Stasis Motherhood

Just in case any of you are confused about this, let me be absolutely clear: single-motherhood is a double-dose of martyrdom. Single fatherhood, interestingly, is not; but if you are a mother and you currently do not have a live-in partner, I hate to break it to you, but society expects you to flatten yourself with a steamroller and lay face-down in the mud for your kids. Not because they need you to, but just because you enjoy it so gosh-darned much. ("Yum, mud! No, sweetie, let me stay here for a few more minutes so I can get another mouthful.")

It's the only explanation I can think of for why there is so much judgmentalism directed at single mothers who are trying to figure out when to introduce the kids and boyfriend(/girlfriend?) to each other.

Note what I did not say:

I did not say that there is judgmentalism directed towards parents who are trying to introduce children and new partners. For example, as Rachel Sarah recently pointed out over at Single Mom Seeking, when Kate Hudson and her son went to brunch with Lance Armstrong and his kids, and her ex-husband, all of the vitriol was directed towards Kate and the damage she was doing to her boy. I have yet to see anyone panic over the long-term effects to Lance's kids of meeting his new girlfriend and her ex-husband. Yet for the life of me I can't see any reason to believe the effects would be any different.

I am also not saying that the judgmentalism is directed towards single mothers when they actually do introduce the boyfriend(/girlfriend?) and the kids. All you have to do is wander on to an internet forum and pose the question: So I've been dating someone, when do you think they should meet my kids? Many of the answers will be kind and interested, and advise waiting until you are comfortable, not shoving the new person down your child's throat as a love interest, meeting on neutral territory and doing something the child will enjoy, and so on. Peppered throughout will be unmuffled gasps of horror: what, are you crazy? Introduce them? Maybe if you're getting married, just maybe (no thought given to how disorienting that would be for a child: Hey, honey! Meet my fiance! We're thinking of getting hitched next month, want to be a flower girl?). Once you absolutely know for a fact that it will last forever (no thought given to exactly what that means: umm, what if he dies next week? No thought given to the other people in a parent's life who turn out not to be permanent, and the damage that must be lurking your child's psyche when the friend whose birthday party you went to together last year moves to Switzerland this year). Certainly not in anything less than a year. It might be best to just put of the whole crazy, selfish enterprise until your children are practically adults themselves. (Wow, what a fun household that would be. Is it just me, or are some of you imagining the kids sitting around a coffee shop table at some point groaning to each other, how the hell are we going to get mom to go on a date and just get laid?) What are you rushing for? Don't you think at all about your children?

There's only one explanation: people are crazy.

No, wait, that wasn't it. I'll try again.

There's only one explanation: people are so deep-seatedly sexist that it makes them say and believe completely crazy things. Like:

When a mom is married to the biological father of her children, the time the mom and her partner spend together will enrich her children's lives. It will make her a better mother to them, so regular date nights should be part of her mothering repertoire, and if this means grandma or a stranger tucks them into bed sometimes, so be it. BUT if a mother is NOT married to the biological father of her children, the time the mom and her partner spend together takes away from precious mother-child time and turns her into a selfish, shrieking harridan who will scar her children's developing psyches. She should ensure her entire life revolves only around her children until they are dating themselves. Some exceptions can be made for mothers who are dating when the child is with the ex-spouse. If there is no ex-spouse and you've always been single, you're just shit out of luck, lady.

When a mom who is married to the biological father of her children has friends over for dinner who then disappear forever, no one even thinks to remark on it. Well, that's life. Some people stick around forever, and some people don't. But when a mother who is NOT married to the biological father of her children has a MALE over for dinner who the child never sees again, this will traumatize them and make them believe that no one will ever stay, relationships never last, and love is a myth. I'm not entirely sure why "Sweetie, this is my friend Robert. He's going to have dinner with us tonight" would make a young child picture weddings and happily-ever-after in the first place, or why their absence would even be registered, but there you have it.

What the hell?

As long as you are safely the property wife of the particular man who has fathered your children, your happiness is sanctioned and encouraged and your relationship will bring your children joy, stability and comfort. But if you are not married, any relationships you have can only come at the expense of your kids, you narcissistic bitch, and why did you bother having kids if you were just going to give them to someone else to raise? No, wait, that's the daycare debate. Why did you even bother having kids if you weren't going to sacrifice your happiness and stop being a person until they're adults anyway?

Let's assume that someone wanders through here one day, wondering why single moms would ever want to introduce the kids to the boyfriend. Why not just wait until they're fifteen? Why not give it a year?

Because, lovies, single moms are human beings too.

It's true. They're not just phantasms of the religious right, or bogeywomen conjured up to scare uppity wives into obedience. They are real, breathing, exhausted human beings. They have relationships, and they have kids. They probably have jobs, too, and maybe a few friends. Do you know what it costs to keep all those selves compartmentalized? To never mention the boyfriend around your kids, even though you're spending most of your kid-free time with him? Do you know what it's like to always be missing one of them? To feel like you never get to spend enough time with either, so by extension, you rarely have any time to yourself, because the only time you could take would be away from one of them, and for your own selfish sake you're not willing to do it. Do you know how tiring that juggling act gets? Imagine if you could only spend time with your husband or with your children, you could not ever put them in the same room at the same time, for a year or more.

So I imagine having both Greg and Frances in the same room at the same time, and besides my belief that they would probably enjoy each other's company, oh lord would it ever make my life easier. That's where the selfishness comes in. Yes, internet, it's true: I want to sleep. I want to have them both near me at the same time. I want my life to be a little less complicated.

If I truly believed Frances needed that year, I would give it to her. And be frazzled and exhausted and stretched too thin, if that's what it took. But I don't think she needs it. I don't think she needs her mother to be a martyr and a nun. I think she needs her mother to be present when she's there, usually happy and engaged, a sympathetic listener, and a setter of boundaries and provider of nutritious food and safe shelter. She also needs me not to expose her to unnecessary hurt; so I understand the cautions of not-too-much-too-soon. Frances loves everyone. There are no barriers on that heart of hers (yesterday, I watched her chase after two girls her age at the playpark shouting, "guys, hey, guys! Wait up!" "You're too little," one of them replied, which did not seem to damper her enthusiasm for playing with them in the slightest, and she kept running around with them for a while). Anyone she meets she will love, and then losing them would break her heart. I know and am very conscious of this fact.

But it is not just true of mom's boyfriend. It is true of the kids she meets at school, my other friends, their kids, her "sister" C, the kids she chases around the playpark, our neighbours--anyone she ever meets has the potential to become someone very important to her, who one day she may lose or who may reject her. That's just one of the things that happens to everyone born on this planet. I can't protect her from that, I can't guarantee it will never happen to her. I can be careful and try not to expose her to it unnecessarily, but that's all. She is a human being. Loss will come in to her life. It already has.

(I'll just include a brief parenthetical explanation of the other extreme, in which apparently reasonable and intelligent people use such introductions as a screening method for their dates. As in, on the second or third date, introduce the kids to the date, and if the kids don't like the date, the date is never seen again. I have to think it is a terrible idea to give a child this much power of their parent's personal life; moreover, it feels like boundary-setting, and boundary-setting is what parents do for their kids, not what kids do for their parents. So blah blah blah, walking the middle line, need to make sure the new person is safe and respectful of children and knows that the child comes first but this does not mean the child is made into a tyrant who approves or disapproves of mommy's or daddy's friends, etc., so on, the end.)

Here is where I wave my theoretical magic wand and make an explanation for this bizarre behaviour appear behind a cloud of dry smoke: it's because single mothers are, first and foremost, mothers; and as we all already know, mothers aren't really people. Once you become a mother, you are not entitled to happiness or the pursuit of your own goals, you do not have needs for personal space, alone time, companionship, hobbies, intellectual stimulation, or sleep. This applies to all mothers and, so far as I know, no fathers. Fathers are still allowed to have needs (just see what happens when a married dad stops getting laid regularly.) They are even allowed to have wants. Mothers are not, because mothers are women, and women aren't really people, and motherly women are especially extra women who have used their reproductive organs, which retroactively revokes their personhood. Those of you who are mothers already know what I'm talking about.

But mothers who are married may be lucky enough to have a husband who will 'babysit' the kids, thus 'allowing' his wife to take care of her personal needs, maybe even 'pitching in' around the house so that the mother doesn't 'need' to make those kitchen floors whiter-than-white all by herself. She is still not really a person, but she is a not-really-person with an in-house resource who may indulge her claims towards personhood and enable her to express them from time to time.

Single moms? Nope.

This does not entitle single mothers to find other, creative means towards balancing their own needs with that of their children. It requires a complete personal obliteration of the mother's needs on the apparent assumption that for a mother to have needs necessarily disables her from being able to care for her children's needs.

This is one area in which the experts appear more reasonable than the rabid masses, fortunately, perhaps because the experts are psychologists or relationship experts as opposed to parenting experts. Which isn't to say that they agree. Apparently, I can introduce them "when it gets serious," "when the boyfriend/girlfriend will be around for a long time," "when you know it is permanent" (? What's this with permanence? Whoever knows when anything will be permanent?), "When you are discussing marriage." You can either introduce them as a friend, or on the other hand believe that total honesty is absolutely required and explain why this person is important to you. In other words, no one has a clue, but you're sure to fuck up somehow and then someone can explain it to you after the fact.

About my own approach I won't say much except that Frances has met Greg once as one of mummy's friends, and I detect thus far no signs of trauma or undue attachment. Mummy has friends and sometimes she meets them and she seems to enjoy having the opportunity to charm another adult and show off her toys. (And just so my dinner guests are warned, Frances is really looking forward to reading to you "Today I Will Fly!" this evening. Possibly more than once.) They probably won't spend much time together for a while, because Frances is only little and doesn't understand adult relationships, nor should she have to. (I'm still recovering from all those talks we had about whether or not girls have weenies on the inside.) But in the meantime, yes, I expect they will occasionally be in the same room at the same time, because it means Mummy gets to be a bit happier. And I am just that selfish.

Posted by Andrea at June 25, 2008 12:13 PM under Single Momming

EMAIL this entry

(comments fields are below this section)