First a quick update. I finally heard from my friend after 4 weeks of nothing. I was very relieved to hear from her, and she apologized, which was good. I think we're okay now. It was an unpleasant blip but at least it's sorted.
First midwife appointment is tomorrow, so I'm sure I'll have something to record about how that goes. I'm very interested in finding out about the NIPT availability. And also anything else having to do with my new status!
I read a couple of news pieces recently about single mothers; one is here and the other is here.
Obviously there are many, many other articles about single motherhood, these are just the two I read over the weekend. What I found particularly interesting, and shocking were some of the comments on both pieces. While I have immersed myself in the decision to become a single mother, I am continually surprised that other people would voice such ignorant and insulting responses to the concept. My favorite ignorant ranting is about the 'unnatural' method through which a single woman becomes a mother. I mean, of course, for starters, many women use a known donor and techniques that are pretty much 'natural'. But more insultingly, I wonder if these commentators are aware of how many married couples also must turn to reproductive technologies to have a child, which may include the use of a donor (either egg or sperm). I'm sure they wouldn't be quite so quick to gnash their teeth if it was a married couple pursing IVF, but as soon as it's a single woman, all bets are off the table. This goes hand in hand with the ever popular 'why don't you just adopt?' line of commentary which again one must wonder if this comment is said to every married couple they know. I mean if there are so many children so desperate for homes out there (and so easy to adopt?!) then surely the best place for them in your misguided view of the world would be in a home with a mother and father. So really, no couple should reproduce if they could adopt, or are you being hypocritical.....
Then there are the comments about these women 'sponging off the state and tax dollars' which I find entertaining because it doesn't say anywhere that the single mothers are needing social welfare. But so what if they were? Do only married couples qualify for social welfare? If you are married and have a child, but you can't afford it, it's okay for you to have social welfare but not a single mother? Certainly in my case I am preparing financially and have been preparing financially for the burden of having a child, and it's not something I've undertaken lightly. Which is of course very different to the people on TV on '16 and pregnant' and other such people who get pregnant with no clear means to support a child. But if I end up in trouble and I need social benefit, should I not be deserving of it because I chose to have a child? Troubling.
And finally the often trod out statistics about the harm to a child from a single parent household. Of course no one wishes to harm their child, and you could turn to Philip Larkin for advice here. But many of those statistics have to do with situations which are very different from a choice mother's situation. I've also seen more nuanced statistics that suggest that the issues have far more to do with poverty level and age of parent than 'single parenthood' as a block grouping. But again, so what? Are children not harmed by coupled families? Of course they are. Your odds may be somewhat statistically higher, but there is risk to everything in life. Parents do the best they can with what they have, hopefully. But all people can run into trouble and things can go wrong, so either no one should have children, or get off your high horse.
Other comments of irritation were people insisting that a sperm donor is a father which I suppose is a matter of semantics and pedantry and if you wanted to I suppose you could comfortably say that a donor is a biological father in the same way that a birth mother is not considered the 'mother' of a child. To parent a child and to give your genetic material to the making of a child are I think, everyone an agree, two very different things. I believe it is good to provide distinctions for children and set their expectations. So when I tell my future child they have a donor and not a daddy, it will be clear on what I see the difference is between a genetic scientific fact and a parent who cares for you and loves you. If I did anything otherwise it would set a false expectation. Of course a child has a genetic father, but if you can't see how throwing words around like that is confusing to a child, then you are probably the problem actually.
At any rate, I'm happy that I am generally supported and not assaulted by my network of friends and family. Although I equally am aware that some may hold contrary opinions that they express outside of my hearing. I'm okay with that. I'm sure certain friends of mine have doubts or concerns, they may think I'm not up to it, that it's going to be too hard, that I'm crazy for taking this on, etc. But my friends support me to my face, and if they have them, express their concerns elsewhere. If I do have such friends, then hopefully I will prove them wrong, and hopefully they also hope I will prove them wrong.
Life isn't easy, full stop. But it is what you make of it. So make it the best you can for yourself and those within it. What else can you do?
No comments:
Post a Comment