Rethinking the Myths of Single Motherhood
The latest "news" as of yesterday is that a new study has found the rates of single motherhood in the USA rising dramatically over the past few years. As of 2007, it's estimated that nearly 40% of all babies being born in the US are born to unmarried women. Significantly, this includes women who live with partners but simply haven't chosen to get married. Also significantly, the data indicates that the fastest-growing population of single moms in the US are not teenagers but women in their 20s and 30s. In particular, growing numbers of women are choosing to have babies on their own, and this seems to account for the increase, even more so than teen pregnancies (which, in fact, some sources suggest are on the decline!). Not too surprisingly, the decline in societal stigmata associated with single motherhood has led growing numbers of women to choose that path for themselves.
This Washington Post article discusses the findings, and does I think overall a fairly decent job of presenting the issues and factors surrounding the increase in single motherhood. But one thing really stands out for me, and that's the way it presents the oft-heard notion that children raised in single-parent households "tend not to fare as well in many ways."
Leaving aside for the moment the question of what those "many ways" are, and the alarming vagueness thereof, I find it interesting that the paragraph about two-parent families being better comes immediately after a paragraph talking about the lessened social stigma of single motherhood. Yet, the authors don't seem to want to (or it doesn't occur to them to) draw any connections here, or to question where that established wisdom comes from.
To be specific: If social acceptance of single motherhood is on the rise, and the so-called "research" finding that single motherhood is bad for kids was done when social acceptance was much lower, then maybe, just maybe, there's a correlation which means that the said research is flawed now. Maybe, just maybe, societal attitudes toward single motherhood have an enormous impact on how well kids do in school and life; and thus when those societal attitudes change, maybe the research and assumptions need to change too.
Let's say you're a single mom in a culture where single motherhood is reviled (like, say, the USA circa 1965). How does this affect you as a person, as a parent? Well let's see. Due to social stigma, it's hard for you to find and keep a good job; thus your income is low. There aren't many public-assistance programs for you to lean on, either to help pay your bills, or to help further your education so as to make yourself more employable. It's hard for you to form a social-support network because your friends, religious community, family, etc. are all shunning you. And since you have to work your ass off all day at a crappy low-paying job, you don't have the time or energy to help your kid with his/her homework, or even maybe to spend any quality time with him/her.
Do you see where I'm going with this? I'm not saying that all the problems a single mom faces can be solved by increasing societal acceptance. But many of the factors that put the child of a single mom at risk are related not to the fact that mom is single, but that she isn't getting good support from society.
Furthermore, many of those factors just don't pertain any more when the mom in question is a single mom by choice (SMC). If mom is well-educated, has a sizeable nest-egg saved up, is well-established in a good job that pays her highly, and has a well-established network of friends and family she can turn to for support -- most of which are usually true of the average SMC -- then her kid is likely to do well, regardless of how many parents are in the family. And this mom is the kind of mom who, according to that WashPost article, is driving up the single motherhood rates the fastest.
In conclusion: We need to take another look at the too-often-cited idea that a single-parent household is just automatically less good for a child than one with two parents. If social acceptance of single motherhood is increasing, and more and more women are choosing single motherhood for themselves, then we need to stop leaning on the facile stereotype of the single mom as young, poor, nonwhite, and a shameless drain on society's resources. (This article from the AFP has some interesting things to say about recent research finding that most single moms in fact are white and live in the suburbs.) I think it's unfortunate that the WashPost article presented most of the facts so well, and yet let the bit about two-parent households being better for kids sit there unchallenged and unexamined. I'm willing to bet that the data just don't support that any more.
This Washington Post article discusses the findings, and does I think overall a fairly decent job of presenting the issues and factors surrounding the increase in single motherhood. But one thing really stands out for me, and that's the way it presents the oft-heard notion that children raised in single-parent households "tend not to fare as well in many ways."
Leaving aside for the moment the question of what those "many ways" are, and the alarming vagueness thereof, I find it interesting that the paragraph about two-parent families being better comes immediately after a paragraph talking about the lessened social stigma of single motherhood. Yet, the authors don't seem to want to (or it doesn't occur to them to) draw any connections here, or to question where that established wisdom comes from.
To be specific: If social acceptance of single motherhood is on the rise, and the so-called "research" finding that single motherhood is bad for kids was done when social acceptance was much lower, then maybe, just maybe, there's a correlation which means that the said research is flawed now. Maybe, just maybe, societal attitudes toward single motherhood have an enormous impact on how well kids do in school and life; and thus when those societal attitudes change, maybe the research and assumptions need to change too.
Let's say you're a single mom in a culture where single motherhood is reviled (like, say, the USA circa 1965). How does this affect you as a person, as a parent? Well let's see. Due to social stigma, it's hard for you to find and keep a good job; thus your income is low. There aren't many public-assistance programs for you to lean on, either to help pay your bills, or to help further your education so as to make yourself more employable. It's hard for you to form a social-support network because your friends, religious community, family, etc. are all shunning you. And since you have to work your ass off all day at a crappy low-paying job, you don't have the time or energy to help your kid with his/her homework, or even maybe to spend any quality time with him/her.
Do you see where I'm going with this? I'm not saying that all the problems a single mom faces can be solved by increasing societal acceptance. But many of the factors that put the child of a single mom at risk are related not to the fact that mom is single, but that she isn't getting good support from society.
Furthermore, many of those factors just don't pertain any more when the mom in question is a single mom by choice (SMC). If mom is well-educated, has a sizeable nest-egg saved up, is well-established in a good job that pays her highly, and has a well-established network of friends and family she can turn to for support -- most of which are usually true of the average SMC -- then her kid is likely to do well, regardless of how many parents are in the family. And this mom is the kind of mom who, according to that WashPost article, is driving up the single motherhood rates the fastest.
In conclusion: We need to take another look at the too-often-cited idea that a single-parent household is just automatically less good for a child than one with two parents. If social acceptance of single motherhood is increasing, and more and more women are choosing single motherhood for themselves, then we need to stop leaning on the facile stereotype of the single mom as young, poor, nonwhite, and a shameless drain on society's resources. (This article from the AFP has some interesting things to say about recent research finding that most single moms in fact are white and live in the suburbs.) I think it's unfortunate that the WashPost article presented most of the facts so well, and yet let the bit about two-parent households being better for kids sit there unchallenged and unexamined. I'm willing to bet that the data just don't support that any more.