Preparing sibling for birth process?

"NL" wrote in message
...
Banty schrieb:
snip
I've summed it up as - the hardest thing about being a single parent is
that
it's all up to oneself. The aspect of the situation that makes it doable
is - -
that it's all up to oneself.

YES! That's exactly it.

I have a coworker with a wife with a new baby, and she's calling him to
come
home 'early' (in our industry, read "actually leaving for home at 5:00
pm") to
help her out. He's stressing over all the work-life tradoffs that causes
and
her idea of that vs. his idea of that. I had to make tradeoffs to be
sure, but
I didn't have the hassles, negotiation, and resentments over which ones
were
made.

Yep. My best (female) friend complains about her husband a lot. He's
working longer and longer hours, he's not really participating in the
family, he does a lot of stupid stuff (like putting ink stampings on his
freshly bathed kids... didn't go down well as the next day was a big
family gathering and the girls were _covered_ in AIRMAIL stampings...),

I honestly wouldn't have a problem with DH if he did this. He might have a
problem with me If I did it, but I don't because I know he'd have a problem
with it.

What I do think of as harder is negotiations with teachers/offices/etc.
when they see me as a single mum of two you can see them mentally putting
me into the "totally overwhelmed, unable to deal" drawer. So my son acting
out at school is because I'm the worst parent on the planet and not
because of his sensory/speech problems or because his class is too large
(28 kids, 18 of which are boys, please imaging the noise level and now
think about how that's working for a kid who's unable to filter out
background noise). When I turn up with my best (male) friend they talk to
me differently, and I can get my points across differently than I can when
I go alone. But I'm not sure if that's because a) he's male and the
teachers are women (one main teacher one who's nearly a teacher*) b)
because he's a potential witness to unfairness or c) because then it's 2
"vs." 2.

The dynamics are always different for men vs. women, sometimes in a very
subtle way. You can see the difference when a room full of women are
chatting about and a man enters. I would have to say it's because he's male
(the teachers being women or male wouldn't change the fact that the dynamics
would be different for a man vs. woman) AND a witness AND 2 vs. 1.

On Apr 23, 4:00Â*pm, "
wrote:
On Apr 23, 4:28�am, Chookie wrote:



Actually, I think it's extremely foolish to choose single motherhood. �My Mum
left Dad when we were small and took us to live with her widowed mother. �
Grandma dyed her hair and went to work until Mum was fit enough to work
herself. �Grandma was the SAHP for the next X years -- I always say I had
three loving parents. �But even with that support, being a single parent was
terribly hard on my Mum. �To walk into such a difficult life *voluntarily*
boggles my mind.

But leaving a marriage, or being widowed, are in themselves terribly
stressful situations, leaving one with lots of emotional baggage.

Do you really think the "emotional baggage" of the wife and children
are the same when the father

(a) dies in an accident
(b) *chooses* to abandon his family

Obviously, in situation (b), there can be deep and justified feelings
of betrayal.

Choosing to have a child as a single mother does *not* involve any of
those stresses. Not there can't be plenty of others, of course. But if
*all* one had to worry about were the logistics, and if everything
looked reasonably well aligned (finances, health, etc.) before one
made the leap, it seems to me that it wouldn't necessarily be a
terribly tough life. I would agree with you that you'd be increasing
the *risk* of facing a tough life, but arguably taking on far less
risk than many people who start babies with dicey partners and in
terrible financial situations.

Then don't do either! A woman should not have a child on her own *or*
with a "dicey" partner. Men should not father children with women they
are not committed to. Once upon a time, the vast majority of Americans
followed these simple rules. Here are some statistics from "The
Underclass Revisited", by Charles Murray http://www.aei.org/publications/pubI...pub_detail.asp
.

'The black ratio. At the first checkpoint in the Eisenhower years, 20
percent of black children were born out of wedlock.[15] Or to put it
in a more positive way, 80 percent of black children were born to
married parents. When the Great Society began at our second
checkpoint, 1964, the deterioration was still mild, with the
percentage growing to 25 percent. Then the roof fell in on the black
family. By the third checkpoint in 1982, illegitimacy had become the
norm, with 58 percent of all black children born out of wedlock. By
the fourth checkpoint, 1997, the black illegitimacy ratio in 1997 was
69 percent, down from its high of 70 percent in 1994. To my knowledge,
to have more than two-thirds of a new generation of children born to
unmarried women is unprecedented for any large subpopulation of any
culture, ancient or modern.

The white ratio. The white illegitimacy ratio was vanishingly small
when Eisenhower was in office--less than 2 percent in 1954. It almost
doubled between then and the second checkpoint in 1964, passing 3
percent, but the large proportional growth simply reflected the small
baseline. But the increases added up, and by the time the underclass
was discovered at our third checkpoint in 1982, 12 percent of white
children were born to unmarried mothers.

Between 1982 and the final checkpoint in 1997, the increase in white
illegitimacy got serious, more than doubling again. This time, the
large proportional increase could not be passed off as a function of a
small baseline. As of 1997, 26 percent of white children were born to
unmarried women, a figure comparable to the black ratio in the mid
1960s. To some extent this reflects a growing Latino population,
mostly white, that has a higher illegitimacy ratio than non-Latino
whites. But even if we restrict the calculation to non-Latino whites,
22 percent of all white births in 1997 were to unmarried women.'

In article ,
Beliavsky says...

On Apr 23, 4:00=C2=A0pm, "
wrote:
On Apr 23, 4:28=EF=BF=BDam, Chookie wro=
te:



Actually, I think it's extremely foolish to choose single motherhood. =
=EF=BF=BDMy Mum
left Dad when we were small and took us to live with her widowed mother.=
=EF=BF=BD
Grandma dyed her hair and went to work until Mum was fit enough to work
herself. =EF=BF=BDGrandma was the SAHP for the next X years -- I always =
say I had
three loving parents. =EF=BF=BDBut even with that support, being a singl=
e parent was
terribly hard on my Mum. =EF=BF=BDTo walk into such a difficult life *vo=
luntarily*
boggles my mind.

But leaving a marriage, or being widowed, are in themselves terribly
stressful situations, leaving one with lots of emotional baggage.

Do you really think the "emotional baggage" of the wife and children
are the same when the father

(a) dies in an accident
(b) *chooses* to abandon his family

Obviously, in situation (b), there can be deep and justified feelings
of betrayal.

They're not the same, but you seem to greatly undercount grief.


Choosing to have a child as a single mother does *not* involve any of
those stresses. Not there can't be plenty of others, of course. But if
*all* one had to worry about were the logistics, and if everything
looked reasonably well aligned (finances, health, etc.) before one
made the leap, it seems to me that it wouldn't necessarily be a
terribly tough life. I would agree with you that you'd be increasing
the *risk* of facing a tough life, but arguably taking on far less
risk than many people who start babies with dicey partners and in
terrible financial situations.

Then don't do either! A woman should not have a child on her own *or*
with a "dicey" partner. Men should not father children with women they
are not committed to.

What an ideal.

Once upon a time,

...the appropriate fairy tale opening to this paragraph...

the vast majority of Americans
followed these simple rules. Here are some statistics from "The
Underclass Revisited", by Charles Murray http://www.aei.org/publications/pub=
ID.14891/pub_detail.asp

Oh gosh Charles Murray - the champion of research driven by anticipated
conclusion. Lets just say he's a controversial choice of source.

What the practices were in the past don't necessarily have bearing on what is
right or what is workable. There were great costs to those statistics - shotgun
weddings, babies purported to be born to the mothers of teenaged daughters,
babies left to die unrecorded (all of which are in those statistics). They also
dont account for the very common practice (still recognized in many states as
"common law marriages") of forming families without formal marriage being
recognized as defacto. The great sigma lead to blind adoptions.

Banty

Banty wrote:



SNIP

I think you're right both about over-idealization of marriage and that hassles,
negotiations (at least, the resentments should be minimized) are normal parts of
people living together.

When I point to the energy and attention a marriage needs that I don't have to
deal with, I don't mean to denigrate marriage. There are advantages with
marriage that go with that.

SNIP


Banty


Just snuck in...

These sound like my words a few years ago. It took ages for me to
understand that it wasn't marraige that I had found hard....it was
him... he was hard..

toypup wrote:


" wrote in message
...

But leaving a marriage, or being widowed, are in themselves terribly
stressful situations, leaving one with lots of emotional baggage.
Choosing to have a child as a single mother does *not* involve any of
those stresses. Not there can't be plenty of others, of course. But if
*all* one had to worry about were the logistics, and if everything
looked reasonably well aligned (finances, health, etc.) before one
made the leap, it seems to me that it wouldn't necessarily be a
terribly tough life. I would agree with you that you'd be increasing
the *risk* of facing a tough life, but arguably taking on far less
risk than many people who start babies with dicey partners and in
terrible financial situations.


I would agree with you, if you are comparing two less ideal situations
(poor parents vs. good single parent). I would venture that two good
parents is preferable, if it can be done, which is why it's important to
try and choose a good partner. Sometimes, it's impossible to know
someone is a poor partner, but other times, I really wonder what they
were thinking.

Rose cloloured glasses numb the grey matter I think.

Banty wrote:
In article ,
Beliavsky says...

On Apr 23, 4:00=C2=A0pm, "
wrote:

On Apr 23, 4:28=EF=BF=BDam, Chookie wro=

te:



Actually, I think it's extremely foolish to choose single motherhood. =

=EF=BF=BDMy Mum

left Dad when we were small and took us to live with her widowed mother.=

=EF=BF=BD

Grandma dyed her hair and went to work until Mum was fit enough to work
herself. =EF=BF=BDGrandma was the SAHP for the next X years -- I always =

say I had

three loving parents. =EF=BF=BDBut even with that support, being a singl=

e parent was

terribly hard on my Mum. =EF=BF=BDTo walk into such a difficult life *vo=

luntarily*

boggles my mind.

But leaving a marriage, or being widowed, are in themselves terribly
stressful situations, leaving one with lots of emotional baggage.

Do you really think the "emotional baggage" of the wife and children
are the same when the father

(a) dies in an accident
(b) *chooses* to abandon his family

Obviously, in situation (b), there can be deep and justified feelings
of betrayal.


They're not the same, but you seem to greatly undercount grief.


Choosing to have a child as a single mother does *not* involve any of
those stresses. Not there can't be plenty of others, of course. But if
*all* one had to worry about were the logistics, and if everything
looked reasonably well aligned (finances, health, etc.) before one
made the leap, it seems to me that it wouldn't necessarily be a
terribly tough life. I would agree with you that you'd be increasing
the *risk* of facing a tough life, but arguably taking on far less
risk than many people who start babies with dicey partners and in
terrible financial situations.

Then don't do either! A woman should not have a child on her own *or*
with a "dicey" partner. Men should not father children with women they
are not committed to.


What an ideal.


It is and its not hard to do.



Once upon a time,


..the appropriate fairy tale opening to this paragraph...


the vast majority of Americans
followed these simple rules. Here are some statistics from "The
Underclass Revisited", by Charles Murray http://www.aei.org/publications/pub=
ID.14891/pub_detail.asp


Oh gosh Charles Murray - the champion of research driven by anticipated
conclusion. Lets just say he's a controversial choice of source.

What the practices were in the past don't necessarily have bearing on what is
right or what is workable. There were great costs to those statistics - shotgun
weddings, babies purported to be born to the mothers of teenaged daughters,
babies left to die unrecorded (all of which are in those statistics). They also
dont account for the very common practice (still recognized in many states as
"common law marriages") of forming families without formal marriage being
recognized as defacto. The great sigma lead to blind adoptions.

Banty

On Apr 23, 3:53 pm, Banty wrote:
In article ,
Beliavsky says...





On Apr 23, 9:39=A0am, Banty wrote:
In article .=
com,

Wow, Chookie and I agree on something . One caveat, though. Although
I think married couples should be given preference over unmarried
couples and single people in adoption, if there are not enough such
couples to adopt the children available, single people should be
considered. A single woman who has the resources, financial and
otherwise, to provide a good home for a child who would otherwise be
in an institution or in foster care should be applauded for doing so,
IMO.

How odd. Wouldn't the children with more needs, need two legally committed
adults in their household to deal with the difficulties, and more resources than
those who don't?

Not necessarily. Sure, having two committed and loving parents is
better than having one. However, having one is way, way, *way* better
than having none, and what these children actually need above all is a
relationship with one loving, committed parent. If a two-parent
family is available, great. But if there isn't, and if there is a
single person happy to adopt the child and able to cope, then the
child should go to that person rather than linger on in an institution
or impermanent foster care setting in the hope that the Perfect Family
(tm) *might* come along at some indeterminate time in the future.
What a child in that situation needs is stability and a proper
attachment *now*, not a two-parent ideal sometime/never.

Yes, but they are probably considered less desirable adoptees by most
people, and standards may need to be relaxed a little to get them
adopted, but not to the extent that the children would be better off
in an orphanage.

So this is not about the children, but rather about prospective parents, and
only married ones.

Huh? Not following that at all.


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

In article ,
says...

On Apr 23, 3:53 pm, Banty wrote:
In article ,
Beliavsky says...





On Apr 23, 9:39=A0am, Banty wrote:
In article .=
com,

Wow, Chookie and I agree on something . One caveat, though. Although
I think married couples should be given preference over unmarried
couples and single people in adoption, if there are not enough such
couples to adopt the children available, single people should be
considered. A single woman who has the resources, financial and
otherwise, to provide a good home for a child who would otherwise be
in an institution or in foster care should be applauded for doing so,
IMO.

How odd. Wouldn't the children with more needs, need two legally committed
adults in their household to deal with the difficulties, and more resources
than
those who don't?

Not necessarily. Sure, having two committed and loving parents is
better than having one. However, having one is way, way, *way* better
than having none, and what these children actually need above all is a
relationship with one loving, committed parent. If a two-parent
family is available, great. But if there isn't, and if there is a
single person happy to adopt the child and able to cope, then the
child should go to that person rather than linger on in an institution
or impermanent foster care setting in the hope that the Perfect Family
(tm) *might* come along at some indeterminate time in the future.
What a child in that situation needs is stability and a proper
attachment *now*, not a two-parent ideal sometime/never.

I understand that viewpoint; its a common one. For single people wanting to
parent; gay and lesbian couples get that a LOT, too.

But heres the weird thing - first the argument is made that gays and singles
shouldnt be allowed to adopt because it's not good for the adopted children,
that adopted children *need* two parent (and one of each model) household to
grow up in. But then, when it comes to the *neediest* of the children,
suddenly, even though they need MORE, suddenly they're in a separate class where
it's OK if they get supposedly *less* - that single parent or same-sex household
that didnt pass muster for children with *no* special needs.

So, what's REALLY being said is - - married couples is a preferred class to
adopt first in line, not the kids that need them the most, but the kids THEY
want. Then, since there's leftovers, well, if singles and gay people still are
so all-fired up about being parents in their substandard situations, then at
least they can help out these other kids that the GOOD families passed over and
get them off society's hands. (Which is believe you me how it sounds to people
- it's all dressed up whenever it's said, but thats what it really is.)

So, when it comes to who should adopt, it's all about how children should have
the best. But when it comes to special needs kids, they don't get the best, and
theres seemingly no longer any of this about how adoption should be built around
the needs of the *children*.

Actually, there's a school of thought that, since nearly half of marriages end
in divorce, but singles who adopt often remain single (later in their lifetimes,
it's a Plan B for most of them), single adopters in the long run offer a *more
stable* situation. (But thats never brought up with regards to special needs
kids, since they would be greatly more stressful for a single person than two
people to adopt.) So tell you what - single people over, say, 35 should get
first crack at the adoption pool. Because thats what you're talking about is
*really* about - who gets first crack. Not about addressing the kids needs.

Banty

On Apr 24, 6:00Â*am, Beliavsky wrote:
On Apr 23, 4:00Â*pm, "
wrote:

On Apr 23, 4:28�am, Chookie wrote:

Actually, I think it's extremely foolish to choose single motherhood. �My Mum
left Dad when we were small and took us to live with her widowed mother. �
Grandma dyed her hair and went to work until Mum was fit enough to work
herself. �Grandma was the SAHP for the next X years -- I always say I had
three loving parents. �But even with that support, being a single parent was
terribly hard on my Mum. �To walk into such a difficult life *voluntarily*
boggles my mind.

But leaving a marriage, or being widowed, are in themselves terribly
stressful situations, leaving one with lots of emotional baggage.

Do you really think the "emotional baggage" of the wife and children
are the same when the father

(a) dies in an accident
(b) *chooses* to abandon his family

Obviously, in situation (b), there can be deep and justified feelings
of betrayal.

*scratching head* Who the heck said they were the same? I said they
were both terribly stressful situations. You wanna argue that being
widowed ISN'T?

--Helen

Areba schrieb:
snip
Just snuck in...

These sound like my words a few years ago. It took ages for me to
understand that it wasn't marraige that I had found hard....it was
him... he was hard..

Seriously, the mind boggles at all that can be interpreted into this
sentence. Especially this sleep deprived mind right here ;-)

cu
nicole