RodeoSchro said:

Hey, follow a stupid kid home and you'll find stupid parents. Imagine what the children of these girls will be like in 18 years? Jesus.....

JustErin said:

99% of the time when a kid fucks up or does soemthing dumb, it's because some adult somewhere along the line has failed them.

uPtoWnNY said:

Proof that Darwin was right. The dumb ones will just keep spawning dumber and dumber people until they weed themselves out

superman said:

Who me?

A friend of mine in the US just told me about this story, which I hadn't noticed on the Org - therefore my belated comment, but here goes:

First, if it has been making waves in the US, like she told me, I think it doesn't reflect anything good about the state of the US media.

As for the girls: I can't comment on the pact itself because I don't know all the details of their agreements.
But as regards teen pregnancies: I think in the history of humanity, pregnancy in teenage years is much more the norm than the exception. It's only in Western societies, when women were able to go to work and build careers [in other words, recently] that the 'acceptable' age for a woman to get pregnant became older - like now, in their 30s and 40s. But still today there are plenty of places/societies around the world where pregnancy in a woman's early years is practiced and encouraged even. Russia is one of them.

In the US setting of this case, it's interesting to see that once girls/women decide to take control of Life on their own terms, outside of the ruling man-made/patriarchal institutions and traditions, one of which is marriage, then people [read mostly men and all those under their influence] freak out. A woman who is treading outside of the man-made rigid, controlling framework is indeed very scary:).

As for the argument that these women, predictably enough, will have a hard time raising these children, I believe it's an economic problem, not a medical/health-related one, nor an ethical or psychological one. But then, with the kind of economic policies that Bush has been promoting, I'm not surprised.

Flo6 said:

Would that it were so simple.

1) We're not talking about women making choices that reflect their inherent, yet all-too-often-denied, equality. We're talking about children making huge, life-altering decisions that defy wisdom and are formed, most likely, on the shakiest of logic and from unstable environments.

2) Economic and health issues tend to go hand-in-hand. As for Massachusetts, which is struggling to afford its universal healthcare approach, you can't blame the issues hindering that approach on George W. Bush. Great. Now, look what you made me do: I'm sounding like a Republican on this thread...

As for the media play of the story, I attribute a lot of that to the demographic dynamics to the story. Had this happened in Jackson, Miss., or Compton, Calif., I don't think it would have been as big a story. But I could be wrong.

I agree that I have been speaking in very broad, general terms.

And I agree that the girls in this case, like probably most pregnant girls in the US/Western Europe, are 'children' - just kids. But I also believe that it is in the fabric of our Western societies to keep them so. If a 15-year old girl is too irresponsible and immature to take care of her little one, at least on an emotional/psychological level, then we, the adults in this society, have only ourselves to blame. What prevents us from teaching those kids the skills and values they need to become parents? In countries/societies when it is the rule for girls to marry and bear children at an early age, they are being taught those skills and the whole society is organized in such a way that it promotes the early education of children in those skills.

I obviously don't mean to promote child labor here, but it is significant imo that in many countries around the world, some children are given much higher/more important responsibilities in the family than we give to our own kids. Obviously we need balance, and attending school/getting an education is primordial. But I think this proves that the conditioning and nurturing we choose to give our children defines how mature and responsible they will be and at what age they become so. And also, that if we give them the opportunities, kids can do much better than being good at playing video games or chatting on online social networks [like I'm doing right now - oops:)]

So I agree that these girls most likely took their decision in the unstable environment they are surrounded by, like you said. But that's our responsibility and our free choice as adults to create a more stable, propitious environment for these teenage girls. A place in which they can perhaps do more meaningful things that what many teenagers spend their free time doing these days.

It all sounds very vague and risky what I'm proposing, but it's basically calling for an entirely new social model, nothing less - that's why.

Good point about health care and economics being entwined - a point that evaded me. And I agree that Bush can't be blamed for the whole current economic debacle. But again, ideally, if society itself accepted and encouraged this new model, it should be supported by the economic policies and all the social and educational structures of the country in question.

In Mass or elsewhere, we are clearly very far from creating those conditions.

Not being from & in the US, I'm not sure I grasp the differences between Jackson and Compton, Miss and California - did you mean to say it got more coverage because these girls are white? - which wouldn't surprise me...

ThreadBare said:

What as a parent would I do if my child came home to say she was pregnant because of a pact!!

I would first of all tell her that she will have to go to work to support the baby and as I work I cannot stay at home and look after it.

Then I would take her out to the shops and show all the stuff she has to buy to start with and tell that she had better find some work now to get these things in before the baby comes.

I would tell her the facts about child birth and then I would tell her that she would be the one to get up in the night to feed and change the baby.

I would also tell her that if she makes a big decision like this she is the one who is going to have to carry it through NOT ME!

I would also give the option of getting an abortion. If she did want this then so be it and then I WOULD CHANGE HER SCHOOL!

If she did want the baby then ok but at least she knows where I stand. Don;t get me wrong I would support her in other ways as a mother you have to but fundamentally it is her decision not mine.




[Edited 6/22/08 22:16pm]

I admire that plan/those steps - full of common sense and devoid of drama.

blueblossom said:

Flo6 said:

i dont think what you said applies here, we're not talking about married women, or grown women for that matter.. we are talking about single girls, who are not old enough to get jobs to support themselves, let alone babies....how are these girls taking control over their lives? (as you stated, im just asking) .. it's a tragedy and some of the girls are UNDER 16 .. 16 year olds should be planning for college, not having kids.. the responsibility is too great and the cost of living is outlandish.. people freak out on this issue because how will these girls survive? unless their parents are helping them, which is the only way..

In very practical, concrete terms, I totally agree that the situation of these girls, especially economically speaking, is courting catastrophe. I realize that unless they are from wealthy families [which I doubt], they are preparing themselves for a hard start in life.

But the point I'm trying to make is that it's the way our Western modern societies are organized that is to blame. It may seem a far-fetched example, but in the time of Julius Caesar, 15 year old girls were having babies [in fact that age was the norm] and they were fine economically speaking. Why? Because the society they lived in was organized in such a way that it was socially and economically possible for them to do this.

Heck, my grandmother was courted by my grandfather when she was 15, got married at 19 and had her two babies not long after - still pretty young by our own current standards.

I'm not promoting a return to the Middles Ages, all I'm saying is that we should look at the societies we live in as a whole, and as having a role for the social ills we encounter in them.

What I am denouncing in the Western one we live in is its blatant patriarchal ruling system, which I believe is mostly to blame for women's woes. I see these girls as 'taking control of their lives' in the sense that they are doing something different than what society is expecting them to do, different than the prescribed, pre-programmed role they are being handed over.
It's not making them more 'powerful' in economic terms, but it's making them more powerful as individuals.

Here is proof that the patriarchic model rules: 16 year old girls become pregnant, conclusion: it's a problem, a catastrophe even, we are being told. I'm asking: where are the guys in this story? The boys who got these girls pregnant in the first place? I think it's safe to assume they are of the same age as the girls, perhaps a little older. Well, 16-20 year old boys who make babies and then disappear in the wilderness - isn't that a social problem? Isn't that a catastrophe?

But loo and behold, they do not even appear in the story, they are being ignored, forgotten, shall I dare say - forgiven - for their misdemeanour/crimes. Shouldn't they have to bear some responsibility in this? Why is it that when girls/women get into trouble, all eyes zero on them and denounce their situations as problematic/catastrophic while the men seem to get away with everything?

That's my main question about this story.

Flowerz said:

JustErin said:

...and add to that LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY.
Americans nowadays seem to have lost the concept of personal accountability.
There is no regard for your actions and the consequences of your actions because there is always a scapegoat and a support system to float your mistakes.
Like; Drive drunk and get into an accident? Sue the bar owner because they didn't stop you. WTF?!?!?!

These girls think that having a child out of wedlock is like buying a pair of new shoes. Why? Because they don't have to worry too much about consequences...either mommy & daddy or the welfare system will pay for medical care and day care and rent and all those pesky "real world" issues that single mothers in other countries have to suffer & endure.

Flo6 said:

Your overall point is solid, but your argument is a bit flawed.

1) You cannot compare these "girls" with similarly-aged "women" of 40 or 50 years ago. My mother had me (37 years ago) when she was just 19. But at 19 she was a married woman who took care of her household (and held a job). At 19 nowadays, most girls (and boys) still want to party and live the life of a teenager.

2) How you can see this as "taking control of their lives" is beyond me. Going to college serves that purpose. Leaving home and getting a job and building a home for yourself serves that purpose. Having a child basically STRIPS you of control over your own life. I would gather that you aren't a parent, otherwise how could you POSSIBLY find "empowerment" in the late-night feedings and sleepless nights and 2AM vomit episodes and unexplained fevers and seasonal clothes shopping sprees and PTA meetings and school concerts and little league games and ballet classes and play dates and parent-teacher meetings over an altercation on the bus and that forgotten science project that keeps you up 'till 1AM making paper cut-out undersea life diaramas and "I won't eat broccoli no matter what you say" and "all my friends have a Wii so if you love me you'll buy me one" and "by the way my friends are coming over for dinner" and so forth & so on & so on & so on....

3) It's important to note that (per what I heard on the "TODAY" show), not all 17 girls made the pact. THOSE THAT DID allegedly sought out guys at random to "do the deed" (including one 20-something homeless dude).

Agree. Accountability, or personal responsibility as I call it, same thing I think.
I believe that's because it seems to me that kids & teenagers are not being taught values anymore. They are equipped to the teeth with every high tech gadget on the market that 'connect' them with each other/the rest of the world, but meanwhile nobody [read parents, teachers, educators,..] is talking to them and teaching them values that will help them make good decisions later in life. Too busy parents, or a general decline in moral values?.. I don't know the reason.

So I agree on this point.

PurpleJedi said:

1) You cannot compare these "girls" with similarly-aged "women" of 40 or 50 years ago.
Sure, different times, different social/economic conditions, different roles. Just like my comparison with the times of Julius Caesar seems far-fetched because it refers to a completely different era.
But what this shows is that in the history of humanity there have been different social, economic, etc. models, and in which women [like men and everything else in them] had varying roles [roles that differ from those of today]. Not all these models are bad imo, even the old ones. Perhaps some of their good elements could be fished from them, adapted and reintroduced in today's models.
I think we need to think a little outside the box and beyond our own narrow current conditions.


"Having a child basically STRIPS you of control over your own life."
I guess it all depends on your and my concept of what it means to have control of your life & of empowerment.
I see having a child as a source of personal, emotional, psychological and spiritual enhancement and richness - regardless of one's social standing and economic conditions. That to me is empowerment - that experience of creating and giving life, of nurturing someone of your own blood, etc. makes you a richer human being on an abstract level.

A disrupted schedule would not make me feel like I'm losing control of my life, because it rests on more abstract conditions.
The sleepless nights, children's diseases and the like are part and parcel of bringing up a child, and anyone considering having one should expect this. This is something these girls should be taught now - if they haven't been before.
There's a lot of s..t* to deal with when bringing up a child, and just wait till they are 15 and tell you to go and f..k* off [not all do though!]. But there are many joys too, and I believe a good parent ought to be able to close his/her eyes on the bad/difficult stuff and see beyond, so as to be able to appreciate the higher human experience of having and raising a child.
It's this experience I'm referring to when I say these girls are empowered by having a baby - despite not being able economically to raise him/her.
I admit my reasoning is utopian/idealistic, not pragmatic.

But still in line with this reasoning, I similarly don't agree with waiting for the perfect social/economic conditions to have a child. [first get a job, then a house/apt, then this, then that, etc]. If everybody on this planet had followed this rule, maybe you and I and many others wouldn't be here.
Indeed, what about all the women who became pregnant during war times [in any country, in any era]? Should they have all gone for an abortion?..

And no, I don't have any children of my own, but I've seen my mother struggling as a single mum to raise her two children alone when my father died of cancer [when my brother was 6 and me 14 months old], so I think I know a thing or two about family hardships. My parents' economic situation was far from being ideal when they had us, but I'm happy they decided to still go ahead:)..

PurpleJedi said:

Flo6 said:

I agree. But until that happens, reality is what reality is...and odds are that MOST (if not all) of these "girls" are going to get slapped in the face real hard by that reality. HOPEFULLY they'll find that inner strength necessary to pull through and mature and do what needs to be done to raise their babies correctly. Otherwise the children wind up neglected, abused or whatever.




Listen, my wife & I had many, many lengthy discussions as to whether or not we should wait for the finances to grow & settle before having children. In the end, we deciced to start a family while still young and energetic. My first 2 children were born while we lived in a 1-bedroom attic apartment. Should we have waited? Sometimes I think so. 10 years of living paycheck-to-paycheck...and I still do not have a savings account. But my kids are happy, healthy, and well provided for.

Are we happy. YES. Is parenthood emotionally fulfilling ? YES. Would we do it again? YES. But has it "empowered" us? NOPE. Glad to see that you acknowledge the "idealistic" nature of your belief. I suppose you could say parenthood *can* be emotionally empowering, but as for the more mundane & earthly matters of finances and social mobility, it's more of a step down.

AND let me also finish by saying that we can't stereotype or assume that "one-size-fits-all" with this (or any) issue. What works for one person may not work for another. Paris Hilton & Nicole Ritchie seemed like 2 peas in a pod...but it appears as though parenthood is fulfilling Nicole and grounding her, whereas Paris was just recently accused of being negligent to her PETS!!! That one should never procreate!

horatio said:

My garage door just opened and won't shut now, thank you very much!

4849 said:

no. Horation, unless you're a bait account created by him.

Sure, absolutely - the more points of views, the merrier! And everyone is free to have his priorities and lifestyle choices. Personally I would interpret your decision to go ahead with starting a family despite financial worries as 'empowering' because I see it as a decision of a higher order.
But like you said, it's not empowering on a financial level.

On the social mobility front, I'm not sure though - because I would think that a single person, without a spouse, without children, who lives alone etc. may not have the connections, relationships, exposure and opportunities for new contacts that a family provides. In the long term, I think it is more empowering and propitious for social mobility, even economically speaking, to have a family [children].

My brother, who has two little boys, would have been in a better position than me to concur with you on the necessity of being pragmatic when thinking 'familiy expansion'... But then, he is not a Prince fan

PurpleJedi said:

Fuck that! Babies are hard work.

DANGEROUSx said:

you're a smart girl!

veronikka said:

Why, thank you.

One of my good friends got pregnant last year, she was only 15 and he was 20.

Who said they weren't?..

DANGEROUSx said:

SO fucking sad...

TMPletz said:

No I think that was the code for my cordless vibrator ( no wonder my bed shook when my mother was sititng on it the other day, she thought it was a another tremor lol)