I discovered this blog recently, Single Mothering Southern Style, by Amy Hudock, and thought it was an eloquent reminder of how important it is for women to become aware of the Choice Mom/Single Mother by Choice community and what we can offer to each other:
Today, Choice Moms™ launched the "Choosing Single Motherhood" radio show, hosted by Choice Moms founder Mikki Morrissette. The one-hour weekly talk radio show is specifically designed for the thousands of single women who proactively decide to build a family on their own.
The show will air every Wednesday from 1-2 p.m. PST and 4-5 p.m. EST on VoiceAmerica's Variety Channel. The first show airs on Wednesday, April 1, 2009, with special guest Jane Mattes, founder of the Single Mothers by Choice organization.
I'm not a single mom by choice, by the strictest definition. But when I read Mary Pols' book Accidentally on Purpose, where she talks about getting pregnant by accident but turning it into a new purpose for her life, I identified. Told that I would never have children, I was more than surprised to find myself at 36 and pregnant and single. When I told the father of my child, he proposed marriage, then changed his mind and offered me a large payment to, essentially, go away.
I thought that I would raise this child alone, and I was scared. I wondered if I could do it. But then my mother said: "Amy, here is your miracle child. You wanted a child, didn't think you would have one, and now is your chance." Miracle child. Yes, she was. So I decided to become a single mother. By choice. She became my purpose.
But I was derailed by my own self-doubt. Her father (though Jewish) spoke to a priest who convinced him that while a child might not be convenient, he couldn't simply tell me to walk away. He decided he wanted us to be a family -- and I wanted to do the right thing as well. And I was afraid to go it alone. So we married. Of course, it didn't last.
I wish I had seen more support for the choice to become a single mom back then, like this radio show. Perhaps I would have had more confidence in myself than to enter into a bad marriage situation. Perhaps I would have made a different choice. I found out that I can be a great mom while single -- and that knowledge can help any mother who becomes single -- by choice, by divorce, or by being widowed. So even though I am not a mother by choice in the same way as these mothers, I still support their work in encouraging women to believe in themselves enough to become the mothers they can be -- regardless of their relationship status.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Ethics of reproduction
In a vein related to the story of the single mom of 14, whose fertility doctor transferred more than the generally accepted two embryos even though she'd already given birth to six children before her octuplets were born, this recent story came out of Canada about a 60-year-old woman who went to India in order to conceive her twins.
Obviously, apart from the sensationalistic quality of the media stories, and the debates about whether this is or is not acceptable, will come the discussions about regulating the fertility industry (overseas treatments notwithstanding) so that doctors are held responsible for "over-fertilizing" certain patients.
And, of course, this discussion will beg the question of who is acceptable and who is not? Who decides? Should there be uniform laws, or clinic-by-clinic policies? Should psychiatric evaluations be required of all candidates? Just single ones? Non-heterosexual ones? Candidates over the age of 40? 50? Should one counselor, or one doctor, be the arbiter?
In my view, the octuplets story focus has been skewed by the fact that she is a single woman. Regardless, implanting six embryos in an IVF procedure for a 33-year-old woman who has successfully delivered six children already, should certainly have raised red flags by the fertility doctor -- even if she was married. That she could pay for the expensive treatment does not mean that she could also pay for the caretaking of that many children, with the potential health issues of multiple births. And even though she requested it, any fertility doctor knows that a woman (or couple) willing to have that many children at once is not thinking clearly about long-term ramifications.
In the donor industry in general, I know that there have been concerns raised in other countries that if parents are required to use an open-identity donor, as they now are in the U.K., for example, it would restrict the number of donors available and curtail the ability of people requiring insemination to build a family.
While there are different recruitment practices that can keep donors coming through the door, my strong view is that yes, it might be harder to create children if there is a restriction placed on what donated gametes can be used, but if there is a strong reason that compels that restriction, then it should be employed. In the case of the U.K., and several other countries, government did decide that it is IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD to have the ability to know something of their biological "other half" should they desire it, based on research with adopted and donor-conceived adults.
In the U.S., I do not see open-identity as becoming a requirement, since we are a country too vast and too wedded in choice to require it.
Nor, octuplet publicity aside, do I see being a single parent as becoming a deterrent. Even if we were to move toward greater regulation of the industry, the case is quite strong that single parents can and do raise great children (the isolated statistics in troubled non-Choice families notwithstanding).
Now it is a matter of more people in policy-making power of certain states, adoption agencies and clinics to recognize as well that non-heterosexual parents also do a great job of raising kids.
On the other hand, there is to my mind NO compelling reason for anyone to potentially have six or more children at once. The desire of someone to "increase the odds" of a successful (costly) IVF procedure by implanting more than two at once is uncalled for and should, indeed, become a regulation based on common sense.
What is your opinion? Are regulations uncalled for? Or warranted?
Here is one of the earliest reactions to the octuplets story, taking root in Georgia.
Obviously, apart from the sensationalistic quality of the media stories, and the debates about whether this is or is not acceptable, will come the discussions about regulating the fertility industry (overseas treatments notwithstanding) so that doctors are held responsible for "over-fertilizing" certain patients.
And, of course, this discussion will beg the question of who is acceptable and who is not? Who decides? Should there be uniform laws, or clinic-by-clinic policies? Should psychiatric evaluations be required of all candidates? Just single ones? Non-heterosexual ones? Candidates over the age of 40? 50? Should one counselor, or one doctor, be the arbiter?
In my view, the octuplets story focus has been skewed by the fact that she is a single woman. Regardless, implanting six embryos in an IVF procedure for a 33-year-old woman who has successfully delivered six children already, should certainly have raised red flags by the fertility doctor -- even if she was married. That she could pay for the expensive treatment does not mean that she could also pay for the caretaking of that many children, with the potential health issues of multiple births. And even though she requested it, any fertility doctor knows that a woman (or couple) willing to have that many children at once is not thinking clearly about long-term ramifications.
In the donor industry in general, I know that there have been concerns raised in other countries that if parents are required to use an open-identity donor, as they now are in the U.K., for example, it would restrict the number of donors available and curtail the ability of people requiring insemination to build a family.
While there are different recruitment practices that can keep donors coming through the door, my strong view is that yes, it might be harder to create children if there is a restriction placed on what donated gametes can be used, but if there is a strong reason that compels that restriction, then it should be employed. In the case of the U.K., and several other countries, government did decide that it is IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD to have the ability to know something of their biological "other half" should they desire it, based on research with adopted and donor-conceived adults.
In the U.S., I do not see open-identity as becoming a requirement, since we are a country too vast and too wedded in choice to require it.
Nor, octuplet publicity aside, do I see being a single parent as becoming a deterrent. Even if we were to move toward greater regulation of the industry, the case is quite strong that single parents can and do raise great children (the isolated statistics in troubled non-Choice families notwithstanding).
Now it is a matter of more people in policy-making power of certain states, adoption agencies and clinics to recognize as well that non-heterosexual parents also do a great job of raising kids.
On the other hand, there is to my mind NO compelling reason for anyone to potentially have six or more children at once. The desire of someone to "increase the odds" of a successful (costly) IVF procedure by implanting more than two at once is uncalled for and should, indeed, become a regulation based on common sense.
What is your opinion? Are regulations uncalled for? Or warranted?
Here is one of the earliest reactions to the octuplets story, taking root in Georgia.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
14 Babies for a Single Mom
So, the news this week that a 33-year-old unmarried woman in California delivered eight babies -- with six already at home with grandparents -- is obviously creating a frenzy of conversation. In the media. On the Choice Mom discussion board.
One version of the story is here.
Undoubtedly this will lead to speculation about where ethically the line should be drawn. Some certainly want it drawn tight -- only a husband and a wife should be allowed to have children together. Others loosen it slightly. Not many feel there should be no lines drawn at all when the well-being of a child is concerned. But who decides? And at one point is it drawn?
Should there be a limit to age of a parent? Is 50 too old to start? What about the women we've seen in the news delivering babies at 60? Is it only the women who are "too old?" What about when men father children in later years, Charlie Chaplin style? Is that more acceptable? And if so, why?
In adoption, some countries reject applicants who are obese, or who smoke, or who already have children.
Certainly many places reject lesbians and gay individuals and couples as being "unfit" parents (even though research tends to indicate this is not true).
So, drawing lines is not an easy matter.
On the Choice Mom board, the story has kept us busy. Most of us consider it unethical for a single woman to be allowed treatment to implant multiple embryos when she already has six children at home. Here are a few excerpts of our varied opinions.
"I work in the pediatric ICU as a nurse practitioner and I have seen the effects of prematurity (both health issues for the children as well as the economic consequences for hospitals). I hate to pass judgment but it is soooooo hard to not when we are in a community that is struggling as single moms to provide the best environment for children. I am very shocked at the apparent lack of thoughtfulness on either the mom or the fertility doctor. I am glad *I* had an ethics consult when I was getting started. I am not saying no single woman should have more than 6 kids, but I think her situation is very concerning. Living in a 3-bedroom house with her parents."
Here's a CNN article about it.
Said another:
"I hate to be judgmental, but I really think this is very irresponsible, with or without a dad in the picture. I would not think of bringing even one child into this world if I was having trouble supporting myself and my current obligations financially."
"...And all that is said with complete respect to a mother's choice not to reduce or abort for any personal, ethical or religious reasons (except that if she used fertility drugs, I would PERSONALLY consider it hypocritical not to use medical means to reduce the number of fetuses in order to improve the lives of the remaining ones, since using medication in such a way, probably without proper medical supervision, is already a risky step outside the realm of natural / religious circumstances)."
Another:
It does affect society's view of our path. This woman's path is different. We support bringing into the world kids that we are prepared to support financially and provide loving care to. We support responsible medical ethics in using assisted reproduction. This will have an impact on the entire industry and maybe on our choices, too. It is hard to conjure up a scenario in which this is a justifiable choice."
Another (note that the eighth baby was a surprise during delivery; the mother chose not to abort any of the seven known children):
"I draw the line where parents inflict harm on their children. Attempting to carry 8 babies to full term is risky and almost guarantees that at least some of them will not have healthy lives. Same goes for drinking or using drugs while pregnant. I also draw the line where parents put themselves in a position where they are unable to meet their obligation to their children: to provide each and every child with sufficient love, attention, care and guidance, in reasonable living conditions."
"I think that having a baby as a single mom is a debatable topic (with people on both sides of the fence, which is fine). Having 14 children when you cannot adequately provide for them is not. It'll be interesting to see the story unfold. See what her motives were in trying IVF, who the sperm came from, where the money for IVF came from, how she expects to support these 14 kids, if she ends up with her own "+14" tv show. The women on this discussion board put so much thought into having children. We're well prepared, we've done our research, we've got money in the bank. Imagine if everyone put this much thought into having babies. Every kid would (hopefully) know just how much he/she was wanted and is loved. Ah, utopia."
This smart advice:
"Before you undergo the process, you really should consider what you would do if you found yourself pregnant with multiples, especially high order ones. Since many of us wind up using ovulation-stimulating drugs or IVF, our risks are higher. You should have thought through the options beforehand so you have a fair sense of what you would do in certain situations, rather than wait until it's thrust upon you and you have to make a quick call in an already stressful and hormonal place.
"I decided early on that I could not do anything to increase my chances for multiples. All of my planning and my understanding of my resources (financial and emotional) told me that I could really only handle one as a single parent. I would have liked more than one child, but at this point unless Prince Charming does pop into my life in the next year or so, that's not going to happen."
And:
"It is hard for me not to "judge" as I see things from a medical standpoint. I don't know how many of you have been in a NICU and have see the heartbreak I have. You always hear the wonderful stories of how well premature babies do, rarely do people talk of the grief and sadness that can and does happen all too often. Sometimes being alive is not living. I do not know why someone with six children would opt for IVF, OR have all embryos transferred. I try to be open-minded but I am enraged. There are so many ramifications that aren't medical."
On the other hand:
"I have been following this discussion with a certain amount of trepidation. Who are we to judge a woman's actions? How do you justify passing judgment on another when we ourselves are going against societal mores and rules pursuing our own paths? Where do you draw the line? Do you watch the TV show about 17 kids? Is THAT criminal? Do you decry the woman's choices because of her singlehood? Because of the idea she may have used injectibles or IVF to super-ovulate, or because she has so many children under 7? I can only say I am very glad I am not in her place. I know I would be having trouble managing 6 children, despite the fact that I have a supportive family, etc."
Here's a BioNews article about it, and the responsibility of the fertility doctor.
So...let's open it up in the more public forum. What do YOU think about this story?
And, does it make a difference to your thoughts if the woman is 33, or 25, or 40? Does it make a difference if she has a high school education, or is in her post-graduate studies? Does it make a difference if she has the means of financial support for all of her children?
One version of the story is here.
Undoubtedly this will lead to speculation about where ethically the line should be drawn. Some certainly want it drawn tight -- only a husband and a wife should be allowed to have children together. Others loosen it slightly. Not many feel there should be no lines drawn at all when the well-being of a child is concerned. But who decides? And at one point is it drawn?
Should there be a limit to age of a parent? Is 50 too old to start? What about the women we've seen in the news delivering babies at 60? Is it only the women who are "too old?" What about when men father children in later years, Charlie Chaplin style? Is that more acceptable? And if so, why?
In adoption, some countries reject applicants who are obese, or who smoke, or who already have children.
Certainly many places reject lesbians and gay individuals and couples as being "unfit" parents (even though research tends to indicate this is not true).
So, drawing lines is not an easy matter.
On the Choice Mom board, the story has kept us busy. Most of us consider it unethical for a single woman to be allowed treatment to implant multiple embryos when she already has six children at home. Here are a few excerpts of our varied opinions.
"I work in the pediatric ICU as a nurse practitioner and I have seen the effects of prematurity (both health issues for the children as well as the economic consequences for hospitals). I hate to pass judgment but it is soooooo hard to not when we are in a community that is struggling as single moms to provide the best environment for children. I am very shocked at the apparent lack of thoughtfulness on either the mom or the fertility doctor. I am glad *I* had an ethics consult when I was getting started. I am not saying no single woman should have more than 6 kids, but I think her situation is very concerning. Living in a 3-bedroom house with her parents."
Here's a CNN article about it.
Said another:
"I hate to be judgmental, but I really think this is very irresponsible, with or without a dad in the picture. I would not think of bringing even one child into this world if I was having trouble supporting myself and my current obligations financially."
"...And all that is said with complete respect to a mother's choice not to reduce or abort for any personal, ethical or religious reasons (except that if she used fertility drugs, I would PERSONALLY consider it hypocritical not to use medical means to reduce the number of fetuses in order to improve the lives of the remaining ones, since using medication in such a way, probably without proper medical supervision, is already a risky step outside the realm of natural / religious circumstances)."
Another:
It does affect society's view of our path. This woman's path is different. We support bringing into the world kids that we are prepared to support financially and provide loving care to. We support responsible medical ethics in using assisted reproduction. This will have an impact on the entire industry and maybe on our choices, too. It is hard to conjure up a scenario in which this is a justifiable choice."
Another (note that the eighth baby was a surprise during delivery; the mother chose not to abort any of the seven known children):
"I draw the line where parents inflict harm on their children. Attempting to carry 8 babies to full term is risky and almost guarantees that at least some of them will not have healthy lives. Same goes for drinking or using drugs while pregnant. I also draw the line where parents put themselves in a position where they are unable to meet their obligation to their children: to provide each and every child with sufficient love, attention, care and guidance, in reasonable living conditions."
"I think that having a baby as a single mom is a debatable topic (with people on both sides of the fence, which is fine). Having 14 children when you cannot adequately provide for them is not. It'll be interesting to see the story unfold. See what her motives were in trying IVF, who the sperm came from, where the money for IVF came from, how she expects to support these 14 kids, if she ends up with her own "+14" tv show. The women on this discussion board put so much thought into having children. We're well prepared, we've done our research, we've got money in the bank. Imagine if everyone put this much thought into having babies. Every kid would (hopefully) know just how much he/she was wanted and is loved. Ah, utopia."
This smart advice:
"Before you undergo the process, you really should consider what you would do if you found yourself pregnant with multiples, especially high order ones. Since many of us wind up using ovulation-stimulating drugs or IVF, our risks are higher. You should have thought through the options beforehand so you have a fair sense of what you would do in certain situations, rather than wait until it's thrust upon you and you have to make a quick call in an already stressful and hormonal place.
"I decided early on that I could not do anything to increase my chances for multiples. All of my planning and my understanding of my resources (financial and emotional) told me that I could really only handle one as a single parent. I would have liked more than one child, but at this point unless Prince Charming does pop into my life in the next year or so, that's not going to happen."
And:
"It is hard for me not to "judge" as I see things from a medical standpoint. I don't know how many of you have been in a NICU and have see the heartbreak I have. You always hear the wonderful stories of how well premature babies do, rarely do people talk of the grief and sadness that can and does happen all too often. Sometimes being alive is not living. I do not know why someone with six children would opt for IVF, OR have all embryos transferred. I try to be open-minded but I am enraged. There are so many ramifications that aren't medical."
On the other hand:
"I have been following this discussion with a certain amount of trepidation. Who are we to judge a woman's actions? How do you justify passing judgment on another when we ourselves are going against societal mores and rules pursuing our own paths? Where do you draw the line? Do you watch the TV show about 17 kids? Is THAT criminal? Do you decry the woman's choices because of her singlehood? Because of the idea she may have used injectibles or IVF to super-ovulate, or because she has so many children under 7? I can only say I am very glad I am not in her place. I know I would be having trouble managing 6 children, despite the fact that I have a supportive family, etc."
Here's a BioNews article about it, and the responsibility of the fertility doctor.
So...let's open it up in the more public forum. What do YOU think about this story?
And, does it make a difference to your thoughts if the woman is 33, or 25, or 40? Does it make a difference if she has a high school education, or is in her post-graduate studies? Does it make a difference if she has the means of financial support for all of her children?
Saturday, January 10, 2009
In response to Ann Coulter
submitted to Huffington Post
For those of you not attuned to every attention-getting proclamation of Ann Coulter, she recently went on a 3.5-minute rant on “The Today Show” (Wednesday, January 7) about why single motherhood is the root of evil in society today.
An old argument, defended in an old way. Largely focused on statistics about the pregnant teens, rapists and murderers who were raised by single mothers. Any societal problem, she said, is “really a problem of single mothers.” This is not an outrageous statement, she added, but a fact. And it’s the exultation of single motherhood in the media and movies, courts destroying the institution of marriage, and children raised without fathers that is filling up our prisons.
One thing you have to say for Ann – she does provocative bullet-point copy well.
As the moderator of a discussion group with more than 900 single women who are proactively CHOOSING to become mothers without a father in the home, and founder of the ChoiceMoms.org website, I can tell you that the TV clip was passed around quickly in our community.
First, my own soapbox: Obviously it’s so easy to think it simply has something to do with how many parents are home – quantity, not quality – rather than think any more deeply about what is going on in the home. Why are those mothers single? Why is there no father?
I presume Ann hasn’t waltzed into a prison lately to ask WHY those rapists and murderers are there. What was it about the single-mom home that led them astray? Mom working two jobs to make ends meet and not being home to set curfews? A father’s rejection and abandonment? A caretaker who was immature, depressed, focused on self to the exclusion of all others? Too much exposure to an alcoholic or abusive parent?
I happen to know, from my own suburban childhood, three people who have been jailed for assault, murder and attempted rape. Each of them came from a stable two-parent home. There’s obviously no clear-cut answer to the complexities of a person’s psyche.
It might be scary for some to admit, but having specific rules – one biological father and one biological mother in the home to raise children for 18 years – is no guarantee of anything.
Second, people who proactively choose to become a parent on their own – such as the tens of thousands of Choice Moms (aka single mothers by choice) -- are NOT doing a disservice to society. Our children are generally confident, strong-minded people who benefit from attentive, loving, disciplined parenting.
Some of us do struggle financially, especially these days. Some of us do struggle emotionally and logistically with the lack of a partner in our life. But there is a big difference between someone who can “deal” with these struggles, and someone who cannot.
Although more Choice Moms are starting families on our own in our 20s (this surprises me, but it is a trend I’m seeing in my membership), we are not victims to any circumstance other than the fact that we didn’t have a partner around when it was time to build our family.
A professional survey of more than 500 Choice Moms, conducted last year and to be officially released in a few months, reveals that a majority of us have postgraduate college degrees. Most of us saved money and found housing in a stronger neighborhood before becoming parents on our own. Most of us don’t consider single parenting to be any more difficult than it is for other parents. Most of us consider it very important for our children to have male role models.
We argue with each other about everything from home-schooling to breast-feeding – we tend to be strong-minded women with strong values that are not shared by everyone in the community.
We include women like Arlene, the politically conservative Choice Mom of a five-year-old daughter, who shared this with me:
Now that is a reasonable voice I can listen to. Too bad there aren’t more non-celebritized voices like Arlene’s filling space with the “liberal” media, otherwise all of us could truly get greater perspectives on “the other side” of issues.
My final point to share is this: Of course all children should be surrounded by people who love them, who protect them, who teach them discipline and respect, who notice when they’re struggling. It’s great when they have a mother, and a father, and a grandparent, and family friends, and teachers, and other role models to do this. No one should be raised by simply one person, or two people.
The ChoiceMoms.org website this month, in fact, looks at the amazing support we give and receive from our wider community. Including, in webcast form, the fun anecdote of how four single women delivered two babies in 24 hours. And, in blog form, the story of a D.C. single mothers by choice group that is rallying around a newborn whose mother unexpectedly died of pregnancy complications. And, in podcast form, the strong women who are learning how to ask for help and reach out to a wider circle to add to their life and that of their children.
There is no weakness in becoming part of a larger whole. We are not supposed to be isolated individuals living in cocoons of our own making. We are ALL, single and married parents and non-parents, supposed to be here for each other, raising strong children together.
Hopefully, someday, Ann will discover this and write a new book about that.
For those of you not attuned to every attention-getting proclamation of Ann Coulter, she recently went on a 3.5-minute rant on “The Today Show” (Wednesday, January 7) about why single motherhood is the root of evil in society today.
An old argument, defended in an old way. Largely focused on statistics about the pregnant teens, rapists and murderers who were raised by single mothers. Any societal problem, she said, is “really a problem of single mothers.” This is not an outrageous statement, she added, but a fact. And it’s the exultation of single motherhood in the media and movies, courts destroying the institution of marriage, and children raised without fathers that is filling up our prisons.
One thing you have to say for Ann – she does provocative bullet-point copy well.
As the moderator of a discussion group with more than 900 single women who are proactively CHOOSING to become mothers without a father in the home, and founder of the ChoiceMoms.org website, I can tell you that the TV clip was passed around quickly in our community.
First, my own soapbox: Obviously it’s so easy to think it simply has something to do with how many parents are home – quantity, not quality – rather than think any more deeply about what is going on in the home. Why are those mothers single? Why is there no father?
I presume Ann hasn’t waltzed into a prison lately to ask WHY those rapists and murderers are there. What was it about the single-mom home that led them astray? Mom working two jobs to make ends meet and not being home to set curfews? A father’s rejection and abandonment? A caretaker who was immature, depressed, focused on self to the exclusion of all others? Too much exposure to an alcoholic or abusive parent?
I happen to know, from my own suburban childhood, three people who have been jailed for assault, murder and attempted rape. Each of them came from a stable two-parent home. There’s obviously no clear-cut answer to the complexities of a person’s psyche.
It might be scary for some to admit, but having specific rules – one biological father and one biological mother in the home to raise children for 18 years – is no guarantee of anything.
Second, people who proactively choose to become a parent on their own – such as the tens of thousands of Choice Moms (aka single mothers by choice) -- are NOT doing a disservice to society. Our children are generally confident, strong-minded people who benefit from attentive, loving, disciplined parenting.
Some of us do struggle financially, especially these days. Some of us do struggle emotionally and logistically with the lack of a partner in our life. But there is a big difference between someone who can “deal” with these struggles, and someone who cannot.
Although more Choice Moms are starting families on our own in our 20s (this surprises me, but it is a trend I’m seeing in my membership), we are not victims to any circumstance other than the fact that we didn’t have a partner around when it was time to build our family.
A professional survey of more than 500 Choice Moms, conducted last year and to be officially released in a few months, reveals that a majority of us have postgraduate college degrees. Most of us saved money and found housing in a stronger neighborhood before becoming parents on our own. Most of us don’t consider single parenting to be any more difficult than it is for other parents. Most of us consider it very important for our children to have male role models.
We argue with each other about everything from home-schooling to breast-feeding – we tend to be strong-minded women with strong values that are not shared by everyone in the community.
We include women like Arlene, the politically conservative Choice Mom of a five-year-old daughter, who shared this with me:
“I enjoy reading Anne Coulter since I think she is a gifted writer, has a sharp wit, makes brilliant observations and is not held back by the PC police. One of the issues I agree with her about is her view on the children of single mothers having more problems than their peers. However, Ann is NOT referring to all kids of single moms -- certainly not to the offspring of mature, intelligent, financially secure women.
“I had a child on my own for one reason: a loudly ticking biological clock and an intense wish (need?) to be a biological mom. I can always get married (at least it's in the realm of possibility), but the clock waits for no one when it comes to childbearing. I do not think it is optimal for a child to be born to a single mom. However, I think a single mom can do a great job of raising a child (as many have in various sets of circumstances through the ages). But I would be in deep denial if I thought the absence of a father will not have an impact on the life of a child.
“I tend to run in conservative circles. However, I have not had one negative comment about my choice. When presented in an honest and forthright manner, who wouldn't understand? Everyone knows that there's a lack of desirable marriage-minded (particularly Jewish) guys, so who can blame us?”
Now that is a reasonable voice I can listen to. Too bad there aren’t more non-celebritized voices like Arlene’s filling space with the “liberal” media, otherwise all of us could truly get greater perspectives on “the other side” of issues.
My final point to share is this: Of course all children should be surrounded by people who love them, who protect them, who teach them discipline and respect, who notice when they’re struggling. It’s great when they have a mother, and a father, and a grandparent, and family friends, and teachers, and other role models to do this. No one should be raised by simply one person, or two people.
The ChoiceMoms.org website this month, in fact, looks at the amazing support we give and receive from our wider community. Including, in webcast form, the fun anecdote of how four single women delivered two babies in 24 hours. And, in blog form, the story of a D.C. single mothers by choice group that is rallying around a newborn whose mother unexpectedly died of pregnancy complications. And, in podcast form, the strong women who are learning how to ask for help and reach out to a wider circle to add to their life and that of their children.
There is no weakness in becoming part of a larger whole. We are not supposed to be isolated individuals living in cocoons of our own making. We are ALL, single and married parents and non-parents, supposed to be here for each other, raising strong children together.
Hopefully, someday, Ann will discover this and write a new book about that.
Monday, January 05, 2009
Tragedy reminds us about being prepared
I just learned that a 40-year-old Choice Mom-in-the-making, who lived in the D.C. area, suddenly died Christmas Day while 32.5-weeks pregnant, from the very rare pregnancy complication of HELLPS (Hemolytic anemia, Elevated Liver enzymes, and Low Platelet count).
Her baby boy was born safely, but she did not get to meet him.
On SO many levels this is tragic and makes all of us in the Choice Mom community stop with a collective gasp and remember what a blessing it is that all of us are here to enjoy the friends and family that surround us.
There are two silver linings in this woman's story.
One is that she was connected to her local Single Mothers by Choice community, which is now contributing to a trust fund in her son's name. Choice Moms is now beginning the steps toward establishing a fundraising event to involve our worldwide community. I'll continue to post here as this develops.
The second silver lining is that she was as prepared as anyone can be for this kind of tragedy.
This woman already had a guardian picked out, life insurance, and a will prepared. But most of us don't have this level of foresight, especially when we are so eager to conceive, deliver and embark on motherhood for the first time.
Choice Moms wants to help all of us become better educated about the importance of these steps BEFORE you plan to bring a child home. As Jessica, who told me about this woman's story, pointed out, many insurance companies won't give you insurance if you are pregnant.
Who wants to help us on this fundraising and awareness mission?
Her baby boy was born safely, but she did not get to meet him.
On SO many levels this is tragic and makes all of us in the Choice Mom community stop with a collective gasp and remember what a blessing it is that all of us are here to enjoy the friends and family that surround us.
There are two silver linings in this woman's story.
One is that she was connected to her local Single Mothers by Choice community, which is now contributing to a trust fund in her son's name. Choice Moms is now beginning the steps toward establishing a fundraising event to involve our worldwide community. I'll continue to post here as this develops.
The second silver lining is that she was as prepared as anyone can be for this kind of tragedy.
This woman already had a guardian picked out, life insurance, and a will prepared. But most of us don't have this level of foresight, especially when we are so eager to conceive, deliver and embark on motherhood for the first time.
Choice Moms wants to help all of us become better educated about the importance of these steps BEFORE you plan to bring a child home. As Jessica, who told me about this woman's story, pointed out, many insurance companies won't give you insurance if you are pregnant.
Who wants to help us on this fundraising and awareness mission?
Thursday, December 04, 2008
women over 40, not wanting sausage :-)
Although this is misattributed to 60 Minutes correspondent Andy Rooney, the words about women over 40 pretty well describe many Choice Moms I know, even the ones younger than 40 who just don't want to deal anymore with pleasantries of domestic bliss. :-)
(You can find out who actually wrote the words, and when, at Snopes)
As I grow in age, I value women over 40 most of all. Here are just a few reasons why:
A woman over 40 will never wake you in the middle of the night and ask, 'What are you thinking?' She doesn't care what you think. If a woman over 40 doesn't want to watch the game, she doesn't sit around whining about it. She does something she wants to do, and it's usually more interesting. Women over 40 are dignified. They seldom have a screaming match with you at the opera or in the middle of an expensive restaurant. Of course, if you deserve it, they won't hesitate to shoot you if they think they can get away with it. Older women are generous with praise, often undeserved. They know what it's like to be unappreciated. Women get psychic as they age. You never have to confess your sins to a woman over 40. Once you get past a wrinkle or two, a woman over 40 is far sexier than her younger counterpart. Older women are forthright and honest. They'll tell you right off if you are a jerk if you are acting like one . You don't ever have to wonder where you stand with her. Yes, we praise women over 40 for a multitude of reasons Unfortunately, it's not reciprocal. For every stunning, smart, well-coiffed, hot woman over 40, there is a bald, paunchy relic in yellow pants making a fool of himself with some 22-year old waitress. Ladies, I apologize.
For all those men who say, 'Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?', here's an up date for you. Nowadays 80% of women are against marriage Why? Because women realize it's not worth buying an entire pig just to get a little sausage!
(You can find out who actually wrote the words, and when, at Snopes)
As I grow in age, I value women over 40 most of all. Here are just a few reasons why:
A woman over 40 will never wake you in the middle of the night and ask, 'What are you thinking?' She doesn't care what you think. If a woman over 40 doesn't want to watch the game, she doesn't sit around whining about it. She does something she wants to do, and it's usually more interesting. Women over 40 are dignified. They seldom have a screaming match with you at the opera or in the middle of an expensive restaurant. Of course, if you deserve it, they won't hesitate to shoot you if they think they can get away with it. Older women are generous with praise, often undeserved. They know what it's like to be unappreciated. Women get psychic as they age. You never have to confess your sins to a woman over 40. Once you get past a wrinkle or two, a woman over 40 is far sexier than her younger counterpart. Older women are forthright and honest. They'll tell you right off if you are a jerk if you are acting like one . You don't ever have to wonder where you stand with her. Yes, we praise women over 40 for a multitude of reasons Unfortunately, it's not reciprocal. For every stunning, smart, well-coiffed, hot woman over 40, there is a bald, paunchy relic in yellow pants making a fool of himself with some 22-year old waitress. Ladies, I apologize.
For all those men who say, 'Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?', here's an up date for you. Nowadays 80% of women are against marriage Why? Because women realize it's not worth buying an entire pig just to get a little sausage!
Friday, November 14, 2008
Are we single by choice, or chance?
I recently had a brief chat with a young man who, like many do, presumed that Choice Motherhood is a conscious decision to be SINGLE and a mom, rather than to consciously become a MOM who happens to be single.
Since he's in an interesting orbit of new young friends I seem to have connected with recently -- and thus I actually KNOW him personally -- I felt the need to correct his perception rather than let it slide as an errant comment.
But it did remind me of a debate that was on the Choice Mom board not long ago. One fairly young woman who was still dating in the hopes of finding a mate before she pursued motherhood made the comment that no one would really CHOOSE to become a single mom.
And it sparked, of course, a mini-firestorm of posts, reflecting a variety of views about whether we are single by choice, or by chance.
Some of us are single because we want to be.
Some of us are single because we haven't been properly inspired to marry someone.
Some of us are single because no one has properly been inspired to marry us.
Some of us are single because a serious relationship ended and we haven't yet been able to develop a new one.
Many of us become single moms because it seems a better option than being a childless woman.
Here are a few of the perspectives that were shared on the board:
Catherine joked:
I personally would rather have a husband IF and ONLY IF he was ridiculously good-looking, fantastically witty, full of joie de vivre and could be readily stored in a freezer when I was sick of him; I would also prefer a man with an athletic physique coupled with psychic powers, a peerless sensitivity, and the ability to turn into a pizza when I was hungry. I know I am being flippant, but there's no harm in my admitting to being fussy. Let's face it, there are absolutely loads of men out there who seem like Mr Wrong to me. Mr. Perfect probably doesn't exist, but dreaming is great fun, as long as you get on with your life's business simultaneously...
Natalie added:
Frankly, I never even thought about this until this discussion today. If you had asked me BEFORE I became a Choice Mom, I would have THOUGHT that I'd prefer to have a partner to raise children with. But now that I think about it, in the actuality of parenting my daughter for the last almost three years, I really do not think that is my preference. I really love our family and its dynamic, small as we are. I'm sure it is in part revisionist history on my part, perhaps subconsciously making peace with my life, but I have a hard time even imagining it any other way.
I love the time my daughter and I spend together and don't relish the thought of dividing my time and attention to another person. When I speak with my friends with children and partners about family life, I no longer have even a twinge of "I wish I had that" (though I sure did before my daughter came to me). Perhaps it is the "control freak" part of me, but I like not having to negotiate (or argue) with another person about parenting decisions. I am really happy with things the way they are. Whatever standards I had for a man when I was "single" (funny, I actually no longer think of myself that way), that bar is so much higher now. He would REALLY have to add value to my/our life. Anyway, just musing on a rainy Tuesday afternoon, and joining the group who do not "wish I had a partner to share this journey with." Who would have thought?
What about you? If you don't yet have a child, do you wish you had a partner -- or not? (And I know a fellow Choice Mom-in-the-making who is interested, like I am, in doing some research with women in their 20s for whom this is becoming a first choice...we'd like to know why.)
If you are now a Choice Mom, have your feelings about being partnered changed?
Since he's in an interesting orbit of new young friends I seem to have connected with recently -- and thus I actually KNOW him personally -- I felt the need to correct his perception rather than let it slide as an errant comment.
But it did remind me of a debate that was on the Choice Mom board not long ago. One fairly young woman who was still dating in the hopes of finding a mate before she pursued motherhood made the comment that no one would really CHOOSE to become a single mom.
And it sparked, of course, a mini-firestorm of posts, reflecting a variety of views about whether we are single by choice, or by chance.
Some of us are single because we want to be.
Some of us are single because we haven't been properly inspired to marry someone.
Some of us are single because no one has properly been inspired to marry us.
Some of us are single because a serious relationship ended and we haven't yet been able to develop a new one.
Many of us become single moms because it seems a better option than being a childless woman.
Here are a few of the perspectives that were shared on the board:
Catherine joked:
I personally would rather have a husband IF and ONLY IF he was ridiculously good-looking, fantastically witty, full of joie de vivre and could be readily stored in a freezer when I was sick of him; I would also prefer a man with an athletic physique coupled with psychic powers, a peerless sensitivity, and the ability to turn into a pizza when I was hungry. I know I am being flippant, but there's no harm in my admitting to being fussy. Let's face it, there are absolutely loads of men out there who seem like Mr Wrong to me. Mr. Perfect probably doesn't exist, but dreaming is great fun, as long as you get on with your life's business simultaneously...
Natalie added:
Frankly, I never even thought about this until this discussion today. If you had asked me BEFORE I became a Choice Mom, I would have THOUGHT that I'd prefer to have a partner to raise children with. But now that I think about it, in the actuality of parenting my daughter for the last almost three years, I really do not think that is my preference. I really love our family and its dynamic, small as we are. I'm sure it is in part revisionist history on my part, perhaps subconsciously making peace with my life, but I have a hard time even imagining it any other way.
I love the time my daughter and I spend together and don't relish the thought of dividing my time and attention to another person. When I speak with my friends with children and partners about family life, I no longer have even a twinge of "I wish I had that" (though I sure did before my daughter came to me). Perhaps it is the "control freak" part of me, but I like not having to negotiate (or argue) with another person about parenting decisions. I am really happy with things the way they are. Whatever standards I had for a man when I was "single" (funny, I actually no longer think of myself that way), that bar is so much higher now. He would REALLY have to add value to my/our life. Anyway, just musing on a rainy Tuesday afternoon, and joining the group who do not "wish I had a partner to share this journey with." Who would have thought?
What about you? If you don't yet have a child, do you wish you had a partner -- or not? (And I know a fellow Choice Mom-in-the-making who is interested, like I am, in doing some research with women in their 20s for whom this is becoming a first choice...we'd like to know why.)
If you are now a Choice Mom, have your feelings about being partnered changed?
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Creating out-of-the-box friendships with men
One of the lengthier discussions on the Choice Mom board this past week has been an unusual one for us. A woman remarked that as a single woman marching toward her own goals, she was noticing a pattern that she seemed to be considered threatening to certain married couples.
It launched an interesting conversation on the board, with various perspectives. Some women believe going out to lunch with a married boss is inappropriate (one of the situations that precipitated the original post). Some believe it's inappropriate only if the woman herself has feelings toward the boss (which she didn't). Some believe it's inappropriate only if the spouse has issues with it (as she reportedly did). Some women believe it's the couples responsibility to communicate about their trust issues, and the woman shouldn't have to be the moral arbiter.
There are any number of perspectives, of course. And while this might not seem like a Choice Mom issue, it actually does become one after you have kids. Because all of us do want strong role models for our children. All of us do need to continue to balance our lives with friendships and social interactions that don't always include the children, but aren't necessarily limited to dating and girl's nights either.
Navigating our friendships with men -- including married ones who might be the fathers of our kids' friends and thus part of our playdate scene, and men who might be good companions socially, without being a "date" or "love interest"-- is something we will continue to do as single moms.
Our perspectives always vary, of course, based on personal experiences.
Me...I've always had more platonic male friends than girlfriends. I grew up a tomboy in an all-boy neighborhood. I had seven poker buddies in high school (we eventually referred to each other as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves). I became a sportswriter in my first life. My longest-lasting BFF friendship is with a gay man I've known since 9th grade. My favorite roommate of all time, and the friendship I miss the most (he's in LA now), is a guy I did nearly everything with for a few years -- and we never crossed the platonic line.
Having grown up with so many male friendships, I'm just naturally more comfortable with men than women -- which is ironic in a way, since my work now is so focused on women and motherhood.
On the married man front, it is sometimes tricky to navigate friendship with someone else's mate. And I agree fully that if a partner is having issues, it is up to that couple to communicate and respect what it is so that trust can be maintained -- or deeper issues dealt with. And there are times when it's clear you have to back away.
Right now two of the best male role models in my kids' life are married men whose spouses love the fact that I am generally the Sunday afternoon playdate with their husbands and our kids so they can have hours to themselves. One of the wives has asked if we can simply make it a regular outing. And now another Choice Mom and her two kids have generally joined the gang: four adults, seven kids, occasionally a grandfather....a great combo.
The Choice Mom and I have talked about the fact that WE don't have the same option to "hand off" parenting duty on a weekend day. But we don't mind. And we have some babysitting co-op time with the moms during the week. It's been a great balance, and we love the opportunities it gives our kids to have such regular contact with very involved, active dads. Without the "messiness" of it becoming a more complicated relationship.
It also is a circumstance of my current social life that the easiest evening interaction I can have without kids is with a single man who is many years younger than I am. He happens to be a night person, with no child or spouse to be home for. My young housemates both tend to take night classes, or work, until about 9 pm, so my childcare time tends not to happen until the kids are ready for bed. So it is the most logical combination of demographics that -- since I don't want to "date" or get involved in a major relationship, or go out one-on-one with my married male friends -- and since my women friends right now tend to be married moms who don't want to go out at night, this young single man has become my outlet to balance out the Mom time.
We all need to find the friendships that balance out our lives. Some might look askance when we seem to be stepping outside of borders, as if friendships can be only with women, only with people our own age, only with single moms.
We don't always "fit" into boxes when we are single women with children we opted consciously to have without a partner. Making the choice to parent alone is one way to raise eyebrows. But it won't be the only one.
The more comfortable we are with drawing boundaries that work for us, that don't encroach on someone else's, the happier and more balanced we will continue to be.
It launched an interesting conversation on the board, with various perspectives. Some women believe going out to lunch with a married boss is inappropriate (one of the situations that precipitated the original post). Some believe it's inappropriate only if the woman herself has feelings toward the boss (which she didn't). Some believe it's inappropriate only if the spouse has issues with it (as she reportedly did). Some women believe it's the couples responsibility to communicate about their trust issues, and the woman shouldn't have to be the moral arbiter.
There are any number of perspectives, of course. And while this might not seem like a Choice Mom issue, it actually does become one after you have kids. Because all of us do want strong role models for our children. All of us do need to continue to balance our lives with friendships and social interactions that don't always include the children, but aren't necessarily limited to dating and girl's nights either.
Navigating our friendships with men -- including married ones who might be the fathers of our kids' friends and thus part of our playdate scene, and men who might be good companions socially, without being a "date" or "love interest"-- is something we will continue to do as single moms.
Our perspectives always vary, of course, based on personal experiences.
Me...I've always had more platonic male friends than girlfriends. I grew up a tomboy in an all-boy neighborhood. I had seven poker buddies in high school (we eventually referred to each other as Snow White and the Seven Dwarves). I became a sportswriter in my first life. My longest-lasting BFF friendship is with a gay man I've known since 9th grade. My favorite roommate of all time, and the friendship I miss the most (he's in LA now), is a guy I did nearly everything with for a few years -- and we never crossed the platonic line.
Having grown up with so many male friendships, I'm just naturally more comfortable with men than women -- which is ironic in a way, since my work now is so focused on women and motherhood.
On the married man front, it is sometimes tricky to navigate friendship with someone else's mate. And I agree fully that if a partner is having issues, it is up to that couple to communicate and respect what it is so that trust can be maintained -- or deeper issues dealt with. And there are times when it's clear you have to back away.
Right now two of the best male role models in my kids' life are married men whose spouses love the fact that I am generally the Sunday afternoon playdate with their husbands and our kids so they can have hours to themselves. One of the wives has asked if we can simply make it a regular outing. And now another Choice Mom and her two kids have generally joined the gang: four adults, seven kids, occasionally a grandfather....a great combo.
The Choice Mom and I have talked about the fact that WE don't have the same option to "hand off" parenting duty on a weekend day. But we don't mind. And we have some babysitting co-op time with the moms during the week. It's been a great balance, and we love the opportunities it gives our kids to have such regular contact with very involved, active dads. Without the "messiness" of it becoming a more complicated relationship.
It also is a circumstance of my current social life that the easiest evening interaction I can have without kids is with a single man who is many years younger than I am. He happens to be a night person, with no child or spouse to be home for. My young housemates both tend to take night classes, or work, until about 9 pm, so my childcare time tends not to happen until the kids are ready for bed. So it is the most logical combination of demographics that -- since I don't want to "date" or get involved in a major relationship, or go out one-on-one with my married male friends -- and since my women friends right now tend to be married moms who don't want to go out at night, this young single man has become my outlet to balance out the Mom time.
We all need to find the friendships that balance out our lives. Some might look askance when we seem to be stepping outside of borders, as if friendships can be only with women, only with people our own age, only with single moms.
We don't always "fit" into boxes when we are single women with children we opted consciously to have without a partner. Making the choice to parent alone is one way to raise eyebrows. But it won't be the only one.
The more comfortable we are with drawing boundaries that work for us, that don't encroach on someone else's, the happier and more balanced we will continue to be.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Study about changing family definitions
from BioNews
HALF OF WOMEN WOULD ASK A FRIEND TO FATHER THEIR CHILD :
By Katy Sinclair:
A survey of 3,103 men and women, conducted by vitamin supplement company
Vitabiotics, has found that 45 per cent of women surveyed would consider
asking a male friend to father their child in the absence of a suitable
partner.
The report by the company reveals that both men and women have concerns
about fertility issues, with two thirds of the women polled that were not in
current relationships expressing doubts over their ability to conceive
naturally, and 26 per cent of men voicing similar concerns.
Three quarters of those questioned thought that fertility issues could
cause serious problems within a relationship, possibly leading to a breakup,
while more than one in three men and women stated that they would reconsider
staying with a partner who could not conceive.
The most intriguing trend to come out of the survey was women's
willingness to consider alternative means to conception in the absence of a
suitable partner. Women between the ages of 28 and 31 were most likely to
entertain the idea of turning to a male friend in absence of a partner,
while half of the single female survey respondents thought about meeting a
partner on a frequent basis. Many women questioned also made it clear that
they would consider a 'second best' option in the event that they were
unable to find their 'ideal' partner.
Psychologist Linda Papadopoulos commented on the changing social norms
of parenting, which were challenging the conventional nuclear family unit.
She stated that 'reconstituted families, same sex families, and single
parents are much more prevalent these days, and rather than ascribing to the
'norm' it seems that women and men are more flexible with their definition
of 'family''.
- BBC News Online 16/9/2008 'Women consider 'friends as fathers' '
- BBC News Online:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/health/newsid_7617000/7617502.stm
- The Times 16/9/2008 'Half of women would ask man friend to father child
'
- The Times:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article4761173.ece
HALF OF WOMEN WOULD ASK A FRIEND TO FATHER THEIR CHILD :
By Katy Sinclair:
A survey of 3,103 men and women, conducted by vitamin supplement company
Vitabiotics, has found that 45 per cent of women surveyed would consider
asking a male friend to father their child in the absence of a suitable
partner.
The report by the company reveals that both men and women have concerns
about fertility issues, with two thirds of the women polled that were not in
current relationships expressing doubts over their ability to conceive
naturally, and 26 per cent of men voicing similar concerns.
Three quarters of those questioned thought that fertility issues could
cause serious problems within a relationship, possibly leading to a breakup,
while more than one in three men and women stated that they would reconsider
staying with a partner who could not conceive.
The most intriguing trend to come out of the survey was women's
willingness to consider alternative means to conception in the absence of a
suitable partner. Women between the ages of 28 and 31 were most likely to
entertain the idea of turning to a male friend in absence of a partner,
while half of the single female survey respondents thought about meeting a
partner on a frequent basis. Many women questioned also made it clear that
they would consider a 'second best' option in the event that they were
unable to find their 'ideal' partner.
Psychologist Linda Papadopoulos commented on the changing social norms
of parenting, which were challenging the conventional nuclear family unit.
She stated that 'reconstituted families, same sex families, and single
parents are much more prevalent these days, and rather than ascribing to the
'norm' it seems that women and men are more flexible with their definition
of 'family''.
- BBC News Online 16/9/2008 'Women consider 'friends as fathers' '
- BBC News Online:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/health/newsid_7617000/7617502.stm
- The Times 16/9/2008 'Half of women would ask man friend to father child
'
- The Times:
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article4761173.ece
Thursday, September 11, 2008
When women get stuck: one night stands, breakdowns
A radio caller in my local area recently went on the air to say she was interested in finding someone to sleep with her merely to help her conceive a baby that she would raise on her own.
Some weeks prior, another local woman -- a Choice Mom I have never come in contact with -- reportedly had a major breakdown and tried to kill her two adopted daughters. This after being hospitalized because she was afraid she was going to do harm, precipitated partly by great financial and obvious emotional stress.
Two depressing stories. Obviously of interest to the media. And not indicative of the Choice Mom community in general.
But it begs the question: How many single women ARE there who decide that the easiest, least expensive method to motherhood -- short of deciding to marry Mr. Good Enough -- is to have a one (or two- or three-) night stand?
And how many single moms around us are struggling and we don't even know because they haven't found us online or are afraid to speak it out loud?
Let's talk about it openly....publicly even....and help more women find out that the Choice Mom community exists to offer support and insight so that smart and safe decisions can be made on behalf of all of our children.
Some weeks prior, another local woman -- a Choice Mom I have never come in contact with -- reportedly had a major breakdown and tried to kill her two adopted daughters. This after being hospitalized because she was afraid she was going to do harm, precipitated partly by great financial and obvious emotional stress.
Two depressing stories. Obviously of interest to the media. And not indicative of the Choice Mom community in general.
But it begs the question: How many single women ARE there who decide that the easiest, least expensive method to motherhood -- short of deciding to marry Mr. Good Enough -- is to have a one (or two- or three-) night stand?
And how many single moms around us are struggling and we don't even know because they haven't found us online or are afraid to speak it out loud?
Let's talk about it openly....publicly even....and help more women find out that the Choice Mom community exists to offer support and insight so that smart and safe decisions can be made on behalf of all of our children.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Ban on unmarried adoptions cleared for Ark. ballot
By ANDREW DeMILLO, Associated Press
A proposal aimed at effectively banning gays and lesbians from becoming foster or adoptive parents was cleared Monday to appear on this fall's ballot in Arkansas. The measure would prohibit unmarried couples living together from fostering or adopting children.
Secretary of State Charlie Daniels certified the proposed initiated act for the Nov. 4 ballot after verifying that the Arkansas Family Council Action Committee had submitted 85,389 valid signatures of registered voters. Supporters needed to turn in at least 61,974 valid signatures.
"Arkansas needs to affirm the importance of married mothers and fathers," Family Council President Jerry Cox said. "We need to publicly affirm the gold standard of rearing children whenever we can. The state standard should be as close to that gold standard of married mom and dad homes as possible."
Saturday, August 23, 2008
gay/lesbian discrimination
Here's the latest discriminatory practice I learned about from American Fertility Association this week:
"Effective January 1, 2008, Honda Manufacturing of Alabama requests that Blue Cross and Blue Shield exclude domestic partners (same sex partners) from ART benefits including diagnostic services related to fertility/infertility that have a fertility or infertility diagnosis.
....
"Interestingly, two other related issues hit the news media this week. The California Supreme Court reached a unanimous verdict that physicians cannot use their religious beliefs as grounds to deny infertility treatment to gay and lesbian patients. And, singer Ricky Martin announced the birth of twin sons that were born with the assistance of a gestational surrogate."
"Effective January 1, 2008, Honda Manufacturing of Alabama requests that Blue Cross and Blue Shield exclude domestic partners (same sex partners) from ART benefits including diagnostic services related to fertility/infertility that have a fertility or infertility diagnosis.
....
"Interestingly, two other related issues hit the news media this week. The California Supreme Court reached a unanimous verdict that physicians cannot use their religious beliefs as grounds to deny infertility treatment to gay and lesbian patients. And, singer Ricky Martin announced the birth of twin sons that were born with the assistance of a gestational surrogate."
Monday, July 21, 2008
Christian debate: strong women, weak men?
Very interesting (long) article titled
http://sharperiron.org/2008/07/21/courageous-femininity-in-an-emasculated-culture-part-1/
Excerpt: "She is willing to respect the men in her life, only she silently cries out for a respectable man. Little by little the average Christian woman is coming to the conclusion that the men in her life are, in the main, boys in grownup bodies. And boys cannot be trusted with grownup matters."
Comments welcome here from those in the Christian community who want to discuss.
-- Mikki
The Biblical Challenge of Being a Strong Woman in a Weak Man’s World
written by Illinois baptist minister Bob Bixby.http://sharperiron.org/2008/07/21/courageous-femininity-in-an-emasculated-culture-part-1/
Excerpt: "She is willing to respect the men in her life, only she silently cries out for a respectable man. Little by little the average Christian woman is coming to the conclusion that the men in her life are, in the main, boys in grownup bodies. And boys cannot be trusted with grownup matters."
Comments welcome here from those in the Christian community who want to discuss.
-- Mikki
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
McCain and two-parent adoption
Let's talk about this here. It's not just gays and lesbians that should be outraged by this. It is, of course, a fact of life that roughly half of the country agree with him. Let's vent here about it....
Mikki
By DAVID CRARY, AP National WriterTue Jul 15, 3:44 PM ET
Advocates for gay and lesbian families are denouncing Sen. John McCain, an adoptive father himself, for opposing adoptions by gays, which prompted his presidential campaign to clarify Tuesday that he does not seek a federal ban on the practice. Only one state, Florida, outlaws gay adoptions, which have become commonplace in much of the nation.
The Republican nominee-in-waiting was asked for his views on the subject in an interview published Sunday in The New York Times.
"I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption," McCain replied.
McCain then remarked that he and his wife, Cindy, were proud to be adoptive parents of a daughter born in Bangladesh, and he encouraged others to adopt. Asked if those adopting should be a "traditional couple," McCain answered, "Yes."
The responses were condemned by gay and lesbian groups.
"He's completely out of touch," said Kara Suffredini, public policy director for the Family Equality Council. "There's no reason, except for the sake of red meat for his base, to throw up screens in the way of children in foster care getting homes."
Jody Huckaby, executive director of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, said McCain's comments were especially dismaying because more than 100,000 children are in foster care waiting to be adopted.
"Sen. McCain would deny loving homes to children who desperately need them simply because of an outdated prejudice about what a family may look like," Huckaby said.
On Tuesday, as criticism of McCain's comments spread, his campaign elaborated on the candidate's views.
...An estimated 65,000 children have been adopted by gays and lesbians, according to advocacy groups. The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychiatric Association and the National Association of Social Workers, among other groups, have expressed support for gay adoptions.
"It is an insult to these professionals and the children whom they represent to suggest that the door should be closed to people other than a 'traditional' married couple," said Ellen Kahn, who coordinates family-related projects for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group.
Adam Pertman, executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, said McCain "needs to read the research and rethink his comments."
"His implication is that every adopted child should have a mother and father," Pertman added. "That may be the ideal, but if we stick to it, we would have far fewer homes for kids. Single people — gay and straight — represent a significant number of adoptive parents."
States have widely varying laws regarding adoption by same-sex couples, but only Florida has a law explicitly banning gays and lesbians from adopting as individuals.
Conservative activists in Arkansas have been working to get a similar ban on the ballot in November, but have struggled to generate public support. Earlier this month, they turned in a petition with 65,899 signatures — only slightly more than the required number and well under the initial goal of 100,000 signatures.
Recent national polls suggest that support for the concept of gay adoption is growing. A 2006 poll by the Pew Research Center found a near-even split on the issue; a 2007 poll by CNN and Opinion Research Corp. said 57 percent of respondents felt gays should have the right to adopt, while 40 percent said they shouldn't.
A gay adoptive father in Atlanta, Ken Manford, said he and his partner have felt strong support and acceptance from neighbors and acquaintances since they adopted a son from Guatemala nearly seven years ago.
"If Sen. McCain came and sat down with us, I'd tell him we've proven that both parents are important in our family," Manford said. "It doesn't matter that both those parents are men."
McCain's Democratic rival, Barack Obama, supports adoption rights for gays and lesbians.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Gasping at single living
from Ruth
It seems that the older I get (and I’m hardly old at 33!!) the more people are baffled by my single status and the more I have to contend with their bizarre questions about my “lifestyle”. I was recently at a friend’s wedding and was having a conversation with one of the guests (a married man) and when he found out that I was single, he was absolutely stunned that I had somehow managed to buy my own home and (gasp!) a car as well! And then (here’s the kicker) he inquired as to whether I had a job!
I almost felt like saying "No, I just beg for money on the street". It's just so ridiculous, I am far more likely to have a job than a married woman! Who does he think supports me?? Daddy?? He just couldn’t seem to believe that a woman can successfully live without a man. And the funny thing was that while I was talking to him, I was thinking to myself "Boy, if only you knew what I was planning for next year!" I think his head would have exploded if I'd told him about my SMC plans!
Anyways, I just laugh off comments like these now, but in the past they were hurtful because it seemed that married people didn’t feel I was a real "grown-up" woman because I didn’t have a family to take care of (I’ve even been asked if I cook for myself! What do they think I do, order pizza for breakfast, lunch and dinner?).
It seems that the older I get (and I’m hardly old at 33!!) the more people are baffled by my single status and the more I have to contend with their bizarre questions about my “lifestyle”. I was recently at a friend’s wedding and was having a conversation with one of the guests (a married man) and when he found out that I was single, he was absolutely stunned that I had somehow managed to buy my own home and (gasp!) a car as well! And then (here’s the kicker) he inquired as to whether I had a job!
I almost felt like saying "No, I just beg for money on the street". It's just so ridiculous, I am far more likely to have a job than a married woman! Who does he think supports me?? Daddy?? He just couldn’t seem to believe that a woman can successfully live without a man. And the funny thing was that while I was talking to him, I was thinking to myself "Boy, if only you knew what I was planning for next year!" I think his head would have exploded if I'd told him about my SMC plans!
Anyways, I just laugh off comments like these now, but in the past they were hurtful because it seemed that married people didn’t feel I was a real "grown-up" woman because I didn’t have a family to take care of (I’ve even been asked if I cook for myself! What do they think I do, order pizza for breakfast, lunch and dinner?).
As an interesting footnote to this story, I was having lunch with my (single) brother the next day and he also owns his own home and I asked whether he hears similar comments about buying a house alone, but (no surprise here) he never does! Is our society still so male-biased that a man is presumed to be more capable of living on his own than a woman?
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Sex in the City: men, marriage Part II
from Ruth
The upcoming premiere of the Sex and the City movie got me thinking about the series (which I loved for the most part) and I find it really sad that a series like this that was supposed to portray single women as strong and independent, and that was groundbreaking in so many ways, still had to end its final season with all four women in relationships.
Even for a show that discussed just about every taboo subject in the book, it was considered too shocking to portray a woman who doesn't find "Mr. Right" yet still lives happily ever after. I just find it so disappointing that the show couldn't depict at least one "happy ending" that didn't involve a relationship with a man.
What's the moral then, "It's OK to be single and have fun for a while, but in the end you've got to settle down?" Just a sad commentary on how little our society has progressed on this issue.
The upcoming premiere of the Sex and the City movie got me thinking about the series (which I loved for the most part) and I find it really sad that a series like this that was supposed to portray single women as strong and independent, and that was groundbreaking in so many ways, still had to end its final season with all four women in relationships.
Even for a show that discussed just about every taboo subject in the book, it was considered too shocking to portray a woman who doesn't find "Mr. Right" yet still lives happily ever after. I just find it so disappointing that the show couldn't depict at least one "happy ending" that didn't involve a relationship with a man.
What's the moral then, "It's OK to be single and have fun for a while, but in the end you've got to settle down?" Just a sad commentary on how little our society has progressed on this issue.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Men, motherhood and marriage
from Julie, reacting to the lengthy ChoiceMoms discussion group thread about Choice Moms, marriage and the pressure to marry.
Reading this made me conjure up this image of a bunch of men blogging about caring for children on their own and trying to fit into society's standard of being married.
How silly the image! Men are just so different than women.......at least the ones I know.
I think a lot of these discussions about whether we should be married wouldn't exist if men were more nurturing. I don't think it's odd at all to not want a marriage if the one you are marrying is more work to care for than the child you are raising. The men in my life have been sorry excuses for role models. I don't really want to get married because I have yet to meet a man that would enhance my life more than he would drain me of my reserves. Who needs that? I'll raise my child by my own will, thank you very much.
This isn't to say I don't want that close and loving relationship with a man, but he needs to be someone who contributes to my well-being and I his.
I think our parents desire us to get married because it's just the only way they see life as a "normal" progression. They aren't taking into account the lifestyles of women these days. When our grandmothers were young women, they had three careers to choose from (nurse, teacher, prostitute:-), but now, women can run for President, among thousands of other career choices. So this entire concept is beyond foreign to them.
I think raising a child on my own is not a selfish endeavor. It is a biological urge that is hard-wired into my brain and I WILL NOT apologize for it. My reproductive rights are equal to all of the married people out there, happy or not.
Being married and staying married is no test of character.
Reading this made me conjure up this image of a bunch of men blogging about caring for children on their own and trying to fit into society's standard of being married.
How silly the image! Men are just so different than women.......at least the ones I know.
I think a lot of these discussions about whether we should be married wouldn't exist if men were more nurturing. I don't think it's odd at all to not want a marriage if the one you are marrying is more work to care for than the child you are raising. The men in my life have been sorry excuses for role models. I don't really want to get married because I have yet to meet a man that would enhance my life more than he would drain me of my reserves. Who needs that? I'll raise my child by my own will, thank you very much.
This isn't to say I don't want that close and loving relationship with a man, but he needs to be someone who contributes to my well-being and I his.
I think our parents desire us to get married because it's just the only way they see life as a "normal" progression. They aren't taking into account the lifestyles of women these days. When our grandmothers were young women, they had three careers to choose from (nurse, teacher, prostitute:-), but now, women can run for President, among thousands of other career choices. So this entire concept is beyond foreign to them.
I think raising a child on my own is not a selfish endeavor. It is a biological urge that is hard-wired into my brain and I WILL NOT apologize for it. My reproductive rights are equal to all of the married people out there, happy or not.
Being married and staying married is no test of character.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Divorce on foot
I attended a conversation with three local historians last week that left me with several interesting morsels that have been rattling around in my brain since.
One of them talked about our tendency to think the past was somehow simpler and less complex than our intricate lives today. As example, she talked about how we tend not to notice that there was "divorce on foot" in past years. We know about the many widowed heads of families who ended up being single parents by default, but we tend to forget that many men headed West to explore and have adventures and try to find a new life -- often leaving behind wives and children in the East. In a time when divorce was unacceptable, it was a way to leave marriage behind.
I'm intending to do further research to learn more about how prevalent this might have been. To be sure, many of these men never took the step toward family life. But another interesting side comment the historian made was that many of the women's colleges and other female-oriented activities (including development of the settlement houses) that started in the East were partly a result of a lot of determined single women wanting to make something of their lives, some of them undoubtedly bypassing the lack of good marriage material in their midst.
Is today's Choice Mom much different?
One of them talked about our tendency to think the past was somehow simpler and less complex than our intricate lives today. As example, she talked about how we tend not to notice that there was "divorce on foot" in past years. We know about the many widowed heads of families who ended up being single parents by default, but we tend to forget that many men headed West to explore and have adventures and try to find a new life -- often leaving behind wives and children in the East. In a time when divorce was unacceptable, it was a way to leave marriage behind.
I'm intending to do further research to learn more about how prevalent this might have been. To be sure, many of these men never took the step toward family life. But another interesting side comment the historian made was that many of the women's colleges and other female-oriented activities (including development of the settlement houses) that started in the East were partly a result of a lot of determined single women wanting to make something of their lives, some of them undoubtedly bypassing the lack of good marriage material in their midst.
Is today's Choice Mom much different?
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Honoring Grandma
My grandma Jean died Monday, age 96. She was the only grandparent I ever knew, and a true matriarch in many ways. She raised her two kids alone, after her husband died in 1945 in a tragic accident, by putting herself through cosmetology school, setting up her own beauty shop, and staying focused on her kids, being frugal, and nurturing friendships.
In some ways, she was my Choice Mom model. Although her path was definitely not by choice, she actively decided not to bring a stepfather into her kids' life, and did not remarry until both kids were off on their own. She dedicated herself to doing what she needed in order to survive. She developed fun friendships that kept her balanced and lasted more than 50 years. Her one surviving friend Arline came to the cemetery, age 93, and joked to me that Jean, Harriet and Mary were waiting in heaven for her to join them as the fourth in their card games.
We were proud of the fact that we had opportunities for four-generation photos with the matriarchal line. From my mother down to my daughter, we share the middle name Jean, a strong-minded bent, and a love of travel and experiencing city entertainment. My daughter, at age 8, showed a great deal of patience with Grandma Jean's late-year crankiness -- kindred spirits in many ways as they were -- both loving pink, butterflies, nail polish, pretty jewelry and clothes, knick-knacks, just the right hairstyle. I consider it a gift, in fact, to have seen my daughter's tenderness with my grandmother in the last few months of her life.
My grandmother is the one whose ancient typewriter many years ago, when I was my daughter's age, launched my writing career. I used to write poems at grandma's house, when my mother was busy with concurrent college and nursing work. One I remember distinctly writing in the kitchen area of grandma's apartment was about "My mother the whirler." Not long thereafter grandma gave my parents the typewriter for me as a Christmas gift. They'd kept it hidden somewhere in the house, and I burst into tears when they brought it to me, I was so overjoyed with this first communication tool of my very own.
Grandma didn't understand computers, the Internet, websites. But her friend Arline loyally sent me a check in order to buy my "Choosing Single Motherhood" book when it came out. And my staunch Catholic grandmother, whose viewpoint was the only one I worried about when I announced my decision to become a Choice Mom in 1999, quickly reassured me that she thought it was perfectly fine for women to have kids on their own. That she knew I was always very independent and capable.
Much like she was. She lived on her own until she was 90, and even then moved into an independent-living facility until she fell at 94 and needed to go to a nursing home for care.
She was tired of living by then -- having lost three husbands, four sisters, and countless cousins and friends she kept faithful contact with over the years. But I saw the resolute twinkle in her eye on one of my last visits with her, when I teased her about yet another male admirer who apparently had taken a fancy to her in the home.
She was a grand lady -- quite able, as the priest pointed out, to remind people of what she needed. She was always meticulously dressed and made up. And more than anything, she was proud of family -- and is undoubtedly happier now that she is rejoined with so many people she has missed for so long.
In some ways, she was my Choice Mom model. Although her path was definitely not by choice, she actively decided not to bring a stepfather into her kids' life, and did not remarry until both kids were off on their own. She dedicated herself to doing what she needed in order to survive. She developed fun friendships that kept her balanced and lasted more than 50 years. Her one surviving friend Arline came to the cemetery, age 93, and joked to me that Jean, Harriet and Mary were waiting in heaven for her to join them as the fourth in their card games.
We were proud of the fact that we had opportunities for four-generation photos with the matriarchal line. From my mother down to my daughter, we share the middle name Jean, a strong-minded bent, and a love of travel and experiencing city entertainment. My daughter, at age 8, showed a great deal of patience with Grandma Jean's late-year crankiness -- kindred spirits in many ways as they were -- both loving pink, butterflies, nail polish, pretty jewelry and clothes, knick-knacks, just the right hairstyle. I consider it a gift, in fact, to have seen my daughter's tenderness with my grandmother in the last few months of her life.
My grandmother is the one whose ancient typewriter many years ago, when I was my daughter's age, launched my writing career. I used to write poems at grandma's house, when my mother was busy with concurrent college and nursing work. One I remember distinctly writing in the kitchen area of grandma's apartment was about "My mother the whirler." Not long thereafter grandma gave my parents the typewriter for me as a Christmas gift. They'd kept it hidden somewhere in the house, and I burst into tears when they brought it to me, I was so overjoyed with this first communication tool of my very own.
Grandma didn't understand computers, the Internet, websites. But her friend Arline loyally sent me a check in order to buy my "Choosing Single Motherhood" book when it came out. And my staunch Catholic grandmother, whose viewpoint was the only one I worried about when I announced my decision to become a Choice Mom in 1999, quickly reassured me that she thought it was perfectly fine for women to have kids on their own. That she knew I was always very independent and capable.
Much like she was. She lived on her own until she was 90, and even then moved into an independent-living facility until she fell at 94 and needed to go to a nursing home for care.
She was tired of living by then -- having lost three husbands, four sisters, and countless cousins and friends she kept faithful contact with over the years. But I saw the resolute twinkle in her eye on one of my last visits with her, when I teased her about yet another male admirer who apparently had taken a fancy to her in the home.
She was a grand lady -- quite able, as the priest pointed out, to remind people of what she needed. She was always meticulously dressed and made up. And more than anything, she was proud of family -- and is undoubtedly happier now that she is rejoined with so many people she has missed for so long.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Is Mr. Good Enough Okay?
For this Valentine's Day month, Choice Mom Lori Gottlieb pondered whether she actually was too picky, as critics like to suggest when women in their 30s cannot find a partner before it's time to raise kids.
You can read her views in Atlantic Monthly and hear her perspective on NPR.
When her essay link was posted on the Choice Mom discussion board, women quickly stepped up to disagree with her notion that settling for a business partner in household management and childrearing was the route to take. Of course, Lori herself is a romantic who does still want to fall deeply in love. And many thinkers who are afraid that becoming a mother first will preclude them from being a wife - or silent Choice Moms who might agree with Lori today that settling might have been the greener side of the pasture - will find her thoughts very interesting.
In 2005, also in the pages of Atlantic Monthly, Lori wrote about why settling for somebody isn't always better than nobody. But now, with the challenges of dating while parenting a toddler, she looks at her married friends and realizes that, "Marriage isn't a passion-fest. It's more like a partnership formed to run a very small, mundane, and often boring nonprofit business."
And as many of us know, couples with kids don't spend that much time together anyway.
"So if you rarely see your husband," she writes, "but he's a decent guy who takes out the trash and sets up the baby gear, and he provides a second income that allows you to spend time with your child instead of working 60 hours a week to support a family on your own-how much does it matter whether the guy you marry is The One?"
As readers of this sporadic blog know, I have had my own thoughts about what marriage means -- and why more women aren't choosing it before they have kids. Back in October 2007, I wrote here about how married moms I know are dismayed at the lack of household management help that actually comes from a mate, and that failing at that makes men seem less valid as a lifetime partner for an increasing number of women.
Lori's view in her essay is that being able to have help around the house is the major benefit to marriage, and that it should, indeed, become the major prerequisite to "settling" down with a partner. Dating with that view in mind, she says, might actually help more women find someone before they have kids, which requires babysitter money -- and a tremendous amount of effort simply getting beautified before the Big Night Out.
Just the day before I read Lori's essay, I was asked by a TV reporter if the Choice Mom trend meant that men were becoming insignificant. I stumbled in my answer, and realized later -- of course -- that the sound bite quote is, "Men who make great husbands and fathers are never insignificant. It's just that women are less in need of a husband and father who is not great, and today, if they have the financial and emotional security, they don't have to choose that option."
So I agree with Lori that dating tends to prime you for a passionate connection, but weddings and children tend to turn that relationship into more of a two-person job, with roles and responsibilities assigned and hopefully agreed upon so one of them doesn't decide to look for a different place of employment...and hurt the kids in the process.
But I also believe strongly that many of us don't actually need a partner to raise our children well, if that is our primary goal. We do need to deal with the stress of handling the job alone -- which, depending on temperaments and other distractions can be considerable -- but luckily it's a job with great benefits.
You can read her views in Atlantic Monthly and hear her perspective on NPR.
When her essay link was posted on the Choice Mom discussion board, women quickly stepped up to disagree with her notion that settling for a business partner in household management and childrearing was the route to take. Of course, Lori herself is a romantic who does still want to fall deeply in love. And many thinkers who are afraid that becoming a mother first will preclude them from being a wife - or silent Choice Moms who might agree with Lori today that settling might have been the greener side of the pasture - will find her thoughts very interesting.
In 2005, also in the pages of Atlantic Monthly, Lori wrote about why settling for somebody isn't always better than nobody. But now, with the challenges of dating while parenting a toddler, she looks at her married friends and realizes that, "Marriage isn't a passion-fest. It's more like a partnership formed to run a very small, mundane, and often boring nonprofit business."
And as many of us know, couples with kids don't spend that much time together anyway.
"So if you rarely see your husband," she writes, "but he's a decent guy who takes out the trash and sets up the baby gear, and he provides a second income that allows you to spend time with your child instead of working 60 hours a week to support a family on your own-how much does it matter whether the guy you marry is The One?"
As readers of this sporadic blog know, I have had my own thoughts about what marriage means -- and why more women aren't choosing it before they have kids. Back in October 2007, I wrote here about how married moms I know are dismayed at the lack of household management help that actually comes from a mate, and that failing at that makes men seem less valid as a lifetime partner for an increasing number of women.
Lori's view in her essay is that being able to have help around the house is the major benefit to marriage, and that it should, indeed, become the major prerequisite to "settling" down with a partner. Dating with that view in mind, she says, might actually help more women find someone before they have kids, which requires babysitter money -- and a tremendous amount of effort simply getting beautified before the Big Night Out.
Just the day before I read Lori's essay, I was asked by a TV reporter if the Choice Mom trend meant that men were becoming insignificant. I stumbled in my answer, and realized later -- of course -- that the sound bite quote is, "Men who make great husbands and fathers are never insignificant. It's just that women are less in need of a husband and father who is not great, and today, if they have the financial and emotional security, they don't have to choose that option."
So I agree with Lori that dating tends to prime you for a passionate connection, but weddings and children tend to turn that relationship into more of a two-person job, with roles and responsibilities assigned and hopefully agreed upon so one of them doesn't decide to look for a different place of employment...and hurt the kids in the process.
But I also believe strongly that many of us don't actually need a partner to raise our children well, if that is our primary goal. We do need to deal with the stress of handling the job alone -- which, depending on temperaments and other distractions can be considerable -- but luckily it's a job with great benefits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
