I caught the tail end of a report on the local news last night that sent me off to the internets, to find this story from CNN on the latest stats on “out-of-wedlock births,” conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics. According to the study, in 2007, almost 40% of babies born in the United States were not the children of married couples. It’s 25% more than were recorded in 2002.
The answer to all our problems! Via chicks57 @ flickr.
The response has varied from stern, furrowed concern, to outright panic. My response is “Mm-hm. So how are the mothers and their children faring?” I’m no big fan of teenage pregnancy, and I’m all for planned and wanted children. No arguments there. But there’s some hand-waving going on here around language. ”Out-of-wedlock births” does not necessarily mean “unwanted or unplanned births.” So it’s not clear to me why that designation,”out-of-wedlock,” is important.
Oh, wait, yes it is. It’s important because how else will we know which women deserve to have children? A woman called Sarah Brown, who heads up the National Campaign of Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, glibly opines:
“I wish people spent as much time planning when to get pregnant, with whom, under what circumstances as they do planning their next vacation. The stigma [of out-of-wedlock births] has eroded, and these numbers made me feel perhaps it’s disappeared altogether.”
You know what women need more of? Shaming and stigma.
Stupid, stupid women, thinking about where to summer and gettin’ themselves knocked up all over the place! Stupid babies, robbing bastardy of its cultural power to create an exploitable underclass! Ms. Brown, your privilege–to say nothing of your mean spirit–is showing. I looked around the NCPTUP’s website (no links from me!), and on the surface, I’m down with their mission to promote education and contraception and, generally, lowering the number of unwanted pregnancies. But this goal rubs me the wrong way:
to help ensure that children are born into stable, two-parent families who are committed to and ready for the demanding task of raising the next generation.
Yeahhhh, no. I’m probably in the minority of people–at large, if not at this site–who really doesn’t care what or who makes up a “family.” I’ve read the data that children of two-parent families suffer less poverty, do better in school, commit fewer crimes, etc., but I’m never going to get on the “kids need a mom and a dad, and need them to be married” boat. Those studies look at straight married couples with children vs. single parent (usually mother-headed) families. They ignore parents who are unmarried but cohabitating, those who are non-cohabitating but committed to their child/ren, all lesbian and gay parents, as well as co-parenting arrangements and relationships of other stripes. They also generally have focused on marital status as the prime indicator of family stability, and socio-economic status as an outgrowth thereof. For the record, I think that is exactly backwards.
Do children do generally do better when more than one adult is there to support and provide for them? Yes. But I dont believe that the “best” way is the traditional, heteronormative household. It might be a good way, but marriage is no guarantee that a relationship will be healthy, supportive, or stable, anyway. Marriage is not a good in and of itself. (And regardless, aren’t women usually doing the bulk of labor involved in raising children, anyway?)
Pilgrim Soul has mentioned her interest in making alternative family structures (with or without children) more acceptable and supported, and I’m with her, 100%. David Popenoe of the National Marriage Project, however, bemoans such things, even when they are carefully chosen, for fear they will become more generally acceptable, even fashionable. “‘So many people are doing it, why shouldn’t I just go ahead? It’s part of a slippery slope,” he says.
Oh noes! Unwed mothers will drag us into the muck! I’m struck by the fact that throughout the article, the concerns voiced are primarily about marriage. Not really about what’s best for children and families. Not about men’s personal responsibility or abdication thereof–they barely warrant a mention. And of course, it’s not about what’s best for women.
I don’t plan to be a mother at all. I honestly don’t recognize or even understand all the “ticking clock” and “baby-hungry” memes going around. Nonetheless, as a feminist, I am only too happy to let other women make their own choices about when and with whom to procreate. Even if that means they make choices that I disagree with. I feel safe assuming that most women want children, and I know that most women have children. Since women are individuals, however, they want them for different reasons, and under different circumstances. Some women want to have children with their husband. Others, with a wife. Some want to be, plan to be, single mothers, or end up creating a cooperative arrangement with other families, to the benefit of all.
This focus on “out-of-wedlock” births is misplaced. Marriage confers a host of benefits and responsibilities, it’s true (which is why I am in favor of same-sex marriage), but it isn’t a magic bullet. Rather than pushing for more marriage, longer marriage, I’d like those who are really interested in the welfare of American families to push for health care and education, instead, so that women (and yes, men) can truly make free choices about what sort of families they want, and when they want them. But that’s probably because I’m an unmarried slut with no values.
P.S. I’m explicitly not dealing with the role of fathers in their children’s lives here. The more people truly invested in a child, the better. But despite what marriage-at-any-cost advocates would have to believe, men do not need to be married to the mother of their children in order to feel (or act) responsible for and loving towards their offspring.
P.P.S. Don’t read the comments to that CNN article, unless you want a parade of sexist and racist banner-waving: “women today are loose,” “why buy the cow?”, “welfare mothers raising bastards on my taxes!”, “anchor babies,” etc. My disgust is only slightly greater than my lack of surprise. It’s more evidence that the debate going on here isn’t about family welfare, but about women’s sexuality.
This is really thoughtful, and especially thanks for pulling out that quote that strongly implies that the shaming and stigmatizing people need to get back on board. Sigh.
The only thing I would add (which is perhaps only a semantics point), is that sometimes teen pregnancy is not a negative thing, and actually makes the most economic and social sense– especially for young urban women who want children, do not have plans (like college) that children would impede, are at the height of their fertility, and, most importantly, know that as younger mothers, often still living at home, they will get more family- and social network-support than if they wait ten more years.
Just a thinking point! Keep up the great blaming.
Ah, slut shaming. You come in so many flavors…
First of all, since when does having a two-parent family automatically equal a happy childhood? Some of the most fucked-up people I know are from two-parent families. That nuclear family ideal is so TIRED and MISGUIDED.
Second of all, the fact that your parents are married when you are born is no guarantee whatsoever that you won’t grow up in a single-parent or blended household. Divorce happens. Death happens.
PS Did I mention I’m planning my vacation for next week? But I haven’t decided yet whether I’m going to get knocked up next week or not. I’m gonna just play it by ear…
Yeah I was really confused by this study too for the very reasons you point out. I don’t know enough (anything) about social science or who or how this data is captured, but it seems like it is starting from an incredibly flawed, narrow, and ideological set of assumptions that I’m pretty shocked are so enshrined in the way that professional social scientists and policy makers think and work. The numbers it gives us are practically meaningless. It tells me next to nothing that 40% of children are born to unmarried women.
That socioeconomic status may influence marital status, rather than the other way around, is a very important point. What does marriage mean, anyway, if it’s become something that people with money do?
I would like to read an article that reports on a study of how many chidren are born to unwed dads.
Thank you for this! As one of those children born to a single mother/out of wedlock I can tell assure Ms Brown that she need not worry. Shaming abounds! And it’s not limited to the mother. It’s a stigma thrust open a whole family, and it’s also something that virtual strangers think they have the right to comment/pass judgment on. (Cue Drunk Family Friend: Are you the oldest? Oh, you’re the one!)
Sorry about the personal tirade, but it really bothers me that this person a) thinks shaming is gone and b) thinks that if it were, it would be a problem.
Argh – hate to dissent, but having worked in social services with the young women and men who don’t seem to put much thought into the consequences of pregnancy and childrearing, and with the grown-up children of these women and men, I have to agree with the statement in which Sarah Brown wishes people spent more time planning for children (I do wish she hadn’t compared it to having a vacation). I think the issue here, and it gets lost when people make it about out-of-wedlock birth and family composition, is that people are having children without a lot of thought about what it means and requires to actually have to raise one. I see clients having children to save a relationship, because it will be fun, or because “everyone else my age has one.” While many of these clients find joy and become good parents, they still experience financial, educational, and vocational hardship that could have been avoided had more planning and thought put into their pregnancy. Unfortunately, a significant proportion (from 1/4 to 1/3, and this is based on my own experience and of my colleagues) of these parents and their children end up involved with with Family Services and Child Protective Services. I don’t believe stigma and shaming are the answers, but it is important that women and men understand that it is important to have some financial and emotional resources to offer a child. I also think it’s important to understand that the decision to have a child is, ultimately, more than just a personal choice. Your decision affects at least one other human being (the child) and often many more – family, friends, and the community.
“I have to agree with the statement in which Sarah Brown wishes people spent more time planning for children.”
Actually I agree with that as well, and I include both women and men.
Thank you for this well-articulated post. I just can’t wrap my head around the reasoning that marriage is some panacea for all that ills American families. My mom was married twice, and I am thankful that both marriages ended. Yes, being raised by a single mother was hard. Yes, we struggled. But I shudder to think what could have been had she stayed with the asshole who forced us into the DV shelter.
Marriage is not a cure-all. God forbid we focus, instead, on creating a society where all women are strong, confident, well-educated, and secure enough to enter into relationships and start families if/when/because they want to; not because they need to (e.g., out of economic necessity, shame, or in response to the myth that a woman is nothing without a husband and some babies.)
PhDork, you hit the nail on the head. This isn’t really about marriage; it’s about maintaining traditional gender roles and keeping women “in their place.” Marriage is just the tool being used to promote that underlying goal. Sigh.
Veggie I definitely agree with everything you have to say, it’s just that I’m not sure marriage is a good proxy for “has thought about all the consequences of this pregnancy and can take responsibility for them.” You know?
@Veggiewood: It sounds like your clients were already struggling. A lot of people have children for the frivolous reasons you list, but people with resources don’t end up with social workers. I’m not disagreeing with the the substance of your comment–no one should casually decide to get pregnant/carry to term–but there’s a larger context to the situations you describe.
People with resources (financial) do end up with social workers and counselors. The people I saw lacked emotional and/or financial resources. The point of my post is that I think there are a great number of children being born in this country to married and single people that are seen and treated more as commodities than the actual individuals they are. My only point to the previous post was that I agreed with Ms. Brown’s remark that it would be better for all of us if people (and I’m including men) were more thoughtful about having children.
I had my son 14 years ago “out of wedlock”. The father and I eventually decided to marry — because we loved each other an pointedly NOT because we shared a child.
What is interesting is that the other day, my son was insisting he was still a “bastard” despite that his parents got married. He wanted to be able to say to people “who you calling crazy?” when someone called him a crazy bastard.
My point is, I don’t think my son feels stimatized by having been born out of wedlock. Maybe it’s safe for him to feel that way because he has been “legitimized”. However, I never have felt ashamed for choosing the way I had him (my parents were entirely another story). Furthermore, my marriage is not based on dual responsibility to our child — we could have done that without being a couple. For us, I think, it has made a huge difference.
@Veggiewood: Agreed. But since you brought up unplanned (or poorly planned) pregnancies leading to social services, I think it’s important to note that class is a big factor in whether the government gets involved. Financially disadvantaged and/or unwed (historically) mothers are more vulnerable to having their children taken away, even if they happen to be good parents.
philoserine: Point taken. I thought about that element, as it came up last year during the (also slut-shamey)discussion of the “pregnancy pact” teens in Gloucester. Certainly, for some portion of the population, having kids young is a smarter choice…but again, if it’s a willful choice, I’m okay with that. I haven’t read “Promises I Can Keep,” but it’s on my list.
But veggiewood is also right: some people (I have no idea of numbers) do have children for all the wrong reasons. They make bad choices, and they and their children suffer as a result. That sucks. I wish it didn’t happen. But promoting marriage is not likely to stop it. Education about the realities of parenthood and social services that support new parents are going to be far more useful in combatting abuse and neglect. (BTW, I appreciate the hard and often thankless work you do, veggie.)
I’m all for planning for children. Actually, that’s an ideal to strive for, and a far more useful one than marriage. But you’ve read Robbie Burns–even the best-laid plans, etc. My super-educated white middle-class brother and his super-educated white middle-class girlfriend (now wife)weren’t planning on starting a family when they did, but contraception fails. They opted to have my nephew, who is now almost 7, and have subsequently had a second kid. But for a variety of reasons, they did need some assistance with Medicaid when she was pregnant. I need not mention that there was no vacation-planning going on. That they had it is an unqualified blessing, for my entire family. Marriage would not have been their salvation. It was a government program.
I just saw this article in one of the dailies (Canadian city) and the tone was entirely different. In fact the stats gathered in Canada showed that teen pregnancies were down overall and that these “unwed” mothers were due to common law relationships becoming more socially acceptable. Also mentioned the fact that many women chose to have children later in life and often opt to raise them on their own. I’m bragging or anything like that I just thought it might interest you to see how another media outlet has interpreted the stats and give you a little hope that some people do get that “out of wedlock” preganacies are not a blight on the moral fabric of society. Just my two cents for all its worth.
“Rather than pushing for more marriage, longer marriage, I’d like those who are really interested in the welfare of American families to push for health care and education, instead, so that women (and yes, men) can truly make free choices about what sort of families they want, and when they want them.”
Wholeheartedly agree. I also hope that, eventually, we will come to accept that a lot of relationships fail. Marriages and non-marriages and stop stigmatizing divorce and expecting forever and ever.
And the National Center for Health Statistics just tracks various data points surrounding birth and other things. The statistic in reference can be found here http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm along with other information about births in the US.
misscalculate you are so right. it would be just as reasonable to make a new campaign that suggested raising children in a contract with a friend or family member that would last 18 years, and then have your lovers however you like them. why this fascistic yoking of love and child rearing???? it’s heterosexist and hopelessly outdated.
but miss, who collects the info in the first place? do all states use the same metrics, the same definitions?
See Data Source and Methods at the bottom. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db18.htm
Also, this article delves into the relationship between unmarried births and lots of other factors including age. The proportion of unmarried births for women in their twenties has gone up a bit since the 70s.
I’m an unmarried mother, and I cohabitate with my son’s father. The ONLY difference between my bastard child and someone else’s legitimate child is a legal contract. In our case, the stigma that this woman cites is far more likely to damage my child than the lack of a piece of paper.
On a funny note, my friend actually planned her pregnancy around her vacation. She and her guy had booked well in advance, and agreed to continue contraception until after the trip so she could take advantage of all the free alcoholic drinks that came with the trip package.
AmandaS – And THAT’S the kind of financial planning people should consider before having children! No sarcasm meant, I would have done the same thing.
I think the term “unwed mother” needs to go. What does being wed have to do with anything? It’s like saying “blue-eyed mother” or “3rd grade teacher mother”.
But how are Divorce Lawyers going to earn a living if people don’t get married? Also, if non one can become a Bride, then how can Alimony be obtained? What will come of the Golddiggers of our nation? These are all important questions we must ask ourselves before letting go of the blessed institution of Marriage.
Agh! I didn’t follow your advise, and read the comments on the story. How godawful! So amazing that so many people have such negative feelings about this, when it is so incredibly common and the commenters must have friends/family who are in one of the many situations that could lead to an out-of-wedlock birth.
And good god the census (and other data gathering orgs) need to get better at studying families!
The very phrase “out-of-wedlock” rankles, as it suggests there are only two kinds of families, and only one of them is the right kind.
I gave birth “out-of-wedlock” in 2008. Furthermore, our poor daughter has not one but two unwed mothers–is that twice as bad, or only half?
I would just like to thank Vicariousrising, AmandaS, and Gator for doing their part to bring down our great nation. Cheers, my sisters! (martha and tallgirl-in-heels, you too!)
Thanks also to misscalculate for the extra links and info, and to VisitorPass for pointing out an example of how raw data can be read through different lenses, to different sociopolitical aims.
I was 27 when my out-of-wedlock son was born. Nearly four years later, his father and I are still unmarried. We live together, raise a child together, and love each other just like a “proper” family. We have simply chosen not to marry for reasons that are nobody else’s damned business, no matter how much they pry (and, oh, do they ever!).
I do think that in some ways a woman’s marital status becomes public property during and after pregnancy in the same way the woman herself does – people feel equally entitled to poke at her belly and ask when that fella’s going to make an honest woman of her.
The thing that drives me crazy, though, is the idea that unplanned = unwanted. Yes, I was shocked when I discovered that I was pregnant. Yes, I did consider all of my options before deciding to carry to term and keep the baby. No, that didn’t make it any less terrifying when I thought I was miscarrying. No, I don’t love my son any less than the mother who tracked her ovulation on her iphone, nor am I less fit to parent than she is.
Also, I take issue with the idea that having a child is bad because it makes things more difficult. Yes, people may struggle more with money. Those who have less of it to begin with will feel this more. To say, however, that only financially secure people should have children smacks of eugenics. You know what would actually help? Health care. Daycare. Reasonable maternity leave. All the things that reasonable countries already have.
Even so, it’s going to be rough. And it will be rough for everyone, married or not, planned or unplanned. Babies don’t let you sleep, you have no idea what you’re doing, and your entire life gets turned upside down. A new mother doesn’t need a husband’s support, she needs community support. People are eager enough to tell mothers they’re doing everything wrong – we don’t also need the NCPTUP telling us we’re dooming our children to be criminals.
[...] already noted my opposition to the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. That makes me sound like [...]
“To say, however, that only financially secure people should have children smacks of eugenics.”
I don’t think it smacks of eugenics at all. Like veggiewood, I’ve worked in Social Services and mental health in a small city with an extreme range of poverty to affluence. I see 14 and 15 year old girls in the emergency room, finding out they are pregnant only by chance since they came in for something else. Most of them live with their parents, and have support there.
The problem I have is with the people having 4-5 children and no way of supporting them. I’m not going on a “oh look at the welfare queens” rant. Where I live, these (mostly women) are not getting a ton of money to support themselves and their children, so it’s not like there is a financial incentive to have kids.
The kids are getting health care, and the moms are too AND I THINK THAT’S GREAT. No child should have to suffer poor health. However at the end of the day SOMEONE ELSE is paying for the social services that I and others provide to these children.
If you have one child by accident/ unplanned, and decide to keep it, fine. If you need help from the government, fine. I hope with all my heart you are able to get on your feet (or back on your feet). But if you continue to have kids and can’t support them, I have a problem with that. If your children are taken away by the state and you continue to have more, I have a problem with that. Part of my decision not to have kids was that I knew I would not be able to support them. I would like for everyone to have the ability to be a mother if that is what she wants, regardless of her income. But I hear young women say “I want to have a really big famileee!!”, and my feeling is, if that is what you want, you have to work for it. There are a lot of things/situations that a lot of people want and they can’t have, because they can’t afford it. If you want a big family, finish high school and at least get some sort of work.
Marriage is not as important for the health of children as stability of the parent(s). That means financial stability (no, it doesn’t have to be rock-steady, I’m aware that we are in a recession and people are losing their jobs left and right). Some women marry into money. Some live with extended family. Some work.
Stability also means a host of other factors, including emotional and mental health. I’m not saying that all of these areas have to be perfect before you have a child- no one is ever perfectly balanced, but many parents are “stable”, which to me means having ups and downs, but overall functioning well. I do think that the original intent of the article was lost in the writer’s misguided blame of the “unwed”.
Health care, day care, and maternity leave are all important things too- I agree with Another Sarah. The latter items imply that the mother is working. Yes, let’s catch up to more reasonable countries who offer such benefits (and their equivalents) to parents and nonparents. Let’s help young people to become financially secure, and discourage them from having MULTIPLE kids at a young age, not by shaming them, but by offering them a brighter future which includes opportunities for sane and healthy work.