Tag Archives: Single Mothers

“Lean In”, says Sheryl Sandberg. That way you won’t miss when you chuck your husband and kids under the bus.

14 Mar

Sheryl Sandberg’s admonition to women to “lean in” to their careers has ignited quite the debate in the media, especially amongst all the rich white ladies to whom she is speaking.  As expected, she gets lots of sneering contempt for being a rich white lady, mostly from other rich white ladies, who are just not quite as rich as Sandberg. The not-quite-as-rich white ladies resent Sandberg’s implication that they need to work a bit harder.


Kudos to Sandberg for at least admitting that the real problem with lack of women at the top of the corporate world is that they simply don’t make the kind of effort and sacrifice required to be there.  She’s absolutely correct with that analysis.


Where she goes off the rails is by suggesting that women deliberately, purposefully and strategically COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IGNORE the needs of anyone they care about, and focus solely on themselves.  Don’t feel bad about abandoning your infants to the care of poor women, she says. Focus on your career and put those little buggers in daycare for MORE time.  Consider it an investment in yourself.

sad baby

Well, isn’t that precious?  How delightful for the children.

Most women see instantly that Sandberg is full of shit and more and more of them are choosing their children and husbands over a corner office, which is a heartening trend.  Susan Faludi, who wrote a very famous book called Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, takes Sandberg to task on her views about the importance of mothering, but she spins it in a very interesting, and quite frankly, alarming direction.

In a piece at CNN called Sandberg Left Single Mothers Behind, Faludi lays out a vision of the future that is both depressing and infuriating at the same time.



Our economic framework is founded on women’s subjugation.


The power structure that Sandberg wants to feminize was built to cement the power of (some) men, and on the backs of (most) women, who would not only stay out of the power suites but would make all the power plays possible by assuming every backstage duty, from minding the kids to handling the least glamorous and lowest-paid work. It’s in capitalism’s DNA, and no cosmetic paste-ons at the top are going to change the dynamic without significant change on the bottom.

Faludi goes on to quote Charlotte Bunch, who claims that “class distinctions are an outgrowth of male domination”.  Faludi doesn’t appear to have any problem with that statement.



It’s such a clever little semantic trick isn’t it?  On the one hand, Faludi and her furious friends acknowledge that power is concentrated in the hands of some men (mostly rich, mostly white) and then they use that as evidence that most women are shut out of the power structure while completely ignoring the fact that SO ARE MOST MEN, and then in a nice big giant spin of the hamster wheel, they declare our entire society to be male-dominated.



In order to advance the theory of patriarchy, you need to do two things:  ignore the fact that most men are just as powerless as most women, and ignore the fact that some women are just as powerful as some men. It’s unusual to see that played out so blatantly, though.  How in the hell can you look at an argument like that and not see the flaws?  It boggles the mind.

Ah well. So it is.

Let’s look at the rest of Faludi’s article.  After declaring that male-dominated society perpetuates class as a means of maintaining their domination, Faludi turns her attention to a large class of subjugated women:  single mothers.  She has a little moan about the fact that single mothers are held responsible for their own choices, and has a little weep over the fact that in the US, taxpayers are ever reluctant to hand over their cash to pay these women for making terrible decisions.

The U.S. provides the worst support structure for single parents of any economically comparable nation, a recent major study by Legal Momentum found.




And it’s only getting worse, as politicians aim to slash welfare programs, enforcement of child support, child tax credits and anything else they can think to deny single mothers, as they blame them for all that’s wrong with society.


Oh, boo hoo.  That’s so mean.  Why can’t I have a baby with no means to pay for it?  Why can’t you pay for it?  What, you’re paying for your own children?  Well too bad.  Pay for mine, too!

Now Faludi gets to the heart of her vision for the future:  why, she asks, can’t women like Sandberg CHAMPION single mothers?  Promote them as the ideal vision of what our society should be? Single mothers, you see, are the key to women’s independence.

She is an adult woman with responsibilities who is not supported by a man. Symbolically, she stands for the possibility of women to truly remake the patriarchal structure. That would require a movement built not around corporate bromides, but a collective grassroots effort to demand the fundamental social change necessary to grant independent mothers a genuine independence

Let’s look at this very carefully, shall we?

She is an adult woman with responsibilities who is not supported by a man.


Except for the 47% who receive child support payments.  From a man (potentially the biological father of the child, but not necessarily).


money tree

And except for the 35% who receive government benefits, which, astonishingly, do not grow on money trees in the fairy garden. Most of that money comes from MEN, who carry more of the tax burden than women, because they tend to make more money than women.


In the UK, for example, men pay over 70% of the taxes collected. So anyone receiving state benefits is most certainly dependent on a man.  On all working men, in fact.

Symbolically, she stands for the possibility of women to truly remake the patriarchal structure.

Leaving aside for the moment that the power structure is an aristocracy in which both rich men and women exploit the poor who, are also both men and women,  what is this power structure going to be transformed INTO?

Faludi answers her own question:

Consider instead the benefits of a campaign that bore down on the causes behind the negative endings that mar so many single mothers’ lives. It would not only be confronting a problem that affects huge numbers of women, it would be mounting a significant challenge to a system that will otherwise continue to stand between women and full emancipation.


Emancipated from what, pray tell?  And now we have the entire point of the theory of patriarchy, don’t we?  Women are to be emancipated from the domination of men.  Men will contribute two things:  sperm and cash.  Give me babies and give me money.  And then kindly go fuck yourself.


I can’t quite figure out why men object to this. It’s not like we’re going to DOMINATE you, lads.  We’re just going to make the most of what you have to offer.  Money and babies, money and babies, la la la la la.

That would require a movement built not around corporate bromides, but a collective grassroots effort to demand the fundamental social change necessary to grant independent mothers a genuine independence

Know how to grant single mothers genuine independence?  Let them pay for themselves.  Let them lie in the beds they have made.  You want to have a child without a man’s support?  Then accept that you will NOT HAVE A MAN’S SUPPORT.

Why the hell should MEN pay for a social system that is designed to reduce them to strict utilities, unless some woman graciously consents to allow them to be fathers and husbands and yet retains the right to reduce them to functionality at any given moment?


The whole point of the early women’s movement was to ensure that WOMEN were not treated as mere cattle to bear offspring, although that was never the case to begin with.  While women were considered the “property” of men, men had the corollary obligation to pay for the upkeep of their “property”.  Obviously, that is distasteful and the declaration that women are not property was both necessary and just.

How is it possible that Faludi cannot see that she is arguing for a cultural change that would define MEN as property? The collective property of all women.  And how on earth can she imagine, for one second, that men won’t fight back?

You wanna talk Backlash, Susan?


Just watch.

Lots of love,


Dating single mothers? Just say NO! A note for all the single dudes.

11 Nov

First up, let’s clarify our terms.  A widow is NOT a single mother.  Her husband died!  Lumping her in with single mothers is an insult to his memory, to her and to her children.  So don’t even think of doing it.  Especially war widows.  If you ever find yourself referring to a woman whose husband died on a battlefield as a single mother, you should immediately pour Tabasco sauce into your eyes, because you deserve to weep all the tears I’m certain she has.

Divorced mothers are also NOT single mothers, although a huge flashing PROCEED WITH CAUTION sign is definitely in order.  We’ll get to these charming ladies later.

A single mother is a woman who had a child outside of any established relationship, or a relationship so fragile the thickest retard in the world ought to have been able to see bringing a child on board was a FUCKING TERRIBLE IDEA.  Single mothers are bona fide idiots and here is why you should never even consider dating one:

First, this is a woman who clearly doesn’t give a shit about her child’s well-being and future prospects.  Children of single mothers do poorly on every imaginable scale:  they have more emotional problems, experience more stress, are more likely to grow up poor, they have lower educational achievements and experience way more behavioral problems than children who grow up with married parents.  Depression, suicide, drug abuse, jail and psychiatric medications are all more common in populations of children raised by single mothers.


Ladies, this is why abortion exists!  If you screw up and get pregnant, don’t screw up even more and bring an innocent child along with you!  The rest of us who have to LIVE with your fucked up, emotionally scarred children will PAY you to have a fucking abortion.  Be sensible, for the love of god.

Second, single mothers are clearly really, really shitty at making life decisions.  Having a child out of wedlock is pretty much the number one thing you can do to fuck up your life.  You can pick up a heroin addiction, drop out of high school, rob a bank or decide to write the great American novel financing yourself on your credit cards. All of those things can be fixed.  You can go to rehab, get your GED, get parole, and pay off those cards.  But once you have a child, you cannot take it back.  It’s done.

Third, single mothers profoundly misunderstand men.  There are few men who are overjoyed to spend their blood, sweat and tears on some other guy’s genetic offspring.  Remember the Cinderella Effect? (http://judgybitch.com/2012/10/27/of-course-gay-people-should-get-married-and-have-children-its-the-most-natural-thing-in-the-world/)

It’s real.  A modern man doesn’t turn up his nose at a woman with some sexual experience who might have learned a trick or two from previous lovers about what men REALLY like, or more likely, she learned how to FIND OUT, but the majority of men would like to see a NEW sign on her uterus.  No previous occupants.  When a man picks a wife, he wants to know he won’t be competing with some random babydaddy who was there before him.


A woman who cares so little about her children, her own prospects, and her future husband is NOT going to make a great wife.  Sorry.  It’s just not going to happen.  A great wife and mother places the needs and happiness of her husband and children ABOVE her own needs, and in doing so, finds her greatest happiness.  So politically incorrect to say so, I know.  But a woman who makes YOU the center of her life is going to be a great wife.  Oh, and in return, you have to make HER the center of your life.

See how that works?  Yeah.  Not really a huge mystery.  You live for one another.  You both put each other’s happiness above your own.  Exactly what single mothers do NOT do.

Now divorced mothers, who are a breed of single mothers, MIGHT  be a little different, but whenever you approach one, sing this little song in your head:  it takes two to tango.

Never, ever assume a divorced woman is some innocent blushing maid cruelly abused by some terrible man.  Oh, that’s the story she’ll spin for you, because really, what women is going to sit there and say “I’m an unbearably controlling and irrational cunt who made my husband’s life such hell he decided he would rather be a weekend Dad than spend one more second with me”.

When you meet a divorced single mother, immediately start looking for the flaw.  It’s something big.  Something that drove another man to pledge his undying love to her, to have and to hold, from this day forth, and then sometime later decide “fuck this shit.  I’m outta here”. Stand firmly on guard.  Scan the horizon, dude.  Something wicked this way comes.  Or it soon will.

Divorced moms who escaped abusive marriages with drug/sex/gambling/whatever addicts should not get a free pass from you, either.  Even if it’s TRUE that the husband was a colossal fuck-up, you need to ask yourself what kind of imperceptive moron couldn’t spot that?  What kind of insecurities plague a woman who thinks getting married to a drug addict is  good idea?  What kind of delusional self-image does a woman have, if she can fall for a con artist with a gambling habit that would shame Charlie Sheen?  Be very cautious around a woman who takes none of the blame for her failed marriage.  You might not be the FIRST man she blames all her problems on, but you sure as hell can be NEXT.

Don’t be.

On the whole, give single and divorced mothers a pass.  And for the love of god, if you decide to give one a spin, STAY AWAY FROM THE CHILD.  That child is aching for a man to call his or her own.  Every child of a single mother lies awake at night in bed, longing for the Daddy he sees on TV, in books, in the lives of the other kids at school.  He wants you so badly.  Don’t let him fall in love.  You’ll break his heart.  Or hers.  Little girls long for daddies as much as little boys.

That’s the real danger.  The children of single mothers have already been wounded so deeply by the lack of a father.  To give them some hope that it might be YOU, and then leave them is unspeakably cruel.  It’s the worst thing you can do.  You can’t save those little innocents, but you can save them from hurting even more.

Don’t date single mothers.  It’s just not worth it.

Lots of love,


Obama takes the election. Yay for single mothers?

7 Nov

JudgyBitch is glad she isn’t eligible to vote in the US elections, because the whole thing is such a clusterfuck of ideological posturing, she wouldn’t know what to do.  Unlike many other developed nations, the United States is a deeply divided country, with a whole whack of people who will vote AGAINST their own economic interests for the sake of personal beliefs about abortion, gay marriage, birth control, etc. none of which really matter when compared to oh, a 16 TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT.


On the one hand, NOT having a national health care program is INSANE.  On the other hand, NOT having a robust military is also INSANE.  And the United States can’t afford BOTH.  They have to choose.  The US, like it or not, is the global police officer, and the rest of us live relatively secure lives because of that.  Take a country like Canada, the northern neighbour to the US.  Canada has national health care, year long paid maternity leaves, generous unemployment and retirement benefits, an enviable public school system, affordable universities and colleges and a super smug attitude about how superior they are to the United States of America.



What Canada does NOT have is a military capable of defending their country.  Oh, sure, they have a small force that can be deployed for PEACEKEEPING (cue smug smiles all around), and they own a FEW jets and tanks and some really old submarines, but only a tiny fraction of their income goes to military spending.  Why is that?  Because they live under the shield of the American military.  If any country seriously threatened Canada, the US would respond with shock and awe force, since the two countries have such deeply aligned interests.

This frees up a whole lot of money for lovely social programs, which is nice, isn’t it?  It’s like living in a fenced in community that the guy in the biggest house paid for.  All the security, none of the costs.  It’s not really any different in Europe.  Small militaries are maintained, but there is no country in Europe that could defend itself completely without the help of the US.  We all live behind the fence that Americans pay for.

Vote for Obama and vote for increased social spending, reduced military spending, higher taxes, civil rights for all (yes, gay marriage should be legal! Don’t be an asshole.), free birth control (do we need more poor black people?) and guaranteed access to abortion (see http://judgybitch.com/2012/10/19/yes-abortion-is-killing-a-baby-do-you-really-want-to-hand-a-psycho-bitch-a-baby/for my feelings on that!).  Some good, some bad.

Vote for Romney and vote for reduced social spending, increased military spending, lower taxes, legal prejudice against gay people, limited access to birth control and severely restricted access to abortion.  Great.

Obama wants to spend even MORE government money on poor people and single mothers, and he is willing to raise taxes to pay for those programs.  Okay.  Romney wants to spend MORE money the US doesn’t have on the military all the while putting in place programs that will see an explosion of unwanted babies born to the poor (the rich can always get birth control and abortion), and he doesn’t want to raise taxes to pay for that.  Apparently, the Money Fairy will be paying for food stamps for all the poor babies.  Unless he plans on letting them starve?  In which case, why not kill them before they are born?

What a fucking mess.  Why doesn’t the US have any sane candidates to choose from?

At the end of the day, the election comes down to rich people versus poor people, single mothers versus married wives, people who work to pay for their own lives and people who want the government to pay for their basic necessities, which is just a way of taking money away from the rich and giving it to the poor.  The reality is that poor people aren’t going anywhere, and yes, we have an obligation to take care of them, and especially to take care of their children (children don’t get to pick their parents).


A sane candidate would support robust social programs for the CHILDREN of the poor.  Hot meals, warm clothing and a solid education, all delivered directly to the child through the school system. Their parents can go fuck themselves.  You’re a grown-up, figure it out.  You made choices, now live with them.  And when the children of the poor get to be 18 and the government cash stops rolling in, they have a choice, too.  They can go to college, have all their food and health care needs taken care of and have it all paid for, too.  It’s called the military.


The best social program in the world.  And the one that keeps the rest of us safe and sound in a world that seems mad sometimes. On election day, let’s have a cheer for the United States of America, land of the free and home of the brave.  Try to imagine the world without them.  It would probably look something like this:


And that’s a world we don’t want to contemplate.

Lots of love,


%d bloggers like this: