children
The Seattle Times
February 8, 2007
Tom Plate / Syndicated columnist
Unmarried, with children
LOS ANGELES - There is a growing sense among experts that the countries
of the world with declining birth rates will somehow overcome their
problem but in ways that until recently would have been hard to imagine.
Flat or zero growth rates appear to be a characteristic of affluent
societies. In Asia, standout examples include South Korea, Singapore,
Hong Kong and Japan. These cultures appear to be rich in just about
everything except babies.
Coping mechanisms among nations vary; the worried but determined
government of Singapore, exercising its nanny-state option, has even
funded get-together and mating programs (with, not surprisingly,
somewhat less than scintillating success). Now, however, a powerful and
visionary new study has examined a startling new approach for women to
raise children: that is to say, raising them largely in the absence of
men.
Central to the problem under review is the increasing numbers of women
who, for whatever reasons, cannot seem to put their hands on a
satisfactory male mate. More and more, romantic and parenting
relationships do not seem to go together like a horse and carriage.
People in increasing numbers prefer to stay single. Educated and
financially independent women are especially unwedded to the social norm
of requiring a father to be a prerequisite to motherhood.
The proffered panoply of future procreation options marries the notion
of single motherhood to either traditional adoption methods or to the
recourse to scientific insemination. Women set up family nests either
alone, or with other women (and not necessarily in lesbian
relationships).
This astonishing brave new world of men-less families is spelled out
with encompassing thoughtfulness in the new book "Single by Chance,
Mothers by Choice." The author, Rosanna Hertz, is a professor of
sociology at Wellesley College, the excellent women's school which
numbers Hillary Clinton (class of '69) among its distinguished
graduates.
The trend toward largely men-less mothering is so advanced in the United
States that chapters of the nationwide organization, "Single Mothers by
Choice," have spread to U.S. cities, as if Alcoholics Anonymous clones.
SMC runs workshops for would-be single mothers, many of whom are running
out of time in the biological fecundity department, and offers single
women who have been successful mothers as instructors and role models
for would-be successors.
One of their key dilemmas appears to be choosing between a known sperm
donor and an anonymous one. The decision can entail huge emotional
implications, of course. Women who choose anonymous injection sometimes
cultivate the option of having a "social dad" for their kid, a friendly
but unromantically involved male who evolves into a functional but
un-biological "uncle."
Other women with significant unease about proceeding with anonymous
sperm will deliberately seek out the cooperation of gay men,
notwithstanding possible genetic implications.
In the U.S., this trend has not quite smashed onto the radar screens of
the American political mainstream, much less onto those of the
pro-traditional family fundamentalist sector. I can hardly wait! Get
prepared for the condemnation of the preachers, not to mention the
fleeing to the safety of vagaries of centrist-wannabes like Hillary,
running for their political lives as if the issue were a political STD.
Social conservatives will surely have difficulty being comfortable with
convincing studies that reveal a greater correlation for juvenile
delinquency and the like with poverty than with single-motherhood. It
is, in fact, mainly the single mother at the lowest economic rung who
appears to be producing the social deviant, not the single mother who
has achieved economic success.
But why are women marrying less or waiting so long to take the plunge?
Common sense would suggest that either the better-educated women are
increasingly fussier about their life-long mating choices, or that their
potential male partners are running fast in the other direction -
whether because they are too selfish to make the commitment, or are too
turned off by females who are at least as well-educated and perhaps even
as well-funded.
The answer is probably some combination of the two, but, even so, the
days of the male as macho head of household, heroic breadwinner and
possible parent-in-chief appear to be numbered. If this is not some kind
of profound sociological definition, what is?
Veteran U.S. journalist and UCLA professor Tom Plate, a member of the
Pacific Council on International Policy, is married (long ago), with one
biological child.