been best if both my parents worked out a way to stay together, or at least work together to raise us. Raising a family takes TWO, not one and this must include a responsible father. Dumpling too much responsibility is BAD and oppressive for women, NOT liberating! Case closed.
There are two economys, the economy man and the economy of God. Human beings (all) belong to the economy of God. The economics regarding life, liberty and pursuit of happiness for all human beings is the responsibility of the human beings. Humanity must begin to protect itself by defending the right of birth.
Pro choice has already done a very good job at defending the right of death according to economic, psychological and emotional choices. As much protection should be applied toward life as our laws protects the right of death by choice of the vessel (Woman) by which life is created.