The US government is keeping track of irresponsible American round-heels. Quoth the AP, "Nearly 1.5 million babies, a record, were born to unmarried women in the United States last year."
Note that the AP does not say "bachelor dudes begat a record 1.5 million bastard offspring last year." In fact, the story doesn’t mention men at all.
It might seem surprising, given the mechanics of human reproduction, that the male component of all this baby-birthin’ is completely ignored. But remember: "single mothers" are a species unto themselves. They don’t reproduce according to the wishes of the Baby Jesus, with human men. Unlike married girls, single mothers were born with character flaws that make them (a) poor and (b) irresistible to invisible incubuses, who ravish’em, knock’em up, and say they’ll call when they won’t.
Where is the praise for these women, you know, for “choosing life?”
You mean, they were conceived in the manner Jesus was?
I think I love you, Aunt Twisty.
In the midst of the Scooter stuff on CNN last night, they had a story about how America is essentially going down the shithole, as evidenced by (among other statistics) the one you cite here about the unwed mothers. It jumped out at me, too, as I found that to be significantly less shocking than, say, finding out that 47 million Americans have no health care coverage and that 1 out of 5 American kids live in poverty. But unwed motherhood was taken to be just as clear an index of how poorly the U.S. is doing as unemployment rates AND it conjures up an image of AMERICA’S MORAL DECAY. What I want to know is, how many of those unwed mothers chose single parenthood (through birth or adoption) or are in domestic relationships that are not frequently measured by pollsters or statisticians (e.g. cohabitating with a male or female partner). In other words, it seems that there are many ways of examining the moral weight of UNWED MOTHERHOOD (insert ominous music here).
In other news, Twisty rocks.
I second that. Rockstar, indeed. From another rockstar, Ms. Dowd. Did you see this? All I have to say is holla.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/30/magazine/30feminism.html?hp=&pagewanted=all
Perhaps my memory is failing. Were Joseph & Mary legally married? It sure would be a sore point for Bible thumpers if they weren’t!
I think you’re being too hard on the sperm providers here, Twisty. I’m sure that many of them were actually, as The Lard demands, married men.
In other words, if the children were born out of wedlock, it’s the mothers’ fault. Because hey, the fathers were married.
This post cracked me up - one year, during Bush I (I think) my Single Mother got audited by the IRS. That was the year they were cracking down on Single Moms and the related mutant sub-species Welfare Queens. (Interestingly, my mom is a social worker.) So my mom, who makes like 12 dollars a year after taxes, had to go through a fucking audit as punishment for splitting up with my dad and having the audacity to be employed . . . essentially punished as a PR stunt for the right wing family values fascists.
Personally, I’m shocked and appalled that nobody has suggested the obvious: that these women should be forced to wear a scarlet ‘A’ like they would’ve done back in the Good Ol’ Days…
On a related note. Notice all the studies that are cited about teenage mothers. “Teenage pregnancy skyrocket!” etc. you’ve heard them.
Well, here’s the stats on Teenage mothers from a different perspective. A study in 91′ found that 70% of teenage mothers were impregnanted by men age 20 or older.
Another study around the same time showed that the younger the teenager the larger the age-gap would be between them. The median age of the father to an 11-12 year old mother was 21-22 years of age.
Why aren’t THOSE stats being published?
Of course they’re not, because we wouldn’t want to implicate ANY man in these pregnancies, to hear the reports all these women just miraculously give birth to children without a man being involved.
Fuck the Patriarchy.
As a single mother, this PISSES ME OFF!
Here’s one more you don’t see that much; Texas, since the institution of “abstinence only” sex-ed,- guess what!?- teen pregnancies are way the hell up. Go figure.
Sorry, that should be “in Texas”.
I love you, Twisty Faster! Love you, love your blog. (blowing kisses) This article and the comments with it made my day.
BC, the upsurge in Texan teen pregnancy is not the result of abstinence-only sex ed. It is the result of sexy cheerleading.
Betsy, are you sure it’s love? And not merely infatuation? Or lust?
The other group made irreversibly invisible in this data is the lesbian mom.
Anecdotal evidence suggests we’re in a lesbian baby boom and have been for quite some time now. Given the logistics — and the very high financial cost! — of getting pregnant when you’re a lesbian, I think it’s safe to assume that most of those children are very carefully planned for.
My partner and I were lucky — it only took 6 months of trying before I got pregnant through AI. But because we’re unable to get legally married (we live in a very red state), when the baby is born next year, I’ll go directly into those “unwed mother” statistics.
It just seems wrong, especially for analytical purposes, to put me in the same classification as some accidently pregnant teenager.