Femagination » Divorce

Babies Before (Or Instead Of) Marriage: What’s Your Opinion?

Ellen Keim — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 18:04:14 +0000

Does it matter when Baby comes?

The just-released State of Our Unions report tells us that the percentage of kids born outside of marriage rose from 18% to 40% just since 1980. Not only that, but the number of kids whose parents are “just living together” rose from just under half a million to over 2.5 million during that same period. But that doesn’t mean that marriage is on its way out. The same report states that among high school seniors, 71% of boys and 82% of girls said that “having a good marriage and family life is extremely important” to them. But at the same time, over half also said “having a child without being married is experimenting with a worthwhile lifestyle or not affecting anyone else.” (Except for the child, of course.)

In data collected by The National Campaign, 47% of 18 to 24-year-olds say they expect to marry and have a baby with their current partner, but not necessarily in that order. Certainly, the example set by celebrities is that it’s almost the norm to have one or more children–or at least getting pregnant–before marrying (if they even marry at all). Are young people today following the lead of those who are in the public eye, or are the celebrities merely mirroring the changing norms of society? Or is it a little of both?

It might sound like I’m disapproving. And I am, a little. I can understand an unplanned pregnancy precipitating a wedding. I can even accept a woman having a baby when she doesn’t have an ongoing relationship with the father. But if you’re going to get married anyway, why have your baby before the wedding? Wouldn’t you rather be husband and wife before you’re father and mother?

I recognize that it’s partly my age that contributes to my attitude. It’s amazing to me that just a few short decades ago it was still considered to be aberrant (and immoral) to have a baby out of wedlock. All the girls I knew in high school who had babies got married first. To do otherwise was unthinkable. And to not get married at all–to raise the child alone–wasn’t even considered to be an option, at least not where I came from.

And yet, even though I’m a product of my era and my socioeconomic class, I have to say that my views have changed about single motherhood. That’s partly because of my own experience: I was a single mother because of divorce for at least half of my children’s growing up years. I also have a daughter who got pregnant (by chance, not by choice) but who chose to have the baby and raise him by herself. I now believe that a child’s happiness does not depend on having both parents living together with the child. My hangup is about parents who are together choosing to stay single. What kind of message does that send to a child?

But if a child can handle being raised by one (unmarried) parent, why can’t he or she handle being raised by two parents who aren’t married? I agree that it’s the commitment that counts, not the marriage license. Children are a lot more resilient than we give them credit for. They can tell when a relationship is or isn’t working, regardless of whether or not their parents are married. In fact, you could argue that it’s easier on children when their parents don’t have to go through a divorce if or when they split do up.

On thing I’m very glad about is that children who are born out of wedlock or whose parents don’t live together are no longer branded as “illegitimate” or “products of broken homes.” It’s not their fault how they came into the world or what their parents do after they’re here. I don’t believe that such children are at a disadvantage, I just question why their parents wouldn’t want to do all that they could to make their situation as normal as possible.

What do you think of parents who put off marriage, sometimes permanently? Do you think a child is harmed by his or her parents’ not being married, or not marrying until after he or she is born? Do you think that parents owe it to their children to make it legal (unless they’re not together in the first place)? Do you think divorce is more harmful than a break-up of unmarried parents?

Is “A Marriage Agreement” Still Needed?

Ellen Keim — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:52:41 +0000

The 50-50 Split?

In 1970 Alix Kates Shulman wrote an essay titled “A Marriage Agreement” and instantly became one of the voices of the burgeoning Women’s Liberation Movement. She was ten years into her second marriage when she came up with a set of rules that she and her husband agreed upon to make their relationship more equitable. At the time the idea of sharing housekeeping and child rearing on a 50-50 basis “was so outrageous that the piece appeared in many magazines including New York, Ms., Redbook and Life, which gave it a six-page spread, and was attacked by Norman Mailer, S.I. Hayakawa, and Russell Baker, among others.” (p.163, Alix Kates Shulman, Women on Divorce .)

In the essay, Shulman wrote that “Before we made our agreement I had never been able to find the time to [write]. Over the past two years I’ve written three children’s books, a biography and a novel and edited a collection of writings. Without our agreement I would never have been able to do this.”

Ironically (or inevitably?), Shulman’s marriage ended after 25 years. Was it the 50-50 split that did it? There are those who would have us believe that Shulman’s feminist principles are what doomed her marriage. After all, before the feminist movement, women were happy unselfishly giving up their lives to take care of home and family. Weren’t they?

These days it is a given that women have the right to pursue their interests–as long as it doesn’t interfere with their responsibilities at home. This is what conservatives and traditionalists (read: “anti-feminists”) would have us believe. And yet most women, even if they don’t identify as feminists, know that they’re not being treated fairly. Why shouldn’t their husbands and boyfriends shoulder as much of the chores as they do? Why should women be the only ones who are blamed if the house isn’t a home and the children aren’t well-adjusted?

Even among couples who attempt to share the responsibilities of marriage equally, the housekeeping and child rearing rests more on the woman’s shoulders than it does on the man’s, even though both are out earning a living. Many young women have expressed their anger with Second Wave feminists’ assurances that a woman can have it all. They’d be glad, they profess, to be back in the home full-time, if only to relieve the pressure of having to work and take care of the home and children anyway. Lisa Belkin called this the “Opt-Out Revolution” in a 2003 New York Times article of the same name. Apparently, young women who were groomed for careers are opting out to stay home with their children.

It’s not clear how much of a phenomenon this is. But what is clear is that something has got to give. These young mothers will find their opportunities limited when and if they return to the workforce. Their Social Security benefits will be less than their husbands’ because they didn’t work as much over their life spans. And that’s not even taking into account the talents that go unused when women eschew careers for home-making.

[Let me say here that there is nothing wrong with being a homemaker--unless the homemaker in question wants more out of life. If her partner really loves her, he (or she) should make it possible for her to explore all her options. No woman should have to take on more than her share of the household and familial duties.]

Shulman writes today:

“["A Marriage Contract's"] limited success is hardly surprising, given the economic, social, and psychological arrangements that continue to impede equality, in marriage and out…Probably not until the polity is more child- and woman-friendly, not until men and women are equally valued – economically and otherwise – not until free or low-cost quality childcare is universally available, will the ideal of equality in marriage be other than radical.” (Shulman’s complete remarks here.)

Does Feminism Cause Divorce?

Ellen Keim — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:48:10 +0000

I’ve never had a problem with marriage. In fact, I marry too easily. If I’m in a serious and exclusive relationship and the guy wants to marry me, I concur. And so I find myself married once again.

[That's not entirely true. I had to convince my first husband to marry me. But we were only 20 and now I can understand his reluctance. I should have been reluctant, too. But instead, I was pressuring him. I had just become a feminist the year before, but I didn't then and still don't think that being a feminist means you can't be married.]

I’ve always married—or agreed to marry—rather precipitously. My first husband and I started dating in November and married the following July (much to my parents’ consternation—we didn’t inform them that we were getting married until two months before the wedding date). My second marriage occurred six months after my first divorce. I was single for four years after that, but only because my third husband wasn’t free to marry until then because of a protracted divorce. And my fourth, present and last husband and I had to wait three years for his fiance visa to come through.

Now that I reconsider, I have to admit that the man’s desire to marry might just have had a lot to do with my own openness to it. I never once said, “I’m not ready. Let’s wait a while.” The times when the marriages didn’t happen right away were because of outside forces, not my own reluctance. I’ve just never been cautious about getting married. And I have three divorces to show for it.

Just as I have always been open to marrying, I have also been open to divorcing. Not that I married with the idea in the back of my head that if it didn’t work out we could always get a divorce. No, instead, against all evidence to the contrary, I believed that each marriage was going to be my last. It’s just that I seemed incapable of anticipating what things might cause problems and eventually lead to a divorce.

Even so, I didn’t divorce at the first sign of trouble. There has always been a long period of problems—and counseling and soul-searching—before I’ve asked for a divorce.

Some people could look at my life and say that my being a feminist has contributed to the break-ups of my marriages. If they mean that I’m strong enough to leave when things get bad, I suppose it has. But I prefer that to staying in a marriage and suffering for the rest of my life just because I’m afraid of going it alone. I realize that there are many things that keep two people together, but I’d like to think that mutual misery isn’t one of them.

If anything, I think feminism would have prevented all my divorces. If I’d been strong enough I wouldn’t have married for the wrong reasons. Because I was afraid no one else would want me. Because I was afraid I couldn’t raise my children alone. Because I didn’t have enough money. Because I liked being wanted.

If I’d been a strong enough feminist, I would have waited for what I really wanted in a husband. I would have insisted on someone who loved me for myself and not just as someone to stand by and take care of him. It isn’t a readiness to divorce that breaks down marriages. It’s marrying the wrong person for the wrong reasons in the first place.

Unfortunately, being a feminist doesn’t protect a woman from making mistakes. There are many unforeseen roads ahead in every marriage. You can’t anticipate what will happen. You can’t always be sure that your motives for marrying—or staying married—are pure. All you can do is make as sure as you can that you are honest with yourself about who you are and what you want out of life.

And pray.

I Could Have Used Feminism…(Part Two)

Ellen Keim — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:10:17 +0000

Feminist Buttons 1968 - 1972

I could have used feminism…

when my first marriage ended in divorce and I was faced with raising four daughters alone.
when I moved back in with my parents instead of getting my own place.
when my ex got the child support reduced and I didn’t fight it.
when I thought that remarrying would solve all my problems.
when I decided against going back to school after my remarriage because I thought I didn’t need it.
when I took another shit job instead of trying to make it as a writer, which is what I really wanted to do.
when my new husband became abusive and I still didn’t get out of the marriage for another three years.
when I became a single mother again (even though this time we had our own home).
when the father of my kids stopped paying child support.
when I was sexually and psychologically harassed at work.
when I got pathologically dependent on a new boyfriend.
when I thought again that getting married would solve all my problems.
when I stayed in my toxic job even though the abuse continued (for a total of 16 years).
as my children matured and I needed to give them a role model.
when my parents died and I became the matriarch of the family.

The Breakdown of the Family

Ellen Keim — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 22:22:29 +0000

There are a lot of people who blame feminism for the breakdown of the family. They see feminists as essentially selfish people, who don’t care who they hurt in their quests to get what they want. They divorce their husbands, leave their children in the care of strangers and let ambition take over their lives. What critics of feminism won’t admit is that it is not just feminists who are doing these things. Any woman can be guilty of putting themselves before their families, as can any man.

Rather, feminism is a corrective measure for what’s wrong with our society.

When a relationship is unhealthy or abusive, feminism gives a woman the courage to leave. When an employer is cheating female employees out of pay or benefits, feminism inspires them to speak up for themselves. When a woman has to support herself and her children, feminism looks out for her interests in the courts and the workplace. When young girls and women are trying to find themselves, feminism gives them models and mentors.

Emotional, physical and financial security do not contribute to the breakdown of the family.

What does?

The economy. It’s the rare family that can exist on one income. Most women go to work outside of the home at some point in their marriages. (And that’s not even counting the ones who have to work because of divorce or the death of their spouses.) Children get more expensive, college needs to be paid for, retirement plans need to be funded, health care costs rise.

Materialism. More families might be able to get by with less if they didn’t want so damn much. The rate at which technology is changing means that there is always some new improved products that consumers feel they just have to have. Many people overspend on houses, cars and vacations. Cable, cell phones and Internet access are seen as necessities.

The workplace. When the world became industrialized, women left their homes to work in sweatshops and mills. When WWII came along they went to work in the factories. Now the service industry is growing exponentially and women obviously have to work outside of the home when they have those kinds of jobs. Not only that, but the workplace usually makes it more difficult for a woman to fulfill her wifely and motherly duties because of inflexibility.

Divorce. I include divorce in this list, but the truth is, divorce doesn’t break down the family, it just creates different family formations. A single parent with children is a family. An adult child living with parents is a family. The only form of family that gets hit hard by divorce is the nuclear family. And it’s never been as prominent as people would like to believe. Parents used to have to send their children to relatives or children’s homes when they couldn’t afford to keep them. Now they at least try to maintain some kind of family unit. It just doesn’t look like some people want it to look.

The reason that feminism is blamed for the breakdown of the family is because women are blamed for the breakdown of the family. What about the man who abandons or doesn’t support his family? Is that feminism’s fault, too? Let’s put the blame where it really belongs and start looking to feminism for solutions.

After a Divorce–When There Are Kids

Ellen Keim — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 10:40:09 +0000

Jon Gosselin has reportedly said, “Our marriage fell apart and I felt like I was free. And I kinda took advantage of it for a while and didn’t really think about my actions, obviously, until I started getting paparazzi and written about. But that’s maturing. That’s growing up.”

How nice. Our big boy is growing up. Now if he can just do it in time to help his children do the same–hopefully before their thirties and they have children of their own. And notice that it was the media attention that caused him to reflect on his behavior–not what his behavior might have been doing to his kids. Say what you will about Kate, she’s not the one dating several different people, going to clubs, buying an apartment that has no room for the kids. And that’s how it usually is. Divorced mothers seem to feel more of a sense of responsibility toward their children than do divorced fathers.

I don’t mean to pick on men, but in cases where they don’t get custody and only have visitation rights, it’s all too easy for them to become focused on their own issues instead of the day-to-day issues their children may have. It might be more fair to say that the parent who has custody is more conscious of and responsive to his or her children’s needs. But in a society where women are still awarded custody in the majority of divorces, it will naturally be the women who feel the responsibility more keenly than the men do. And so this post is about what women go through when they suddenly become single mothers.

They’re always “on.” There’s no one else to spell them, to take over for even a few minutes.
They have to take care of all the minutiae that makes up their children’s lives. The permission slip, the daily lunch money, the skinned knee, the upset tummy–the list is endless.
They rarely have time for themselves. Not even to go to the bathroom.
They don’t have anyone to share their kids with. At least not anyone who is privy to the same day-to-day information that they are. It’s lonely to not have anyone to turn to and say, “Remember when…?” or “Isn’t that cute?”
They never get enough rest. You can’t when you’re trying to be two people.
They never have enough money, even if they get child support. The little things add up quickly and the child support is basically used up by the big-ticket items (housing, food, clothing.)
They are always being compared to the other parent and to other mothers (most of whom are not single). Especially by the kids themselves. And others: I once had my sister lecture me for being away from my kids nine hours a day, even though I had to work.
They have to exercise superhuman self-control: over their mouths (and the things they want to say about their exes), their emotions, their sexual desires, their consumption habits, and their time.
They are the only ones there to listen to their kids, an important but often underappreciated function.
They have to give up their kids for part or all of every special occasion. The respite from caring for them never quite makes up for the loneliness.

I have a feeling that Kate Gosselin is aware of most of these things. And if she and Jon end up sharing custody evenly (and what do you want to bet that they don’t?), I hope Jon comes to accept these realities like the man he is striving to become.