Babies first, marriage later?

[Mme. Chaucer]

I am disturbed and baffled by something that seems to be a new "norm."

 

What is with the common trend of having children with a person and sort of deciding as one goes along whether or not the partner is an appropriate one for life?

 

There are so many threads here and elsewhere where somebody has a "fiancee" and they have an 8 year old kid together, or they are wondering if the father / mother of their 2 babies is compatible enough to marry; stuff like that.

 

I am not feeling judgmental or moralistic about this. Married or committed life partnership is the same to me. I certainly understand unplanned pregnancies that are carried to term; I did not marry my daughter's father until she was five years old. I didn't live with him, either. I truly wanted to, but he had an addiction and was a very destructive person. There was no question. Finally he found "recovery" and we were able to marry and have over a decade of good family life together. (Then he relapsed and we divorced, but that's a whole other story.)

 

If somebody is appropriate enough to consciously make babies with, should they not be appropriate enough to make a solid family with? Or not?

[TaraMaiden]

Well... I kind of feel that you've answered your own question.

you made a baby with a man who was clearly not an appropriate person to make a baby with, because of his addictions and character flaws.

Then, you tried to make a family life with him, but he shot that bolt too....

 

People change.

we change, they change everything changes, and what seems like a really good, or reasonable, or justified idea at the time, becomes questionable with hindsight.

 

Am I following the right route, or have I misunderstood you?

 

[carhill]

Here's one scenario common in my area:

 

Some people crunch the numbers and decide the woman is in a better position financially if they don't get married. This generally applies to lower income people, and particularly those who participate in the 'cash' economy and utilize government programs for support. For example, if there's no husband (and the SO is conveniently 'absent'), the woman qualifies for assistance based on her income and assets, both of which experience some degradation due to pregnancy, birth, and early childhood. Dad can still be there, supporting, but with 'cash'. He might even be 'unknown' on the BC.

 

I'm sure there are other permutations and 'reasons'. Given the sweeping legal and societal benefits conferred by signing a marriage license, I imagine folks who choose not to prior to having children have their 'reasons'. Hope it works out for them.

[Ronni_W]

If somebody is appropriate enough to consciously make babies with

I think it's that, for most singles, the baby-making decision generally isn't conscious at all...more like just "oh, oops!" Then it gets complicated because, perhaps, on or the other (or both) had no intention of marrying the person who now happens to be a parent of their child.

 

And sometimes, for whatever reason, that first 'oops' does not motivate and encourage either/both to practice better birth control -- even though there is STILL no great desire to marry this particular person.

 

I get the predicament these single-with-kid(s) individuals find themsevles in. One can only hope that they'll eventually figure out what is in their own, and their child(ren)'s best interests.

 

On the other hand, unmarried couples with multiple kids was "normal and acceptable" in Finland (for example) as far back as the early 80s...maybe even before that, but that's when I became aware of it. So, there are also cultural-social influences, as well.

[ADF]

You should read a book called "Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage," by Kathryn Edin & Maria Kefalas. The authors are sociologists were did an in-depth study to try and answer exactly the question you're asking.

 

Among their findings:

 

1) Poor women who chose not to marry the fathers of their children usually cited reason like alcoholism, drug abuse, drug dealing, domestic violence, and chronic infidelity. In others words, the women usually had very GOOD reasons for not wanting to marry these men.

 

2) For most of the women, motherhood was the only really meaningful life activity open to them. Being good mothers was the only way for them to distinguish themselves. It was the only means they had of making their mark in the world. They couldn't achieve fulfillment or distinction through careers, like middle-class women could. This made becoming mothers especially important to them.

 

3) Most of the women valued marriage. However, they didn't believe they had enough stability in their lives to make marriage work. A middle-class woman can count on her education and skills to give her a large measure of economic security and stability in life. Thus, it made sense for her to postpone child-bearing. But these women couldn't afford to wait until they were "ready" to have kids. Their job prospects were so limited, their futures so uncertain, they might never be "ready." Or, if they were, were, it probably wouldn't be until they were past child-bearing age. So, they didn't wait.

 

Anyway, there's a lot more to it than that, but that gives you a general idea. Read the book.

[Ronni_W]

Thank you for posting that, ADF!

It offers some insight into a subject I've never really thought about. It may not be the very next book I purchase, but I will put it on my 'wish list' so it's not forgotten, either.

Much appreciated.

[LovieDove24]

My frank and honest opinion is that with all the different forms of BC out there, people are no longer afraid to have sex before marriage as they were in the past. Because of this, sex happens, and well...because of that, whether contraceptives are involved or not, babies happen too.

 

Additionally the stigma of having a child out of wedlock has been lifted. It doesn't just have to be a "disturbing" trend, consider the fact that many many couples no longer have to wed "just because." The thing is, couples were getting pregnant before marriage in the past, its just that society forced a shotgun wedding upon them. In my opionion, thats almost worse.

[aerogurl87]

I've noticed this trend as well. Sometimes planned, and sometimes not. Some women get knocked up by a guy in hopes that that will in some strange way, coerce him into marriage. Then sometimes as others have mentioned, mistakes happen and babies are born. Then people decide to get married later.

[allina]

Poor women who chose not to marry the fathers of their children usually cited reason like alcoholism, drug abuse, drug dealing, domestic violence, and chronic infidelity. In others words, the women usually had very GOOD reasons for not wanting to marry these men.

 

 

Those also sound like pretty good reasons to not reproduce with a guy. I will never understand why women choose to give innocent kids such losers for fathers

[TheLoneSock]

You should read a book called "Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage," by Kathryn Edin & Maria Kefalas. The authors are sociologists were did an in-depth study to try and answer exactly the question you're asking.

 

Among their findings:

 

1) Poor women who chose not to marry the fathers of their children usually cited reason like alcoholism, drug abuse, drug dealing, domestic violence, and chronic infidelity. In others words, the women usually had very GOOD reasons for not wanting to marry these men.

 

2) For most of the women, motherhood was the only really meaningful life activity open to them. Being good mothers was the only way for them to distinguish themselves. It was the only means they had of making their mark in the world. They couldn't achieve fulfillment or distinction through careers, like middle-class women could. This made becoming mothers especially important to them.

 

3) Most of the women valued marriage. However, they didn't believe they had enough stability in their lives to make marriage work. A middle-class woman can count on her education and skills to give her a large measure of economic security and stability in life. Thus, it made sense for her to postpone child-bearing. But these women couldn't afford to wait until they were "ready" to have kids. Their job prospects were so limited, their futures so uncertain, they might never be "ready." Or, if they were, were, it probably wouldn't be until they were past child-bearing age. So, they didn't wait.

 

Anyway, there's a lot more to it than that, but that gives you a general idea. Read the book.

 

This was pretty eye opening. I think #2 is especially true.

[ADF]

Those also sound like pretty good reasons to not reproduce with a guy. I will never understand why women choose to give innocent kids such losers for fathers

 

But remember, most of these women take it for granted that they are going to have to raise their children on their own. They don't expect the fathers to take much interest in their kids anyway. They might hope the fathers take an interest, but their life experience tells them this is unlikely.

[Mme. Chaucer]

You should read a book called "Promises I Can Keep: Why Poor Women Put Motherhood Before Marriage," by Kathryn Edin & Maria Kefalas. The authors are sociologists were did an in-depth study to try and answer exactly the question you're asking.

 

Among their findings:

 

1) Poor women who chose not to marry the fathers of their children usually cited reason like alcoholism, drug abuse, drug dealing, domestic violence, and chronic infidelity. In others words, the women usually had very GOOD reasons for not wanting to marry these men.

 

2) For most of the women, motherhood was the only really meaningful life activity open to them. Being good mothers was the only way for them to distinguish themselves. It was the only means they had of making their mark in the world. They couldn't achieve fulfillment or distinction through careers, like middle-class women could. This made becoming mothers especially important to them.

 

3) Most of the women valued marriage. However, they didn't believe they had enough stability in their lives to make marriage work. A middle-class woman can count on her education and skills to give her a large measure of economic security and stability in life. Thus, it made sense for her to postpone child-bearing. But these women couldn't afford to wait until they were "ready" to have kids. Their job prospects were so limited, their futures so uncertain, they might never be "ready." Or, if they were, were, it probably wouldn't be until they were past child-bearing age. So, they didn't wait.

 

Anyway, there's a lot more to it than that, but that gives you a general idea. Read the book.

 

Thanks. That gets to what I wrote about.

 

Tara, I probably didn't explain my perspective very well. I can see why my situation appears to be just what I was talking about. It was not "better" by any means, but I was thinking about a different thing that seems to be a trend. Not having a child out of wedlock, or carrying a baby to term and raising it by oneself, or even maintaining a relationship with the baby's father without committing to a life together, but more like "my fiancee of 8 years and I have a 3 year old child together," (a scenario from these fora) or a fairly recent post on this forum where the young woman has two "babies" with her fiancee and is trying to decide whether to marry him or not.

 

Of course situations like those have always happened. They're easy to understand, too. But these days they seem very commonplace.

 

From my perspective, the advent of a child either pushes the couple into a commitment (even if ill advised and fated to be short lived) or pushes them apart. In my case, when I found out I was pregnant I realized that the bad relationship was no place to raise a child. He and I broke up, and we did not see him again, even once, for 4 years. When he came back and proved himself to be a worthy man to have in our lives, I needed to decide whether that was what I wanted, or not (he did want that). There was no question of becoming "engaged," having another kid or two, while deiding.

 

As I said, I do get it easily on a case by case basis; it's the social trend that is harder for me to wrap my mind around.