Newsflash to Jennifer Aniston: every child needs a dad

Thanks for the great article!

Men ahave been impregnating women while taking no responsibility but claiming the children anyway *throughout* the history of monotheism.

Posted by: APaganplace
--------------------------

Your misandrist generalization shows a side of you you have hidden from us before with your otherwise logical, open-minded comments.

Perhaps you're no different than than the other bigots you criticize here.

At least I don't hate women - I just don't want to be married to one based on my 28- years experience with one holding your same prejudices against men.

Linda 813,

I am a conservative white Catholic, attend Mass every Sunday with my two very dark-skinned adopted children and we are embraced with love and respect within the Catholic community. Where on earth did you get the idea that you are disdained by the Church? Mother Teresa, a woman venerated by the universal Church handed dark Bengali orphan babies to white visitors from the West and told them to take them home and be a parent to them. She had a way of expiditing the "red tape", I'm sure. I'm sorry if you have been a victim of unkindness by Catholics who should know better.

Having been a 'second Mom,' you know: the only people who ever exposed my daughter to pornographic sexual materials were in fact raving Christians who accosted us on the street and somehow insisted that two women raising a daughter involved males having anal sex somehow.

Your fixation. Not mine.

'Every child needs a dad.'

That's holy, right?

What if the 'dad' and 'mom' were told the only way to aoid the scorn of being queer was to hold their noses, copulate, 'naturally' and produce a baby?

Even if the 'marriage' is nothing but a way for both parents to try and do what is unnatural to them but insisted upon?

Torture a whole family and a child until it's realized the whole thing was wrong?

Then say 'Two Mommies' are some abstract problem to be suppressed even if someone like me happens to *be* the second Mom trying to do right by the resulting child?

There's a girl who'll always be seven years old to me: I didn't set out to claim I was her 'other Mommy.' *She* said, 'You're my other Mommy.'

I was not dressed or prepared for the occasion, but that was that.

People like you spoke abstractions and hurt my daughter.

You're *wrong.*

End of story.

Men ahave been impregnating women while taking no responsibility but claiming the children anyway *throughout* the history of monotheism.

Is there some 'sanctity' about a rapist as opposed to the proverbial 'turkey baster?'

Is there something else to worry about, in this world, do you think, than justifying something with remote abstractions to hurt real people?

If you don't like artificial insemination, maybe you leaned too hard on the 'infertile' and on 'breeding' being the only way to be a valid human?

More Danielle Bean, less liberal pablum!

Instead of focusing on the needs of children--their summum bonum, what they need best to thrive and grow--we turn the world on its head, focus on the "lowest good", make this normative and demonize fatherhood and/or men to convince ourselves that our "choice" was the most noble, moral choice for ourselves. We've raised self deception to an art form in our society.

Thanks for throwing some cold water on our assumptions, Danielle. Of course, most people (as testified to the comments here) get angry and fly into a rage, but folks like you need to wake us from this numbing nonsense. Just be warned--when you question liberal dogma, you'll never hear more vitriol and gnashing of teeth in your life. The modern Inquisition is firmly in control of the liberals.

Awesome Article!!!

I am sixty-four and in 1973 I became a single mother by choice. Not only that but I had a daughter who is bi-racial.
I have never for one moment regretted that choice.
I also used plastic bottles and plastic diapers.
I have never met a man in my life that I would choose to live with or be married to.
This, like breast feeding, is an option and others are going to make decisions that you would not make.
The real shame is in men who are ignorant and brutal and prey on single mothers who are vulnerable because they have bought into the myth that they are nothing without a man or that their child will somehow suffer if they don't have a man in the home.
Don't bother telling me that those men grew up mean because they did not have a male role model had home. I bet they did and they are coping him faithfully.
And, no I was never beaten as a child. My father was killed in the Korean War and my mother died soon afterward. I was raised by his parents.

women will become an evolutionary dead-end

If the Star Trek holodeck ever becomes a reality, the real "evolutionary dead end" would be men with that attitude. They'll focus their attention on virtual orifices, thus not reproducing, and real women who think for themselves will say good riddance. It may amount to the reverse of the Mike Judge film "Idiocracy."

"Ms Aniston having money does not mean her children would be in boarding school or that her kids would be raised by nannies alone. It's possible that she would limit her work or structure it to allow parenting herself to a large degree."

Many posters seem to think that Aniston is planning on being a single mother. She was talking about the CHARACTER in her newest film -- THAT'S ALL. It's about Publicity and the author of this article is giving it to her -- free.

This type of nonsense seems to show up regularly in media, usually during the summer slow news cycle. The reality is that should sheep ever evolve with opposable thumbs women will become an evolutionary dead-end due to their high maintenance cost and relatively brief period of attractiveness, agreeableness and usefulness.
Posted by: slim2 | August 22, 2010 12:31 PM

__________________________________________________________________________

You, sir, are a misogynist.

Who better to turn to than a B-list actress?

From my reading, Anniston seemed to be saying that different choices were available for women, not that women should follow her specific example. What's gotten lost here is that most people don't treat actors and actresses as role models for family life. If anything, celebrities' personal lives are usually treated as freak shows, like real-life soap operas. Sure, some actors do strive to maintain a public image of family stability, but usually fans see that as reasons to admire the actors, not to copy them.

Take religion out of procreation. It's a human values issue. Look at Christianity, it needs a virgin to have it's god baby,but keeps Joseph around as, in reality, it's sperm donor.

Take religion out of procreation. It's a human values issue. Look at Christianity, it needs a virgin to have it's god baby,but keeps Joseph around as, in reality, it's sperm donor.

Thank you for writing about this critically important issue. Never has society been in more need of guidance about child rearing and family values. Who better to turn to than a B-list actress? I look forward to reading a follow up about the role of the father, maybe profiling another expert like Alec Baldwin. And kudos to you for not giving into the temptation to start a conversation with child development experts, child psychologists, family therapists, counselors or any other crackpots that work with and help countless families every day. Friends was on for 9 years and Jennifer is not married, so her opinion on child rearing is the one that we should all be talking about.

Men will be treated like more than a sperm donor when they begin to ACT like more than a sperm donor. While there are a few wealthy women who CHOOSE to be single mothers, that simply isn't the case for the majority of single women raising kids. Most women would prefer a partner, but it is the men who have chosen to make raising their kids an option and not a responsibility. Less and less men are popping the question and sticking to their vows, so you can take all of your righteous angst and direct it towards the male portion of the species. The use of term, "selfish," would be appropriate in that context.

In fact, if you go and look at the stats on single mothers by choice, their kids look pretty much like the kids of two-family parents from a wide range of incomes.

Thanks for bringing that up. If single motherhood is the product of fatherly abandonment much more often than motherly choice, then it's misguided to castigate the relatively small number of women who actually make that choice. The complaint seems to be that it's wrong for a woman to want a child without a man, as though the desire itself was the problem. That sounds uncomfortably like the old belief that it's wrong for women to feel sexual desire.

nature has equipped women with the ability to raise and nurture children without a male master always around.

It doesn't have to be a woman who nurtures the children. Many families have working moms and stay-at-home dads, others have both parents working part time, and some have extended family members helping with the nurturing. There are too many people who falsely believe that to be a full-time mother is the natural and normal destiny of all women. It wasn't that long ago that women who didn't want children were treated as mentally ill.

Newsflash: don't impose your own value system onto others

And when you use the word "traditional", remember that your sexually repressive, mysogynistic, paternalistic religious views only apply to a tiny fraction of time in which the human species has been reproducing.

For those of us who believe in evolution and evolutionary psychology, nature has equipped women with the ability to raise and nurture children without a male master always around.

Ms. Bean and the other comments who were spouting statistics about the need for dads, go back and do your homework again. Those statistics do not survey the children of women who choose to go the artificial route, a group of women who by the way are far wealthier than the average single mother. Indeed, none of those statistics on fatherless kids control for income. In fact, if you go and look at the stats on single mothers by choice, their kids look pretty much like the kids of two-family parents from a wide range of incomes. Complaint Number 2. Bean's rhetoric and that of some commenters sounds perilously close to the nonsense from the proponents of Prop 8, yes, the very same nonsense that Judge Walker struck down as having no evidentiary support and being grounded in stereotypes about gender. Come on Wash Post.

Ms. Bean and the other comments who were spouting statistics about the need for dads, go back and do your homework again. Those statistics do not survey the children of women who choose to go the artificial route, a group of women who by the way are far wealthier than the average single mother. Indeed, none of those statistics on fatherless kids control for income. In fact, if you go and look at the stats on single mothers by choice, their kids look pretty much like the kids of two-family parents from a wide range of incomes. Complaint Number 2. Bean's rhetoric and that of some commenters sounds perilously close to the nonsense from the proponents of Prop 8, yes, the very same nonsense that Judge Walker struck down as having no evidentiary support and being grounded in stereotypes about gender. Come on Wash Post.

Radical idea: a child should be born to a mother and a father, both of whom should be that child's parents. Those parents should be married to each other before they have that child. They should then stay married to one another after they have that child. They should not get divorced. Even if they've "changed."

It works.

My opinion is that IT IS NONE OF OUR COLLECTIVE BUSINESS ! !

The lady can do WHATEVER SHE WANTS, and all you misogynists can go straight to he11.

./

My honest advice to Aniston: why can't she do what did Marina Vlady, utilizing her European fame to catch the most promising Soviet bard-actor after whom many, many Soviet famous pals were after. It was not that simple, and they (Vlady and Vysotsky) were a couple, of course, but her fame played its part. In translation, why can't Aniston to hunt someone with fame or the great promise of possible fame in Greece or other countries of Europe. Her Hollywood image should help, her looks also. She simply should stop showing so obviously that she is going to be fixed on Brad Pitt until the end of her life.

When Jodie Foster became the single mother twice, nobody was really very surprised. When Hellen..(forgot the last name, but she is the same type as Foster is, and looks similar too)became the single mother, nobody got very surprised. Jennifer Aniston is not this type, not at all. It seems that everything she is doing is to show Brad Pitt that she is not worse than Jolie. All together it does not look healthy, but the person, who makes so much money, as Aniston does, is allowed to be slightly (or even much more) crazy. I, however, think that she won't become the single mother, it is just the talk for some additional advertisements.

Gender by itself confers nothing special. A single parent, of either sex, is better if the other one would be abusive or neglectful. Plenty of mothers, not just fathers, can be abusive and neglectful. In fact, research shows the biggest category of abusers towards children are mothers. As for Aniston, why the desire to "go it alone." Why not marry or have a partner, that's always best for children most of the time, isn't it? Unless that is something she feels she cannot sustain.

RAYK1 wrote:
Only an liberal idiot would have such an idea.
_____________________________________

To be sure, there are plenty of liberals who are idiots. There are plenty of conservatives who are idiots as well (if you ask centrist-old-me, it's the conservative idiots who scream the loudest and longest, but I digress . . .). But to think that this is an issue that can be neatly resolved by slavish compliance to either a liberal or conservative ideology is, well, idiotic. Lives are complicated things, and rigid ideologies can't begin to capture that complexity.

So, rayk1, shall we have intelligent discourse from you, or just more ideology?

MANY professional men and women over 35 are not married, either due to divorce or never quite finding the right person. This is not uncommon in the least, and it's worse for actors at any level. I'm wondering about these studies. What percentage of these statistics comprise the parents, by way of insemination or adoption, planned on raising a child, versus accidental pregnancy? Let's narrow down these groups to the real deal. Ms Aniston having money does not mean her children would be in boarding school or that her kids would be raised by nannies alone. It's possible that she would limit her work or structure it to allow parenting herself to a large degree. She really does have the money to quit altogether if she wanted to, maybe she would.
Very few actors, even the very solid Reese Witherspoon have been able to make their lifestyles work with marriage long term. I'm also a little annoyed with the idea that people want to insist that Aniston is somehow inadequate. Bullhockey. It is not easy at all to date under a microscope. Nevermind the separations that come from being whole people with your own lives.

Both Jennifer Aniston and Danielle Bean should consider the following: statements about the benefits vs. disadvantages of having men in stable relationships when having babies should start with the phrase "All other things being equal, . . ."

The reality is (in support of Bean) that the research shows that among POPULATIONS, children with fathers fare better than those without. The reality is (in support of Aniston) that CERTAIN single-mom families fare very nicely, thank you, and many of those are actually far better off with no dad than with the (dangerous? addicted? low-life? abusive? just-plain-stupid-and-worthless?) loser dad that would be there otherwise.

So perhaps Aniston should say "Look, girls, you'd better have your ducks lined up if you want to pull off this single-mom thing (REALLY!). Parenting is hard! And if you DON'T have your ducks lined up and yet you STILL end up being a single mom, we're here to help." Bean should say, "Hats off to the truly heroic single moms out there! Let's do what we can to help, and let's not waste any energy making single moms feel like crap--life's tough enough as it is. If we'd ALL do a better job raising our kids, maybe we'd have more men who want to be and are capable of being quality husbands and dads."

For the record, I'm father with two single and (as yet) childless adult daughters. I'd really, REALLY like to be a granddad, but (thus far) I'd prefer that they have husbands (and good ones!) before they make babies. But check back with me in a few years . . . .

As someone who chose not to have children, I would highly recommend that to everyone else.

Those who feel that they are "missing something" by not having children, can rest assured that they aren't missing anything.

Results of recent surveys concerning "happiness" confirm that having children adds to personal stress interferes with marital satisfaction and generally reduces personal happiness.

I don't want to get into the gender war over the question: Do kids need a dad? But I am struck by something else Anniston said: That anybody or bodies can serve as family in a pinch. I don't think so. I'm 64 now, and have many dear, close friends. I also have a multi-generation family. Trust me, they are not the same and it becomes steadily more apparent the older I get. Friends have their own lives, family stays family.

Only an liberal idiot would have such an idea.

Some men are better single parents then single women mothers. A child does not need a mother who
is abusive, neglectful, or who is so rich (as Aniston is), that the child will likely be raised by nannies and sent to boarding schools. Why cannot Aniston sustain a relationship with a man. In this situation, such a child is better off being raised by the biological/sperm donor father.

Only a fool would think children do better in a single parent household. Nature designed things so we have two parents and for good reason. Does that mean one can't grow up to be a functioning adult with just one parent. No it doesn't mean that. However, the ideal situation is two parents that love one another and work together to raise the children. Anyone who thinks it is twice as much work raising children alone is sadly mistaken. It is four or five times harder raising children alone. I know because I raised my daughter for five years alone with no help from anyone and it was pure hell. I sympathize with single parents and what they sacrifice. I do not operate under the delusion that it is a good situation.

It is quite difficult to consider any woman, no matter how well educated or financially successful, who is incapable of developing and continuing a committed relationship with a man, or unwilling to do so, as having sufficient maturity or responsibility to be a successful parent.

Even more than maintaining an adult relationship, being a parent requires one to put another person's interests ahead of one's own, indeed to plan to do so on a long-term basis. It often requires one to subordinate one's own career, financial, social or recreational interests to those of a much younger, less outer-directed person with perception of limited scope. It requires one to deal with a person one continually discovers to be different from oneself in unexpected and sometimes disconcerting ways. It requires one to support and encourage interests one may not share, may sometimes not understand fully, and may even find baffling. It requires one to lose sleep, and to live with concern for the safety and welfare of a person who will not be fully cognizant for many years of the need for self-preservation. It frequently disrupts and requires one to reschedule and rearrange one's own life, and to subordinate other demands on one's schedule, to care for and be involved with one or more children, something which indeed does not end even when one's children grow old enough to leave home for college and beyond.

Any woman sufficiently self-referential to think that this situation is about her rights, her freedom, her prerogative to make her own choices, her desire to shape her own life to best suit her own personal preferences, lacks sufficient maturity to have any business going anywhere near being a parent. This is because being a parent isn't about you -- it's about being totally committed, responsible and accountable for the life, safety, well-being, education, and personal happiness of the child or children whom you have chosen to bring into the world, or have adopted, even at great personal cost to oneself.

That is just as true for men, and fathers, as it is for women. There is nothing one can say about the responsibility of being a mother that does not apply with equal validity and strength to being a father. But the fact that it is equally true for both men and women does not excuse women one whit from its applicability.

If a woman can't figure out enough about life, and about human beings, to form and maintain an ongoing, committed relationship with a man, or considers her own personal interests to be more important than any compromises which might be required to do so, just how exactly does anyone think she has even the slightest clue about what being a parent requires, or about what she will have to do to care for and raise a child not just now or next year, but for a couple of decades?

She is very good looking, extremely wealthy and probably could have as a mate a very nice good looking man if she really wanted too. Anyone who believes differently is a Retard. I just found out what the "R"
word was today.
I am convinced the "N" word is nit wit.

I'm also a white male, and the father of daughters, and the assertion that "most women cannot take care of themselves without men" is misogynistic nonsense.

Critics like Bean should be equally critical of the latter group if they choose not to remarry.

To clarify, I'm not advocating that criticism in principle, merely pointing out the double standard.

Americablows, sorry, but I am also a white male. It may be beyond your ken, but it is possible to have empathy for those outsdie one's group.

Alwaysalabama, women don't potty train young boys? Really?

Why would a person ELECT to deny a child the benefit of a two parent household? Who would make this choice unless it were thrust upon them by circumstance?

That argument is invalid because it makes a false distinction between becoming a single parent by choice and remaining a single parent after being widowed. Critics like Bean should be equally critical of the latter group if they choose not to remarry. Yet they aren't insisting that widowed mothers have a responsibility to find stepfathers for their children.

This article is full of generalizations and few that come to mind is that the writer assumes that all dad's are good fathers and that all fathers are good husbands, and that all single women with children do not want good husbands in their lives or good fathers for their children.

Every Child does need a dad, but not just any old dad. Any old dad just want do.

Children need dad's in their lives who are going to support them, love them, guide them, discipline them, teach them things that women cannot teach them, and who are a positive role model to their children.

Children do not need the kind of dad's in their lives who are emotionally or physically abusive to them or their mothers. They do not need the kind of dads in their lives whose own insecurities prevent them from being the men that they were created to be, nor do they need dead beat dad's in their lives, the kind that are not positive role models.

If one is wealthy and can buy all the services one needs to support your child-rearing activities, then being a single parent (male or female) is easy. However, if one is a single parent and poor, it is brutal, both psychologically and physiologically. The "discussion" is a pathetic joke because it is divorced (no pun) from the reality of most Americans.

My parents had eight children. Several of us had drug and alcohol problems and some have serious mental illness. Mom was a devout Catholic and her solution to every challenge was to say a Novena. Now, I have mixed feelings, since if she'd had a smaller family I would never have been born. But my parents were overwhelmed with the challenges of raising a large family and I would say few people are capable of raising more than 3 or 4 children. You need to the income to feed and educate that many, the energy and attentiveness to see to their needs ( and to the idiot above who said teenagers need hardly any time from their parents, think again-we're not sending them out to work in the fields, they need educations and they are subject to the thousand adverse societal influences and raising them is quite a challenge). There were many large Catholic families in my neighborhood and many had children run out and be killed in traffic or suffer other injuries and death as a result of parental inability to monitor them. A single mom with one kid and an an attentive aunt or grandmother may do a great job if they have some male role models.

This society needs to wake up those men who chose to father a child but shrek on their fatherhood responsibilities. This includes loving your child and their mother; and providing a safe and caring environment. Our society is so ok with divorce and broken families. With that said; what is the big deal if she choses to have a baby without a significant man in her life. Unfortunately too many men walk away from their responsibilities anyway. What is the difference? At least she'd go into parenting KNOWING she is doing it along versus getting slammed with it a few years after the child is born.

As much as I style myself a social liberal, I can't help but agree with this woman. Why would a person ELECT to deny a child the benefit of a two parent household? Who would make this choice unless it were thrust upon them by circumstance? However, if the op/ed contributor wants families to be more traditional, she better advocate for men to take more accountability after conceiving a child instead of berating women for following their instincts by wanting to have a child, whether or not the male is a willing parent.

I see this as a feminist issue. Stop letting men off the hook, they are responsible for raising the next generation too.

It saddens me to read such a hateful article, filled with self-righteous judgment and presumptions. It depresses me further to read all the hateful, uninformed comments. Single mothers are no more a threat to society than gay domestic partners are. The real threat to our society is all this hate-mongering. What kind of example does THAT set for our children?

Yes, all single parents should be forced to give up their kids for adoption by couples. During a divorce custody will always go to the state. Children of single moms will be taken at birth. Some improvement that would be.

Any woman that claims to be able to raise a child without a father is merely saying she doesn't have a man. Child rearing is the hardest and the most stressful job in the world, in which a lot of reality is required. Maybe some women can afford a Nanny, but to those that cannot getting a shower may require a plan. Let's face it a man teaches a boy how to be a man far better than a woman. Mama just try potty training your baby boy, you are not equiped.

gooddeal1 wrote:

NEWSFLASH: The assertion that two people can raise 8 children better than a single woman can raise 1 is based in fantasy not reality.

-----------------------------------

While I certainly agree with this statement if the 8 children are born simultaneously (octomom), I would wholeheartedly disagree if the kids are born consecutively. Kids need less and less attention as they grow, so having two teenagers in the house doesn't really diminish the amount of attention a newborn gets. If anything, having two teenagers around would probably increase the amount of attention a newborn receives.

I pay no attention to what anyone in Hollywood says or does. Their whole profession is one of portraying themselves as somebody they aren't. In other words, they are professional deceivers, fakers, charlatans, nothing more. Besides, every single mother I know is supported by at least one man in the form of child support and alimony. On the other hand every single father I know is raising their child on their own without any help from anyone. Too bad the wenches who shout "I don't need a man" forget that line when they divorce.

Is Jennifer more than an egg donor?

"...in most cases women have been doing a fine job of raising children without a functional, present or interested male partners forever."

-----------------------

your misandrist crock runneth over

On what do you base your assertion, PMS?

NEWSFLASH: The assertion that two people can raise 8 children better than a single woman can raise 1 is based in fantasy not reality. Fathers by their own behavior often become nothing more than sperm donors. The statistics sited in the article are not valid without including a socio-economic context. If you look beyond the superficial, in most cases women have been doing a fine job of raising children without a functional, present or interested male partners forever. Would you still say, for example a financially secure, healthy and functional single parent would be less preferred than a married couple of drug-dealing, meth-addicted, high school drop-outs with histories of abuse?

This article, is appropriately appearing in the religious section as it is nothing more than propaganda promoting the author's agenda.

Misandrist, lesbian Nazis will next propose milking boys for their sperm when they reach puberty and killing all of them after.

It appears that the cast of Friends have about the same level of intellectual acuity as their viewers.

This type of nonsense seems to show up regularly in media, usually during the summer slow news cycle. The reality is that should sheep ever evolve with opposable thumbs women will become an evolutionary dead-end due to their high maintenance cost and relatively brief period of attractiveness, agreeableness and usefulness.

This is some pseudo-lesbo fallout from the women's movement (which was a ploy by Corporate America to get cheaper labor, btw) which is, like most liberal thinking, half-baked, reminiscent of Peter Pan fantasies and cloyingly bitter. Some women bitterly reject men, but children never do--children love and need their fathers, and women who would deprive their children of fatherly influence are self-centered narcissists. Period.

Agree with Seter16. Ms Bean it's just as irresponsible to have 8 children as have one when single! You have 8 because YOU want to - you evidently don't care you are contributing to all the problems of over-population: using up natural resources, adding to pollution problems and on it goes. You are more dangerous to the future of society than single moms.

Having eight children is the pinnacle of selfishness. The child with only one parent surely gets more love and attention than the child who is competing with seven siblings for two parents' time. Sorry, I'm siding with Aniston in this debate.

Who cares what Jennifer Aniston said? She is an actress promoting her latest movie, nothing more. A publicist probably wrote the statement. Accusing her of attempting to redefine human biology is over the top.

But I guess it was an opportunity (excuse)for the writer to get on the two parent bandwagon. There has been enough written by others about single parents raising children successfully, so I won't comment on that. I believe that a child is better off with one loving parent than having two if one is angry and abusive, but that has nothing to do with a silly Aniston movie.

I just can't believe an intelligent writer would take anything Aniston says seriously.

TERPGUY2009: You're very naive!

"being deserted by the spouse or escaping from the clutches of an abusive spouse. None of these situations is volitional, unless it is considered better to have a father present who batters the mother and physically, emotionally and sexually abuses the children than having no father present."

Spoken like a typical, idiotic woman that blames the man and spews male bashing on a daily rate.

Separation doesn't always come from the man, and when it does it doesn't mean battering, physical abuse, sexual abuse etc. etc.

Every MAN knows that women can be, not all, but can be extremely difficult and unreasonable to be around. Most women I know cannot take care of themselves without the help of the man, but those same women are lightning quick at nagging and pointing out the flaws of "Their Man!".

Guys have wizened up and are no longer becoming the carpet for American women. American women want equality and respect but rarely know how to give it, as in the quote stated above.

Average white male, damn proud of it!

Agree with Clairestuart_2000 - if you are so eager to have a child ADOPT. There are many many wonderful kids who could use a home so adoption for the most part is a win win situation. To create a baby when single is selfish - it's all about the mom not the child and that doesn't bode well for the child's future.

one size does not fit all...and statistics may paint a picture but that picture is not always the story...welcome to real world outside of comforting myth and rhetoric, Aniston has her issues as does any woman with 8 kids in our world of 6+ billion, neither should talk about responsible parenting responsible human should come first

Jennifer Aniston is entitled to her opinion. But take it with a grain of salt. She is an uneducated person, lacking in any credentials that would make her musings on this topic worth noting. If one is looking for advice on how to become an actress, then perhaps Ms. Aniston's opinion may be of some value. But on any other topic, she doesn't anymore than the rest of us and given her poor track record of creating and maintaining a family life, I would suggest that she knows a good deal less.

Stop worshiping celebrities.

Every woman I know who is a single mother is being supported by at least one man in the form of child support or "spousal support." On the other hand every man I know who is a single parent is really doing it on their own without any help from anyone.

What is being ignored here is the fact that many single mothers are such due to circumstance, not choice. Single mothers are placed in this situation because of having their spouse die, being deserted by the spouse or escaping from the clutches of an abusive spouse. None of these situations is volitional, unless it is considered better to have a father present who batters the mother and physically, emotionally and sexually abuses the children than having no father present. An interesting study would be the determination of how many women stay in such a relationship and hide it out of a fear of loss of income. Also the spurious implication of criticizing women that are single parents is that there is a large pool of ready, willing and able men to step in and take on the burdens of an existing family, and they only remain single by choice. While it is true that in general it is better for the nurture of a child into a successful adult for there to be two parents, it is not necessary. There have been many successful individuals who were raised by a single parent, were orphaned or had a chilly relationship with one or both parents. Alexander Hamilton was illegitimate, with his father deserting his mother when he was an infant and then being orphaned at 13; Andrew Jackson’s father died before he was born and he was orphaned at 14; Herbert Hoover’s father died when he was six and he was orphaned at 10; while Winston Churchill’s parents lived into his adulthood, they were distant and he was raised by a nanny (i.e., basically raised by a single mother); and Abe Lincoln had a non-traditional relationship with his parents, basically being raised by a single parent (his father) after the death of his mother and them by his step-mother when his father remarried—from his writings and anecdotal information it appears Lincoln had no respect for his father and gave him no credit for forming his character. Life is not neat and tidy.

Maybe it's not women being "selfish". Maybe it's men?

While I disagree that we should castigate an entire gender for the actions of the irresponsible ones, you bring up a valid point. People like Bean seem to get more worked up over women deliberately intending to be single mothers than over men whose actions result in women being single mothers. To me, that suggest that their real issue is not about children going without fathers, but women deciding that they don't need men in their lives. They sound very much like the opponents of same-sex marriage who worry that legal marriage for gay couples will lead to the dreaded two-mommies scenario, but worry little if at all over the two-daddies scenario.

One can make a good case that children are better off without a father figure if the one they have is abusive or neglectful.

I want to add that the last sentensces of this article is some of the dumbest and gloomiest I ever read:

"Even if it conflicts with our own desires, let's do all that we can to give every child a mom and a dad. Even if it requires sacrifice and humility, let's wake up to the consequences of selfish choices and do the right thing -- for the kids."

Would I want to grow up in a home like that, with a humiliated and sacrificing mother? Some happy family atmosphere. I would want out of there as soon as possible, and not make her my role model.

The author of this article does not take into account men's behavior at all. The statistics are skewed, because men going absent to their kids probably also cause other problems to both mother and children, such as abuse.

If men are nice grownup people with tenderness and a sense of responsibility, women will probably fall in love with them and WANT to keep them in their lives. We have too many selfish, dominant or childish men out there, and too few proper Dads. Yes, an adult man who loves the kid in a proper way is wonderful, but it doesn't have to be the biological father, if he turned out to be unfit.

Maybe it's not women being "selfish". Maybe it's men?

Danielle Bean....EIGHT CHILDREN??? Being religious they are probably your own....thanks for irresponsibly contributing to the problem of overpopulation....your god would be proud.

ohhh I just realized this is a "FAITH" page...of course then single parenthood is wrong...I love the above comment basically saying that since women were given the right to vote society has gone down hill. Yep this is definitely a religious page as NORMAL people don't' say those things.

Women have children on their own every day...news flash...those kids can be normal too!!! single parents can do just as good a job as two parent house holds.

I do hate to put a crimp in "family values," but if fathers are more than sperm donors, there are too many male parents who have not received the news.
-----

AMEN! I know of MANY families where the "father" is there but not engaged. He likes the idea of children but not the reality. And then there are fathers who divorce and leave ex AND children.

I was a single mom, the result of a man who decided he didn't want to be married anymore (1978). I had full custody of our four year old daughter - he never wanted custody. He never showed up for visitation on time - two to four hours late and many times canceled. He pretty much faded away when she was 10 or so. Now, she's 36, and has two daughters with another just about ready to make her debut. He's still in her life but while living five minutes away, too involved with his gambling and boozing to see her on a regular basis. I raised her but she was fortunate to have my brothers and my dad as male role models. She grew up level-headed, wise, well adjusted, well loved, and focused. She's currently working on her "Psy" D (doctorate) and works p/t with children with PDD.

That being said, if both parents, still married or divorced, are a positive influence and actively "parent" (parent is a verb as well as a noun), the child will grow up and make their way just fine.

I don't see anything wrong with single parents of either gender having their own children or adopting. Single parent families WORK. I was far better off as a single parent than if my ex husband had stayed. He was always useless as t*ts on a bull as a parent.

I do hate to put a crimp in "family values," but if fathers are more than sperm donors, there are too many male parents who have not received the news.
-----

AMEN! I know of MANY families where the "father" is there but not engaged. He likes the idea of children but not the reality. And then there are fathers who divorce and leave ex AND children.

I was a single mom, the result of a man who decided he didn't want to be married anymore (1978). I had full custody of our four year old daughter - he never wanted custody. He never showed up for visitation on time - two to four hours late and many times canceled. He pretty much faded away when she was 10 or so. Now, she's 36, and has two daughters with another just about ready to make her debut. He's still in her life but while living five minutes away, too involved with his gambling and boozing to see her on a regular basis. I raised her but she was fortunate to have my brothers and my dad as male role models. She grew up level-headed, wise, well adjusted, well loved, and focused. She's currently working on her "Psy" D (doctorate) and works p/t with children with PDD.

That being said, if both parents, still married or divorced, are a positive influence and actively "parent" (parent is a verb as well as a noun), the child will grow up and make their way just fine.

I don't see anything wrong with single parents of either gender having their own children or adopting. Single parent families WORK. I was far better off as a single parent than if my ex husband had stayed. He was always useless as teats on a bull as a parent.

1) Why does anything Aniston says have any weight in this conversation? What are her credentials? 2) Does anybody bother to dig up some facts about the statistics correlating family and juvenile problems to no male presence in the household? It seems too much attention is paid to the opinions of "famous" people!

Aniston's problem is not having a baby. Her
problem is she has been corrupted by money and fame. Focused on herself, her narcissism
makes any long term intimate relationship nearly impossible. Now, she may want a baby to have a lasting relationship with somebody. At least
until the "beauty of childbirth," complete with HBO special, is completed. Then it's on to the professional nanny and private boarding schools. See you in 20 years, kid!

It's also kinda of comic that Ms Aniston doesn't have any children at 41 and despite being Jennifer Aniston seems to have a problem staying in a relationship. As someone before mentioned, her father was not around so maybe this is one of those "who needs you anyhow"? moments.

The evidence Ms Bean ites is pretty clear. For all the arguments here about all you need is "any" role model etc. that's a nice thought, but your aunt or uncle will never be able to provide the 24/7 confidence that a kid needs. It's probable that mom and dad provide the first opposite sex role models that a kid can "practice" on and allow them to build up their self confidence.

Ms Aniston, of course, has lots of money, so she can pull off the single parent w/o skipping a beat. I suspect most people are not in that same situation, so no matter how well intentioned her advice has its limits.

Presumably our evolution from the simplest life form to this male-female split for reproduction had something strongly in its favor to ensure our survival, else it would not have arisen and endured.

The casual way in which, in less than 50 years, we think all of this can be discarded based on "modern thinking" is appalling really. Facilitating single parenting because of a relationship breakdown shouldn't mean encouraging it as the new norm.

One wonders what the long-term psychological effects on kids will be when they realize they were ordered online and delivered by Fedex to be implanted in their birth mother's womb, later to be raised by whatever collection of individuals decides they want to have a "child" experience. Maybe PetSmart can open a "kid" section where people can go out and shop for one.

"Kids, the new play thing. Try one!"

For Bernard: disgusting.

as a daughter, that he lived a long time far from her father and in the same time have a wonderful mum, i always feel that there is a missing thing in my life. it is a strange feeling that you could just feel it. with an existing father in my life i think that it could be easier and healthier.

Babies without dads...what a concept....just like the inner city of the past 40 years.....

....it has worked out so well, many of those fatherless "babies" now have prison cells

Women can deliver them but they cannot civilize them

What is ironic is that the so called traditional family really isn't. The atomic family unit with a doting mother and sage father is the middle class (actually, the lower middle class) dream. Up until the 50s working class and working poor dads were pretty much absent parents. This includes rural small farmers. The guys in the factories, mines, etc. were working 12 hours or more a day, six days a week; commonly after work these exhausted guys stopped by the local tavern on the way home. The small farmer was often on extended absences from home working in urban areas, too far to commute, as a craftsman or laborer to get some cash which they couldn't make off their small farms. How about fishermen and merchant seamen, a much larger segment of the population back then? They were gone from home for weeks and months at a time. Who reared the kids of these classes? Mom, and she might have well have been a single mom; dad’s contribution s pretty much financial. The fact that working class dad was able to be more present during the 50s and 60s is due to labor unions, not the church or the economic elite. And Beaver Cleaver like rearing from the middle and upper ranks of the middle class? These folks wanted to emulate the rich and used house keepers, nannies and governesses to raise their children; often they shuffled their kids off to boarding schools. Mom was busy with the social and charitable whirl and dad was hobnobbing with the guys at the business or the club. When dad got home he ensconced himself with his cigars and brandy in his study, while mom reigned in the sitting room; both rooms off limits to the kids except for nanny bringing them in for the nightly kiss before bed. Other than for a minority and Hollywood, the traditional family never existed. Given current economic conditions with the comfy middle and upper middle class telling the working man and woman he and she has to pick up stakes at the drop of a hat and move to a location with jobs (continually dislocating the kids), working two or three jobs if need be, the likelihood of this ideal expanding to the majority population is very small. The dream of a stable two engaged parent family flies in the face of economic reality. This chimera can be thrown in the trash can along with the others such as: one can be assured of getting ahead if they play by the rules, get an education, save for a rainy day (don’t you just love those recession proof 401Ks), etc. O’ Reilly’s rant is another example of him smugly berating victims of circumstances.

Danielle Bean is out of touch with reality!

Keep clinging to the pope's beliefs...the rest of us live in the real world. Single parenting has been going on for 30 some years!

What is important is surrounding children with love and guidance...whether it comes from friends or family.

Some of the most brilliant people in the world who are contribute...came from single parent homes.

Regardless of how anyone feels about this topic, the author should know that some very faulty logic was used to support her argument. The fact that statistics show more children without fathers end up in jail or pregnant does not necessarily reflect that this must be caused because they didn't have a father. Many of the children in these statistics most likely did have fathers - fathers who were in jail, on drugs, or abusing their daughters. Not all fathers are keepers.

Is it not important to emphasize the idea that children need as many positive role models in their lives as possible whether they be mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc? I also think that factors such as love, understanding, stability, and security far outweigh the very simplistic idea that all children need is a mother and a father living together in the same home. The quality of parenting should be the issue, not family aesthetics.

Perhaps you can use your words regarding fathers being important to influence a 'Family court"system dedicated to removing fathers from that role.Ms annistons movie of the month this time only shows what nonsense passes as entertainment,her 40 something age is getting a bit long in the tooth for the roles she is overpaid for,,perhaps she can join the grannies in the city for their next epic.

Babies without fathers is not new. It dates back thousands of years. Unfortunately its not the proper way to raise a child. No fatherly guidance, no sense of direction for the child from a male perspective and all of this assumes that the father has moral values and sticks to them.

Unfortunately, this commentary misses the point of the film (did Ms. Bean even see it?) and uses some facts disingenuously.
The film ends with the character played by Aniston and the biological father married and living in the intact nuclear family favored by Ms. Bean. So in typical Hollywood fashion, it all worked out and the boy has two heterosexual parents. In fact, the movie reinforces Ms. Bean's viewpoint because the boy and his biological father bond immediately upon meeting, showing that blood is indeed thicker than water.
Also, to cite facts that children raised without fathers end up in trouble more than those raised with fathers ignores the more influential cause of the difference - the lack of economic support. This country runs on money, and children in families without it tend to end up in trouble more than those in families with it. A single parent family is more likely to face economic strain, whether it is a single mom or a single dad. As previous commenters note, there are many more single moms than single dads raising families.

I'm a single father who adopted a wonderful son.

What scares me is that my child will have to endure the hateful rant of religious people like you saying that his family is somehow less good than their families.

Sexist, religionist clap-trap.

What a child needs is the full time attention of one or more4 caring and attentive adults, some financial stability, and emotional support during the difficult adolescent years.

You can save your commentary on Hollywood lifestyles when you become idealistic enough to believe in a political state that protects all of its citizen from the cradle to the grave.

Non-traditional families can work just as well as traditional families in any situation where the adult(s) is/are able to give the child that kind of attention.

It is true that what she says is silly. What is worse is the men that don't act like fathers, don't take any responsibility and, frankly, aren't worth trying to keep. It is those men that make people like Aniston say what she does. I don't think it is narcissism or fantasy on her part, it is reality.

Many many children ARE better off without a father, given the options they have for fathers.

Interesting note: I read years ago that Jennifer Anniston grew up without a father. He was a steady working actor and could be a father, but she thinks he chose not to be one. Later on when she became famous he tried to develop the relationship, but she was not interested. Is this payback?

It would be ideal for all kids to have two responsible parents with an income that permits one of them to stay home. I don't understand how Republicans speak out of one side of their mouth and are completely against supporting less fortunate families when they vote!!!

So much for the argument, offered by defenders of Prop 8, that American children require the sanctity of heterosexual marriage of a mother and a father.

Only the Post would care what this dingbat says! Did you know you can make movie with an actress without any real ability? Heck you can make a few of them, that is if talent is no object......

I wish the 20-something wenches who claim they don't need men would say the same thing as 40-somethings in divorce court.

Sure, and a Man don't need a woman any more to do the same thing. What is this world comeing to and where does the love of two parents come into this equasition. I can't believe that some people in this world has become so cold and self sufficant. It only takes one to have a baby, but it takes both a man and a woman to raise a child for the child to have both values and respects of men and women both. I think that all children deserve to be reaise by both parents. Self independance is good, but give all children to have the chance to experiance both views of men and women!

If a women chooses to have a child without a live in dad and can afford to do so without government aid----whose business is it anyhow? Ms Bean, you and the other sanctimonious holy rollers should BUTT OUT of peoples' private lives. I would have assumed that the right wing (libertarian) TEA BAGGERS would be all over this one on grounds of being free from government interference.

There is nothing wrong with Aniston wanting to have a child without a father. Maybe it will work out badly and maybe it will work out fine. My parents were separated (but never divorced) and I grew up without the presence of a father. I did see my father, but only about twice a year. This experience left wounds, but also gave me some strengths.

What I do worry about in Aniston's case is that liberals will take her case to be "progressive", the wave of the future and anyone who questions the wisdom of Aniston's choice will be called a sexist bigot. Abuse has become far too much a tool of liberals and feminists and they need to show more respect for other views.

Similarly, it was fine when some women called themseleves Ms since they felt that their marital status was none of their business. But now it has become "the law" that every woman MUST be called Ms, whether she subscribes to the feminist agenda or not.

I sometimes find newspapers referring to Ms. Palin and also to Mrs. Obama. There is something a bit absurd about this. Clearly Palin who has more than twice as many children as Obama and is strongly pro-life is the more traditional person. And no, I will not call her anti-choice which is the PC term.

I suspect that Michelle Obama is called Mrs. Obama because Democrats want to reassure people that she IS a wife and mother. Ditto for "Mrs. Clinton". Palin is called Ms. Palin, probably to stick a finger in her eye.

Liberals need to understand that their notion of "progressive" is actually a cultural imperialism. Afghans, no matter what their faults, resent this cultural imperialism which is why even Americans with totally innocent motives are being killed in Afghanistan.

The Taliban are of course wrong. But do not make the easy assumption that you progressives are 100% right. You are not and you need to be more modest.

I understand the point, but you just take it over the top? So many quotes wondering why a mother would want her own kid instead of adopting? It's simple- because it's their own! For some people, adoption is a great option, for others, having another person's kid (and especially one old enough to have distinct memories of his past) won't work.

And "don't rob the kid of a two parent household?" Please. Your making it sound like you'd rather not have the kids born than in vitro by a single mother. They have decided to take on the task of raising a child, with or without a husband. You should be happy for them, not sounding like the nagging religiously conservative grandmother. If not for their decision, the kid wouldn't even exist.

And next, don't ask people to stay together "for the sake of the kid". Another ridiculous argument. People have one life on earth, just one (unless you believe in reincarnation, but since your Catholic, my guess is going to be no), and if G-d truly wants you to be with the mother and be miserable just to be under the same roof as the kid, then that G-d is most surely an unjust one.

What you SHOULD ask is that they have a father. He doesn't need to be around the house 24/7. He should call often, he should visit as often as he can, he should help financially. this can provide the stable father figure a child needs. If not the father, again, it's a "father figure" that's needed more than anything, one who can teach him/her the way a father would. remember, it wasn't really until the 19th century that children were considered raised solely by their parents. It's a larger effort than them.

By the way, just for the record, I'm a new father. I will admit, it was accidental, the mother decided to keep it. I work overseas and live 2+ hours from her now because I had to move for work. I've promised myself I'm going to be a good father, see her twice-3x a month on weekends, and make sure to call when I can't and be there for her. And you know what? I think I'm going to be alright with that. It truly sickens me to see others judging from their high horses, acting almighty as if they know the true morality and throw mud in their spare time. Stop being so holier than thou, and join the rest of us down in the real world.

Oh spare me. Do you really have so little going on that you can take on fist-shaking at movies?

Perhaps you should have Jennifer Aniston arrested and thrown in prison because clearly her film is a violation of the defense of marriage act.

Get your torches ladies and gentlemen, the mob forms at nightfall tomorrow!

A single mother raising their children alone represents more than just a family without a father-unit. It also represents a SINGLE mother doing all the work of raising the children.

Maybe not even that, if she has a nanny or a parent helping her out.

So there are several viewpoints wrapped up into this situation, not just "the absence of a father". You could go on and on about the consequences of this.

But it's not all that much different from divorce, and even that is not all that much different from the accidental death of the father. And families survive the last almost completely without choice.

Why can't they survive the mother who chooses to have children on her own?

This criticism of Aniston is ridiculous. 1) she is just stating reality, women can and do go to sperm donors- it is not really that new. 2) She never says it is better to go to sperm donor than to find a great guy/father 3) she does say if you can't find a great guy/father it is great that you don't have to be denied the wonder and love of being a great mother.
Women have put up with a lot of abuse and lameness from men for centuries. Now that women are financially independent, they don't have to put up with it. Now that women can get pregnant without a man, they don't have to put up with it.
If that statement makes you feel defensive - check your insecurities. Its not saying all men are abusive and lame, just that women don't have to put up with the ones that are.
Want to be a daddy? Get your act together. Don't go blaming women for wanting something better for their children and themselves.

The most recent statistics (Pediatrics, Gartrell - UC-SF) show that two lesbian parents do a better job than heterosexual parents when raising children. Other statistics show that single professional women do just as good of job of raising children as heterosexual two-parent families. The biased statistics quoted in this article are what happens when a single non-educated woman attempts to raise children on her own. Of course, there are usually too few resources in that situation and the ghetto life leads to drug usage and crime.

Should we deny men the privilege of raising children simply because a survey shows that lesbians do the best job? Should we label heterosexual parents selfish because they choose to have children under less than optimal conditions, since two lesbians now appear to provide the optimal conditions? Should we feel sorry for children raised in a heterosexual household? According to the writer's logic, we should.

Two parent heterosexual families are inherently unstable, facing something like a fifty percent divorce rate. And, of the fifty percent that stay together, some percentage of those relationships are lousy and downright harmful to children. I don't have statistics on lesbian families, but perhaps the reason their children turn out better is that their families are more stable and loving. After all, heterosexual men tend to be more involved in crime and addiction and suffer more from disorders like narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder.

No one has bothered to study homosexual men, but what if it turns out that gay male couples do a better job than opposite-sex parents?

It seems all too easy for members of heterosexual families to criticize and demean other family structures and to smugly declare their family structure to be the best. They would do better to focus their criticism inward as there is plenty room for improvement. Otherwise, they may find themselves reading a similar article written by a lesbian crying over those poor children being reared by heterosexuals.

I do hate to put a crimp in "family values," but if fathers are more than sperm donors, there are too many male parents who have not received the news. In fact, the author of this essay, like me, surely knows women whose husbands have left them and their children, conveniently forgetting about them, having to be taken to court to ply them loose from their childcare payments, etc.

There are those mature charmers, favorites of us all, who leave their wives within a year after the birth of their children because it was all jes' too much for them. For THEM.

If a woman can have a child or adopt a child and give that child a good life, that is fine with me. I thank God that my marriage is solid, but if I were not married, I would have adopted. There is something to be said for raising baby humans. A lot, in fact.

I suppose it’s a sign of the times – a sign of the me generation where adults, despite their professed good intentions, sometimes put the welfare of their children beyond their own selfish needs.

Rich Hollywood, millionaire athletes, and bucks-up musicians who so cherish social justice and advocate lifestyles precarious for the wealthy and disastrous for the poor should be willing to fork over their entire incomes to the support the poverty that results from their irresponsible, glib promotion of sex on demand, divorce, single parenthood, illegal immigration, and drug use. Put up or shut up, Jennifer, and all your phony, limo-liberal friends.

"Dads are more than sperm donors, more than paychecks, and more than goofy fodder for popular sitcoms. They are fully one half of what every child needs for a healthy home life and an integral part of God's plan for future generations."

Love that quote Danielle. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Back in June on Father's Day, Father talked about how degraded our fathers are on television in sitcoms. I never really realized it before he said that. But he's right. In our struggles as females to have the same rights as men, have degraded them and made them worthless, foolish, and stupid as fathers and husbands. Before long, they are going to have to have their own movement to get some respect back.

Children definitely need a man in the house. I don't know what I would do without my husband sometimes and our children adore him. He brings certain qualities to the table that I can't bring. There is just something about having a male figure around. And that doesn't mean it makes women any less important, just important in different ways and we need to learn to accept that.

To those who adopt, I applaud you. I think it's a wonderful alternative to artificial insemination. While I can't pretend to know what it's like not to be able to have my own children, I think it's a wonderful thing to welcome a child into your home and your heart with open arms to give them a good life. It is definitely something to be applauded. I know the Catholic Church I know Linda would applaud that and I'm so sorry that you have had a negative experience.

Thank you Danielle for being so open and honest about this. Jennifer Aniston is obviously confused and has maybe never talked candidly with a single mother. I don't think any single mom would say it is easy to raise a child by themselves. I know someone personally who knows all about the struggles it brings and also knows how important it is to have a man around. It's not weak to admit that, it's just the truth.

Thanks for a timely and honest piece. I read it yesterday, the 42nd anniversary of my father's death. I'll always be grateful for the 15 years I had with my Dad as he had a profound influence on who I am. My parents and the Catholic faith they passed down to me are gifts beyond measure!!

Eboo Patel & CO:

ALL, EVERY & ANY {American Based} "iShlamite"s and or "Esuaite"s {aka PELEG-ians, aka, Stanic VerUS lovers of the "ELDERS OF AL-TAQIYAH" et al] islami's should Become "METHODISTS" or Mormon's..

PS: "Nation Of Islam" don't like "white-Crackers" let alone Kafirs. Please go clean-up Chicago ill-inois. Move Cardoba CULTture/SECTion House there.

Note: G.W. & CO; TOld Ye/Yo's a Big-Lie! He & they know the "Art of DO-n-Then-Deny".

Heck; Even (another Methodist) Bill Clinton, from Ala-mater George Town University, Know this tool (Wordmerchantizing; "Persuasion-Packaging" i[WE] call it). Note again:

I'm Go'n Fish'n! {WE use sand-Worms n Spearings for Baith). Interesting. Did Ye Know that it is now proven that fish Listen n talk? But WW[i] Apocalyptic-ON's; Not Pre-Apocalyptic-offs, art not Fish!

"QUOTE" The old adage used to be; There is a Sucker Born'th every minute" [similar]; but, but now it's more like ; "There a sucker Born every 15-Seconds" or So.

Jennifer Anniston is hardly a cornucopia of wisdom. She got in much more hot water by using the word "retard" in a public interview recently.

This article is full of the kind of common sense that elements of current culture deride as representing outmoded thinking.

Yes one CAN raise a child, sometime even successfully, without a pair of parents. But poll the 18-21 year olds at a university, and at a state penitentiary and a WIC program orientation, and see how much difference the solid family base of two parents makes.

Aniston really doesn't realize what she is saying. I do, or actually, my daughter does. More than once my daughter and I have talked how she has missed having a dad. Sixteen years ago my boyfriend and I split-up, and shortly thereafter I found out I was pregnant. Luckily, I am now married and she has a father figure--plus her grandfather has always been supportive of her. As for myself, now that I have two children and one on the way, I see how much my eldest daughter has missed out on--the first 10 years of her life--by not having her biological father around. Children need a mother and father; my toddlers remind me of that every day.

Being a new father has shown me first-hand how true it is that children need a dad. (But note I have nothing but compassion for those women who, often through no fault of their own, are having to raise a child by themselves.)

I am Catholic and my wife and I have a fertility problem (like Linda below) and we have adopted three non-white children (also like Linda), and the Catholic Church applauds such families. It should be noted that ALL Catholics have been adopted into God's family through Jesus Christ, so adoption has a special place in our Faith.

Linda, it sounds like you ran into some Catholics at a parish who weren't embracing what the Church actually teaches about adoption and fertility. I recommend you go to another parish. Find one that welcomes you as it should, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water by rejecting the Church wholesale. God bless!

Great article Mrs Bean. I would like to address Linda813. I am very sorry you feel judged by what you call "good" Catholics. I try to be a "good" Catholic although often I fall short. But I don't know of any reason why any Catholics should look down at your choices. You say you have been married to the same man for 20 years and have adopted two children. That is to be applauded, not criticized. There are so many children who need good homes, and the color of a child's skin should not matter to anyone. Please consider talking to your parish priest, or visiting another parish. I have heard a lot of critical talk about family size. I think a lot of it comes from people who are constantly criticized and feel like they have to defend the choices they have made about their own family. Please remember thet calling Mrs. Bean names is the same as the criticism you have felt from other families. We are all called to holiness, no matter what our family size is. Since you mentioned infertility in your post. Please know you have my prayers. My husband and I had fertility problems at the beginning of our marriage, and although fortunately it is no longer an issue, I remember how difficult it was.

LINDA813 - The Catholic Church that I know would celebrate your decision to adopt children. Many of my friends, those with large families and those with 1 or 2, all rejoice when a new baby joins a family whether by birth or adoption. It's about being open to the children that God wants us to have. In addition, the Church does not recognize single parent families as garbage. It does recognize, however, the importance of mothers and fathers and that we should be of support to families who are without one or the other. I believe this is what Danielle's article is all about.

Mrs. Bean,
People like you (a good Catholic in a "traditional" family) is one of the reasons I stay far away from my church. I have been married to the same man for 20 years, but that doesn't matter to any of the "good" Catholics. I am not a Firtle Myrtle like you and only have two adopted (NOT WHITE) children. I know that in the Church's eyes I am no better than the kind of garbage who either makes or adopts children without a real father.

Being a father myself, I obviously believe in the importance of fathers. However, I'm also troubled by the tone of the criticism of women like Anniston.

There are probably plenty of couples who have children for the same reasons as Anniston, yet her critics seem to find those reasons more objectionable in single women. And while instances of single men adopting babies are probably rare, one doesn't hear laments about such situations deprive children of mothers.

The idea of children having a right to be raised by a mother and father may sound laudable on the surface, but the implications are problematic. It would translate into societal pressure or even a legal requirement for single parents to marry or widowed parents to remarry. It would translate into a ban on gay couples raising children.

But after Woman's suffrage the role of the father has steadily decreased.

Oh, please. Having a family with mother and father should mean that both parents are equals. The idea that men are natural or God-appointed leaders is a hateful one.

Sadly, it's all about the need to be loved: in the times of an easy divorce and instability of a couple, people still need to have someone around to take care of and to be loved from. And since the men leave, they get themselves a child knowing that at least for a few years it won't be able to leave them. It's pure selfishness and it should be treated but all the world around us shouts one's right to be happy. It sure is true, but we're not allowed to seek our own happiness knowing that it will hurt somebody else. In this case: the children that become our BELONGING and not a person.

Thank you for addressing this issue candidly. I empathize with women who long for motherhood and whose biological clocks are ticking loudly (I've been there). But the child shouldn't have to be a fatherless victim of a woman's dream of motherhood. As an alternative, single women who long for motherhood could adopt a hard-to-place baby or older child, therefore giving a home to a child who otherwise would have likely lingered in an orphanage or a string of foster homes. This was what I was considering when it looked like marriage wasn't in my future. I knew that a two-parent family was the ideal, but I figured that a single-parent family was preferable to no family at all. In my mind, this is a far cry from using artificial reproductive technology to conceive a child knowing that the child will never have a father.

Very nicely written. So much of our society today relegates the role of men in child rearing to the back burner. But men are equally as important in raising healthy children. In my own experience as a child of divorce, I had a wonderful mom who was an excellent role model but the bumps I hit along my path to adulthood were all directly related to the lack of a male presence in my life. I see in my own children the self-confidence and comfort they have in who they are because they have a mother and father who love them and are fully present for them. Choosing to have a child like Jennifer Aniston does in her movie role is just another example of the selfishness and self-centeredness that dominates our society. Thank you for your honest piece!

Traditional values may demand both father and mother to be included as a family unit. But then when Fathers played the role of a leader, society accepted and respected our roles in family life. But after Woman's suffrage the role of the father has steadily decreased. This can clearly be seen among the African American community where short sighted government entitlement programs rewarded the mother and her children with cash, regardless whether these children were fathered by many resulting in almost the total collapse of the inner city Black community. These days men ARE but just sperm donors and women just "baby factories". It is not by nature for men to die younger than women. Many men die from the effects of a nagging wife and an ungrateful children. One are one of the loneliest men in the world and suffer depression, hypertension and higher levels of cancer, heart attacks, strokes, etc. America is now a "chic society" where the men bare the brunt of anything that goes wrong.

I agree: "I wonder when the consequences of our cultural selfishness will catch up with us enough to alarm us."
It kind of reminds me of something a friend recently said to me -- "Ignorance is bliss... until it's to terrible to ignore."
I believe that many children will suffer greatly by this trend.

well said.