Photo by Flickr user HoldThatTiger. Used under a Creative Commons license.
Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon, riffing off a public interview with Alaska Governor Palin’s minor daughter, points to the basic contradiction of “abstinence-only” marketing, especially as it’s presented to girls.
In other words, it’s “obvious” that you shouldn’t take the greatest step in your life that fills it with joy and perfection and bliss and did I say perfection? Getting pregnant at 17 will complete you, girls, so don’t do it! That trifling boyfriend of yours will, the second you get pregnant, become so devoted to you that he’ll tattoo your name on his finger, and your mother will give you a year to plan the perfect wedding you’ve been encouraged to dream about since you could first turn a page in a bridal magazine. Having a baby in high school is so fucking great, so girls, don’t do it!
Pardon me if I find the whole situation disingenuous.
What’s weird about this whole business to me is that in terms of reproductive topography it’s not even a bad idea in social-theory terms to encourage young people to a) have their own children while their parents are still young enough to provide in-home support and assistance and b) parents are themselves still young enough when their children go off on their own (to grandparent their own children’s children part-time!) that, still in their own 30s, they can then launch full-blown and reproductively-unencumbered careers, lives, etc. As opposed to, say, getting up a full head of steam career-wise and then… interrupting it to go “nuclear” (family) in your 30s and then try and get back off the parent track it in your 40s or 50s (or 60s as will be the case for me!)
And not to put too fine a point on it, with such a model it really wouldn’t matter as much if one or the other parent was a massive flake or not long-term, grow-old-together compatible because… there’d still be plenty of close supporting infrastructure, not only for, say, the abandoned father but also the interested-in-resuming-dating daughter.
I’m not saying that’s the best model, but it wouldn’t be the end of the world.** If that were the conservative model. Which it manifestly also isn’t.
Instead the model seems to be to trap children in these weird double-binds that result in a) high expectations, b) sense of personal failure, c) making poor interpersonal/partner choices that d) you’re then stuck with that result in…
e) What midwife and birth instructor Penny Simpkin rather hauntingly refers to as “the empty years” where, especially if you’re a “traditional” woman, your children are out of the home and you have, basically, nothing left to live for because all you were raised to believe in was being a stay-at-home mom or a work-yourself-to-death dad.
So, sort of like Marcotte, I’m thinking would be fine if they wanted to have it one way — teenagers really are fucked up by pregnancy if they’re not really ready — or fine the other — when you get pregnant we’ll lavish you with a wedding and tons of parental support. But trying to have it both ways — if you get pregnant you’re really fucked up but we’re going to lavish you with big wedding and tons of support — just… ruins it for everybody! The joy of sex. The joy of parenting. The joy of having a career. Even the joy of grandparenting!
[** It wouldn’t even be the end of the world population-increase-wise if everyone still limited themselves to two children. In fact as long as I’m speculating wildly I suspect a start-your-life-after-kids model would actually increase interest in smaller rather than larger families. —fl]
Submitted by 2601 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-01-05 22:03.
It would be too boring to say "I'm exhausted and terrified, but I love my son and we're doing the best we can, one day at a time, just like everyone else," I suppose.
Really, I hope the two of them defy all the odds, willingly marry one another if and when and ONLY if and when they're ready, and they're happy together for the next 85 years. They're getting such a rough start and they don't deserve to be happy less than anyone else. (Yeah, I know "rough" is extremely relative, but being a teenage parent can't be any fun for anybody, money or no money.)
I've read such mean-spirited things written about Bristol P. and this situation in other places. It's like people just can't wait to see her poor, divorced and alone with a small child at 20 - just so they can say "I told you so!" about abstinence-only education, traditional marriage and other conservative-type things. Don't get me wrong, I can't stand Gov. Palin, but I detest seeing people salivate with glee about the awful things that they think/hope will happen to someone so young. It's not her fault her mom's bonkers.
Submitted by 2601 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-01-05 22:06.
Just one more thing. (You'd think I'd get my own blog if I'm going to go on and on like this.)
I've always hated that threat that so many parents issue: "If you get pregnant, don't come crying to me because you won't be bringing that baby to this house! Don't expect any help here! I've already raised my kids, I'm not raising any more! You'd better pack up your stuff and go to his/her house because you won't be living here any more!"
We *are* talking about having a baby here, not taking up recreational firebombing or something, right?
In other words, "We will abandon you when you need us most and we will not only use your distress to punish you, just to make a point, we will derive sadistic pleasure from it. Because we love you so much."
I don't know how many parents of pregnant teenagers follow through on this, but I suspect that it's at the root of a lot of BAD relationships, child abuse and domestic violence. Nothing like trapping someone in a relationship in which she is completely dependent on her boyfriend and his family for ALL material and financial support, especially if neither of them even want to be in the relationship any more, and they both feel resentful and angry...and sleep deprived, exhausted and furious with this baby that will NOT quit crying. Oh, yeah. That's going to end well.
Or there's that other stunt, frequently pull by mothers, including mine: "If you get pregnant, I will have a heart attack and die. Do you want me to die? Do you?" (It was overkill to say the least, considering that I wasn't allowed to date until I was 18, by which time I living in another city for college.) I don't know what's more insulting, the fact that a parent would deploy the tried and true molesters' tactic of trying to trick a child into believing that if she says or does the "wrong" thing, she will cause another person to instantly die, or the idea that your daughter is responsible for your decision to have a premeditated, self-induced, hysterical meltdown. Way to open up a meaningful, honest conversation.
I understand that people want to discourage teenagers from getting pregnant as strongly as possible, letting them know that you can't and won't drop everything to become a full-time, unpaid nanny/grandparent. But taking teenage parenthood as a personal insult and using it as an excuse to withdraw, love, support and even membership in the family, that just makes me sad. It makes you feel like your parent is telling you "You're only worthy of and allowed a certain amount of love, and by having a baby, you're going WAY over your allotment. You're not worth that much to me."
There's got to be something in the middle.