Already a member?
Welcome to Brazen Careerist!
Kate Hutchinson is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Kate Hutchinson and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
Kate Hutchinson is using Brazen Careerist to share ideas. Join now to become a member and start networking with Kate Hutchinson and other professionals just like you. Learn more.
A disturbing headline from the Boston Globe: Teens had pact to get pregnant together, report says.
Gloucester school officials have discovered at least part of the reason that their high school pregnancy rate has more than quadrupled over the past year, according to a Time magazine story that hits newsstands today.
"Nearly half the expecting students, none older than 16, confessed to making a pact to get pregnant and raise their babies together," the magazine's story said, after reporters talked with Joseph Sullivan, Gloucester High School principal.
Seventeen girls at the 1,200-student Gloucester High have gotten pregnant over the school year, more than four times the average number. The spike has shocked and baffled education and health officials there and reignited a fierce debate about contraception in schools. But many told the Globe last month that the most alarming facts were that a significant portion of the expecting girls were 16 and younger and that some seemed to be intentional.
"More students are coming in and asking about pregnancy testing," the city's public health director, Jack Vondras, told the Globe last month. "What's odd is that some of them are disappointed because they're not getting pregnant."
This is shocking news. Why on earth would a group of 16 year old girls want to become pregnant together? My guess: the rise of the Mommy Porn. The term was recently popularized by Penelope Trunk, although I've been calling it baby or pregnancy porn for a long while.
Roughly about the time Britney Spears became pregnant, the celebrity baby-craze ratcheted up several notches. Every week the tabloids and celebrity-stalking web sites, gossip columns and the like are filled with the reproductive cycles of celebrities. Each week at the grocery store, I stare at the headlines about Angelina Jolie's impending second birth, Nicole Richie's new baby girl, Jessica Simpson's baby envy, Britney's two boys and their troubled mother, Jennifer Lopez' twins, and so forth. Even youngsters Jamie Lynn Spears and Ashlee Simpson are having babies. It's the cool and hip thing to do. Since we now hold up these beautiful air-brushed images as the ideal, it's no wonder young girls want to have babies together and live in a world of soft baby blankets and smiling, cooing toddlers.
What would be nice is if some of these young mothers returned a few years later and told those would-be mommies what the reality is like. Babies throw up. They cry. They create feces-filled diapers. They don't sleep when you want them to. They're not fashion accessories, no matter what In Touch or Us Weekly would have you believe. They're little people who need constant care.
This is further manifestation of the backlash against women's advancement and the onslaught of the conservative media. We see more articles about the wonders of stay-at-home mothering and how even Ivy League graduates aim for this. There's still the great push for young women to see marriage as a milestone surpassing all others.
What should change here is that these young women should be made aware of the basic economic functions of motherhood. Sure young mothers like Jamie Lynn Spears will survive and maybe even thrive--because they have plenty of money and a support system. The average teen will instead have to struggle to finish high school and care for a child, if she doesn't drop out first. Without an education, her earning power drops significantly, and the chances of her landing a job that offers benefits (life insurance, health insurance, child care assistance) drop dramatically. She won't be pushing her darling along in a Bugaboo stroller, sipping a latte, and toting a Kate Spade diaper bag to a baby yoga class. More likely she'll be borrowing hand-me-downs as she passes the baby to an elderly relative to take care of as she scrambles to get to her minimum wage job. Not something you'd ever see on the cover of Star or Hello!.
I thought this was great news! I mean here are a bunch of girls that made the "choice" to do what they wanted with their bodies. Not only that, they didn't say anything about "anchoring" themselves to a male individual and had their own little "sexual revolution", kind of like the "free love" of the 60s'.
Isn't this the type of news that you should be proud of??
@Chris - What these girls are lacking is knowledge, education, and finances. They have been sold a dream that they will have picture perfect children and not informed about the consequences these choices will have.
I think your response is typical of people who don't take these issues seriously. It's not a "sexual revolution," it's more likely peer pressure.
@Chris Ford- Are you suggesting that an abstinance-only, pro-life agenda promoting monogamy would have prevented these girls from getting pregnant in the first place? Oh wait, I get it, you're trying to point out that feminists are hypocrites, because when young girls actually do what feminists want them to do, they don't like the results. Based on your previous posts, I would have expected a more nuanced view.
okay, I was being sarcastic, but in all seriousness I believe you are wrong on the peer pressure aspect.
Media coverage of these pregnant stars plays a role but those stars, the media and these children's friends aren't saying "go out and get pregnant" they are just glamorizing it and not making those facts that you mentioned clear.
There are faults with all types of sex-ed in schools, we need to find something else completely different than abstinence only or comprehensive...i suggest showing pictures of diseased genitalia and women giving birth in full HD movie format every day you have the class...drastic? yes, why not though?
Settle down Kyle, believe it or not conservatives have a sense of humor too.
Here's my question: where were the parents of all of these teen girls? I understand that teens will do dumb things (Lord knows, I made huge mistakes) but I just wonder how 16 girls managed to be left alone long enough to think pregnancy was a good idea and then were left alone long enough to get pregnant (and obviously, not all of them were knocked up on the first try).
Yes, it was a bad decision on their part but really it speaks volumes about the situations they were raised in. I keep wondering how this cycle will perpetuate itself in the future. The situation had to have been brewing for quite some time prior.
This is a great post. There's a fine line that I think everyone is struggling with defining right now that deals with when women are being duped and when women are making autonomous, independent choices that aren't anyone else's business.
It's hard line to see -- on the one hand, I trust women, I trust myself, I trust my friends, and these girls. We're big girls, we can do what we want.
On the other hand, as you argue, these girls have been duped -- motherhood is powerful, wonderful, and difficult, and looks nothing like what they've been shown. When are we victims, and when are we just making bad choices? Do you have to be 'duped' to make a bad choice?
It's a theme alot of people are discussing right now, this link delves into the same issue but with a criminal incident: http://feministing.com/archives/009429.html#trackback
I'm interested to hear lots of people's the thoughts on this...
Oh geez, I am about to make a statement that feminists hate to hear...
The reason why children have so much time to themselves anymore is because both parents are out working. There I said it. But, this is more than just equal opportunity type stuff anymore. You actually NEED both parents working in a typical household to support everything going on. In most cases kids get home from school around 3 and their parents around 6, that is 3 hours difference right there alone. It's a tough problem to figure out with that unless you make the kids go to school later and get out around 5 or 6...who knows?
Fascinating story. I never imagined that the celebrity gossip culture could produce a fad like this.
There needs to be some kind of massive intervention between young women, the rest of the country, and the media because this image thing is getting WAY out of control.
@Chris- Sorry- a wink or a nod would have been nice. Guess I should have recognized there were a lot of sarcastic "quotes".
@Dorie- I think you hit on the bigger issue here. Parenting is a huge factor, across socioeconomic classes.
The problem here is societal as well; these girls felt that they would elevate their status by having children. I am not sure if they got this message solely through the media glorification of young, unwed mothers, but it certainly didn't help.
My point is that these girls are not thinking realistically. There is a consistent glamorization of motherhood these days from the Hollywood baby-craze to the proliferation of shows about birth, pregnancy, and adoption on tv, to the rise of designer baby accessories. A 16 year old is not fiscally or emotionally prepared to take care of a baby. And these girls are going to put themselves at a real disadvantage in terms of finishing school and getting a decent paying job.
@Chris- Good parenting comes in many forms. And you should stop assuming that in a two partner family the wife is solely responsible for child care.
@kate- that is definitely true, it is unbelievable that kids just don't see that nowadays with it happening so much and ruining the ambitions of their friends...it's sad
They will find a way to have their Bugaboo strollers and Kate Spade diaper bags, believe it or not. My cousin has a little girl who is about to turn one, and despite living on government aid and one income, she still manages to place higher value on designer items than things like family, quality time, retirement/college savings, her own education, etc.
It's sad, but she'd rather run up her cards dressing her little girl in baby gap and go bar-hopping with all her girlfriends who have babies at home too, than spend time with her family or continue her education.
Babies are the new black.
@kate-okay there i was nice for a little bit and then you go and say that...well let me say that nowhere in that statement did I say that the mothers are the care takers of children, so the "assuming" was left on your part...unbelievable, I mean is it your hatred of my morals and values that conflict with yours that makes you just want to shoot venom my way all the time by assuming what I mean??
How about I break it down like I am talking to a 3rd grader, it doesn't matter if it is the mother or father staying at home to watch the kids...in most households that is IMPOSSIBLE because it takes BOTH parents to support...sh*t sorry for even getting involved and having an open conversation
@Chris- It's a fair assumption from the rest of your statement. (And I'd like to point out that insults are detrimental to conversation.)
It does often take two parents to support the children, but on the other hand, if the parents are home with the children at night, perhaps they could take some time to explain why they work (i.e. to pay for the children)? That would help to educated teens that there's more to parenting than simply parading around a pretty baby.
@Holly- yes, babies are the new black, great tagline.
It's sad to hear about people putting themselves into debt for appearances.
@Holly - That just broke my heart. I have so many girlfriends who are struggling to get pregnant who would give up everything just to have a baby.
@Kate - My husband and I are 25 and we know we are not emotionally prepared to have babies right now. I can't even being to imagine what these girls were thinking.
I live in MA and heard an article on the NPR program Here & Now yesterday afternoon about this article in Time. They interviewed the author of the Time Article who spent significant time in this community researching, interviewing and understanding the reasons behind this pact. I don’t think that “Mommy Porn” was really not the driving reason here. There are a lot of other factors at work and the interview was really interesting.
Kate, I know you live in MA too but many people don’t…Gloucester is a traditional fishing community that is essentially located on an island. The physical seclusion of this town, the hard economic times, the overwhelmingly Catholic and traditional 2nd generation immigrant population there have had much more to do with this than girls seeing glorified pictures in US weekly and Juno.
The show’s site seems to be down but you can access the podcast for 6/19/08 at:
http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast.php?id=510051
@Melissa-
Thanks for the link, I'll give it a listen. I appreciate your putting the whole thing in perspective.
I always wonder about how parents are supposed to stop their children from having sex, apart from locking them in the house.
Sure, a parent could tell their daughter about the dangers of teen pregnancy - my father's "talk" with me consisted of sitting me down to watch the movie Pregnant at 15. But it's ridiculous to blame all of this on the parents, particularly on the fact that both parents in a household may hold jobs.
I agree with Kate - this is a sad story indeed, and most likely aided by mommy porn.
Especially when you consider that women with lower self-esteem consume more beauty magazines, which is where the mommy porn is featured. I think a teen is more likely to become pregnant (on purpose especially) if they have lower self-esteem and want a child to "love them." A lower self-esteem would also make a teen more susceptible to peer pressure.
I'm not saying that the problem is due to the parents not being home because they are both working, what I am saying is that if you are going to look at parents being the solution, it would be hard for those family times when life is chaotic in the household as it is. There is always time but I think today's youth are more disconnected from their parents than ever before because of the parent-less environments that we grow up in, I mean even if the parents are home, look at the private lives they live on the internet. This pregnancy problem is just something that needs to be handled with multiple solutions and not just from one angle, and honestly I don't know where to even begin.
I'd actually like to suggest a different cause other than marketing, which I think certainly has an influence.
Personally, I think the biggest factor here is that none of these girls has probably ever really dealt with a baby in any fashion. If they had a bit more contact through family and such, I think that might've gone a long way towards educating them to the gravity of such a decision.
@ Monica - I don't think parents can stop kids from having sex. But I would hope that parents would notice that their kids were spending a lot of time behind closed doors with the opposite sex.
Maybe the question we should all be thinking about now is how do we work to break this cycle? How do we educate and support this young mothers so that their children are not trapped on a similar path? What support can we offer without enabling?
Following-up on what HOlly H. up above said, I can't believe the things fashionable young moms are doing ...and the cashmoney they're spending on their kids.
I live in a lower-income area of my city, and I see poor, single moms (who probably had children accidentally) toting their babies as accessories.
They push them around in souped-up strollers until they're 5 years old (creating a lazy generation), wear their designer shoes, glasses, hair and more and only changing diapers when people around them are showing signs of nausia. They then get on the city bus with these damn strollers and get on home to the most unkempt neighbourhood in the city.
Anyhoo. I can only comment on the socio-economic annoyances. Interesting post, for sure.
I had heard about teenage girls intentionally getting pregnant before for several reasons: wanting to feel closer to their boyfriends, wanting to appear more adult etc. I think that it is a little ridiculous to blame this on "mommy porn." I think people like to use the media as a scapegoat as a way to avoid taking responsibility for what can only be described as a failure.
It's a failure of any of the girls or boys within the group to realize that mutually agreeing to get pregnant is a stupid decision. It's a failure of the school system to have a more adequate sex education system. It's a failure on the part of the parents who haven't educated their children about what it means to be responsible for a family. It's a failure of their community to offer those teenagers more viable opportunities, both social and economic, But no group is going to more negatively affected by this pact than the children who are born to these teenage mothers.
I think trying to make this thing emblematic of a backlash to women's advances obscures some of the real reasons why these girls decided to enter into this pact. It also belittles the strength of the movement toward the advancement of women when you start alluding to the fact that motherhood is an impediment to women's advancement.
I think what needs to change is that women still need to see that it is not a matter of choice between motherhood and the workplace. For girls with less economic possibilities, it's often a choice between motherhood and near poverty and sometimes both.
I think mommy porn may be a contributing factor, but teenage girls have been wanting/having babies way before Angelina and crew. At the end of the day sex causes babies, not the media. Not to mention, most of the celebrities you mentioned that are having children (minus Jamie Lynn) are out of their teenage years and in a serious relationship. They are progressing along life's continuum as we all do. It's us "regular" folk that make them pornographic.
Are there superficial teens/young mothers? Absolutely. But I work with these young single mothers on a REGULAR basis. I actually think we need to give these teens some credit, there are usually some much deeper emotional issues that make them feel like they NEED a baby.
It kind of bothers me when people mention how others choose to dress and care for their children. Money allows you access to better things, but it doesn't make you a better (or worse) parent.
This article is very intriguing. As a young adult I must say that having babies at a young age does seem to make young ladies feel as if they are more grown up. Its the fast track to adulthood. I don't agree that the media has played a part, although I am quite sick and tired of celebrities pushing their children into the limelight.
I live in a low-income neighborhood as well and I have noticed that young mothers also see having a kid as getting money from the government. Housing, healthcare, foodstamps, childcare, public assistance; all of these are much easier to obtain once you have a kid.
Its really a double edge sword b/c we can try to prevent teens from having kids while we try to help those who do have kids survive. Most of it has to do with the parents support and building a relationship with your daughter that will foster open communication and respect.
Email
Print
.thumbnail.jpg "Blake Sunshine")
