Debbie T

Hi Dave, I was just reading over your previous posts that prompted me to respond. In one post you wrote:

Later in another post you wrote:

You did call a single parent household dysfunctional, and then went on to wonder if they aren't to blame for the problems of the world.

We can't take in to account hypothetical best case scenarios and leave out the worst case scenarios. As Dangin pointed out perhaps 8 people would be the best, the more the merrier. It used to be the grandparents was a part of the family too, perhaps an even better family unit. Would you also include gay men or two lesbians if they were loving parents? Or does it always have to be one male and one female raising children?

There are no guarantees a family is going to stay intact. Divorce or death can rip apart your nuclear family. Does that then mean the family is dysfunctional when mother or father dies? What about the nuclear family that is dysfunctional? Is that better than a healthy single parent family as in the opening posts case?

I opt for a healthy family unit however it may come about. I personally don't like to see stigmas attached to families just because they don't meet the criteria for some as "normal". Because what goes on behind closed doors may not be "normal" even if by all appearances the family APPEARS normal.

auto-da-fe

Hi Debbie (do you like Deb? just curious)

emphasis mine

Well, I didn't quite say that dysfunctional families are the root cause of all the problems in america, only pondered how many of the problems in america can be attributed to dysfunctional homes. Certainly there has to be some, and my (rhetorical) query was only supposed to make you think about how many problems can be traced to a non-traditional upbringing.

I think they still should. They just should not be the primary caregivers if there is a better option (eg., mom and dad).

While I personally do not approve of homosexuality, I do believe that it is your right to be gay, and I respect that. Further, I think that gay parents can be just as competent as straight ones, though it may pose some trouble for the child later on in life (kids in high school and middle school can be very mean, and may not look favorable on gay couples).

To be perfectly honest with you, I am not sure how the word dysfunctional would account for a deceased parent. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the word dysfuntional as: impaired or abnormal functioning, so by this description, I would say that the death of a parent would place you into this category, as the family unit as a whole would be imparied by the death. Now if we are talking popular meaning of dysfunctional usually meaning divorce or absence of marriage, or some other cause i do not think death would neccassarily place you into that category. It is kind of a moot point though, becuase my assertion only has to do with the choice of the op'er to bring a child into the world fatherless before the child has even been conceived. Taken into this context, you can see that my posts aren't stating that there is anything neccasarily bad with single parents, only that IMO since things are neutral for her (she isn't married or pregnant or anything only contemplating becomming pregnant) she should prefer the nuclear family to the hardships (both for parent and child) of single parenting.

lisarea

Dave,

I don't see anyone here demanding healthy functioning families split up and reconfigure in order to be politically correct or anything. All I've seen is people defending the non-traditional family. Let me put this very succinctly: My family is functional, healthy, and happy. It is not dysfunctional in any meaningful sense of that word. Period. And yes, as DebbieT pointed out, you did use the term dysfunctional to refer to single parent families. If you believe you misspoke, that's fine. I do it all the time. No thang.

The fact is that there are virtually any number of family configurations that can work, and there is no one solution that's right for everyone. Any suggestion that the nuclear family is preferred necessarily marginalizes those who choose otherwise, either by preference or by plain old logistics and opportunity.

Further, if you want to create some idealized model for families, how fine a point should you put on it? How far back does the conservative definition go? Do we simply preserve the current statistical standard--is it still?--of the mother, father, and children family unit? Should we take that further and codify the number, sexes, and relative ages of the children involved?

My point is that I think you're putting too much emphasis on something that is only one of a jillion different factors that make up a solid family unit; and further, it's not consistently a desirable factor.

Oh, and I wanted to add that I open doors for people based simply on availability and common courtesy, regardless of sex. In fact, doing so provides me the simultaneous opportunity to be courteous to normal people, and to serve up a little emasculation to the big macho buttheads who don't like the wimmins doing the dominance moves on them. w00t!

Anna Karenina

I have news.

Suddenly, my relationship with the guy who I chose to be the father of my child has changed. He came to visit me (he lives in another city) and we found out that we wanted to try a closer relationship.

I have not mentioned anything to him about my plans of having a child, I am still not prepared for that, I need to take some tests first. The problem now is that I am in a big dilemma.

If we start a relationship it means that my original plan of being a single mother is on risk. I am sure, he will want to get involved and if he wants that, then I could face huge legal problems in the future for custody (if we ever get separated).

I need to decide now what is more important for me:

1. Being a single mother without all the problems of him being involved or

2. risking my and my child's emotional stability for a relationship that might fail.

In few words, I feel I have to decide between my child and him.

Anna

auto-da-fe

First to Anna: It may also succeed. And your choice of single parenting may fail. You don't have to look at the negative of one or the positive of the other. You should think about what gives your child the best all around chance and go with it. You could fail either way, or you could succeed either way, so in the end, the only choice you have to make is which gives the child the better chance (can anyone guess which one i am for )

To lisarea: as noted above, when you take the word dysfunctional and apply it to families (going be the dictionaries definition) then yes single parent homes do qualify as dysfunctional. So do some dual parent homes.

My views are (IMO) when compared to some of the others here, firstly conservative, but also optimistic. I just get the vibe that a lot of these posts are really pessimistic and assume that something bad is going to happen at some point, where as I hold out hope that families can last without traumatic events that take one of the parents away.

brighid

Anna,

Perhaps you are putting the cart before the horse! It is within the realm of possibility that this man may desire to be an equal, cooperative parent even if marriage or cohabitation is not in the picture yet, or ever. This could be a very good arrangement as well. If you can work out all the potential logistics with him, and if he really desires a closer relationship with you things could potentially work out for everyone’s benefit. It is quite possible if you approach things cautiously, well informed and with honestly.

If I were in your position I would simply be honest with him and tell him that you really want a child, etc. Allow him to make an educated decision about his involvement. I don’t think you should have to choose between him and a child, and frankly you shouldn’t have to.

The other day I was thinking of you after reading an article in a parenting magazine about the joys and frustrations of IVF and single parenting. Although I know you are against IVF I thought the article was very informative because it discussed some of the unique struggles of single parenthood – and the lady had twins, so it was doubly complicated. Let me see if there is an on-line version and if there is I will PM you with the link.

If I may advise, I would take a deep breath, relax, continue to dream and learn where this man might fit into your future. He could turn out to be a truly wonderful man (and I think you have eluded to this as you want him to father a child of yours ) and who knows …

Hang in there.

Brighid

auto-da-fe

(lisarea, if you were to open the door for me I would graciously thank you and think that you are a very nice person. not that you were some feminist. I hope you don't get the impression that I am some sort of "macho" chauvanistic pig, because I really am not and at the risk of posting TMI, I don't see female dominance as a bad thing)

Anna Karenina

I would say that most (if not all) of the single mothers by choice wanted to have a traditional family, but circumstances that do not depend on them make it impossible.

I have no found any single woman who thought that having a traditional family would be worse than being alone.

I think that women's liberation is one of the main causes of this happening. Independent women do not feel forced to follow the traditional roles that society usually asign to women. So, at the begining of their mature lives, they give priority to themselves instead of thinking having a husban and children.

That is why most of the single mothers by choice are well-educated, between 30-40 years old and financially independant. At this point, many found themselves with many of their goals reached, except a husband and children. They cannot get a husband easily, but they can have children.

Anna

lisarea

Oh, no. That wasn't directed toward you at all. I have actually gotten very huffy responses from time to time, though, for doing something I consider to be common courtesy (if you get to a door first, and you're opening it anyway, you hold it for the next guy). The way I see it, it's just a win-win situation, in that nice people appreciate it, and nasty people get all angry. And I don't see it as dominance, either, BTW. Only in the most egregious cases do I follow through with the dominance humping and "marking" behaviors.

yguy

You don't trust him.