[Short post today inspired by a concept broached in Rollo’s most recent post.]
For a long time now I have been bothered when Widows with children are called “Single Mothers” or are lumped together with “Single Mothers.” Frankly, it is insulting to widows and is socially destructive as well. A widow is a woman who acted properly, not destructively. She worked within the social system and was a stabilizing force. A “single-mother,” on the other hand, is a woman who engaged in socially destabilizing behavior and essentially undermines society. [There are a few rare exceptions. A woman who murdered her husband, or the victim of rape, for example.]
With that in mind, I would argue that whatever one’s take on raising another man’s child when the mom is a “single-mother” (a PC device I should probably stop using), a ban should not be applied to the children of widows. Here are several reasons why:
- We want women to engage in socially stabilizing behavior. Marrying is one such behavior. Knowing that they can get married again if their husband dies adds extra incentives to women to marry (and have legitimate children).
- Men who marry and have children but die early benefit when their children are taken care of by a new husband/father. Early death can happen to any man- we never know the hour and all that. There is a genetic imperative for us to want to have children that in turn have children. This imperative is served by our genetic children having a father figure in their lives- especially if we die early. It benefits us to not only know our children will be taken care, but to actually have them be taken care of. Furthermore, this possibility benefits pretty much every married man, whatever his station.
- Men who care about having children will also be more likely to want to marry and have legitimate children. This is beneficial to both their children, as well as society. Probably less pronounced an effect on men as to women, but still beneficial to society.
It is up to any man to decide whether or not to marry a true widow, of course. Further, there are few young widows with children these days, so it won’t be a common concern for men looking to marry (or remarry, if they themselves are a widower).
Also, I think that a similar exception should naturally be made for godchildren. Again, responsible husbands/fathers benefit when we know we are looking out for one another, and our families. That doesn’t necessarily mean marrying a widow- both parents could be dead, for example. But similar reasoning applies all the same.
Commenters are of course free to voice their own thoughts below.
Donal Graeme 
Read the post and missed him lumping in widows with single mothers. Godparents have quite the responsibility beyond ensuring their godchildren are correctly raised in the faith. They also need to be a good role model and a compliment to the biological parents’ efforts (provided they’re good people which most are).
As far as widows are concerned, they need support from the community: be that a K of C insurance agent, close friends in the parish, all the above, etc.
Finally, true we shall never know the day or time. A work colleague knew a guy who died a few months back: 32 years old, on his motorcycle, on a major city street, and a truck ran him over.
That support from the community for widows I meant to add should include making it clear that their husbands died, as many in society may get the wrong idea and think they are single mothers in the derogatory sense with all the negative connotations that come with that.
1 Timothy 5 is particular instructive on widows specifically, not single mothers.
Indeed, widows could even be taken off of the support lists that were created if their behavior was poor or a whole host of other factors.
I do not believe single mothers (in sin, at least) were taken care of by the Church. Single mothers that are living godly if they came to Christ after a divorce perhaps, if they are doing everything in their power to reconcile.
I think the major issue that is confused is that: The Church has the duty of evangelism to the unrepentant and support to the poor and needy, but it doesn’t have the duty of support to those who made themselves poor, needy, and unrepentant (through divorce or other sin).
Regarding the topic, in my opinion ideally widowers would marry widows. But that can be a hard sell. Younger widows are supposed to remarry if possible though.
@ A Visitor
He didn’t. But I’ve been meaning to post this for a while, and that served as a reminder.
Hard sell? I suppose. But from what little I know of it was more common in the past.
Donal,
As you say, younger widows are seemingly rare, both likely due to women delaying marriage and commitment and improved mortality rates for both sexes.
I don’t even recall any young, single widows in a quarter century of church going. But I do recall a lot of unmarried or divorced mothers, several of whom were a little too friendly though politely rebuffed (in contrast to the nuclear rejections I occasionally received, but that’s another story).
My sister-in-law was widowed without children and remarried a frivorced man with two children. They are well suited and seemingly very happy. It has been quite eye opening for both of them, decidedly blue pill Christians, to see the behaviour that female Christian frivorcees get up to.
A woman with children does complicate matters. Any man who considers this should take it case by case. Even to a virtuous widow, he will still be a stepfather to her children.
As for mothers who dumped their hubbies or those who never bothered to marry. They should be avoided. But that raises the question, how do you know?
I agree with you. There’s a tendency to lump because people see no difference in how the children are reared. There’s no father around and the mother will most likely work outside the home. A lot of people see the same thing. There IS a huge difference, and one is the children knew they had stability. Children know divorces are nasty, and they know death is saddening, but there’s a difference.
It’s a hard sell nowadays, because of the current cultural climate. I get the impression lot of men aren’t interested in marrying a widow because they don’t want to raise another man’s child(ren). It’s difficult for the mother, to convince the in laws their son isn’t going to get wiped out of memory. I’m sure it can become a tricky family dynamic. In my cultural community, I’ve heard lot of women aren’t interested in having a different man around their children, and might be hesitant about the influence overshadowing that of the father’s. None of the women are interested in dating (and many of them probably never dated, either). Stepfamilies are highly discouraged, and widows are encouraged to make the most out of their blood family or in law family ties.
About marryiing a widow, George Washington did. Martha Custis lost her husband to disease. While they never had children of their own, their union was solid. However, dealing with the two kids as a stepfather did put him at a disadvantage.
That’s a good way to think about it — that when it comes to a true widow, marrying her and raising her children is part of like some code of honor between good men.
I’ve been dying for a red pill perspective on adoption ever since I read the Open Cuckoldry post. Especially a Christian one.
@insanitybytes:
had his wife abandon him
Not the same thing.
There really is no “society” in our atomized, media-driven culture. Especially for Christians. And that’s the true root of your post. Each person makes their own decision on these things. There is no unity left outside of self-imposed groups who willingly form their own communities. It’s how SJW got into power, providing a moral framework to fill the need to punish offenders for things everyone still “sort of” agrees about (like racism and sexism is baaaad). It’s why bishops lash out at racists but are quiet about more popular sexual sins.
Homo Sapiens is a strange beast. He has two conflicting urges: to force everyone to behave responsibly to his own mind (and punish those who won’t), while at the same time maximizing his own personal freedom. Catch 22.
Sex or religion brings out the conflict of our not-to-change-anytime-soon disunity on morality. Look at Deep’s comments, how his “Church” will henceforth take Paul’s instructions for widows in the year 50 literally in the year 2050 (even the pope doesn’t claim that authority!). Or Visitor’s comments on Godparents (95% of Catholic Godparents would never interfere in those cases, I sure don’t!). And then Donal’s original comment are of the same vein…his post is really a lament on how there is no unity on single mothers or widows in our atomized society. Yep. And it’s as it should be. Want freedom? Everyone else agrees. Welcome to America, 2015.
I was about to say only InsanityBytes would make the case for rationalizing women’s unhaaaaaapiness over a man’s going to war and precipitating her divorcing him, but then I remembered, this rationalization was common during WWII:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/no-hiatus-for-solipsism-during-ww-ii/
The date of the program was July 19, 1944. This was just a little over a month after D Day and before the Normandy breakout. World War II was very much still raging in Europe, and American men were still fighting and dying there. Yet at this very time we had (if we believe the story), a woman complaining to strangers on a train about the exciting adventures her husband was enjoying in the European theater (most likely as a result of being drafted). Moreover, this was a story Sanger felt perfectly comfortable sharing on the radio at home to the wives and mothers of US servicemen, as those men continued to fight and die overseas.
Leave it to Insanity to follow the same trope and find a way to make women the “primary victims” of war and justify leaving their husbands while bullets are being shot at him.
Get off it, Insanity. Donal is talking about the difference between women who are raising their children alone because their **husband** is gone through no fault of their own – aka, widows (and also wives who were abandoned by their husbands through no fault of their own, though whether or not a man could marry them without it being adulterous could be a different story) – aka, not sinful on her part… and women who are single mothers **by choice** because they chose to leave their husbands for stupid selfish reasons, or never was married to the man who fathered the children in the first place – aka, abandonment or premarital sex = sin. He’s saying not to lump those who are single and mothers but didn’t get that way by sinning in with those who did get that way by sinning.
But you already know all that. The fact that you’re squawking so loud only reinforces that he’s on the right track.
some moms are not to blame for their circumstances. They are just as abandoned as that single dad was.
Very, very few. And those few should be mad at their sisters for ruining it for everybody. Given a good dose of dark triad characteristics, most women jump at fornication. And the marriage stats show the majorot of divorces initiated bybwomen, eager to dump hubs in favour of a monthly cheque enforced by the courts and a guarantee of no social stigma.
How awful it would be if Christ had turned his back on us in disapproval, rather than offering forgiveness, mercy and redemption?
How awful would it be to stay married, respect the husband of your youth, and provide stability to the children of the union? Apparently intolerable. Instead, we ask for forgiveness of sin long planned in advance, redemption for incentivised divorce betrayal, and mercy for legalised misandry.
These men are looking for a one size fits all, legalistic definition of sin, so they can punish the single mothers they disapprove of
Im not feeling the love, mercy and redemption that is talked about…. but then neither are the millions of divorced fathers, estranged emotionally from their children and embattled financially by supporting multiple households. But then thats men, and we know their stuggles aren’t worth a cracker of sympathy currency in our vagina centric culture.
Rollo, it’s not just WWII. Google the League of the White Feather.
And Do. Not. Feed. The. Troll. Please. Do. Not. Feed. The. Troll.
“The fact that you’re squawking so loud only reinforces that he’s on the right track.”
You know you’re over the target if you’re getting flak. (Old WW2 saying)
Personally, unless and until we are willing to hold single mother more socially accountable, we will get more of the same.
They should feel more of a sense of burning shame for the disgrace they have brought, and the disadvantage they have placed on their child. All because sexytime is very important!!
Anyway, not much we can do with the harlots once they have brought a kid into the world except pay for it, the way good people always do. God only knows how much more stable a society we would have if these stupid girls would be allowed to feel the full force of the decision, like in the old days.
Fear of permanent poverty and social exclusion might do the trick.
As it is now, we have fairy-like pastors who gush over single moms and attempt to celebrate them at every turn, like the loathsome Glenn Stanton, who is doing Satan’s work for him.
I have never once been able to ask the question “what exactly were the circumstances around how you became a single mother?” without facing deep consternation and gnashing of teeth. It comes from everyone in the room–and the white knights are the worst.
It is a basic axiom under the current rules of civility that you may not hold a woman individually accountable in such matters–in church or not. In fact, it almost seems like the secular world allows for some level of it–as long as it is not a guy like me doing it.
I have decided to ban the commenter who goes by the moniker “Insanity” for at least to the end of the year. Too much going off-topic, plus personal attacks and disingenuous statements. Perhaps I will consider removing the ban next year. But for now the disruptions are too much when considered in light of the lack of contribution to the discussion.
@ Scott
Sounds like a good question to ask actually.
If someone is repentant they are willing to own up to their mistakes and admit them.
If they’re not repentant then they think of it as an accusation and bombard you with an emotional reaction.
“On the other hand, I’m not married to some pig headed manospherian.”
Yeah, we’re all evil. /sarc
The burn means that some part of this post must be resonating with you.
Donal,
Also, you inadvertently took out Cassie’s comment, fyi.
Not intentionally. WordPress acting up. Not sure how to fix it.
No biggie, I’ll just copy and paste it back into this comment. I get the comments here in my email, so I still have a copy of it. I think my comment got deleted by accident because I replied to Insanity’s comment via email, so when hers got deleted mine did too by default. Here’s my comment that got deleted:
Get off it, Insanity. Donal is talking about the difference between women who are raising their children alone because their **husband** is gone through no fault of their own – aka, widows (and also wives who were abandoned by their husbands through no fault of their own, though whether or not a man could marry them without it being adulterous could be a different story) – aka, not sinful on her part… and women who are single mothers **by choice** because they chose to leave their husbands for stupid selfish reasons, or never was married to the man who fathered the children in the first place – aka, abandonment or premarital sex = sin. He’s saying not to lump those who are single and mothers but didn’t get that way by sinning in with those who did get that way by sinning.
But you already know all that. The fact that you’re squawking so loud only reinforces that he’s on the right track.
Sounds like a good question to ask actually.
If someone is repentant they are willing to own up to their mistakes and admit them.
If they’re not repentant then they think of it as an accusation and bombard you with an emotional reaction.
Yep. But I would agree with Donal. Right now the only place to find that level of commitment and accountability is in a deliberate. Isolated religious community. Some kind of commune/ Amish type thing.
Donal wrote:
I’ve been puzzling over this. I don’t see how that can be read other than a woman who murders her husband is a “rare exception” to the destructive behavior of single motherhood, therefore, it is not socially destabilizing behavior for a woman to murder her husband. I find this odd and disturbing not only in content, but in bringing up such a case in the context of widows in the first place.
@ Lena
I can understand your confusion. I put in brackets the exceptions to the general rule: widows who were acted inappropriately (to say the least), and “single-mothers” who did not. Further, that was an illustrative list, not an exhaustive one.
Oh, so you mean that a woman who murders her husband is an exception to the general rule that widows are suitable for a man to consider for marriage, whereas single mothers generally would not be suitable, with the possible exception of one who became that way via rape. Got it.
@ Lena
More or less. Certainly for the first statement. With the second statement I provided that as one exception, without excluding the possibility of others.
Single moms are not a good choice for marriage.
@Rollo: I spent a while once watching a lot of film noir–late 40s stuff. Postwar, apparently, women are dangerous and not to be trusted. This had to be a result of wartime behavior while the men were away.
I have decided to ban the commenter who goes by the moniker “Insanity” for at least to the end of the year.
Some of us are asking “what took you so long?”
While not necessarily obvious or apparent at first, her comments (some of them, anyways) served some value for a while. When the cost/benefit ratio tilted away from that, however, it was time to act.
Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/12/20) | The Reactivity Place
Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/12/20) | The Reactivity Place
Just a question. I’m married to the father of my children. He’s my only partner. So this isn’t about me. The tone reads that it is only women’s fault for getting pregnant. Is there scriptural basis for that?
My brother dated a unbeliever (atheist actually). He knew she wasn’t on birth control and he didn’t bother to use condoms. Guess what happened? I asked him why he didn’t use a condom and his reply was “does it matter?” I hold him at as much fault as the girlfriend. But I see a tone in the manosphere that becoming pregnant is the woman’s fault completely even though the men are participating in premarital sex as well.
Marie,
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren’t a troll.
This is an attempt, unconscious or not, to re-frame the post. It isn’t about the allocation of fault between men and women re: children out of wedlock. Rather, the post is about not lumping those without fault (i.e., widows) with those who do share some measure of fault (i.e., fornicators turned single mothers). If you think the allocation of fault is an issue that should be discussed, then ask that I create a post to do so.
I find it fascinating that you use the word “tone” again. As a matter of argument, the fact that you use it is indicative that you don’t have much to stand on. It suggests (strongly) that you don’t have actual words or quotes to back up what you assert. So instead you rely on the “tone” of people’s words- the assertion of a subtle undercurrent of meaning aside from what the words themselves actually say. That can be difficult enough to determine in face-to-face conversations, but to make assertions about tone on the internet? That is quite a leap to make.
Thanks for the reply. I’m not a troll, I was genuinely curious. I don’t have particular quotes because in honestly I’m not going to try and find them but I’ve definitely noticed it on return of kings. Single mothers are always discussed in a negative way.
Marie,
Yes, that particular site does take a rather dim view of single mothers. Perhaps some of the commenters lay all the blame on women. I don’t know, I don’t really read it.
I’m not sure what reason there would be to discuss single mothers in anything other than a negative way. The only potential exception would be that the alternative of aborting the babies is worse. Otherwise, single motherhood is disastrous, both on an individual and social scale. Regarding the moral angle- I hold both to account for their moral transgressions in fornication. However, practically necessitates a focus on female behavior here.