Single mothers by choice?

INCREASES In CHILDBEARING outside marriage among relatively older and more affluent women, the so-called "Murphy Brown syndrome," have affected contemporary family life. In the United States over the past decade, the number of women who become mothers without marrying increased sharply--"an increase that was particularly steep among educated and professional women" (DeParle, 1994, p 1). In Canada also, "a small but increasing number of women are raising their children without living with or marrying the father" (Baker, 1993, p. 225).

Regardless of what these new unmarried mothers have in common with other single mothers raising children on their own, their situation has given rise to distinctive imagery. Characterized as "single mothers by choice," these mothers are represented as older single women whose biological clocks are ticking, whose education and income make parenthood possible without the involvement of a breadwinner father, and who deliberately choose to have a child on their own. Although this phenomenon is prevalent among relatively few women, the notion of "single mothers by choice" has gained surprising currency. For example, a national organization by that name was founded in 1981 to provide support and information to single women who "have chosen or who are considering single motherhood." The organization describes its membership as "career women in [their] thirties and forties" whose biological clocks prompted their "choice."(1) Similar descriptions of this population can be found in the popular literature (Kuriansky & Brockway, 1988; Micossi, 1987; Miller, 1992; Weinhouse, 1991).

In marked contrast with the pathological descriptions of young unmarried mothers, the new "single mother by choice" is presented benignly as a beneficiary of the women's movement. Her freedom to choose is presented as an expression of women's increasing independence at work and at home. In his speech on family values, then Vice President Dan Quayle attacked this image: "It doesn't help matters when prime-time TV has Murphy Brown, a character who supposedly epitomizes today's intelligent, highly paid, professional woman, mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another 'lifestyle choice" (Hartman, 1992, p. 387). Interestingly, in the ensuing arguments about the Murphy Brown episode, the warring parties agreed that a choice had taken place but ignored the more complicated story line whereby Murphy chose to keep her child, although she did not choose to become pregnant, as well as offered the father the opportunity to be involved with the child, which he declined.

The trouble with this media attention is that contraception, pregnancy, and parenting are decontextualized and removed from the realm of gender relations. It's as if only the behavior of women mattered. The focus on the new "single mother by choice" raises questions about the contexts in which choice occurs, as well as how choice should be interpreted. Can we assert, for example, that these women are "mocking the importance of fathers by beating a child alone"? This article explores the contexts in which older unmarried women desire to have a baby on their own.

Methods

In this small exploratory study, eight women were interviewed at some length about the context in which they decided to have a baby on their own. The first two respondents were located through a midwife and another through a local day-care center; these respondents, in turn, suggested others. The one- to two-hour interviews were taped, transcribed, and coded by theme. Fictitious names are used and details altered in order to protect the women's identities. Although the sample is small, it included the kinds of women around whom the imagery of choice is usually spun. All were single, never-married adult women between the ages of 28 and 6. All but one (who got pregnant in her first relationship at the age of 28) had demonstrated their capacity to avoid pregnancy through effective contraception and)or their willingness to resort to abortion (three had had prior abortions). And, with the exception of two university students and a marginally employed "free spirit," all were self-supporting, four with high-paying jobs.

The following analysis deals with two separate choices and their context: the decision to avoid pregnancy through contraception and the decision to proceed with the pregnancy after it occurred. The analysis identified men's anger as the outcome of what appeared to be an unstated and illusory "contraceptive bargain" between unmarried women and men regarding contraception. The analysis also addresses the seeming contradiction between a woman's decision to have the baby on her own and her hope that a relationship could be fostered between her child and the biological father.

Accepting Motherhood

None of the eight women set out intentionally to get pregnant by abandoning contraception. However, it could be said that four women got pregnant "accidentally on purpose." Sandra and Kelly risked pregnancy intentionally and jointly with their partners within the context of a committed but non-marital relationship. Both couples discussed the possibility of pregnancy and relied half-heartedly on the rhythm method. For them, the pregnancy represented a positive "accident on purpose" and the decision to go ahead with the pregnancy was a foregone conclusion. Their relationships terminated before the birth of their children, however, and Sandra and Kelly became single mothers.

Mary and Isobel could also be characterized as getting pregnant "accidentally on purpose." At age 32, Mary had had three abortions, one reluctantly to "respect his wishes" and the third with sical complications that convinced her that she would not have another. At one level, Mary's pregnancy was accidental in that it occurred in the context of a casual relationship with a younger man: "Actually we were using birth control, but the condom burst." At another level, though, she left contraception up to her partner, knowing that if she got pregnant it would be "not a mistake, more of a surprise...a nice thing that happened." Similarly, Isobel, by age 34, had had a miscarriage and an abortion and wanted a child. Her pregnancy occurred at the start of a relationship in which she took responsibility for contraception (diaphragm). Although she did not intentionally get pregnant, she nonetheless felt that she probably got pregnant "accidentally on purpose" and viewed her decision to go ahead with the pregnancy as "not really a choice because I was so...sure I wanted a kid that it was like there was never any question in my mind."

The remaining four women got pregnant despite their intentions and efforts not to. Their experiences reflect the range of circumstances that make effective use of contraceptive devices challenging. Faced with an unintended pregnancy, these women did not all choose immediately to become single mothers.

Helen, a university student, got pregnant while living abroad when she was deceived by a professor who told her he had had a vasectomy. She assumed that their relationship would continue. In light of his explicit opposition to abortion and adoption, she decided to go ahead with the pregnancy. Eventually, she broke off her relationship when she discovered that he did not intend to divorce his wife and that he already had three children.

Josie, who was involved with a man who "always left it up to the woman and never used a condom," relied on a diaphragm, contraceptive sponge, and the rhythm method. She had already split with her boyfriend when she discovered she was pregnant. Initially, she scheduled an abortion, then considered informal adoption, and finally decided to become a single mother.

Janice, who was involved in a casual relationship with a European who traveled a lot on business, go pregnant while taking birth control pills. Although she loved children and had volunteered as a foster parent and big sister, she didn't think she "would have ever gone as far as actually, on purpose, getting pregnant." On learning she was pregnant, she initially panicked, "then something just came over me, as if a calm, and I thought, all right, this is O.K. And I never thought about it again. It just went on from there."

Rose, who was involved in an ongoing but uncommitted relationship that produced two accidental pregnancies and two children, relied on condoms in combination with abstinence on fertile days. She had had medical complications resulting from using the pill and an IUD. Her partner resisted using condoms:

I said [o him], "I just finished my period, maybe we should use a condom." He goes, "No, we don't have to." And I didn't fight that, it was like I can't be bothered with the discussion. He hated condoms, saying it was like washing your feet with your socks on....He would at times resist it, or pet this disgusted [look]. He tried to convince me a couple of times to go back on the pill, and I did for four months. And I just felt lousy, and he saw how lousy I felt, and I said, "I can't keep going like this." So he says, "Well, if you have to, get off the pill. Why can't you be normal like everybody else?" Normal is on the pill?

Faced with her first unintended pregnancy, Rose decided to go ahead with it almost immediately. With her second pregnancy, however, she seriously considered abortion before deciding to have the child:

[The second pregnancy] upset me more than [the first]. I thought for days of having an abortion....I honestly knew now I was going to be alone...and what the reality [of motherhood] was....I1 talked to a good friend of mine [who] listened to me whine and cry....She told me, "You [can't base] the decision on the situation now, but on 5 or 10 years from now." And that made a lot of sense to me. And then I said if I can do one, I can do two. And I had the feeling two is gonna be a lot easier than one, and it's proved to be so.

How was the decision to continue with the pregnancy presented to the male partners, and what was their reaction? As described above, three of the eight women (Sandra, Kelly, and Helen) reached the decision to have a child jointly with their partners in the context of what appeared to be a committed love relationship. With the other five women, however, only Mary's much younger partner took the news calmly: "I kind of just flat out said I was pregnant...and he respected my wishes, but I kind of felt he wasn't ready to take on the responsibility and I respect that in him."

The other men reacted in varying degrees of anger and flight. Janice, whose casual relationship with the European business traveler was over, stated, I sent him a telex...and he said, "Oh you can't have this baby." I said, "Yes, you do what you want. You're the father. It's your right to know that you have a child coming. But I'm keeping it." And he said, "Well, O.K., it's your choice, I'll send you money, whatever." I said, "Listen, do what you want with it. I'm not making any demands on you. You have a right to know, but that's as much as I want." And he called me right up until about a month before Samantha was born. And the last thing he said was "Yeah well, I'll call you in a few weeks." And I never heard from him again.

Josie had no desire to renew her relationship with her ex-boyfriend. Faced with his resistance to share the costs of an abortion, she finally decided,

I'll take myself to the clinic. I'll pay for it myself, what the hell. But once I started monkeying around with my decision, I didn't involve him with that at all. In fact, he didn't find out that I was actually going to have the baby until I was already three months pregnant....When he found out that I had not had the abortion, he wrote me a very hateful letter saying that I stole his sperm, and why don't I find a man who wants to give me a baby instead of, you know, a lot of theft and I trusted you....Really warped.

Rose, who decided to go ahead with her first pregnancy in the context of an ongoing but as yet uncommitted relationship, reported that her partner was very upset and left the relationship for two months. She said, "You do what you feel is best and I have to do what I feel is best.... 'm not gonna have an abortion [which is what he wanted her to do]. It has nothing to do with you. I can do this on my own." When she decided to go ahead with the second pregnancy, he was even angrier.(2)

What he says is, "Well, I hope you'll do things right this time. Get rid of it." He'd phone me up in the middle of the night just to bug me: "You've ruined everybody's life," and then he'd hang up. He was angry. He's been angry since day one. Because I didn't do as he said. Not asked. Said. Have an abortion. He has been angry since then. But I look at it, if you play with fire, you've got to take the responsibility.

Isobel, who got pregnant "accidentally on purpose" in the context of a fledgling relationship, did not expect the relationship to continue but also did not expect the hostility she encountered.

He told me, "I will get back to you. I will let you know what my decision is with regard to this pregnancy, O.K.!" But then I didn't hear from him...nine months pregnant and I hadn't heard from him and I never phoned him back and I thought well he's saying something....So one day I ran into him by accident and he kept on walking without saying hello or anything to me. But not only that...the anger in his eyes was something....I didn't see him until I returned to work where, after several encounters, he starts screaming at me, "You fucking bitch, you screwed me. You did it purposely. I told my friends about it, and they've said you were a total bitch....If I didn't control myself, I'd beat you." I said, "Fuck you," and left...and that night he phoned me and said, "I want to talk about what happened this afternoon. I don't think I should ever see you again. I'm so angry that I might even hurt you....You trapped me." I said, "Listen, fucking asshole, did you ask me what I was taking for birth control? If you don't want kids, you go have a vasectomy, O.K., and don't lay your fucking trip on me. I didn't plan to have a kid with you. It happened." But he didn't accept that. No, I've never seen anybody that angry with me. Really, it was kind of frightening.

These troubled interactions arose even though none of the five women asked for or received financial support, and all presented their decision to have a child as one for which they were assuming sole responsibility. The men's anger, indeed the level of their anger, suggests that they were reacting to what they perceived as the woman's violation of important assumptions. We speculate that these assumptions are connected to the issue of contraception and its consequences.

The men's anger seemed to arise from a view that the women's decision to go ahead with the pregnancy violated an unstated compact that to use contraceptives was tantamount to an agreement not to have a child. The men expected these women to assume responsibility for contraception, usually the pill, and to back up contraceptive failure with abortion. The women, on the other hand, expected to share responsibility for contraception and its consequences, particularly when difficulties with the pill led them to other less reliable methods. The failure of the men to share responsibility for contraception--especially through their not inquiring about contraception and their resistance to using condoms--justified these women's view that women are responsible solely for contraception and its consequences, particularly if the woman does not intend to claim support. Pregnancy and the decision to have the child brought these unstated assumptions to light, producing surprise and anger on both sides.

The men's anger about the women's decision to go ahead with pregnancy seemed also to arise from their fear that they might be expected to be involved with the child in the future.

Refusing Fatherhood

Regardless of her own feelings about the man involved, every woman hoped to establish a relationship between her child and the father. This was true not only of the three women originally involved in committed relationships, but also of the five who announced their decisions in ways that seemed to release the men from involvement, saying, for example, "I'm not making any demands on you; you have a right to know, but that's as much as I want" or "You do what you feel is best and I have to do what I feel is best." Despite their announcements, the women were astonished when the men remained uninvolved to the point even of refusing any acknowledgment of their children. Janice, whose relationship with the European had ended, started:

I never really thought that he would lose touch, that he would just never call. I certainly never expected him to be fully involved in Samantha's life or my life. But I certainly thought that he would want to know a little bit about his daughter...That's what I've had the hardest time understanding. I don't feel it's anything personal against me....I never made any demands on him. But he's got a beautiful, wonderful daughter; why wouldn't he want to know or see her? He doesn't even know it's a daughter....I think what a loss for him because she's just wonderful.

Mary had not expected much from her casual relationship with a younger man who "wasn't ready to take on the responsibility" of a child, but nonetheless said, "He comes over once in a while but is not very receptive to babies yet....I don't understand how certain people can take maternity or paternity so lightly, and I feel that he does."

The seeming contradiction between expecting nothing from the father, on the one hand, and hoping he will establish some kind of relationship with his child, on the other, can be reconciled by looking more closely at how these women viewed involvement. Initially, the women regarded involvement with the child as a gift they were offering to the father, rather than as a responsibility they expected him to share. And they viewed it as a gift that he alone was in a position to appreciate fully. From this point of view, they interpreted the men's lack of interest as a rejection of this gift--his own wonderful child. Thus, in the face of outright hostility from the man with whom she had been casually involved, Isobel thrust a picture into the father's hand. She said,

I think I wanted him to know that she was born. It was a nice picture--she was just a beautiful baby--and it was like, "You don't know what you're missing. Do you realize there's this perfect little person here that's half you?" I was damn proud of her....Maybe I just felt I wanted to show him how proud I am.

Josie, who was on good terms with her ex-boyfriend after his initial anger with her decision to have the child, was astonished by his lack of involvement when the baby was born:

So he left [town] two weeks before Max was born. He didn't call, he didn't write....I mean this is a child that he could have had it all with. He could have been there for the birth of this child...and he chose not to.

Child-father relationship issues also arise when the mothers had to address their child's concerns about his or her father or in anticipating her child's desire to contact the father in the future. Thus Janice, who was faced with a two-year-old's questions about her father, plans to track down the European with whom she has lost contact:

The other day Samantha was talking to somebody else saying, "Yeah, my father's dead." And I said to her, "No, you have a father, but he lives very far away." Once I get myself set--I have a job now--I'm gonna look him up, 'cause Samantha needs to know who he is. I think she has a right to see him. I mean I guess I'll find out before I really lose him....A private investigator could probably do it. It might cost me a thousand bucks...just to find out where he is, and then maybe I'd write him a letter.. But I just think Samantha would like to know who her father is.

Helen, who was deceived and devastated by her partner's lies about his vasectomy, family, and intentions, nonetheless has considered contacting him for her child's sake:

We haven't had any contact for five years. I've just recently begun to think about contacting him again because a friend of mine is going there. Initially I said, no, it's not worth the effort. But I have been thinking that maybe it would be a good idea to see if there would be a possibility of writing perhaps once a year just to maintain a link, so that when Roberto is older, if he wants to meet his father, he would possibly have that option....Roberto started asking [about his father] when he was about three, and I always tell him yes he has a father and where he lives and what his name is.

Isobel, who handed a picture of her one-month-old baby to the child's hostile father, faces questions from his daughter, who is now 10 years old. The task of answering these questions is made difficult by the father's proximity and steadfast rejection of the child as well as by the lies Isobel has told her daughter to protect her from this rejection.

At one point he said, "Look, I don't want to see you, I don't want to talk to you, I don't want to have anything to do with this child." So I said, "I don't want to have any contact with you either, but if you move, would you let me know because she might want to get in contact with you when she's older." He said with a threatening tone, "Send her to me. I'll know what to say to her."...I mean he didn't want anything t do with her and he still doesn't and he's seen her and he doesn't want anything to do with her....She asked me what his second name was, and I told her I couldn't remember. I told her he didn't want to have any children, that it didn't have anything to do with her personally. He had never seen her. It wasn't like he saw her and said I don't like that little girl.

Although every woman interviewed hoped for the child's sake that a relationship could be established between her child and the father, only three of the eight fathers had any relationship at all. Mary reported that the father comes over occasionally and has agreed, at her request, to stay in contact with them in case his daughter ever wants to pursue some kind of relationship with him. Although she doesn't understand how he "can take paternity so lightly," Mary hopes nonetheless that he will become a "good friend" to her daughter. The father of Rose's two children maintained intermittent contact through occasional visits and phone calls from abroad, but she concluded that the children suffered from the inconsistency of these contacts.

The father of Kelly's child was genuinely and extensively involved with his child. His son was conceived intentionally in the context of a committed relationship that ended as the result of his infidelity. Perhaps because he had been raised in an African culture that valued children, he had always welcomed the prospect of children. Although Kelly carried greater financial and child-care responsibilities than did the father, she nonetheless was pleased with his involvement:

He's very attached to the baby. When the baby was very young, he would come over and baby-sit one or two days at a time [and] visit him at least two or three times a week. [Now] he will come and get Chris on Friday evening and bring him back on Sunday evening, every second weekend. So he has stayed involved. Chris knows his father very well....I think in the back of his mind he would like to go home [to Africa] eventually, and I am going to the States....When we talk about it, he says that as long as the baby can visit him for a month or two a year, he doesn't really mind where I go, and where he is...and that when the baby's older he can decide for himself where he wants to go.

Thus, every woman except Kelly was disappointed in the relationship between her child and the father. Their initial surprise at the fathers' lack of involvement suggests that their announced intention to go ahead with the pregnancy on their own was intended to release men from responsibility, not involvement. It also suggests that they assumed that the fathers would want to know their own child. Indeed, in requesting that the men keep them posted about where they lived, all of these women seemed to recognize from the start that minimal involvement was required so they could inform the child about who the father was and where he lived when the child asked.

Every woman we interviewed desired some kind of relationship between her child and the father for the child's sake. Thus, these women viewed the men via their children. Although we cannot know the men's views without hearing their own account, two of the interviews provide a glimpse into the lives and thoughts of two men who refused to become involved with their children as a result of their own experiences as single fathers. In both cases, the men were genuinely and extensively involved with their children from a previous relationship at the time they became involved with the women described here. One father had even been featured in a newspaper account of a "new father"--an account that Isobel had found very appealing:

Here you see this guy who seems to be totally at ease with his child. He had joint custody, which at that time was quite rare....He just spoke so lovingly of this child...saying how one of the most beautiful moments of the day was when this little kid would put his head over the edge of the crib and peek out to see whether his father was awake. That probably was what was most attractive [about him].

Interestingly, when Isobel decided to go ahead with the pregnancy resulting from her fledgling relationship with this man, his reaction was the angriest reported. Moreover, he has been the most adamant in refusing to have anything to do with his daughter. His reaction cannot be attributed to lack of interest in fatherhood as such (which seems to characterize some of the other men), but seems to arise from the contrast he draws between "willing" fatherhood and "unwilling" fatherhood.

Sandra's partner took care of his two young children (two and four years old) from a previous marriage. His involvement with his children in fact was a key element in the plans he and Sandra made when she became pregnant:

We weren't going to live together. I was gonna live here; he would live in his apartment and look after the baby and his own kids during the day 'cause he works out of his home ...while I went back to school. And everything was quite nice.

This plan and the relationship fell apart before the child was born when the man's former wife returned unexpectedly and took the children, thus creating doubts in his mind about the rights of fathers even when they are highly involved with their children.

He's now realizing that men don't have rights in court. Even in spite of what his wife did, he chances of him getting custody of his kids now are basically zero. So he realizes that he has no rights to this child. Now he's petrified of what witnessing the birth of this child will do to him emotionally, [that] he will see this child and realize that this child will always live with me whether we are having a relationship or not.

In contrast with the cases in which the women were disappointed by uninvolved fathers, this mother and father struggled over who would be the primary caregiver after the baby was born. He wanted to be the primary caregiver and refused to become emotionally involved on any other terms. She, in turn, was reluctant to forfeit the definition of herself as primary caregiver (even though she hoped he would take on the bulk of child-care responsibilities. The relationship ended before the child was born as a result of the father's disenchantment with his lack of rights as an involved father. Although this case points to custody issues that can potentially arise for women whose partners wish to become fully involved with their children, the fact remains that the majority of the women interviewed here hoped on behalf of their children for more involvement than their children got.

Conclusion

These interviews suggest that the media representation of "single mothers by choice" may oversimplify the real-life experiences of many women by ignoring the gender relations within which single motherhood occurs. When women's experiences of contraception, pregnancy and motherhood are resituated within the context of gender relations, three issues become evident.

First, regarding the issue of contraception and accidental pregnancy, none of the women we interviewed set out to become pregnant, which indicates that accidental pregnancies are possible even among knowledgeable and experienced contraceptive users. Indeed, the risk of accidental pregnancy may increase for older women who, following bad health experiences with the pill and/or IUD, switch to less reliable contraceptive methods and must face "male negativity towards condoms" (Browne & Minichiello, 1994, p. 248). Men contributed to these accidental pregnancies both passively through their lack of interest and noninvolvement with contraception and actively through their resistance to using condoms. Ironically, men may be inclined to leave contraception up to older women, for whom the threat of pregnancy may seem less pressing.

Second, regarding the issue of decisions about the pregnancy, accidental pregnancies allow for limited choices and options. The women interviewed here chose motherhood. In keeping with the media representation of "single mothers by choice," most of the women took sole responsibility for their decision, emphasizing that fact by renouncing financial claims on the fathers. The media representation of "single mothers by choice" is remarkably silent with regard to the involvement and reactions of fathers to a woman's "choice." These interviews revealed a particular pattern of involvement and reaction: namely, male partners expected the women to back up failed contraception with abortion and became angry when they did not. In contrast with celebrated media cases of women fighting court battles to obtain abortions against their partner's wishes, these men advocated abortion and felt angry and ill used when the women decided to have the child, despite the fact that the women did not ask the fathers to assume financial responsibility.

Regarding the issue of parental involvement, after these women decided to have the baby, the men faced a choice about their own involvement with the child. All of the women offered the fathers an opportunity to become involved and, for the most part, they refused. The men seemed to regard involvement with the mother and involvement with the child as a "package deal," whereas women desired a relationship with the father for the sake of their children, not for themselves. Women found the fathers' refusal of their children baffling, disappointing, and hard to explain to their children.

The blithe media presentation of "single motherhood by choice" as a newfound freedom for women may describe the situations of some women, but it is facile and inaccurate when applied to women like those interviewed here. In fact, for these women, it might be more accurate to say that in choosing to go ahead with a pregnancy, these women became single mothers by default.

1 Single Mothers by Choice, P.O. Box 1642, Gracie Square Station, New York, NY 10028.

2 His anger was somewhat irrational. Even through he blamed himself more for the second pregnancy, which was the result of his reluctance to use condoms, he nevertheless insisted on a paternity test when the second child was seven months old. Both children were his.

REFERENCES

Baker, M. (1993) Families in Canadian society. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Browne, J., Minichiello, V. (1994). The condom: Why more people don't put it on. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16, 229-251.

DeParle, J. (1994, July 14). Census reports jump in births out of wedlock. New York Times, p. 1.

Hartman, A. (1992). Murphy Brown, Dan Quayle, and the American family. Social Work, 37, 387-388.

Kuriansky, J., & Brockway, L. S. (1988, July). Would you have a baby on your own? New Woman, pp. 41-44.

Micossi, A. (1987, September). Just the two of us. Savvy, pp. 43-48, 92.

Miller, N. (1992). Single parents by choice. New York: Plenum Press.

Weinhouse, B. (1991, October). Just the 2 of us. Redbook, pp. 68-76.

Linda Davies is Associate Professor, School of Social Work, and Prue Rains is Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. This article is based on work funded by the McGill Centre for Applied Family Studies.

Copyright Family Service America Nov 1995
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved