the boy will be screwed up or resent women

Right. Unlike, say, most of the other men in the world.

Please. If single motherhood was responsible for misogyny we'd have a much better history than we do. He'll grow up dysfunctional? He can join the club. It's kind of crowded in here, what with every single member of the human race being involved, but on the plus side, you're almost sure to meet someone to hang out with.

It always amazes me how people are willing to make proclamations about other people's parenting choices with almost no evidence whatsoever.

I'm very interested in this book, for precisely the same reasons you are, Jessica. Most of what worries me about it is the money aspect. I earn a decent living for myself, but...Does the book address that kind of thing?

EG: I'm not sure, I haven't read it yet. Going to pick up a copy this week. But I hear you on the money aspect, definitely. I have a hard enough time financially supporting Monty. ;)

I wonder if boys who grow up without fathers because they were killed in Bush's stupid war are going to be "screwed up or resent women." I mean, isn't the outcome the same? Hmmm.

Mirm: Those kids won't be quite as bad off. It's not the just the lack of a father that dooms kids like Sloan's, but the accompanying piffle-mongering. You can't forget about the piffle-mongering!

Good point, EG.
The vast majority of men resent or even hate women. Many of them learn to resent and demean women from their, GASP!, fathers.

Holy hyperbolic generalizations, SarahMC.

This pissed me off so much from the letters section:

"I wish things could be good between men and women, but women have decided that because of the behavior of a few bad men, ALL men must suffer from hereon in by being declared irrelevant and being drugged and jailed.

Sorry ladies, but this is not the way to a man's heart and more and more men will do what it takes to tear down this insulting world you want."

Asshole. As if anyone would want to know the way to his heart. He sounds like a kid having a temper tantrum.

"Sorry ladies, but this is not the way to a man's heart"

A completely irrelevant point, as bagging a man is not the motivation for everything we "ladies" do.

Especially when we've deliberately decided to have a child without one.

And, as in the case of Sloan, we're lesbians.

After reading this article I realized that the three guys with whom I have been in serious, long-term relationships were all raised by single mothers. My current boyfriend, who is shockingly free of "issues" regarding women (and who has never drank, smoked, done drugs, and whose criminal record consists of skateboarding past curfew in highschool and a speeding ticket), was raised solely by his grandmother, and never met his father. Then again, though he's not a violent criminal, he seems to have embraced a lot of "feminist piffle" pretty readily - I mean, he lives with me - so maybe he IS part of the problem.

I wish things could be good between men and women, but women have decided that because of the behavior of a few bad men, ALL men must suffer from hereon in by being declared irrelevant and being drugged and jailed.

#1--Does anyone else hear the Nice Guy siren going off? and #2--has there been gangs of women going 'round drugging men and throwing them in jail? B/c no one invited me and I'm mad and hurt about that.

Salon letters section is a landfill. It's not meant to encourage discourse in that every thread devolves into "2 minutes of hate" with a dick joke chaser. Perhaps that is reflective of the magazine's readership. You get a particular breed of kook that trolls BroadSheet, usually the same 3 or 4 people, or perhaps just one nutjob trolling under a few different names. It's really sad the amount of energy wasted to troll a website day, after day, after day--- but some people have nothing better to do.

Salon letters section is a landfill. It's not meant to encourage discourse in that every thread devolves into "2 minutes of hate" with a dick joke chaser. Perhaps that is reflective of the magazine's readership. You get a particular breed of kook that trolls BroadSheet, usually the same 3 or 4 people, or perhaps just one nutjob trolling under a few different names. It's really sad the amount of energy wasted to troll a website day, after day, after day--- but some people have nothing better to do.

What I hear is that it's not men's fault for behaving badly (and, "a few"? Like, what hundreds of years of patriarchy, disenfranchisement, sexual violence, and brutality were the work of only around 10 guys?), but somehow it's women's fault for actually taking that behavior seriously.

Salon has an interesting interview with Sloan, but even more intriguing is the vitriol she's getting in the letters section.

Doesn't it occur to these people what harm THEY are causing these kids? Being told that they will grow up to resent women or be criminals or won't do as well as the "Mom + Dad" kids is more detrimental to them than having a single, loving parent. Of course, we all know the "Mom + Dad" parenting situation always produces normal, healthy kids. They are never underachievers, misogynists, misfits, criminals, abusers, addicts, ect...nope.

My favorite comment is by a guy who berates the author for wanting to raise a child without a father in one comment and in his very next comment wants to know why feminists aren't "coming up with a plan" to help him be a single father. Love those MRA's.

It's interesting that the same people who say that children of single mothers will grow up messed up don't expect anything more from fathers than working outside the home and sitting on his ass in the home. How can the less involved parent have such an influence over the development of the child? What is the difference between being a single mother and being a father who does no child rearing whatsoever? It just doesn't make any sense.

I wonder if many of the people against this woman having a baby she actually wants aren’t the same people who would force others to have babies they don’t want.

I love the letter writer that claims that today's children are "coddled" and "infantilized". WTF? Of course they are, they're children! And what does he think he's doing by telling mothers what to do? Children should be treated like children and grown women should be treated like adults!

Your child will grow up fatherless and disadvantaged. But you got what you want, and that is what is most important. How sad.

Apparently I was wrong. We aren't living in the 21st century.

I wonder how much Sloan talks about the financial side of choosing single motherhood in the book...
For me that seems like a far greater barrier for single women who would like to be moms, much more so than the stigma.

Side note-the most well-adjusted, awesome little boy I know is a 9-year-old whose mom had him on her own by choice. With his amazing mom, adorable grandparents and extended family of his mom's fascinating friends, he's definitely not going to grow up "screwed up or resenting women."

These poor guys probably feel like we are taking away their 'purpose'. I mean, if a man can't implant and then tote around his spawn, what good is he? Nevermind that we wouldn't have sperm banks without donors, emotion is not logic.
They also may be resentful because its a hell of a lot harder to make the choice to be a single father with no mother present. You have to get an egg (more $$ than getting sperm) and a woman to host who won't decide that she wants to keep the baby (nigh impossible and quite expensive).
And then there's the power thing. We took away men's power over us (hooray), and they don't see what feminism has done for them. And now, they aren't breadwinners, or landowners, and we are telling them we don't need them to be fathers either. I'm not a man, but maybe that hurts a little?

"the boy will be screwed up or resent women, not having had a father around. he will have a higher chance of being a criminal."

I love how people (and, I'm sorry, but they're usually of the conservative stripe) don't want to deal with real, social-economic reasons behind crime, so they just go for the easy way out: Yeah, just blame it on women.

If they could, I promise you they'd find a way to blame it on gays, too.

ccchile, they will probably also say, if they haven't already, that these children will be GAY...GAY! (I imagine them shouting it)

Let's all get back to raising a maladjusted army of misfits, gays, and future felons!

"I wish things could be good between men and women, but women have decided that because of the behavior of a few bad men, ALL men must suffer from hereon in by being declared irrelevant and being drugged and jailed."

Ok, I didn't read the article, only what feministing posted, but are these women really declaring all men bad and all been are drugged and jailed? Maybe that quote is taken out of context but it makes no damn sense. It seems these single moms don't want to settle or get married with someone just to have kids since a couple that doesn't love each other or has a dysfunctional relationship would have a negative impact on the children...Not so much with having one loving and caring parental figure. The men are drugged and jailed?! For not being chosen as mates?! Alright, lets rally the feminist, anti-man, lesbian pink army together to attack, drug, and jail men!

Statistically, children of single parents are more likely to get in trouble and have problems in life. However, I view that statistic much as I view the PSAs telling parents to eat dinner with their children. The statistics say that families that eat dinner together are more functional.

Well, ok, but what if you absolutely despise your family members? In that case, eating dinner with them would be nothing other than sheer agony and wouldn't do anything to help familial relationships. I think it's far more likely that eating dinner together is a symptom of a happy family, not a cause.

Which brings me to my ultimate point: I believe that many parents don't truly know what they're getting into when they choose to have children. If there are two parents involved, the potential damage of them not realizing the amount of time/money/commitment/responsibility is mitigated. When there's just one parent, that parent is going to be overwhelmed that much more easily. So, in other words, you can't tell me that the children of a single mother who knows what she's getting into and makes necessary preparations are going to be any worse off than children in nuclear families.

typo, all men, not been

I've read that having children is an inherently selfish act- that if you rationally and coherently weigh the "benefits" of having a child versus the "cost" to both yourself and the world around you, you'd be hard pressed to come up with an altruistic reason for having children. SO any argument that she "got what she wanted" at the expense of someone else is BS. Moving on...

As keshmeshi said, motherhood and parenting is different for ever person, there is no plan to execute, no formula to apply. It is hard and crazy and wonderful and I've only been a member of the club for 18 months and pretty much every thought I had about being a mom has gone out the window save the whole "love the hell out of the kid and treat her like a person" goal that I'm managing to keep up with. So knowing what you're getting into? Also total shit. And I hear it changes with every kid you may or may not have, so there's no real method to the madness.

If anything, Sloan should feel welcomed into the increasingly judgmental parenting club. No matter what you do, there is someone who is gonna tell you quite passionately that you made the wrong choice, you're harming your kid and you're going to hell for it and what is the matter with you. How you feed him, how you clothe her, how you care for him, do you let her cry, attachment parenting- she'll get through this blip of judgment and be into the next phase soon enough.

One other thing- while I believe Sylvia Ann Hewlett is a complete nut ball and should shut up, thankyouverymuch, waiting doesn't work for everyone. Fertility is crazy complicated, genetic, environmental, and all sorts of difficult to figure out, and in some cases, it's harder and not as healthy to be pregnant later in life. I'm not saying change life plans, but maybe visit a doc and ask- so, 10 years from now, you think I'll be good for this pregnancy thing?

And now, they aren't breadwinners, or landowners, and we are telling them we don't need them to be fathers either. I'm not a man, but maybe that hurts a little?

It's not that "they aren't breadwinners, or landowners," it's that women are also breadwinners and landowners. And, men still make more than women, they still own majority of the land, and they've always had the (virtually consequence-free) option of walking away from fatherhood. I don't give a flying fig if some random dude got his feelings hurt because a woman decided to have a child on her own (let's not forget that men have to knowingly donate sperm and give up any future rights to the resulting child for this process - but I guess the MRA's don't think that's so awful).

Statistically, children of single parents are more likely to get in trouble and have problems in life.

See, I just don't know about this. Does this stem from the fact that they are raised by a single parent or because society bombards them with that message? Do these statistics lump parents that were single from the start (further broken down to those who choose to be single parents and those that didn't) with parents who were partnered originally? If it includes single parents who weren't single in the beginning, how did the loss of the other parent contribute to these children being "more likely" to get in trouble and have problems in life? I guess I believe that being wanted and loved gives children the best possible chance in life. I don't believe that "Mom + Dad" is better for the kids than any other parenting scenario.

I guess I shouldn't be, but I am still amazed at how linearly some people think of parenting and families in general.

I've had friends who grew up with Mom + Dad + money + house + dog + sibling - and they're still messed up.

I'd never give up my four parents, my eight families, and all my friends. It makes life more interesting.

Again, why does everybody have to be a clone? Haven't any of these people met someone drastically different than them and thought "Wow, I am so lucky to know this person - I never would have seen the world in such a way if I hadn't met him/her/it."

I personally liked spacekase's comment in the Salon letter's section (on the first page).

I liked spacekase's comment in the letters section re: this issue being a "faux-cause".

I think rather than focusing on single mother vs. mom-dad, the important thing is how many people that child has that loves them, supports them, and helps them thrive.

This can be moms, dads, coaches, uncles, teachers, and so on. Gender seems less important than just simply having people around that believe in you and want to see you succeed.

For me, that was my mom, my dad, my sports coaches, and some of my teachers. For others it might be their two moms, their priest, and their next door neighbor.

"It's not that "they aren't breadwinners, or landowners," it's that women are also breadwinners and landowners. And, men still make more than women, they still own majority of the land, and they've always had the (virtually consequence-free) option of walking away from fatherhood."
Yeah i know... I kind of meant only breadwinner/landowner. I'm just saying - these types of men don't see the benefit to themselves of feminism.
They are lashing out because they keep 'losing'. We have to deal with that emotion every day we deal with men. So I'm just saying let's see that they're hurting from the loss of power that they (unfairly) had, and instead of getting mad back at them and having playground fights, we could kindly remind them of what feminism will do for them.

Honestly I don't care what they're feeling either so much, but it's easier to argue with an enemy if you can see his POV and tear it apart.

EG: "the boy will be screwed up or resent women

Right. Unlike, say, most of the other men in the world."

SarahMC: "The vast majority of men resent or even hate women."

What is this crap? I'm a guy, a feminist, and a pretty regular reader of feministing. I sure as hell don't resent or hate women, and I'm betting that there are a lot of you out there who have male friends, family, and significant others who also support the equality of women or think it's crap that roughly 50% of the people they care about in the world are second-class citizens (more, actually, if you bring race, religion and LGBT issues into it). Additionally, there are plenty of women who support a male "matrix of oppression." Coulter and Malkin, I'm looking in your direction.

Don't be so quick to make the sort of mean-spirited, sweeping generalizations that have been used in the past by those justifying a woman's limited role in society. In doing so, you're disparaging people who support and care about your right to be a full human being in society's eyes.

Geeky_girl, I'm really into what you're saying, it's something I really believe.

Men don't see how feminism could POSSIBLY benefit them but in my conversations with anti feminist men I point to all the sexist traditions that might benefit women (which may seem trivial, like the man always buying dinner) to men being forced to so rigidly stay in their gender roles and then they GET IT. The patriarchy benefits men, but those benefits come at a price that harms men, and when they see that, they become more receptive to feminism.

But then they always ask "but why the word feminism" but that's another topic I guess.

SHELBY: I think the whole nuclear family business and "kids are better off" is more about financial situations than having two parents. Are kids better from single parent homes not as well off in life because of only having a mother, or is it because they only had one income? Poverty is the basis for a lot of these issues, and single mothers are more likely to be impoverished.

Devil's Advocate, considering your trollish behavior on the other thread, I'm not sure why we should take you seriously on this one. But if you really want to know:

Indeed there are women who support the patriarchy. But whom does the patriarchy benefit? Largely men. For hundreds of years, men have physically and sexually abused women. They have justified this abuse with a vast ideology about women's inferiority. They have kept women from learning. They have kept women from positions of power. They have set themselves up as the norm and punished women for deviating from that "norm."

And yet, you object to me saying that most men in the world resent women. You object to me saying that most men are screwed up. As to the latter, I refer you to my following paragraph in which I note that most people are screwed up. As to the former, I refer you to the state of the world and women's position in it.

And yes, there are plenty of men who are feminists and reject all that crap. Which is why I said "most."

I teach sociology at a small regional university. A few years ago a colleague and I analyzed data from a large longitudinal sample (about 13,000 in our analysis) of middle and high school students to see what affected high school graduation.

Sure enough, the traditional family with both mom and dad married to each other was associated with higher completion rates. But when you controlled for parents' education and custodial parents income, those differences in family composition became insignificant (and the single mom family was not at the bottom of the list in any case).

I remarked at the time that what kids needed more than a traditional male role model, was for their parent(s) to have a traditional male paycheck. My impression is that other reputable studies have shown similar patterns with other important outcomes for kids.

It seems that if kids are brought up in loving, supportive environments with adequate resources, they generally do well regardless of the sex of the parents or whether that parent is a single mom. Also, my own experience with kids raised by single moms who have adequate resources or by all-women couples is that the kids are a: well-adjusted, and b: not man-hating. Or if these single or lesbian moms are going to instill the man-hating business, perhaps they just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Devil's Advocate, I haven't denigrated anyone. I pointed out that MOST men, no matter who raised them, resent women. If you don't fall into that category, you aren't part of the "most." What's so hard to understand about that?

SarahMC, think about the implications of what you're saying. Most men hate or resent women? Do you honestly believe that? What part of the world do you live in?

It's impossible to read what you wrote and not take offense. If I said "most women..." (something negative), I should have my head chopped off for generalizing women in a sexist manner. If I said "most black people..." (something negative), I should have my head chopped off for generalizing black people in a racist manner.

It's gross, it's sexist, and it's inaccurate.

If you don't fall into that category, you aren't part of the "most." What's so hard to understand about that?

What's hard to understand is the statistical data / studies / information you've used to come up with such a definitive statement.

Perhaps the phrase is "in my experience, most men I know are..." O.k., then I get a frame of reference for whom you are speaking of- assholes you know, not the men I happen to be surrounded by.

EG:
And yet, you object to me saying that most men in the world resent women. You object to me saying that most men are screwed up. As to the latter, I refer you to my following paragraph in which I note that most people are screwed up. As to the former, I refer you to the state of the world and women's position in it.

While you've certainly qualified your statement, and I usually find myself in complete agreement with you, I'm not sure saying that the state of women in the world today means that most men are anti-feminist or hold anti-feminist positions. Could be true, may be not true. I just don't think "most men are..." statements help anyone any more than "most feminists are" or "most women act like..." etc.

I think the whole nuclear family business and "kids are better off" is more about financial situations than having two parents... Poverty is the basis for a lot of these issues, and single mothers are more likely to be impoverished.

You and I may understand that poverty plays a part in it, but the people using this argument don't (or don't care). The woman who wrote this book is obviously financially able to take care of a child on her own, yet the argument against her doing it is still "But children raised by a single parent are more likely to...blah, blah, blah." I guess my point is that there is no one cause for a child having problems (in most cases), but, blaming it on single parents alone, is a problem for me.