Lifted from the comments, this short history lesson by the ever-brilliant La Lubu:
Here’s a thought: reinterpretation. Take this quote for example, “In 1999 congressional testimony, Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution said that the increase in single-parent families—mostly due to unwed motherhood in the past few decades—”can account for virtually all of the increase in child poverty since 1970.”
Couldn’t the cause of childhood poverty just as easily be interpreted as “mostly due to the abandonment of children by their fathers?” The “abdication of fatherly responsibility towards their children?” Hmmm?
And why is the term “illegitimate” still used? That term originated to differentiate between who was and who wasn’t an heir. Children born outside marriage were considered “illegitimate” so men who liked to fuck women other than their wives didn’t have to pass on any property rights or title to those “outside” children. Ok? Now, the law reads that it doesn’t matter whether the father of the child is married to the mother—he is legally responsible. (whether he chooses to accept that is another matter.) So, why keep “illegitimate” in use? I am an unmarried mother. If I die, my daughter will inherit my property, get insurance benefits, Social Security, death benefits from my union—she’s not “illegitimate”, as I am legally allowed to own property and money, and bequeath those to her.
Frankly, WTF. Illegitimate, my ass. Why is the mother, the one who stuck around, the one who provides the ways and means and the daily care, the one with the late nights and early mornings and public scorn—why is the mother the “illegitimate” parent?! For fuck’s sake!!
Because it’s history. History. The accepted way for dealing with women who got pregnant outside of marriage wasn’t the shotgun wedding. It was leaving. Denying. Don’t believe me? See the entire history of European nobility towards peasant women. See the entire United States slave trade. See also how the captains of U.S. industry treated female millworkers, maids, kitchen staff, etc.
Meanwhile, the commenters at LGM, Feministe, and Pandagon argue over whether or not it’s best that mothers (and only mothers) predict the future before having their illegitimate children.
Well, at least “illegitimacy” is better than “bastardy,” which was the prior term. I know this because early in my career, I had to research the issue of what was required to establish that a child born out of wedlock was entitled to bring suit for damages for her father’s death. And in the old digests (electronic research was very expensive back then, so we did a lot via paper), they give you all the former names which the topic has been listed under. So “Children Born Out of Wedlock” referenced “Illegitimacy” and “Bastardy.”
Socially, there’s no reason that “illegitimacy” needs to be used anymore, but legally, it’s still necessary to establish paternity when the parents are unmarried; paternity is presumed where the parents are married (even if the husband isn’t actually the father). It’s something that establishes and protects the child’s claim to not only support, but inheritance and rights to sue for damages, among other things.
Damn straight, Lauren. You should see the looks people still give me when I tell them my parents were never married. Now, granted, they were together longer than my mother was married to my half-sister’s father, but my sister doesn’t get those looks; and it’s not like they were young, either–they were both 29 when I was born. They just didn’t get married. And somehow, I haven’t landed in jail. Yet. There’s still time!
zuzu, I don’t know how they do it in NY, but in Illinois, there were two reps from the Department of Public Aid (now, it’s called Healthcare and Family Services) walking into my hospital room not long after the anaesthesia (from my emergency C-section) wore off—because I was unmarried. They figure that the father may show up at the hospital. They had the paperwork all ready and everything, and all he needed to do was sign on the dotted line to acknowledge paternity.
And you know what? I’m glad they did. My daughter’s father is dead now, and so she receives Social Security. It’s the only form of child support she ever received.
I get so angry in the whole “children *need* two parents (ideally a man and a woman, of course)” comments.
Even if we lived in an ideal world where couples were always happy and healthy, and were always perfect parents to their offspring, I fail to see why children *need* more than one, but fewer than three parents in order to be well adjusted, healthy children.
I see plenty of children from “alternative” families that seem to be doing just fine. Single parents homes. Same gender parent homes. Homes where there are more than two primary care givers. My sister is raising her daughter without the father, but my niece is living with an uncle and a set of grandparents in addition to her mother. They’re all helping with the raising of my niece. Are people going to tell my sister that her child isn’t healthy or isn’t getting great care, despite the fact that she’s got a strong support network helping her, and that her daughter is around people who love and support her rather than with the abusive drunk that was the father?