Attitudes towards unmarried mothers

[Porthos]

Throughout history have attitudes towards unmarried mothers always been negative, with mothers forced to give up their babies? Or did this become more common in the Victorian and early 20th Century?

 

[Port]

Throughout history have attitudes towards unmarried mothers always been negative, with mothers forced to give up their babies? Or did this become more common in the Victorian and early 20th Century?

During the victorian times an unwed mother was seen as wonton. babies were taken away. Uper clas women would hide this fact as they were seen as no longer a marketable wife. Lower class if lucky might enter into service (domestic) Not so long ago unwed mothers h
Today unwed mothers if in school would attend classes not with their age peers. Tody that has changed they attend classes in most schools. I do not know if the school provides day care?

 

[Wenge]

In China unwed mothers keep the abortion clinics busy. In China, the worst thing a woman can be is pregnant without a husband.

 

[athena]

Things are very different for patriarchies (male rule) than they are for matriarchies (female rule). Things are also different if food is plentiful or not. In the worst conditions females may unite and avoid males to avoid pregnancy. Mother instinct dies when people can barely feed themselves and infanticide of course increases.

When survival is difficult, adding a baby to the struggle is not considered a blessing, and this leads to males being more valued than females who may increase the burden of surviving. Infanticide was a fact of life when people had to make life and death decisions. Infanticide could be the act of killing a child, or most commonly was a passive act. Leaving a baby to die of exposure was the most common. When a baby is in the last stages of starvation, the baby stops crying, and at this point if the mother does not force feed the child, it will die. I don't think anyone wants to be involved with the harsher realities of life, and this would result in unwed mothers being isolated as people may very well avoid her and the pain of her reality.

 

[Tercios Espanoles]

$1.00 at a time...

 

[Brisieis]

$1.00 at a time...

WTF is this?

 

[Edwulf]

In the west, since Christianity I'd say so and in the east since Islam and Judaism.
Pagan attitudes I imagine possibly were different but maybe the same.
Especially in any male dominated society.

 

[Jake10]

In the west, since Christianity I'd say so and in the east since Islam and Judaism.
Pagan attitudes I imagine possibly were different but maybe the same.
Especially in any male dominated society.

I think this comes down to basic biology. Naturally, a woman wants to mate with a man who will provide for her and her children, so religions made by people will reflect this.

 

[RoyalHill1987]

In history, presumably an unmarried mother would be viewed as someone who has failed at life. Obviously, male-female relationships lead to ... which inevitably leads to pregnancy in pre-industrial societies. So in those times a woman would need to not have ... with any man unless she was certain he was marriage material. This is prettymuch common sense anyway, since getting pregnant by someone who will then not care for the child is a terribly bad idea and might lead to death by starvation in a natural environment.

So someone who breaks that rule and has ... anyway and then has the child would be going against the established norms of society and imposing a burden on the rest of the group, who now have the choice either to feed an unwanted child (and possibly starve as a result) or cast her and the child out.

Also, the rule of not having ... before marriage would have made sense because in a pre-modern society, the only way a man could be completely sure a new woman wasn’t already carrying the child of someone else is if she was a virgin. If a man marries a woman who is pregnant with another man’s child, that would be a disaster from an evolutionary perspective as that man is now devoting the rest of his life to caring and nurturing the genes of a rival. He would, in essence, have quite literally failed at life.

Thank goodness we live in a modern civilised society where these concerns are no longer relevant for the majority of people.

 

[Domhnall Balloch]

For most of human history a child without a father was a communal burden, so naturally women who had a child without the male around to provide for it would earn her the scorn of a community in all likelihood on the verge of subsistence.

When feudalism came, a child without a father who was married to the mother was a communal burden as marriage and inheritance was how they transferred property and responsibility.

To ensure that things were done this way society and theologians incorporated them into religion; people are more likely to listen to an infallible God than their uncle. When the practical considerations ceased, only religious morality remained, and that's always vitriolic: especially in the hands of a society with nothing to do but invent meaningless standards of conduct. The Victorians are the prime example of this.

Now our society has neither the practical considerations behind the rule nor the pseudo-religious morality-boredom enforcing it, so things are easing up. Slowly.

 

[Lawnmowerman]

Like gazelle's with broken legs.

 

[Jake10]

In history, presumably an unmarried mother would be viewed as someone who has failed at life. Obviously, male-female relationships lead to ... which inevitably leads to pregnancy in pre-industrial societies. So in those times a woman would need to not have ... with any man unless she was certain he was marriage material. This is prettymuch common sense anyway, since getting pregnant by someone who will then not care for the child is a terribly bad idea and might lead to death by starvation in a natural environment.

So someone who breaks that rule and has ... anyway and then has the child would be going against the established norms of society and imposing a burden on the rest of the group, who now have the choice either to feed an unwanted child (and possibly starve as a result) or cast her and the child out.

Also, the rule of not having ... before marriage would have made sense because in a pre-modern society, the only way a man could be completely sure a new woman wasn’t already carrying the child of someone else is if she was a virgin. If a man marries a woman who is pregnant with another man’s child, that would be a disaster from an evolutionary perspective as that man is now devoting the rest of his life to caring and nurturing the genes of a rival. He would, in essence, have quite literally failed at life.

Thank goodness we live in a modern civilised society where these concerns are no longer relevant for the majority of people.

Which society are you referring to? If we look at places like China, India, the Middle East and other places around the world, this statement is not true.

 

[Earl_of_Rochester]

I think this comes down to basic biology. Naturally, a woman wants to mate with a man who will provide for her and her children, so religions made by people will reflect this.

That's the thing which works both ways though, many guys have no desire to raise someone else's kids with their own money/time/etc. This is what terrifies me about starting a family just in case the marriage didn't work out. It's not a universal trait but imho a single guy usually wants a single .... without extra baggage.

 

[Fox]

Now our society has neither the practical considerations behind the rule nor the pseudo-religious morality-boredom enforcing it, so things are easing up. Slowly.

Well, more precisely, now our society has decided that it's alright to use the state to forcibly redistribute money from individual men to individual women, and has otherwise washed their hands of the matter. This has resulted in negative externalities which would worry a responsible society. The practical considerations haven't vanished, but rather, been covered with a bandaid and willfully ignored, to the detriment of the children involved.

 

[Fox]

One example of such a negative externality: crime linked to absent fathers.

Having a biological father who maintained a close relationship with his son, whether or not he lived in the family home, might be crucial in preventing susceptible boys becoming criminals, research presented yesterday suggested.
But stepfathers appeared to do little to decrease the risk that a boy will turn to crime, the conference of the British Psychological Society's division of forensic psychology heard in Birmingham.

...

All 68 boys, aged between 12 and 16, were from working class backgrounds, had lower than average intellectual ability, had similar problems with their peers and with hyperactivity, had equally large families, and in both groups 40% suffered from dyslexia.
But there was one "very striking" difference between the two groups: 55% of the "good boys" lived with their biological fathers, compared with only 4% of the "bad boys".
Almost 80% of the "good boys" spoke of being close to their biological fathers. Among these were 24% of the group who said they had a biological father living away from home who was an influence in their lives.
Only 18% said there was no one they regarded as a father figure, while 3% said they had a stepfather.
Among the "bad boys", 45% said they had no one they considered a father figure, 30% said they had a stepfather, 22% a biological father not living at home and only 4% a father living at home.

Seizing daddy's cash and giving it to mommy is no remedy to this. Practical concerns remain.

 

[Jake10]

That's the thing which works both ways though, many guys have no desire to raise someone else's kids with their own money/time/etc. This is what terrifies me about starting a family just in case the marriage didn't work out. It's not a universal trait but imho a single guy usually wants a single .... without extra baggage.

Yes, using our own energy and resources to propagate the genes of another man contradicts our biological programming, but that seems to be changing as ideas and culture become more and more important. In other words, we can propagate what we think through another man's offspring, and that matters more. Is this evolution?

 

[Brisieis]

That's the thing which works both ways though, many guys have no desire to raise someone else's kids with their own money/time/etc. This is what terrifies me about starting a family just in case the marriage didn't work out. It's not a universal trait but imho a single guy usually wants a single .... without extra baggage.

But unfortunately for you Earl, the older you get the moe likely it is that if you meet a woman she will have one child or more.

Bear in mind though that it's not a matter of women just dishing out kids to every bloke, but rather relationships not working out and her being left with kids to raise, it's not always the womans fault.

What if you met a really nice .... that was pretty and seemed to be everything you dreamed of, but she had a kid? Would you rather be alone waiting in hope of another woman without a kid which may never happen? Or give it a shot of happiness?

Well, more precisely, now our society has decided that it's alright to use the state to forcibly redistribute money from individual men to individual women, and has otherwise washed their hands of the matter. This has resulted in negative externalities which would worry a responsible society. The practical considerations haven't vanished, but rather, been covered with a bandaid and willfully ignored, to the detriment of the children involved.

One example of such a negative externality: crime linked to absent fathers.



Seizing daddy's cash and giving it to mommy is no remedy to this. Practical concerns remain.

I agree with you Fox. But I would also suggest that society is at fault here for a number of reasons, rather than women in general. It is the breakdown of family, respect and loyalty and appreciation in relationships, and generally people not knowing how to conduct relationships properly without being selfish. Both men and women are a product of the wider picture.

 

[Earl_of_Rochester]

But unfortunately for you Earl, the older you get the moe likely it is that if you meet a woman she will have one child or more.

Bear in mind though that it's not a matter of women just dishing out kids to every bloke, but rather relationships not working out and her being left with kids to raise, it's not always the womans fault.

What if you met a really nice .... that was pretty and seemed to be everything you dreamed of, but she had a kid? Would you rather be alone waiting in hope of another woman without a kid which may never happen? Or give it a shot of happiness?

Unfortunately I don't fall that easily as it is (but when I do it's flat on my face) there's only been about 3 or 4 ..... that I've ever met who I'd consider marrying for life. I'm actually sort of pursuing a .... with kids at the moment but it's not going to go anywhere, she's also put off by marriage due to living so long with her last bf.

Naturally it's not always someone's fault, but I'd still rather not invest time/money in someone else's kids when I don't even have my own yet. The internet also has its positives and negatives, it's easier than ever to meet people, but it's also easier than ever to be tempted.

Personally I plan to grow old disgracefully, when I die I'm going to be 110 and surrounded by my friends and family. And my wife will be so upset she'll drop out of college.

 

[Fox]

I agree with you Fox. But I would also suggest that society is at fault here for a number of reasons, rather than women in general. It is the breakdown of family, respect and loyalty and appreciation in relationships, and generally people not knowing how to conduct relationships properly without being selfish. Both men and women are a product of the wider picture.

That's both reasonable and correct.

 

[Porthos]

When the practical considerations ceased, only religious morality remained, and that's always vitriolic: especially in the hands of a society with nothing to do but invent meaningless standards of conduct. The Victorians are the prime example of this.

Particularly enjoyed this, thank you!