Both Charlotte Gore and Caron have posted about Gordon Brown's declaration that his government will provide a network of supervised homes for 16-17 year old mothers.
The comments on both blogs are interesting with many denying it is our very generous benefit system which encourages girls to take unnecessary risks with their sex life. Devil's Kitchen states in Charlotte's comment section: 'Britain and Ireland were found to be the two with the highest benefits for lone parents in a survey of 14 European countries. They were also the countries with the highest proportions of lone mothers.'
What I cannot understand is why, after a generation of mandatory sex education in schools, is the birth rate still increasing?
Why has the abortion rate risen so much since 1968? (See graph). My apologies, I could not find a graph for Scotland.
Caron says education, contraception, assertiveness and self-esteem are the answers. Millions of pounds have been ploughed into the teaching of sex education and contraception with little or no results. In my experience young girls have good levels of assertiveness in comparison with my own teenage days. Self-esteem is something which is not so easily measured, but no matter how hard schools try to build confidence and self-esteem, these characteristics develop over a lifetime.
I can't remember many of my own peer group having much confidence or self-esteem at the age of 15 or 16, or having any sex education, but none decided having unprotected sex was a good idea. In fact I doubt if many of us had experienced sex at that age. Why? Because we knew the shame and disgrace having a baby so young would cause our families. In the 60s, when babies were no longer removed for adoption, there was no taxpayers' money to provide for you or your child and the responsibility fell on the girl's family - the boy and his family usually contributed too. We respected our families enough not to cause them such distress. The decision, if a girl did become pregnant by accident, was usually abortion followed by a strict lecture on contraception.
We've gone too far with our liberal attitudes and we now have a few generations with too many having no concept of shame or right and wrong. We have youngsters drinking themselves senseless and lying in gutters - they think that's 'normal' behaviour because society appears to condone it. Any dissenters are told they have unpleasant prejudices.
How do we return to a society with a sense of morals which will help our children through the complex maze of life?
The benefit system has to change. Teenagers who become pregnant and there's no father visible should not be given priority with housing. Give them child benefits but let them find their own living expenses. Of course the welfare of the child is paramount, but should we be paying for homes to be redecorated, washing machines or microwaves? These are seen to be 'essentials' in today's world. By taking this action they may begin to use some of the education they have been given, make decisions more appropriate to their futures and gain some confidence. They may also gain a sense of pride in their achievements and this would be transferred to their child over time. Therein lies the answer to assertiveness and self-esteem.
Radical? Yes. Necessary? If we want a caring society, yes. A caring society is one which is interested in their young people and wants to help them have an even better life than older generations. Putting them in homes to learn parenting skills is not an answer and will only compound their inadequacies. A caring society does not leave the upbringing of children completely in the hands of government, as we have done in recent years.
Young lone mothers are not really so different to the rest of their peers because many in later life regret being a parent so young. So often I've heard 'if only I had really understood what having a child was all about I wouldn't have been so impulsive'. They see their behaviour as impulsive and not irresponsible.
Today I was talking to a retired educationalist who said teachers were not permitted to mention the words 'shame' or 'disgrace' because they are negative terms. Sex education has to be taught using positive expressions such as 'choice' and 'stable relationships'. Then she said it was so sad because many children in today's society don't know the meaning of a stable relationship.
Governments have produced a benefits culture into our society - it's time politicians took serious action to replace it. Wouldn't it be refreshing to become a society known for teaching their children the meaning of ambition?
Posts
34 comments:
I suspect you and I are going to disagree here Subrosa because I don't believe that locking up young women in Magdalene Asylums is going to achieve the desired effect of turning them into good, moral citizens. And I notice that no one seriously thinks the suggestion is to lock up the fathers.
What will bring morality to our young people? Maybe morality in ALL of our society? Are young women going to be any more moral when the rest of society isn't? When the larges selling newspaper in the UK is THE SUN which is little more than a pornography rag with political pretensions?
Or when government and the media behaves immorally? Tell me this, subroas, have you seen a SINGLE news media in Scotland cover this little item:
http://www.pr-inside.com/glenlivet-discovery-successful-side-r1504362.htm
Why one might ask? Perhaps the same reasons that the Scots were lied to in the 70s about oil? And this same government thinks they can teach morality to women?
I am seriously skeptical.
What is needed for our young is the same thing that has always been needed is good parenting. All to often they don't get it and then we blame the schools or anyone else we can think of.
Jeanne I don't see where I said that.
I do see I said this: 'Putting them in homes to learn parenting skills is not an answer and will only compound their inadequacies.'
You're right about the fathers but my main concern is to avoid more girls taking risks with sex. They don't seem to understand the risk, not only pregnancy but STDs do they?
Thank you for that link Jeanne. I will do something with it and no, I haven't seen a single mention of that in the UK press.
Sadly the parents of today's generation are the ones who are lacking but there's little that can be done to educate them. Their own children have a much tougher life because of these parents' irresponsibility. It's our responsibility to ensure the youngsters receive the motivation to be confident about their choices.
SR this is all planned,not planned parenthood, but planned unparenthood.
Soon only the State will give itself the power to have babies. Just like the G20 gave itself so much power this past week.
Soon the idea of an adult as we would know it will pass into legend.
Subrosa, I think you probably know that your graph is for Abortions, not teenage pregnancies - two very different outcomes are possible from pregnancy and not every young woman chooses abortion. It also ends the year the current government came to power (UK government that is).
If you visit this link at ISD Scotland you can see that abortion rates amongst the key teenage group < 19 actually fell 2007/08 (huzzah for Nicola?).
The teenage pregnancy rate stats are here and have changed very little since 1994.
So yet again, we see a pointless policy announcement that will in effect make very little difference to the reality - but it is popular and shiny! Unlike tarnished Labour.
Ouch squirming here thinking about childbirth...
Yes polaris, funnily enough I do know the graph cites abortions, which of course, are part of pregnancies although not recorded as such.
Thanks very much for the graph on Scotland's rate - I searched for over and hour and gave up. Your search skills are obviously much more superior to mine.
The English statistics are births and therefore do not include abortions (see the table I linked to) and the Scottish teenage pregnancy rate stats you link do include abortions. So really rather difficult to make comparisons or see the true figures.
One thing is certain, abortions and teenage pregnancies have increased drastically since 1968 - in spite of all the money thrown at educating our young about sex and its complications.
It does prove one thing - knowledge is useless unless the informed use it.
Oh polaris, one blog I read last night stated these 'homes' were already in existence in England. Sorry can't remember or find the blog so I was unable to put that in my post as I had no link for evidence.
What is the point in building more of these 'homes' if the teenage pregnancy rate hasn't increased?
Anyway, as you know, I completely disagree with this labour policy as it removes the teenager from their surroundings and family and also conveys to them that they are in some way 'special'.
There's nothing special about having sex and becoming pregnant.
There's nothing "radical" about any of this. There's no morality involved either.
There is a clear and direct relationship between the generosity of single mother benefits and the number of single mother pregnancies. See "Netherlands" or something. As much as I deride Ian Duncan Smith's latest tome, he does include handy charts plotting all this.
You get what you pay for.
I tend towards the rejection of any kind state mandated of institutionalisation (that's a biggy). I would agree families and friends are a better support network, I have friends who had children at very young ages and the complete opposite (one friend had her first at 41! - quite mad), and a few that chose an abortion. To be honest the outcomes were positive in all cases. It's not the age, it's the quality of their decision making skills, and if they do not have any? The chances are they will need support in other aspects of their life, a social work issue. These concept of these homes is quite misogynistic and take very little account, it would appear, of social circumstances and the role of the father.
The announcement was spin, the government know the figures, they are responding to voter polling where perceptions and concerns are illogical and vary considerably from fact (eg fear of crime, stock market confidence etc). The high press profile of failing young mothers is unjustified, and unhelpful - and often prevents the more vulnerable mothers from asking for help when their impression is that their kids will summarily removed, and negatively labeled for life
No simple answers - but the announcement was hogwash, spin, smoke and mirrors, of that I am sure...
Mark, can you back up your assertions with the figures? My older sister was a single mum after her divorce, but kept working. I suspect many of the single mothers used to pad IDS's figures are just that, would love to see the stats.
Moreover you believe that the only alternative is open prison, for a legal act?
Supported, I suspect most of these young women will go on to contribute, directly and indirectly to society and tax income.
Untill the cause of pregnancy is tackled which is the male nothing will change.
Sterlise any male who makes a female pregnant(outside a long term relationship)
or even better castration then you will make a massive difference.
Blaming the female is just demonising the wrong person and letting the real culprit of the hook....
Surprisingly enlightened Mr M...
If you call castration enforced by the state enlightened polaris :¬)
I'm sure Harriet has plans...
I would only support it for Mr M, anybody else and it would just be wrong...
I suspect you are both toying with me...
An overcrowded Nation bombarded with sales propaganda, soap opera, poor and inadequate education, breeds feckless and immoral ignorance. Attributes that apply to The UK Government. Young people follow what they see among their peers. Expensive watch, anyone?
Indeed Mark and that's why I said the benefit system has to change. In fact I was tempted to say remove child benefit altogether and increase tax allowances as I think IDS advocates.
You do get what you pay for.
That is a biggie indeed polaris :) I would disagree because I think the state should provide modern asylums for those who find the stresses of living too much at times, but other interference no.
The problem with some of the young is they've never had to make decisions which really affect them because they know the state will fund them if they don't bother.
I don't want to tar social workers with the same brush, but those I have had contact with are unable to spend the time helping people come to their own decisions, because they're too busy meeting targets and ticking boxes.
You mention a point which angers me beyond belief and that is people are afraid to turn to social workers because they may remove their children. I've seen first hand the damage bad social workers can do to a family and it's horrendous.
Of course this proposal will never see the light, it was Brown playing to the gallery and labour focus groups. Of that I'm sure too.
Oh Niko, erm... it's good to hear the male perspective.
Conan, I'm surprised you managed to type with your eyes watering so much. :)
Aye OR but we can't educate the parents, it's too late.
We're left doing our best to educate young folk for around 30 hours in the week when they spend the other 138 in the company of those who negate it.
Hmm - a nation that worries about a declining birth rate yet demonizes women for having kids and provides state funded abortions is surely a nation in crisis.
A couple of things - women are maturing earlier - kids are now entering puberty at younger and younger ages:
"Most experts, including Steingraber, agree that the early decline in the age of puberty is likely directly attributable to decreased rates of disease and increased nutrition, and the ability of human females to adapt their sexual maturation to environmental cues (e.g., health, food and shelter)."
http://www.cwhn.ca/en/node/39365
Combine that with the intentional sexualization of children by modern mass culture and voila - teen pregnancies are unavoidable.
This is a complex issue with no easy answers but the first step is to control the message the media is sending out to children. The second step is to control the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (which can mimic hormones in the body)our children are exposed to.
Thirdly, massive tax breaks for parents who stay together would, I believe, restore the family to its central position in our culture.
You have more or less hit the nail on the head.
Right and Wrong are words no longer in the lexicon of liberal thought. And neither are shame and disgrace.
Incidentally, the policy outlined by Gordon Brown regarding the creation of supervised homes has been lifted from a BNP motion, debated at one of their conferences.
For those who argue that the BNP is a Right Wing organisation, I suggest they take a long hard look at who is using their ideas.
Thanks WW, I do appreciate a compliment from you.
No I wasn't aware this mad idea was lifted from a BNP motion, but I'm sure you understand if I say I'm not surprised.
There were no benefits in days gone by when the babies produced by unmarried youngsters were 'adopted' by other family members as 'sisters', 'brothers' or 'cousins' - and many still are. Sex has little relationship to money as I don't think decades before the welfare state girls refrained from sex due to the absence of a council flat and free nappies. The rate of pregnancy and abortion in the past were possibly extremely high judging by historical anecdote and the rest masked by 'adoption'.
Today, young men (boys) with few positive male/father/parent role models and young women(girls)with the same poor example that many of their greatgrand and grandmothers set are only doing what has become a virtual family tradition. Receiving state benefit is just an added bonus when today, unlike the past, we have a genuine concern for the baby's well-being.
Having worked with many School, Health Visitor and Sexual Health Nurses over the years they say it is not a matter of lacking education or a restricted availability of contraception advice and devices but the ingrained behaviour and beliefs of certain social groups that has persisted despite social or health education. Females in these groups feel more victim to their lot and a baby enables them to feel useful and wanted. I am taking a chance in using the term 'empowerment' - but perhaps enabling young girls to achieve self-respect and ambition to construct and sustain a family life where both parents are respected as a worthy union might be one alternative.
If anyone doubts that the degree of sexual behaviour in the past was very much less than today, I can recommend tracing your family tree and calculating the number of children born just after or just before marriage!
Subrosa
Mother had eight boys and always used to say 'all men are beasts'
she would have known how to deal with teenage pregnanacies.
we certainly didn't cause any
Mr Mzxkj;qsuhc;wiun;cunhwe
Your Father certainly was?
Morning Clarinda, I don't doubt sex has produced babies since human reproduction began, but I would have thought, with modern information and contraception, unwanted pregnancies would have fallen over the years.
Yes self-worth is a problem in our society but how to we tackle it?
Oh indeed yes, I've found one in my own immediate family but it was strongly denied by the mother who insisted the child was very premature!
But at least we had marriage in those days and the males had to accept some form of responsibility. Now, as you say, they're not to be seen and, even more tragically, some mothers don't know who the father of their child is.
Combine that with the intentional sexualization of children by modern mass culture and voila - teen pregnancies are unavoidable.
Not that's a great point scunnert. So many children don't seem to have a childhood these days.
Your mother seems a woman after my own heart Niko.
I can well imagine not one of you overstepped the stocking line. :)
FC, Niko's father possibly thought sex was his right - don't men still do?
I remember a woman in my life saying 'sex is something to have to do on a Friday night to get the wage packet'.
No wonder she didn't like children.
Overheard on the 27 bus last week
wifie 1 to wifie 2 - "if your daughter wants a hoose she'll need to get pregnant like my Jeannie. She got a lovely place " Therafter followed a discusion about the benefits Jennie gets, the bonny bairn but no mention of a man or his financial contributions or otherwise. Mmmmm
Dram, sadly that conversation could be heard on any bus I should think.
Today's lads are just as irresponsible as the lassies, maybe more so.
My main worry is for the children. I visited little Brandon Muir's grave last week and I'm not ashamed to admit, I cried buckets. Not just for wee Brandon, but for all the other little kids being dragged up by mothers who didn't want them or had them just to get a house.
Of course the lads are just as much to blame, but the biology of the matter really does put the responsibility on the girl, and although we are not permitted to say this because it's not PC... girls have got to learn, no RElearn... how to say "no" unless they have taken all the precuations.
Of course that's not so easy when you are so drunk that you can't stand up. So maybe a first step would be to take more water with it.
Anyway, I come back to the fact that the only REALLY important people in this problem are the children. The ones that have no choice in the matter.
Whatever system we come up with the first and foremost (but not exclusively) consideration must be for these kids.
I suggest that the Scottish parliament be responsible for this. The UK one seems only to care about targets and financial gain. Never about people.
For God's sake don't let that fool Balls anywhere near it.
Labour's daft plan won't come to anything Tris - thank goodness.
I really don't know what the solution is and you're absolutely right in saying alcohol has a lot to do with these lassies being so daft.
As yet I'm not convinced that raising prices will work though.
a counterpoint to this discussion (Mrs Dram reminded me of this when I was discussing your point with her) that our son was on the council waiting list for three years - single local man, doesn't do drink or drugs, fully employed at minimum wage - nae chance (and he was told that). Ended up having to buy (with Govt help) and a mortgage for 36 years.
Post a Comment