Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: The New York Post makes its case for a post-racial America Previous entry: The Insta-Question

Bristol Palin, and feeding the base while starving the middle

Reading Rebecca Traister’s article about the soon-to-be infamous Bristol Palin interview, I couldn’t help but think the whole thing might be further evidence that Sarah Palin in the wave of the future for the Republicans, and thank the Disco Ball for it.  The injection of the person of the pregnant Bristol Palin in the ongoing debates over sex and whether or not women are fully human was a divisive thing—-it separated the wingnut base from the rest of us who don’t have the energy or desire to obsess over forced pregnancy as the ideal way to get women in line.  Bristol, to put it plainly, is red meat thrown to the base, and in such an obvious way that it served to horrify the rest of the nation.  Abstinence-only had been sold to the country as a teenage pregnancy prevention program, but the right wing reaction to Bristol made it clear that it was a teenage pregnancy inducement program, and Bristol was the poster child for its intended effects.  And what are those?

But Van Susteren was determined, in this mother-and-child-worshiping world, not to lose sight of how blessed and happy Tripp’s very existence is. “I realize what joy a child brings to a family,” Van Susteren continued delicately, “but was there any sort of sense that maybe this would happen a year or two from now?”

Okay, I have to take a break to point out that Van Susteren is feeding a right wing delusion that the rest of the country finds repugnant—-okay, don’t when you’re 17, but full speed ahead when you’re 19? She isn’t even trying to hide that this is all about making sure young women are mothers before they have time to be themselves, much less get things like college educations and careers and partners they met when they were fully formed adults, instead of partners they will eventually grow apart from.

Bristol did a lot less beating around the bush. “Of course,” she replied matter-of-factly.  “I wish it would happen in like 10 years, so I could have a job and an education and be, like, prepared, and have my own house and stuff. But he brings so much joy. I don’t regret it at all. I just wish it would have happened in 10 years rather than right now.”......

“I don’t know if it’s what I expected,” Bristol said of young motherhood. “But it’s just a lot different. It’s not just the baby that’s hard. It’s like I’m not living for myself anymore. It’s for another person.” Later in the interview, she again repeated this line—a heartbreaking point if ever there was one, and one we don’t talk about much because we feel obligated to acknowledge that of course motherhood is a sacrifice, of course there are consequences, of course for many women and men, choosing to have children and become less self-obsessed is a pleasure. But so much of what pro-life advocacy is about—whether it denies people sex education or contraception or access to abortion—is in valuing the cells that make up a fetus (or baby) more than the woman in whose body those cells have grown.

Bristol’s articulation of this quagmire may sound selfish and naive. But what she’s describing is how she hadn’t fully comprehended that, in having a baby at 18, her value as a young woman with interests and desires and ambitions and goals would now come second to the needs of a child.

But for the right wing, that was precisely the point.  What I think set a lot of people’s stomach to mode sour, too, was that after it was determined that Bristol Palin was another sacrifice to the god of the patriarchy, they all lined up to express the canned, pseudo-respect accorded women who submit.  Van Sustern falls right into this, yammering on about how the whole situation is an unmarred blessing, even though she’s got an living example right in front of her of how that’s not true.  But that’s one of the many blessings of unintended pregnancy for “pro-lifers”—-it means you can safely erase the woman, and substitute a phony respect about the greatness of motherhood for a real respect for the human being. 

For the rest of us, of course, the whole thing is a horror show.  Most people, even those who think they’re conservative but aren’t right wing wackadoodles, can’t imagine reacting to a teenage daughter (or any relative at all’s) pregnancy by miming a few words of disappointment before plunging into acting like it’s an unmitigated blessing.  Many people are uneasy with teaching kids about contraception use, and don’t think there’s anything wrong with their own hostility towards the reality that kids grow up and sexually mature, but they find teenage motherhood and the shutting down of career and education options even more horrifying.  That’s why, two years before the country even knew who Bristol Palin was, comprehensive sex education was polling at popularity levels resembling those of puppies and sunshine—-82% of Americans.  Seeing the wackiness of the Anti-Sex League in the wake of Bristol’s pregnancy probably only shored those numbers up.

In a sense, seeing Bristol admit that it’s hard and undesireable, and quietly agreeing that perhaps it would have been smarter to use contraception (something that didn’t seem to even come up for her, due to her upbringing that clearly made it unspeakable) would have made the 82% of us that aren’t batshit crazy feel a little better about Sarah Palin.  Maybe they aren’t so bad, that they can admit a little bit of reality, right?  But nope, Sarah Palin pushed into the room and fed a bunch of red meat to the base, assuring them that her daughter’s motherhood has successfully wiped out her humanity, and also echoing that right wing sentimentality that sounds so scripted, forced, and downright creepy to people who don’t live on the stuff.

But the whole awkward purity of Bristol’s interview got wrecked once Mama Palin purportedly “surprised” the pair by entering the room holding Tripp, offering him to her daughter and asking, “You want this joy?”

Gov. Palin opened by claiming to be “proud of [Bristol] wanting to take on an advocacy role and just let other girls know that it’s not the most ideal situation but certainly you make the most of it.” It was like the elder Palin had put her daughter’s words through a meat grinder: What Bristol had said was that she wanted to let other girls know that they should wait 10 years, that their lives would shift beneath their feet.

“Bristol is a strong and bold young woman,” Palin said, as Bristol sat quietly—after her mother entered, she barely spoke further—“and she is an amazing mom, and this little baby is very lucky to have her as a momma. He’s gonna be just fine. We’re very proud of Bristol.” Palin was missing the point, or part of it, or perhaps making it even louder: Bristol’s self-professed desire to prevent teen pregnancy is not just about whether this little baby is going to be just fine, it is about whether his momma is.

As Rebecca says, Palin made it absolutely clear that she saw teen pregnancy as an inevitability, and was careful to avoid even feeling bad about that.  Because she knows her base, and they see the effects of teen pregnancy in whittling down women’s opportunities and expectations as a feature, not a bug, and she’s not going to buck that, even for her own child.  Especially not seeing as how the baby in question is a boy, and therefore his fate is certainly the only one that matters.

This sort of full scale base-coddling in the face of political defeat is endemic to the Republicans, and it’s worth wondering if it’s just the desperate actions of the brainless few, or if they’re evil masterminds who have a plan in all this.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 11:54 AM • (93) Comments

Barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen (or the bed) is the conservative agenda for women.

Comment #1: DrDick  on  02/18  at  12:06 PM

I think you’re missing a bit of the silver lining here.

Bristol did a lot less beating around the bush. “Of course,” she replied matter-of-factly.  “I wish it would happen in like 10 years, so I could have a job and an education and be, like, prepared, and have my own house and stuff. But he brings so much joy. I don’t regret it at all. I just wish it would have happened in 10 years rather than right now.”......

Bristol knows better.  Her mom is putting on an act for the cameras, but Bristol isn’t fooled.  And, I think, most modern young girls aren’t fooled either.  Take a look at the Van Susteren demographic.  Bristol isn’t the poster child for modern kids, she’s the vapid ideal of yesterday’s parents.  As you said, the majority of Americas would be horrified if their daughters got pregnant at 17 years old.  They wouldn’t be much more relieved if their daughters got pregnant at 19.

The FOX News demographic is the slim minority. 

This sort of full scale base-coddling in the face of political defeat is endemic to the Republicans, and it’s worth wondering if it’s just the desperate actions of the brainless few, or if they’re evil masterminds who have a plan in all this.

It’s not a new plan.  It’s not particularly veiled either.  The caveman work ethic - Big Man Hunt, Little Woman make house pretty - was being sold the exact same way in the 50s.  But its not a practical way to live and people have been figuring that out for just as long.

The Bristol model of family values isn’t even embraced by Bristol Palin herself.  That’s a good sign if ever I’ve seen one.

Comment #2: Zifnab  on  02/18  at  12:09 PM

Mom figured out how to control her daughter, before she could develop an identity of her own: get her pregnant.  Now Bristol has to depend on her mother’s “generosity” to help raise the baby.

Oh Bristol, I’m so sorry for you.  I hope everything works out in the end.

Comment #3: Mrs. W  on  02/18  at  12:36 PM

I fail to see how I’m missing the silver lining, when most of the piece is about how the public isn’t fooled, and this just shows how Republicans are turning more and more to the extreme.

Comment #4: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/18  at  12:50 PM

Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and their spiritual god mother Laura Schlesinger, and their spiritual grand-godmother Phylis Schlafly all share one really important characteristic:  If they actually practiced what they preach, we would never have heard of any of them.

And it’s really rotten that they’ve become self actualized by helping limit the possibilities other women have to do the same as they did…

Depending on how the rest of Sarah Palin’s 15-minutes of fame goes, I’m betting that if Bristol gets offered sufficient money to come out with a tell-all on the Palin family, she’ll burn those bridges.

After all, she’s got a family to feed now…

Comment #5: MikeEss  on  02/18  at  12:57 PM

Thank you, MikeEss. Tokenist shilling is so infuriating for exactly that reason - it’s maddening to hear Schlafly argue that married women should haev to put up with rape (when you just know she wouldn’t), or to hear from Coulter that single motherhood and abortion are the banes of our society when you just know that if SHE got pregnant and didn’t much care for the father, she’d chose one or the other in a heartbeat. I can’t see any of those women putting up with an abusive husband for the sake of niceties - nor would I wish it on them. But, damn, I’d be much happier if they could stop wishing it on US!

I would totally read that tell-all, btw.

Am I the only person on earth that thinks that Palin will never, ever get the 2012 nod? She was only chosen to offset the Hilary/Obama specialness and she failed horribly. Not because she wasn’t popular with the base, but because she absolutely terrified the moderates. Seriously, my bf is a nominal Republican and Palin was the last straw in getting him to vote Obama. And he’s not the only one down here in Texas that felt that way. I just feel that the Fiscal Republicans aren’t going to use Palin again, even if the God/Guns Republicans still love her after her failure (debatable).

Which is, in some ways, a shame because the scandals that came out ONCE A WEEK were so amusing. My hope is that she runs as an Independent and splits the vote…

Comment #6: Essie Elephant  on  02/18  at  01:06 PM

Van Sustern falls right into this, yammering on about how the whole situation is an unmarred blessing, even though she’s got an living example right in front of her of how that’s not true.

It’s a pretty awkward situation once the kid is actually here, though.  There really is nothing more damaging to a child than finding out that s/he wasn’t wanted—frankly, I think that’s the basis of a lot of pro-life craziness since a lot of them seem to genuinely believe that their mothers would have aborted them given half a chance.  That kind of idea doesn’t come out of nowhere.

So we end up going too far in the other direction to reassure the kid that, no, they really were wanted in the end.  Or, as my now mother-in-law said to her youngest child, “You weren’t a mistake—you were a surprise!”  (Which actually is absolutely true, because she had so much trouble getting and staying pregnant with her first two children that she was shocked that she was able to easily get pregnant with the third.)

Plus, of course, it’s also a form of that creepy baby-worshipping that you see with the parents of multiples, with Nadya Suleman as the mirror image of that baby-worshipping, where you insist that everything turned out perfectly for everyone even when it’s completely clear that poor Bristol is trapped in that house with her controlling mother for the foreseeable future.  At least she’s smart enough to avoid getting trapped in a crappy marriage, too—hopefully she’ll be able to hold out on that now that her prospective mother-in-law is in jail

It’s that same conviction that having a baby fixes all that led Casey Anthony’s parents to pressure her into not only having her daughter, but raising her by herself even though her second choice (after abortion) was to put her up for adoption.  Now they have a murdered grandchild and a daughter in jail, and all because they thought having a baby was a teachable moment that would magically transform their irresponsible daughter into an adult.  And they used the life of their innocent grandchild to do it.

(Note for trolls:  No, I’m not excusing what Casey Anthony did.  She deserves to be in jail for the rest of her life.  But someone who’s forced to keep a child she doesn’t want is not going to treat that child well, and there’s absolutely no reason to insist that an innocent child should suffer because you want to teach its mother a lesson about “responsibility.”)

Comment #7: Mnemosyne  on  02/18  at  01:06 PM

Mnemosyne, the part that I think is missing from that whole “What if my mother didn’t want meee?” worldview is that all of us unexpected children of pro-choice parents know that we were wanted, that we’re not accidents, and that whatever our parents’ shortcomings, they decided to commit to parenting us - that we were either intended or freely chosen. That’s very moving, and honestly was a source of security to me in my angsty adolescence. If they hadn’t been ready, there would never have been a me to know about it - but they were, and they decided.

Possibly the pro-lifers who use that argument are subconsciously jealous.

Comment #8: purpleshoes  on  02/18  at  01:37 PM

Abstanence education?

Verily I say unto thee; neither stick nor be stuck.  It makes Jesus mad.

Soooo….. what do they talk about the rest of the quarter or (God forbid) semester?

Comment #9: Magis  on  02/18  at  01:40 PM

Soooo….. what do they talk about the rest of the quarter or (God forbid) semester?

They talk about how condoms don’t really work and how doing anal can save your virginity.

Comment #10: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  02/18  at  01:53 PM

The Elephant-In-The-Room is this:  If Bristol and/or Levi were any other race, religion, or even political affiliation, the very same people who currently support her would be savagely attacking her and everything about her life. 

If she was Black, Muslim, or Liberal then these same people would be damning her as an example of everything wrong with society today.

Comment #11: angulimala  on  02/18  at  01:57 PM

If she was Black, Muslim, or Liberal then these same people would be damning her as an example of everything wrong with society today.

Hmmmmmm. This made me wonder:

Can we cash in on the Bristol-as-a-virtuous-single-mother craze as a way to finally get rid of Coulter? I mean, her new book says, if the glowing reviews are to be believed, that single mothers are the epitomy of evil. Maybe we can invite her onto a talk show that is ALSO featuring the elder Palin and let them destroy each other.

Whatever the outcome, it would be sure to be entertaining.

Comment #12: Essie Elephant  on  02/18  at  02:22 PM

Oh definitely, the pregnancy is the point. To the fundamentalist Christians, the Rapture is due any day now, so your children’s future doesn’t matter. All that matters is keeping them trapped in your hideous ideology long enough that they get hitched on the rapture train as well.

I know we suspect they’re disingenuous about the rapture love, but I know they at least act like its true and the true-believers are fully willing to sacrifice their children’s future or to cut them out entirely if they feel they aren’t godly enough and to actively sabotage their children’s future.

We can see it in the Evolution debate. They know that by preventing evolution teaching, their children will be fundamentally unable to get a job in the sciences and may have trouble getting into most universities, but that doesn’t matter.

My male best friend had to drop out of college and has been relying on a lot of aide from friends to get set back up because his parents were dismayed about his growing disinterest in keeping up with youth groups and church attendance (yes youth groups in the post-18 years) and they keep using blackmail about how “he’ll need their aid” to try and recruit him back into the cult (he’s getting back on his feet now and healthier for it). His sister is obviously a lesbian, but is completely restricted from any contact with the outside world for fear she’ll become “demon-tainted” like her brother. Her parents employed her in religious retreat services and have been pushing to make her a teacher for a Christian school. They’ve been playing up her brother’s economic struggles as proof that she can’t make it on her own and experience her own life.

To these people, having a life is unimportant if you live a life not “godly” where godly means not only following the narrow religion but also the “proper role of man and woman”. So yeah, as much as they claim otherwise, they’d all much rather have pregnant teen daughters they can shame into staying in the fold than experienced learned daughters learning that they’ve been lied to and able to live life for themselves. And I’ve seen the direct proof of that claim as well as the joy in fundie parents when they’re children marry at 18. They love young marriages and like pointed out above, young marriages were the popular solution in the 50s to the independent women then.

Comment #13: Cerberus  on  02/18  at  02:26 PM

“And it’s really rotten that they’ve become self actualized by helping limit the possibilities other women have to do the same as they did…”
MikeEss on 02/18 at 10:57 AM

It’s the wingnut way.
Just ask Clarence Thomas.
(My favorite oxymoron ever:  “Justice Clarence Thomas.”)

Comment #14: smartalek  on  02/18  at  02:27 PM

Bristol’s pounding the “It was MY choice!” drum, getting all mad at the big bloggy meanies who dare suggest that she was pressured into having the baby by mommy.

...But gosh, she would have preferred to have waited 10 years to have a child…

Maybe Bristol didn’t explicitly have Mom Palin sit down and say “you abort and you’re out the door on your ass” but that doesn’t mean that she didn’t learn the message from a very early age. Raised on conditional love, with limited opportunities by a mother who will clearly throw her kids under the bus at the first expedient moment, yeah, her options appear to be “have baby or hope drug dealing MIL doesn’t cook the meth right in the nursery when I’m tossed out of the mansion.” In the light of that very unpleasant reality, a LOT of women would declare that they exercised a “CHOICE” (it’s the choiciest!) by keeping a baby they clearly didn’t want because ‘fessing up to the blinding truth of the situation isn’t something they can handle emotionally. No one wants to think of themselves as a slave.

Right after it was announced that Bristol was preggers, Palin declared that they were going to “do the right thing” and get married. Bristol then publicly backed that plan up.

No marriage is forthcoming. Bristol says what her mom wants her to say. Since it’s obvious any stammering, near-incoherent expression of her OWN thoughts and desires will bring mommy swiftly onto the scene to correct the record, it’s pretty safe to say that she DIDN’T want the kid, that it WASN’T her choice.

Comment #15: Mighty Ponygirl  on  02/18  at  02:37 PM

It’s a pretty awkward situation once the kid is actually here, though. 

But you don’t have to use creepy language, like referring to the child as a “joy”, as if that was the word you use instead of babies.  So there’s no doubt!  It’s so defensive.

Comment #16: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/18  at  02:38 PM

I fail to see how I’m missing the silver lining, when most of the piece is about how the public isn’t fooled, and this just shows how Republicans are turning more and more to the extreme.

It seemed like you were complaining about the media hype.  I’m saying that the hype is targeted at the conservative demographic.  It’s not meant to win over the independent or the liberal nearly as much as it is to reinforce the echo chamber.  And yet you’ve got a girl squarely in the middle of said chamber decrying it.

Republicans aren’t getting “more extreme”.  Consider this occurring in the 90s or the 80s.  They wouldn’t be on the defensive like they are now.  People would be more willing to accept a knocked-up 17 year old and a shotgun marriage.  Now Palin has to rush her in front of a mic to defend her from a souring public.  They’re getting more vicious and more aggressive, but I wouldn’t say they’re getting more right wing.

Comment #17: Zifnab  on  02/18  at  02:38 PM

I think the interview was all right, except for Bristol saying “It’s so rewarding,” referring to raising her son.  I’m sure she loves him tremendously, but I find it hard to believe she’s reached the “rewarding” stage of parenting.  That sounds disturbingly coached to me.  Or like the kind of thing her mother has said to her, indicating that Bristol would find parenting rewarding, and just parroted it as a response to Van Susteren’s questions.

Sarah Palin can only do so much damage control.  I can just visualize her cringeing when Bristol said it’s unrealistic to expect teen abstinence.  Good thing Bristol realizes how lucky she is to have a big family and supportive boyfriend who can help take care of the baby.  I wish Van Susty had asked her whether she thinks she would have made the same decision to carry the pregnancy had she not had such a supportive family or the financial means to take care of a child.

Comment #18: deep6  on  02/18  at  02:59 PM

Mnemosyne, the part that I think is missing from that whole “What if my mother didn’t want meee?” worldview is that all of us unexpected children of pro-choice parents know that we were wanted, that we’re not accidents, and that whatever our parents’ shortcomings, they decided to commit to parenting us - that we were either intended or freely chosen.

Exactly!  The argument that letting a kid know they weren’t planned for is traumatizing was very confusing to me because I was unplanned but never felt traumatized by it.  But y’know, my parents were pro-choice.  So even though I wasn’t planned, I was chosen.  I knew they loved me and wanted me to exist, because it they didn’t want that, I wouldn’t exist.

Comment #19: laterose  on  02/18  at  03:01 PM

I think it goes beyond that in the existential worry department. I think they know full well based on how their parents treat them, that if their parents did feel they had a choice, they probably wouldn’t exist. Knowing a few pro-life parents, none of them seemed to treat their children as more than conditionally loved fealty subjects who “owed their parents love and devotion” because of the “sacrifices” the parents made for them. It’s sort of expected that the children will sacrifice their happiness for their parents desires for them as sort of payment to parents who lost their own dreams having the kids out of their own misplaced duty.

My mom was pro-choice. Heck, with different timing I probably would have been aborted, but I also know that my parent actually wanted me and loves me unconditionally and that I don’t owe her anything. It’s why we still have such a great relationship.

Comment #20: Cerberus  on  02/18  at  03:09 PM

There’s a couple of possibilities, Zif.  It’s possible that Bristol is telling the truth, and she contacted Fox in an effort to get her own voice out there, and Sarah only found out at the last minute and took over to spin it.  Or, it was orchestrated from the beginning.  If so, it was done to soften Sarah Palin’s image, and in that, I think it failed.  She looks like a monster.

Comment #21: Amanda Marcotte  on  02/18  at  03:11 PM

But the whole awkward purity of Bristol’s interview got wrecked once Mama Palin purportedly “surprised” the pair by entering the room holding Tripp, offering him to her daughter and asking, “You want this joy?”

I can’t get over this part. It’s like she’s asking Bristol if she wants a bong hit.

Comment #22: Juan Stoppable  on  02/18  at  03:15 PM

Zifnab-

I think you might be on to something. Not long ago, a right-wing christian getting knocked up in high school would have gone unnoticed or have been drowned in the general public pushes to get everyone to actually use the birth control actually publicly available. The fact that they’re desperately trying to do the last minute roll-backs against accepted reality also points out that it’s more and more accepted. The fact that these right-wing psychos have to defend the consequences of their actions is a point we couldn’t get public backlash going for when the abstinence program started rolling out. I suspect we might be moving away from the 90s parent fetishism that made keeping children ignorant about the world an attractive policy.

Comment #23: Cerberus  on  02/18  at  03:15 PM

She looks like a monster.

To us. To them she’s a moral beacon who’s setting a great example of oh I’m really sick of their bollocks. But Bristol is trying to reach back to reality, and… all power to her. The kid deserves a life.

Comment #24: Dolbia  on  02/18  at  03:24 PM

Am I the only person on earth that thinks that Palin will never, ever get the 2012 nod? She was only chosen to offset the Hilary/Obama specialness and she failed horribly. Not because she wasn’t popular with the base, but because she absolutely terrified the moderates. Seriously, my bf is a nominal Republican and Palin was the last straw in getting him to vote Obama. And he’s not the only one down here in Texas that felt that way. I just feel that the Fiscal Republicans aren’t going to use Palin again, even if the God/Guns Republicans still love her after her failure (debatable).

Sarah Palin will not be the 2012 GOP nominee for POTUS.  I don’t think she’ll even last beyond January in the primaries.

Mitt Romney will ultimately emerge as the (supposedly) “moderate, safe, fiscally conservative” nominee for the Repiblicans in 2012.  History says so…

1976 - Ronald Reagan finishes 2nd in GOP primaries.
1980 - Ronald Reagan is GOP nominee.

1980 - George H.W. Bush finishes 2nd in GOP primaries.
1988 - George H.W. Bush is GOP nominee.

2000 - John McCain finishes 2nd in GOP primaries.
2008 - John McCain is GOP nominee.

2008 - Mitt Romney finishes 2nd in GOP primaries.
2012 - Mitt Romney is GOP nominee.

Comment #25: DTG in STL  on  02/18  at  03:40 PM

making sure young women are mothers before they have time to be themselves, much less get things like college educations and careers and partners they met when they were fully formed adults, instead of partners they will eventually grow apart from.

While I agree that women should retain as many options as possible as long as possible, I don’t think that the college/career/dating/marriage/reproduction sequence is the only possible path for personal growth and development. Moms were my classmates in undergrad and graduate schools. The undergrad mom I knew best had married young and had a couple of children right away. But when the kids were old enough to go to elementary school, mom started working on her bachelor’s degree. The grad student in my office had a babysitter until her daughter was out of diapers, then she could be in the on-campus daycare.

The striking quality about all the parents I went to school with was their discipline. They budgeted their time, they were never late to class, they worked diligently on all their assignments. They all made it through with good grades, unlike many of our fresh-from-high-school-slacker classmates, who majored in partying, flippy cup, and bong hits. The biggest difference between their college experience and that of the typical UG was that they did not spend their junior year in Firenze.

Further, most people have a job, not a career. Was Bristol “college-bound”? Or was she looking at becoming a Safeway checker? Perhaps the summit of her academic ambition was a two-year degree in Dental Hygiene.

Comment #26: Hector B.  on  02/18  at  03:45 PM

DTG in STL, interesting, although Romney scares me only slightly less than Palin.

Hmm. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if there’s a reason the Mormon church spent so much money on Prop 8…

Comment #27: Essie Elephant  on  02/18  at  03:45 PM

Hector B., the point is not that college is the ultimate good, but that if you go directly from Someone’s Child to Someone’s Parent, you don’t ever get a change to be a unique Someone unto yourself. And that’s kind of an important stage for figuring out what you want out of life, what you need in order to be happy, etc.

Comment #28: Essie Elephant  on  02/18  at  03:48 PM

I’m betting on Jeb (Bush) & Sarah (Palin) in 2012.  (Jeb on top, of course, where a man should be…)

There would be (male) wingnuts walking around with big wet stains on the front of their pants at just the thought of it…

Obama would be re-elected with such a huge margin it would make history…

Comment #29: MikeEss  on  02/18  at  03:48 PM

“The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if there’s a reason the Mormon church spent so much money on Prop 8…”

...no conspiracy about it.  It was a conscious effort to raise the acceptance of the LDS among the Reichwing religious douchocracy.

It still won’t work, but that’s very little comfort…

Comment #30: MikeEss  on  02/18  at  03:51 PM

zifnab says: I’m saying that the hype is targeted at the conservative demographic.  It’s not meant to win over the independent or the liberal nearly as much as it is to reinforce the echo chamber.
Cerebus says: The fact that they’re desperately trying to do the last minute roll-backs against accepted reality also points out that it’s more and more accepted.

I’m with zifnab and Cerebus on this one.  The segment of Americans who find high school students choosing to raise children an acceptable choice, much less a good one, is getting smaller and smaller.  It’s now pretty much confined to religious nuts and/or extremely dysfunctional households.

Remember when Obama stated that he wanted to insure that his daughters’ lives wouldn’t be ruined by teenaged pregnancy?  No backlash from anyone, except the fundinuts.  That’s because everyone else recognized that teenagers trying to raise children would ruin their lives.

Comment #31: CParis  on  02/18  at  03:59 PM

Further, most people have a job, not a career. Was Bristol “college-bound”? Or was she looking at becoming a Safeway checker? Perhaps the summit of her academic ambition was a two-year degree in Dental Hygiene.

Hector, dumb girls, girls with shitty jobs, girls who live to shop and gossip, girls who ring you up at Safeway, ALL those girls have every bit as much right to freedom and autonomy as you do and I do. What are you saying—her life’s no fun, barely middle-class, so why not throw it away on a baby?

No.

Dumb girls aren’t born to breed. Dumb girls are born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, whether you like it or not. It’s not all right to make them teenage babyslaves because hey, not like they were going to amount to anything. That’s disgusting.

Comment #32: sophonisba  on  02/18  at  04:00 PM

...no conspiracy about it.  It was a conscious effort to raise the acceptance of the LDS among the Reichwing religious douchocracy.

MickEss, that whole thing was so odd, really, because isn’t the legalization of gay marriage “supposed” to lead to the legalization of polygamy (wingnut logic). It was a stunning thing (for me, at least) to see the Mormon church fighting for “traditional” (ha!) marriage.

If they were just paying dues for Romney to be able to avoid “Scary Mormon” jokes in 2012, though, it makes sense. And who wouldn’t want the POTUS to come from their crazy cult? (No offense to non-crazy Mormons.)

Comment #33: Essie Elephant  on  02/18  at  04:10 PM

The argument that letting a kid know they weren’t planned for is traumatizing was very confusing to me because I was unplanned but never felt traumatized by it.

Oh, I had friends who were unwanted and unplanned, and their parents never let them forget it.  My first boyfriend’s mother told him IN FRONT OF ME that she should have gotten an abortion like her parents wanted her to instead of marrying his father.

Trust me, it’s ugly ugly ugly when parents make it clear to their children that they regret having them.

Comment #34: Mnemosyne  on  02/18  at  04:23 PM

if you go directly from Someone’s Child to Someone’s Parent, you don’t ever get a change to be a unique Someone unto yourself.

I agree with this.

What are you saying—her life’s no fun, barely middle-class, so why not throw it away on a baby?

I’m saying women can have babies and still go on to lead satisfying and fulfilling lives. My own mother would shop—yes, and gossip—even though she lived under the thumb of the patriarchy.

Comment #35: Hector B.  on  02/18  at  04:30 PM

Or, as my now mother-in-law said to her youngest child, “You weren’t a mistake—you were a surprise!”

The mother of one of my friends in high school said that my friend was the best mistake she ever made.  I thought that was cute.

Comment #36: keshmeshi  on  02/18  at  04:56 PM

Am I the only person on earth that thinks that Palin will never, ever get the 2012 nod? She was only chosen to offset the Hilary/Obama specialness and she failed horribly. Not because she wasn’t popular with the base, but because she absolutely terrified the moderates. Seriously, my bf is a nominal Republican and Palin was the last straw in getting him to vote Obama. And he’s not the only one down here in Texas that felt that way. I just feel that the Fiscal Republicans aren’t going to use Palin again, even if the God/Guns Republicans still love her after her failure (debatable).

You’re not the only one.  The GOP is in a real quandary right now.  The Country Club set still rules the party but they realize that they created a hungry monster in the God n Guns set.  The Fiscal (kind of a misnomer b/c they haven’t been fiscally responsible in a long time) Republicans are going to have to clamp down on the rabid base but it may be too late.  If Palin IS the 2012 nominee they are well and truly fucked.  But then again, if they pick someone who is moderate enough to not horrify everyone outside of the reactionary base, they risk losing that base to either not voting or a 3rd party.  So I guess they’re fucked either way.  Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people.

Comment #37: DonnaDiva  on  02/18  at  04:57 PM

(Note for trolls:  No, I’m not excusing what Casey Anthony did.  She deserves to be in jail for the rest of her life.  But someone who’s forced to keep a child she doesn’t want is not going to treat that child well, and there’s absolutely no reason to insist that an innocent child should suffer because you want to teach its mother a lesson about “responsibility.”)

Mnemosyne, I agree 100%.  I hold Casey completely responsible for her actions but it sickens me to see her pious control-freak parents traipsing all over TV angling for sympathy.  I wonder, has one interviewer asked them about Casey’s desire to put the child up for adoption?

Comment #38: DonnaDiva  on  02/18  at  05:05 PM

But the whole awkward purity of Bristol’s interview got wrecked once Mama Palin purportedly “surprised” the pair by entering the room holding Tripp, offering him to her daughter and asking, “You want this joy?”

At that precise moment in the interview, my brain went all Stephen Colbert Christmas Special:  “Alaska Governor and former Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin?  What are YOU doing here?”

I figure she’s either physically unable to resist the siren call of a nearby television camera, or was watching on the monitor and swooped in when she realized how far off-message Bristol was going.

Comment #39: damnedyankee  on  02/18  at  05:12 PM

essie- ever since the mormon church disavowed polygamy, they have been among the fiercest defenders of “traditional” marriage; in typical zealous convert style, it’s almost like they have to work twice as hard to prove to the rest of the world that they’re not like that any more.

Comment #40: jamie d  on  02/18  at  05:13 PM

Soooo….. what do they talk about the rest of the quarter or (God forbid) semester?

They talk about how condoms don’t really work and how doing anal can save your virginity.

Incertus, Nacho Daddy on 02/18 at 11:53 AM

SADDLEBACKING everyone! SADDLEBACKING!
The more we use it the more ingrained it becomes- like “santorum” - which is often a by-product of “saddlebacking”!

Comment #41: Danica Lefse Queen  on  02/18  at  05:24 PM

Seriously, my bf is a nominal Republican and Palin was the last straw in getting him to vote Obama.

You’re not alone.  I know quite a few people who were low-grade racist enough to gravitate towards McCain because they “just don’t trust this Obama guy, I mean, there’s just something off-putting about him…”, but who immediately got over that bullshit the first time Palin opened her mouth.

Comment #42: The Opoponax  on  02/18  at  05:27 PM

Dumb girls aren’t born to breed. Dumb girls are born with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, whether you like it or not. It’s not all right to make them teenage babyslaves because hey, not like they were going to amount to anything. That’s disgusting.

Thanks, sophonisba.  A few years ago their was a weird line of reasoning getting some currency in the forced birther (and pro-natalist in general) wingnut circle that argued just that:  Since poor girls aren’t going to amount to anything, they might as well have their babies during their teen years since the ravages of poverty would destroy their looks much sooner than more affluent women.  And IIRC, there was an even creepier ancillary justification for older men getting to be the fathers of those babies.

Comment #43: DonnaDiva  on  02/18  at  05:33 PM

if you go directly from Someone’s Child to Someone’s Parent, you don’t ever get a change to be a unique Someone unto yourself.

and even more, you come to believe (and to teach) that living your life to fulfill other people’s wants and needs is how things should be.

Comment #44: paul  on  02/18  at  05:40 PM

it’s maddening to hear Schlafly argue that married women should haev to put up with rape (when you just know she wouldn’t), or to hear from Coulter that single motherhood and abortion are the banes of our society when you just know that if SHE got pregnant and didn’t much care for the father, she’d chose one or the other in a heartbeat. I can’t see any of those women putting up with an abusive husband for the sake of niceties - nor would I wish it on them. But, damn, I’d be much happier if they could stop wishing it on US!

Sometimes I think the world would benefit if all students had to take a basic social psychology course.  This is called the fundamental attribution error.  People think that they earn good things and bad things are caused by outside circumstances, but it’s inverted for other people.  So, if Ann Coulter had to have an abortion, then it’s because her situation is special and she doesn’t really deserve to be pregnant because of societal influences or some junk, but all those other women who have abortions are just sluts who shoulda kept their legs closed.  If any of those women were in an abusive relationship, they would think that they just ended up with a bad husband, but other women provoke it from their husbands or they deserve it for being sinful, etc.  These women would also strongly benefit from a dictionary page with ‘hypocrisy’ on it.

Comment #45: bananacat  on  02/18  at  05:47 PM

Maybe Bristol didn’t explicitly have Mom Palin sit down and say “you abort and you’re out the door on your ass” but that doesn’t mean that she didn’t learn the message from a very early age. Raised on conditional love, with limited opportunities by a mother who will clearly throw her kids under the bus at the first expedient moment…

Not to give the Palin family too much credit, but I think it’s more likely that the reason Bristol didn’t have an abortion was not so much an “out on your ass” issue, but just that she was brought up to find it absolutely out of the question morally reprehensible, to the extent of only being dimly aware that this was something that would actually be an option for her.  A question of access, in a way, rather than force. 

I know quite a few women from conservative families who’ve gotten pregnant very young, and the sense I get of them is that they just didn’t even think about not having the baby, didn’t even think about using birth control.  That’s part of the success of the abstinence only approach.  What it leaves behind is the idea that there is no option other than getting pregnant “if god wills it” and having the baby.  There’s no need for an angry threat to throw you under the bus, because the girl doesn’t even comprehend that she had a choice.

Comment #46: The Opoponax  on  02/18  at  05:59 PM

that living your life to fulfill other people’s wants and needs is how things should be.

Something seems to be missing here, because I’ve always been able to make a good living by fulfilling other people’s wants and needs. Maybe, “to the exclusion of your own”?

Comment #47: Hector B.  on  02/18  at  06:06 PM

The Opo—respectfully disagree with you. Enough fundie children find their way in through the back door of Planned Parenthoods because their situation is “special” that I don’t think that the “morally reprehensible” part sticks so much as “My parents hatehatehate abortion and would flip their shit if I had one.” Fear can eclipse reason and pass itself off as a rational decision. They can pass it off as finding it morally reprehensible, but so is fucking before you’re married in that world. But if they have to rationalize why they’re doing it, it’s a lot easier to declare that They Too Love The Babies instead of accepting their subjugated role.

Comment #48: Mighty Ponygirl  on  02/18  at  07:03 PM

Oh, I’ll agree with you that plenty of pregnant teenage daughters of anti-choicers end up having abortions at the behest of their parents.  But plenty don’t, and I don’t think it’s because of explicit threats (or even direct fear of threats).

And it’s not even that I think that anti-choice pregnant teens consciously choose to forgo abortions due to their revulsion at the idea—it just doesn’t occur to them as an option at all. 

Which is the case for a lot of life choices when you come from a conservative family, grow up in a conservative part of the country, etc.  I have a hard enough time explaining to younger relatives that you can major in something that isn’t business, computer science, or nursing and not starve.  I myself lost out on a lot of opportunities because I just thought they were not options for me, and I came close to making some really shitty choices because I thought certain things were expected of me.  Even though I’ve always been pro-choice, I can definitely see an alternate-reality version of 20 year old me getting pregnant and keeping the baby because “this is just what you do”.  In that way, I’m really really lucky not to have gotten pregnant at that age, because I really don’t think I’d have made the right choice.

Comment #49: The Opoponax  on  02/18  at  07:39 PM

DTG in STL, interesting, although Romney scares me only slightly less than Palin.

Hmm. The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if there’s a reason the Mormon church spent so much money on Prop 8…

Romney scares me MORE than Palin.

Not because I think his social policy views are necessarily more extreme than hers (I don’t think they are), but because I think he’s about a million times more electable than Sarah Palin.

He scares me because I could see him winning; I cannot say the same about Palin.

It’s all gonna come down to the state of the economy in 2012 - if ARRA has shown signs of being fairly beneficial and the economy and markets have turned around nicely, I’m not too worried.  But if we’re still in bad economic shape by that time, Romney scares the crap out of me, because I think he not only could win, I think he would win.

I have a lot faith and hope that ARRA will produce some solid measurable results and that an economic turnaround will happen.  But if it doesn’t, I think Obama will be a one term POTUS.  The independent voters - the ones who will ultimately decide the election - will base their votes largely on their pocketbooks.  If our economy is arguably better in November 2012 than it was in January 2009 - and I believe it will be - Obama keeps his job through January 2017.  If they aren’t better, hello, President Romney.

The prospect scares the crap out of me.

Comment #50: DTG in STL  on  02/18  at  07:45 PM

that living your life to fulfill other people’s wants and needs is how things should be.

Something seems to be missing here, because I’ve always been able to make a good living by fulfilling other people’s wants and needs. Maybe, “to the exclusion of your own”?

You really can’t ignore how this message is gendered though. Women and girls are *always* getting told that they’d better expect to be serving other people for their entire lives. The “exclusion of you own” pretty much goes unsaid, because society seems to keep forgetting that women *have* their own wants and needs. For men, serving the women in their lives is “above and beyond” and not just the bare minimum expected behavior that women supporting men is. (Yes, I’m generalizing—this isn’t meant to apply to *your* life at all… I’m sure you are lovely. smile)

Sometimes I consciously practice acting selfish and demanding, just to remind myself that I *can* impose on other people for things. Or I’ll refuse to do something for someone when I probably could have fit it into my schedule just to remind myself that “yes” is not the default. If women behave as meekly as we are told to all the time we get squat (well…I guess we get *babies* sometimes. :p) I doubt Bristol’s had a lot of experience telling anyone “no” about *anything*.

Comment #51: Bagelsan  on  02/18  at  08:04 PM

That interview really bothered me.  Palin swooped in and silenced Bristol. You could see in Bristol’s eyes that she thinks her mom is full of it but that she doesn’t dare contradict her. 

I really hope that Bristol does manage to find a way to get her college education, get out from under Palin’s thumb, and speak for herself.  She may not be very articulate right now, but Bristol has a spark in her eyes (and I’m pretty sure Palin knows it)—she may become to Palin what Patti Reagan was to her father.

Comment #52: history_mom  on  02/18  at  08:24 PM

He scares me because I could see him winning; I cannot say the same about Palin.

Yeah, I agree with that. I was speaking social policy. But, yeah, there are levels of scaredness.

Opop, may I weigh in as a former fundie kid and say that, for me at least, you are right? After a lifetime of being told that condoms don’t work and abortions make you infertile, it never would have occurred to me to use either. Period. I weep at how naive I was.

Comment #53: Essie Elephant  on  02/18  at  08:26 PM

To anyone who watched - or more precisely, heard - that interview: did “Here’s your joy” sound the least bit sarcastic to you? ‘Cause that’s how it reads to me. Actually, I doubt the politically sophisticated Palin the Elder would allow herself to reveal her true feelings toward the ill-advised, horribly-timed Palin the Younger’s adventure aka Tripp. Still, that statement reeks of resentment to me, in print at least.

Comment #54: daphne  on  02/18  at  08:32 PM

daphne:

I don’t know about other parents, but when one of us says something about taking the bundle of joy, it more often than not meant with just the slightest touch of sarcasm. It kinda skeeves me out to think of anyone who has been a parent using it any other way.

Comment #55: paul  on  02/18  at  09:01 PM

Even though I’ve always been pro-choice, I can definitely see an alternate-reality version of 20 year old me getting pregnant and keeping the baby because “this is just what you do”.

That’s what happened to me, and I wasn’t even from a fundy family.

Comment #56: kristin  on  02/18  at  09:04 PM

There is a certain angle in the abortion debate I can respect.  The idea that - in a patriarchal society - a guy can make his girlfriend abort if he doesn’t want to deal with the kid.  It’s somewhat obscenely hypocritical to then turn around and make a girl carry the baby to term.

Honestly, I will give the Palin Family the tiniest shred of credit for nothing going full blown bastard and dragging Bristol to some back alley abortionist to make their political problem go away.  But, at the end of the day, that’s what the mindset is.  The federal government will be the one that decides who gets an abortion and who doesn’t.  The option is never really in the woman’s hands for these people.

I do worry what would happen if the GOP ever truly did embrace abortion as acceptable.  All those horror stories they tell about dragging women to blood-soaked chop-shops and having federal agents stab you in the fetus as some grand euthanasia scheme might actually start seeing the light of day.

Comment #57: Zifnab  on  02/18  at  09:25 PM

The “exclusion of you own” pretty much goes unsaid, because society seems to keep forgetting that women *have* their own wants and needs.

Excellent point. And Bristol’s mom is blatantly all “You made your bed; you lie in it.” Not much regretting of her lost youth in her that family.

Why embarrass her daughter like that on national TV? Ma Palin is clearly ashamed of her daughter, and very unconvincingly tries to put a bright face on it.

Comment #58: Hector B.  on  02/18  at  09:39 PM

Hector:

Why embarrass her daughter like that on national TV?

For a conservative republican woman officeholder, the punchline prety much writes itself.  Sure, Palin senior “supports” Bristol in her decision, but in the same way Cheney and Bush “supported” our troops: lip service only. If she can belittle, embarass, shame or otherwise wound an unwed mother while claiming to support her, that’s the thing to do, and the conservative base wouldn’t have it any other way.

(And of course since so much of Palin’s political career seems to be about personal likes and dislikes, you have to figure that on some level she is permanently furious with her daughter for having cost her a shot at the white house, even if there was no real shot and Bristol’s screwup predated the veep offer.)

Comment #59: paul  on  02/18  at  09:56 PM

I think my own parents were to the far right of Palin.

Comment #60: scratchy888  on  02/18  at  10:18 PM

If she can belittle, embarass, shame or otherwise wound an unwed mother while claiming to support her, that’s the thing to do, and the conservative base wouldn’t have it any other way.

“I don’t care what the rest of the country says, Bristol dear, mommy doesn’t think that you’re a *totally irredeemably* worthless slutty whore with no future! ...Hugsies!”

Comment #61: Bagelsan  on  02/18  at  10:22 PM

The striking quality about all the parents I went to school with was their discipline. They budgeted their time, they were never late to class, they worked diligently on all their assignments. They all made it through with good grades, unlike many of our fresh-from-high-school-slacker classmates, who majored in partying, flippy cup, and bong hits. The biggest difference between their college experience and that of the typical UG was that they did not spend their junior year in Firenze.

While your experience largely accords with my experience with classmates who were classmates and older non-traditional students at my undergrad and post-grad courses, this isn’t always the case.  As with everyone, parents are human beings and there are some who get overwhelmed by juggling multiple responsibilities. 

Your experience is similar to the common stereotype I heard growing up from Vietnam Vets and other neighbors about how everyone who enlisted in the Armed Forces right out of high school tend to have everything together and be extremely disciplined in their undergrad studies once they returned to school. 

Though this is true for many I’ve met on various campuses, I’ve also encountered plenty of other ex-military undergrad students…including a few former Army and Marine Sergeants who slacked off, dropped easy courses they were struggling/failing such as Econ 101, and who whined endlessly about the difficulty of the very same courses my friends and I had no problems handling as we were taking the same courses/more rigorous equivalents. 

I have a hard enough time explaining to younger relatives that you can major in something that isn’t business, computer science, or nursing and not starve.

Opo,

AHAHAHAHAHA!!! That’s so funny considering how the vast majority of CS majors after 2001 were unable to find work in their field….or any job for that matter upon graduation.  As late as 2005, my CS major friend who graduated that year recounted that only about 20% of his graduating class were able to find gainful employment in their field.  Among some engineering/science/tech major/working professional friends…the CS major has become the equivalent of a stereotypical liberal arts major in the science and technology field. 

As for business majors…...that’s THE “pre-professional” equivalent of a stereotypical liberal arts major at most colleges/universities IME…...and sometimes taken less seriously by corporate employers/HR as many not only fail to pick up practical “business skills”, but also have horrid math and writing/communications skills.  In other words the worst of both worlds according to a few supervisors who made it a point to implement more stringent screenings for business majors as a result of their underwhelming experiences with such majors. 

This also reminds me of an undergrad classmate from South Carolina who tells friends and relatives back home he majored in political science rather than his actual major in East Asian Studies.  He found it was much easier and far less frustrating to tell them that than to explain what “East Asian Studies” is and “what is it good for” as attempting to remedy the overwhelming ignorance was futile in his experience.

Comment #62: exholt  on  02/18  at  10:27 PM

That’s what happened to me, and I wasn’t even from a fundy family.

I’m not, either.  My family is pretty religious, and also fairly politically conservative.  But my parents are pro-choice, and birth control was always on the table.  However, the environment I grew up in was pretty much Fundamentalist Catholic.  And despite being neither absolutely fascist or absolutely fundamentalist, my parents got married at 20 and had me before my mom was 22.  They were not atypical in this regard, either.  I really didn’t have any role models growing up who didn’t get married and have kids immediately after college, at the latest.

Comment #63: The Opoponax  on  02/18  at  11:45 PM

Sarah: “Bristol was a great athlete, a great student, she had great aspirations for herself, but…you know, you make the most of it.”

Comment #64: Bridgetka  on  02/19  at  04:36 AM

God, it’s like she’s speaking at her funeral…

Comment #65: The Opoponax  on  02/19  at  10:29 AM

“Not because I think his social policy views are necessarily more extreme than hers (I don’t think they are), but because I think he’s about a million times more electable than Sarah Palin.”

Romney is scary. He might, for instance, win Michigan because people here have fond memories of his dad as governor.

Palin is toxic as a national candidate. I heard a Republican officeholder here in West Michigan say she wanted to get the township board meeting done by 9 so she could get home and watch ‘That stupid woman’ debate Biden. She’s not a serious candidate in 2012. She’s Fred Thompson, at best.

Comment #66: witless chum  on  02/19  at  11:23 AM

Bristol’s pregnancy wasn’t bad PR for Sarah, it was actually great for her.  She used her daughter the same way she used her youngest son.  Both of them were props to show just how anti-abortion she is, even under bad circumstances.  A teenage mother is actually great for their anti-premarital sex view, because it shows her getting her comeuppance for being immoral.

Comment #67: bananacat  on  02/19  at  12:54 PM

While your experience largely accords with my experience with classmates who were classmates and older non-traditional students at my undergrad and post-grad courses, this isn’t always the case.  As with everyone, parents are human beings and there are some who get overwhelmed by juggling multiple responsibilities. 

I have many non-traditionals and parents in my courses - and they’re dealing with a house of cards.  It all works out great until:
someone in the support network gets sick
the boss changes the schedule or sends them off for “training” (or the spouses or parent’s boss pulls this one
the sopuse/hubby/babydaddy decides that HE has to pursue his interests NOW - sometimes interests that get jailtime
they get p. o.’ ed at the parent caretaker or vice versa for an unrelated reason
the kid’s school pulls some stunt (transportation issues, behavior issues, academic issues)
the landlord, automobile etc breaks
Often all these things happen in one semester, with someone a funeral somewhere in the mix. 

Attending a secondary ed institution under these circumstances is gambling tuition money - sometimes you get lucky - but the odds are usually in the houses $ favor.

Comment #68: phylosopher  on  02/19  at  12:58 PM

Not to mention, phylosopher, that it seems like it’s better to get to go to college without a kid in tow (and all the additional responsibilities that come with that), period.  Whether it makes you more “responsible” or not.  Even if you are one of the lucky ones who has a secure enough situation to get through school easily.

Had I got pregnant senior year of high school, I would have had to attend glorified community college that passes for the nearest university to where I grew up.  I would have been even more heavily pressured to choose a “practical” major that would lead directly to a J.O.B. after graduation.  Preferably an area where I could rush through the coursework quickly (perhaps even choosing to go for an Associate’s degree rather than a BA), and preferably a job that would allow me to be completely self-sufficient ASAP.  I would have been pressured to marry quickly, as well, either the baby daddy or whoever else would have me, because god knows nobody wants a 30 year old with a middle schooler in tow…  I would have had to remain closeted.  I would have missed out on social opportunities, travel opportunities, creative opportunities, internships, campus extracurriculars, and basically everything else fun that people do in their late teens and early 20’s. 

I would now be a 27-year-old mom of a 9 or 10 year old, with a dead end job in a town I always hated, married to a man I probably didn’t love.  But oooooh, would I have been a responsible little bugger, now wouldn’t I?

Comment #69: The Opoponax  on  02/19  at  02:11 PM

I would now be a 27-year-old mom of a 9 or 10 year old, with a dead end job in a town I always hated, married to a man I probably didn’t love.

Taking the recommended track could put you as a 27-year-old mom of a three or four year old, with a dead end job in a town you always hated, married to a man you probably didn’t love. Life is not automatically better just because you spent your junior year in Firenze, and a semester interning at the World Bank. (Having a kid drives many women geographically closer to their mother, for advice and practical help.) But at least you would not be regretting missed opportunities, and perhaps blaming your kid and her father for closing them off.

As far as single moms with middle schoolers: guys marry them, but it helps if they are attractive. One coworker of mine wed his high school crush that way. She had married her charming, popular, athletic, deadbeat boyfriend right out of high school. But, he never was able to hold more than a menial job, so she ended up supporting him and their two boys. When they could no longer make the payments on their trailer, she kicked him out and filed for divorce. My nerdy-but-employed D&D;playing computer geek coworker suddenly looked good to her.

how everyone who enlisted in the Armed Forces right out of high school tend to have everything together and be extremely disciplined in their undergrad studies once they returned to school.

The military is different from parenthood. Some people I knew who had shot and been shot at had a hard time seeing their studies as a matter of life and death.

Comment #70: Hector B.  on  02/19  at  05:34 PM

Taking the recommended track could put you as a 27-year-old mom of a three or four year old, with a dead end job in a town you always hated, married to a man you probably didn’t love.

It’s not about the “recommended track”—I didn’t take the recommended track.  I did what I wanted to do.  And I was able to do those things because I wasn’t saddled with a child at a young age.  Because I wasn’t made to have a child at 17, I had untold opportunities that simply wouldn’t have been available to me if I’d had another person whose needs had to be prioritized.

Life is not automatically better just because you spent your junior year in Firenze, and a semester interning at the World Bank.

Well, of course not.  But it’s better to have the chance to do the things you want to do.  Even if those things merely include four years of keg stands.  That’s still more than someone like Bristol will ever have.

Having a kid drives many women geographically closer to their mother, for advice and practical help.

Oh, did I forget to mention that in my litany of reasons my life would be miserable if I’d had a baby at 17?  Not all teenagers want extra time under their parents’ thumb.

As far as single moms with middle schoolers: guys marry them,

Oh, I’m sure they do.  But it’s another layer to the bullshit.  “Better take him, he’s all you’re ever going to get…”  You know what’s awesome about heading into my late 20’s without a husband or kids?  If I’m not into the person I’m dating, I can dump them.  Just like that.  If I want to blow you off because you play in a jam band, or seem a little too obsessed with anime, or your apartment smells funny, I can.  I don’t have to weigh that against you possibly being my only chance at a partner, or the 10 year old at home who needs a father figure, or the fact that, despite your warts, marrying you will get us out of this trailer once and for all.

Comment #71: The Opoponax  on  02/19  at  06:24 PM

I would now be a 27-year-old mom of a 9 or 10 year old, with a dead end job in a town I always hated, married to a man I probably didn’t love.

Or divorced and being forced to deal with the strains of raising your child as a single mom and the stigma in many parts of the world if some “eager to marry early” classmates in my high school graduating class are any indication. 

As far as single moms with middle schoolers: guys marry them, but it helps if they are attractive. One coworker of mine wed his high school crush that way. She had married her charming, popular, athletic, deadbeat boyfriend right out of high school. But, he never was able to hold more than a menial job, so she ended up supporting him and their two boys.

Guys willing to marry single mom’s with kids are extremely rare IME.  Most guys, especially the younger set do not want/know they don’t have the maturity and emotional resources to be parents right off the bat immediately after marriage.  Heard similar comments in this regard from young women who didn’t want to be saddled with kids right at the beginning of the marriage. 

Not only that…the only person I knew who did got endless grief from male co-workers and some friends about the “burden” of raising “someone else’s brat”, the possibility this may preclude him from having his own biological children, etc….you get the idea…..

The military is different from parenthood. Some people I knew who had shot and been shot at had a hard time seeing their studies as a matter of life and death.

None of the ex-military guys I’ve encountered who messed up their undergrad openly exhibited this disdain/non-prioritization of their academics.  If anything…all of the ones I’ve met…whether the majority who did fine or this substantial minority of screwups felt their studies were important.  The problem was that whatever discipline they had to muster in the services to gain promotion and awards seemingly evaporated once they hit the campus and consequently, they acted little better than your stereotypical fresh out of high school first-year undergrads who felt their job was to slack off, party, and adamantly ignore their academic studies until they themselves realize this isn’t going to work, their scholarship foundations/colleges/parents read them the riot act about not subsidizing their BS, and/or they are expelled and forced to find other colleges to attend, if lucky or most likely, finding a job.

Comment #72: exholt  on  02/19  at  06:50 PM

I did what I wanted to do.  And I was able to do those things because I wasn’t saddled with a child at a young age.  Because I wasn’t made to have a child at 17, I had untold opportunities that simply wouldn’t have been available to me if I’d had another person whose needs had to be prioritized.

Opo,

Totally agreed, especially after seeing what happened to one of my best high school friends.  Though he was a couple of years behind me, he and his then girlfriend turned wife’s youthful lives ended up being cut short at around 20 because he got her pregnant.  Though they both had supportive parents with some socio-economic privilege….he almost failed to graduate college and she had to severely curtail her professional aspirations to find something “more practical” to support their child and because those aspirations would require several more years of extremely expensive grad school. 

Both ended up missing many opportunities to grow and enjoy their late teens/early 20s because of early unplanned parenthood.  While both are happy with their children now, I wouldn’t be surprised if they were both wistful as to what could have been…especially when their first years of parenting/marriage was to put it mildly…a difficult adjustment for both despite support from both families.

Comment #73: exholt  on  02/19  at  07:07 PM

Because I wasn’t made to have a child at 17, I had untold opportunities that simply wouldn’t have been available to me if I’d had another person whose needs had to be prioritized.

To be sure.  But if you’d had a child at 17, you’d only be 39 when she graduated from college. You’d be able to take a lover, or live in a yurt. And you wouldn’t be worrying about how to fund your retirement simultaneously with her education, like some people who defer child rearing do.

None of the ex-military guys I’ve encountered who messed up their undergrad openly exhibited this disdain/non-prioritization of their academics. 

No. the ones I knew simply slacked.

Comment #74: Hector B.  on  02/19  at  07:17 PM

But if you’d had a child at 17, you’d only be 39 when she graduated from college. You’d be able to take a lover, or live in a yurt. And you wouldn’t be worrying about how to fund your retirement simultaneously with her education, like some people who defer child rearing do.

Are you genuinely of the opinion that most people should have children in high school so that they will theoretically be free to pursue their own interests in their 40’s?

Because that’s an extremely unrealistic idea, to say the least.

Comment #75: The Opoponax  on  02/19  at  07:28 PM

But if you’d had a child at 17, you’d only be 39 when she graduated from college. You’d be able to take a lover, or live in a yurt. And you wouldn’t be worrying about how to fund your retirement simultaneously with her education, like some people who defer child rearing do.

Most of my elementary/junior high school classmates who had children at that age ended up being too undereducated to be able to land anything more than dead-end jobs barely paying above minimum wage because they couldn’t afford the money and time needed to attend college…or any post-high school education program for that matter and raise 1 or more kids.  Being overstressed with having to work long hours for a pittance also does little to create a nurturing supportive environment for children necessary to maximize chances of gaining entry to colleges….much less finishing at one. 

By age 39…..it is far more likely the statistic repeats itself with his/her kid(s) having child(ren) at 17. 

If I had the same situation happen to me like my friend and his then girlfriend turned wife, I would have been in an even worse fix as I had no upper/middle class family to fall back on for support financially to support finishing undergrad…along with the fact my parents wouldn’t be in a supportive mood for behaving so “irresponsibly”. 

FYI: Not everyone has a upper/middle class family to fall back on for financial and other support like my high school friend or the undergrad parent classmates at my undergrad college.

Comment #76: exholt  on  02/19  at  07:38 PM

I am always uncomfortable by the end of these conversations because of the narrowness / narrow availability of what we call “good options”. It’s already been raised that not everyone gets to spend a year in Firenze; well, moreover, young adulthood as we know it doesn’t exist for a large part of the world’s population, and while access to consistent and culturally-permissible contraceptives and pregnancy termination are a basic right that I think everybody should have - among other things, because women in cultures that I’ve worked in are desperately taking matters into their own hands and being jailed for it - I think it’s still totally disingenous to pretend that it’s some kind of global constant that everyone is going to spend a lot of time drunk in undergrad and then move to Chicago or New York, followed by getting some kind of creative, fulfilling job. I’m not saying that people who don’t have these options have fewer motivations to have control over their fertility (if I was in the business of ranking female motivation, I would say a year in Firenze does rank below “might fall into prostitution because of lost job in sweatshop due to pregnancy” as a reason to get an abortion) but - the choice of when to have children is one of many on the list of choices that hundreds of millions of people don’t get to make. And so the framing of this discussion makes me uncomfortable.

Also: I am glad I didn’t have a child in my teens. I am glad I have until my mid-thirties to think it over and do other things. But honestly, the construction of motherhood as a thing that takes over your life and makes it impossible for you to progress as an independent person (after delivery and early infancy) is a cultural thing. We’re the ones that see a mother with a baby as someone who doesn’t belong in a meeting / in the workplace / in public in general. And it seems to be a biological fact that it’s physically easier for women to have a first child in their late teens and their twenties, not headed up towards their thirties. I am talking here about delivery and the health of the mother, not about the ease of conceiving.

I definitely don’t believe in biology as destiny, or think nature has our best interests at heart, but I also don’t think motherhood is biologically, naturally a career-destroying, education-ending, emotionally-destabilizing, socially-isolating thing. I think we’ve made it that way because of class and gender issues and a preference for corporate-type workplaces in which employees’ other human roles are completely excluded.

Basically, I’m not convinced that in Utopia, or even in the best case scenario worldwide, everyone would wait till middle age to have babies. I think it’s possible that there are potential better cases where older teenagers and people in their young twenties are parents and the structure of parenting is different enough that they still get to be people.

But this is a red herring mix of class anxiety and utopianism at the end of a discussion that’s basically about whether women should have the option to assess for themselves whether they’ve arrived in Utopia yet or whether they had still better wait until they have medical insurance before they reproduce. And I am pro-options.

Aren’t you glad I waited till the end for this tl;dr?

Comment #77: purpleshoes  on  02/19  at  08:19 PM

It’s already been raised that not everyone gets to spend a year in Firenze; well, moreover, young adulthood as we know it doesn’t exist for a large part of the world’s population, and while access to consistent and culturally-permissible contraceptives and pregnancy termination are a basic right that I think everybody should have - among other things, because women in cultures that I’ve worked in are desperately taking matters into their own hands and being jailed for it - I think it’s still totally disingenous to pretend that it’s some kind of global constant that everyone is going to spend a lot of time drunk in undergrad and then move to Chicago or New York, followed by getting some kind of creative, fulfilling job.

That’s not what I, Opo, or others with similar comments are saying….though I will agree that a lot of the reasons for why teenage parenthood for most tends to be a route to dead-end jobs and misery from having to raise a family in poverty as a result is structural. 

The thing is with the way the US society has changed over the last 6 decades….the vast majority of US residents can no longer hope to get good jobs with a junior high or high school education…..especially when US K-12 education quality has declined in relative standing compared to other industrialized and even some developing nations.  This isn’t the 1950s-early 1960’s when a high school diploma was all you needed to land a middle-class manufacturing job…..and that does not take into account the fact this opportunity was not available to everyone due to discriminations on the basis of race, religion, gender, and/or a mix of any/all of the above. 

In short….unless you are lucky to be one of the few socio-economically privileged, way above average in intelligence, otherwise extremely lucky, or any of the combination above…..you’re very unlikely to end up with a job that could feasibly sustain an individual…much less an entire family…especially if you happen to be born and raised in expensive locations like NYC or LA. 

This is not some idle intellectual exercise we’ve come up with in our heads….but observations based on actual experience.  In my case, there were many elementary/junior high classmates who are having to juggle having to support one or more kids while having to worry about whether they can make rent/pay the bills on the jobs they can land with only a high school, GED, or as a high school dropout.  What makes things worse is that for nearly all of them….they didn’t have supportive families not only because their families didn’t have the financial means….but also because they were so angered by their “irresponsible behavior” that they were effectively tossed out and forced to fend for themselves.

Comment #78: exholt  on  02/19  at  10:01 PM

exholt, I agree with you. I just also think the dimensions of the argument are themselves a problem. On a practical level, it is sensible for many women to wait to have children, and I continue to advocate for comprehensive sex ed, give money to Planned Parenthood, and perpetuate the “don’t have children until you’re ready to settle down” thing in everyday conversation. Contraceptive choices have to be made in the world we have, not the world we wish we had. I understand you there.

But on a broader scope, the relentless push of infants, children, and their caretakers to infantilized and isolated parts of American public life is not some sort of inherent part of parenting. It’s the way our culture handles parenting. Having a baby shouldn’t be the end of your life. It shouldn’t financially impoverish you, socially isolate you, destroy your chances to progress in your career or further your education. It shouldn’t shut down your chances of further emotional, spiritual, or intellectual growth. And if it does, that is also a topic for feminism, no matter what point childbearing occurs at.

Maybe I listen too much to Aunt Twisty, but it seems like advocating that men and women are inherently equal and have the same rights shouldn’t apply only to women who don’t bear children until they’ve reached a certain economic standing. I am against mandatory childbirth. I am also against penalizing childbirth, which is what our dudely economic setup does.

Comment #79: purpleshoes  on  02/19  at  10:24 PM

t’s already been raised that not everyone gets to spend a year in Firenze; well, moreover, young adulthood as we know it doesn’t exist for a large part of the world’s population, and while access to consistent and culturally-permissible contraceptives and pregnancy termination are a basic right that I think everybody should have - among other things, because women in cultures that I’ve worked in are desperately taking matters into their own hands and being jailed for it - I think it’s still totally disingenous to pretend that it’s some kind of global constant that everyone is going to spend a lot of time drunk in undergrad and then move to Chicago or New York, followed by getting some kind of creative, fulfilling job.

It’s not a “global constant”.  Nobody here is saying “wah wah wah!  Poor teen moms aren’t going to get to spend Junior Year abroad!!1!”  In fact, I think it betrays a certain amount of shelteredness to assume that when we say “options”, that’s the sort of thing we’re talking about. 

Imagine, for instance, the very basic sort of middle class assumption of what your late teens and early 20’s are supposed to be like.  You apply to college junior and senior years.  You slack off that last semester, because, hey, you already have your plans for next year, and as long as you don’t get expelled or anything, you’re all set.  You spend 4-ish years at some sort of post-secondary institution where you basically get to devote most of your time to academic, social, and other non-material pursuits.  During this time, your actual work is most likely to consist of a part-time service job which you have the luxury of not caring very much about.  Your studies during this time generally pertain to subjects areas you enjoy and which will hopefully lead to a career in a field that interests you.

While not everyone gets to engage in this sort of thing, it’s fairly typical for people of average means in the US.  It’s hardly a luxury.  Except that, if you spend junior year of high school being pregnant rather than studying for your SAT, pretty much that whole paragraph up there is off limits to you.  Even that most basic assumption about what life is like for the vast majority of middle class Americans. 

And yeah, sure, globally, great numbers of young women really are expected to marry and/or begin bearing children much younger than women in affluent countries are.  However, the goal should be to help bring reproductive rights and comprehensive sex education to all women, not to guilt first-world women into teen pregnancy. 

I agree that teen pregnancy shouldn’t have to ruin your life, but that’s often the reality of the world as it is now.  You can’t breastfeed the morning after a raging kegger.  You can’t bring a toddler to your 17th Century French Women Painters lecture.  An 18 year old with a GED is unlikely to be offered a job that pays anything above the poverty line.  These things are unlikely to change anytime soon—it seems much easier to me to work for reproductive freedom for all women.

Comment #80: The Opoponax  on  02/19  at  10:45 PM

Opoponax, I agree with you. I was thinking as I went and could have used to clean up my comment a bit. Part of the reason why I tend to knee-jerk about things like this is that I have worked in situations where abortion was blatantly cop-in-the-hospital-room handcuffs-on-the-bed illegal, and I have worked with very poor migrant populations where an “option” was “ever being able to go back to your family on the other side of the border”. And I am very conflicted about the fact that what I was raised to believe is a normal part of maturation - the 19-to-25 reasonably-carefree phase - just doesn’t exist for a lot of women worldwide. Would extending contraceptive coverage to everyone help here? Yes! But that’s not all of it! If we are limiting the conversation to members of the American middle-lower-class and up, fine. But I saved this for when the thread was mostly tired out because from time to time I feel the need to wave my arms and go “That’s not all women!”. “Globally” is not a word that means “not part of the conversation” necessarily, right?

Well, it’s easier to prosecute rape cases and teach women self-defense than to address the roots of rape culture, right? And it’s a good idea! And helps women now! And I’m not saying it’s not a good plan! But that doesn’t mean that the culture that punishes women sexually and for their sexuality doesn’t need assessing. I don’t think I’m articulate enough to say what needs to be said here. I just - I think we’re describing a whole system of institutionalized sexism towards women who get pregnant, give birth, and parent, and we’re trying to protect young women from falling prey to it, but just because women should know how to protect themselves doesn’t mean it’s a waste of time to try to point out the wider situation and how, hey, look, Patriarchy.

Comment #81: purpleshoes  on  02/20  at  12:14 AM

An 18 year old with a GED is unlikely to be offered a job that pays anything above the poverty line.

That’s been the experience of childhood/adolescent classmates who went the GED route….and some have recounted how its curriculum is even more watered down than your average US high school college-prep curricula.  Several high school teachers have said the GED barely covered the equivalent of 9th and 10th grade in regular high school. 

Considering too many employers have stereotyped most bona-fide US high school graduates as lacking in basic writing, quantitative, and other skills necessary to even hold many minimum wage dead-end jobs…..it isn’t surprising that a GED holder or someone who didn’t even bother to get one would have a harder time.  This stereotype unfortunately has some truth to it as the presence of remedial high-school level classes…even at Ivy/Ivy-level schools has shown. 

Moreover, compared to many other industrialized and even some developing nations…the US high school college prep curricula would be considered a joke.  For instance, in Taiwan….most kids aspiring to attend an academic high school would have been required to complete pre-calculus before graduating to high school and many other nations expect their high school students on the academic track to have mastered the writing skills to write a basic 3-5 page argumentative essay before graduating high school.* 

Heck, up until the Iraq War….even the US military had an official restrictive maximum quota of GED holders they’re willing to take as enlisted soldiers because they’re worried they don’t have the basic skills and discipline necessary to persevere to finish basic training and complete their enlistment term. 

I am against mandatory childbirth. I am also against penalizing childbirth, which is what our dudely economic setup does.

It isn’t only the “dudely economic setup”....but also the fact the declining manufacturing sector and the structural changes in our economy is requiring more people to be in school for longer periods compared to past generations.  Whereas during colonial and early-19th century periods even highly lucrative professions and jobs could be landed with an apprenticeship of a few years…even with little to no formal education and keeping in mind that this was impaired for many due to the previously mentioned discriminations…..that isn’t as possible now when even most dead-end minimum wage jobs require some degree of basic literacy, quantitative, and even some technological skills. 

Another problem coupled with this is the fact that the US K-12 education* is, on average, doing a crappy job of imparting those very critical skills and the responsibilities for remedying those deficiencies are increasingly being pushed onto community colleges and 4 year colleges/universities.  So, in addition to dealing with structural changes in our society over the last several decades, we’re also have to contend with an education system that has been neglected by budget cuts, parental/societal disinterest, and an American anti-intellectual tradition** which almost dates back to the beginnings of the US if Alexis de Tocqueville’s accounts about early 19th century US is to be believed. 

* Public & Private IME. 

** The widespread disdain for the intellectual and learned could clearly be gleaned from the common US pop-culture disdain for “nerds”, “geeks”, and the “brainy types” as my undergrad classmates and some co-workers had the misfortune to experience in more mainstream US public/private high schools.

Comment #82: exholt  on  02/20  at  01:45 AM

have mastered the writing skills to write a basic 3-5 page argumentative essay before graduating high school.*

* Not to say I agree completely with such systems as their tendency to track students as early as 11 years of age means that any screwups…whether academic, behavioral, or sometimes even getting on a teacher’s bad side meant you risk being shunted to the “non-academic track” and thus, effectively shut out of higher-ed unless you’re wealthy or lucky enough to gain a benefactor/scholarship to attend university elsewhere.  One of the great things about the US system is that it does give more second chances to late bloomers and to those who screwed up early in life and later want to improve themselves later in life…whether at 18 or much later…something which has been greatly discouraged in many other societies until extremely recently as one non-traditional Japanese undergrad classmate experienced.  This factor alone was one reason I’ve often told others that if I lived under the European or East Asian education systems that my being able to gain a university education would have been very questionable. 

Imagine, for instance, the very basic sort of middle class assumption of what your late teens and early 20’s are supposed to be like.  You apply to college junior and senior years.  You slack off that last semester, because, hey, you already have your plans for next year, and as long as you don’t get expelled or anything, you’re all set.  You spend 4-ish years at some sort of post-secondary institution where you basically get to devote most of your time to academic, social, and other non-material pursuits.

Of course…assuming nothing goes wrong such as parents undergoing financial troubles, scholarship gets cut, student concerned finds college academics to be so overwhelming that s(he) flunks enough courses to be placed on academic suspension or even expelled, student goes through extended/excessive party animal phase, student gets pregnant/gets another classmate pregnant, student develops serious physical/mental illness, etc, etc…...

All those reasons and more are reasons why undergrad classmates, a few high school classmates, and many acquaintances ended up having to postpone/leave college without graduating with a BA/BS….or even an AA/AS. 

As for senioritis slacking in high school….it did happen though I knew no one who managed to escape the consequences….which mostly meant classmates who gained admission to their schools being rescinded.  Most memorable case was one high school classmate from a later graduating class whose admission to UMich-Ann-Arbor was rescinded when instead of maintaining her overall B+ average…her last semester’s grades ended up averaging a -B.  *Grumble* Anal admissions officers *Grumble*.

Comment #83: exholt  on  02/20  at  02:22 AM

I see that Bristol says her pregnancy wasn’t planned, and I believe her.  However, I highly doubt that she even considered an abortion.  If telling her parents was so horrifying, why would she go through with the pregnancy when she didn’t have to?

So many teens are anti-choice that it is frightening.  Check out this teen pregnancy forum.  If you follow the conversations, you will also see how many of these pregnancies are planned.

Comment #84: futureshock  on  02/20  at  03:01 AM

I have worked with very poor migrant populations where an “option” was “ever being able to go back to your family on the other side of the border”.

Well, yeah.  That’s another side of it.  Teen pregnancy takes college off the table for middle class girls, it takes “sowing my wild oats for a few years” off the table for working-class girls, and, yes, if you’re a poor migrant, it takes away the likelihood that you’ll ever be able to go home again.  This is why I don’t at all see the idea that early pregnancy closes doors for young women as a “narrow” assessment, at all.  It sucks, plain and simple, no matter your socioeconomic class. 

If anything, someone like Bristol Palin is uniquely situated not to miss out on much, because mommy and daddy can hire a nanny to take care of little Tripp while she still gets to have all the fun of being a fresh-faced coed.  Though even with that ideal arrangement, Bristol still misses out on the opportunities usually afforded to wealthy and well-connected young women.

I can envision a bizarro-world idea of myself as a pregnant 17 year old, thinking of the kinds of access I had at that age as a relatively upper-middle-class child.  Having never been a poor migrant, I don’t know exactly how the same situation would impact her life - but that doesn’t mean I don’t think it would shut off options for her (unlike Hector B. who apparently only sees that teen pregnancy means you can’t fit into skinny jeans and pointy-toed shoes for a few months).

For what it’s worth, I agree with you that the “17-25 carefree phase” isn’t a global universal.  And I feel pretty ambivalent about its existence in the affluent West.  I loved having that time in my life, but I know what a luxury it was—it’s not even something my parents had.  And the hardnosed Protestant in me thinks it’s kind of a waste of time, “la la la, I’m going to go off and find myself!”  Shouldn’t I have been working, doing something constructive, building something useful with my life?  And then I remember that, with a few exceptions, I was.  I am who I am now because of that time in my life. 

I’d also note, getting out of the hard-nosed Protestant side of myself, that my parents, who both went straight through without that time to grow and figure out what they wanted from life, were pretty miserable in the long run because of it.  Personally I think it did ruin my mother’s life.  She’s permanently limited in ways I’ll never be.  And I have a hard time thinking that my cloistered mother who basically isn’t even allowed to have friends or hobbies did it “right”, and I did it “wrong” with my frivolous desire for independence.  I feel no guilt over the fact that not everybody gets this.  If anything, I’d like to work to a place where everybody does.  If something that was an indulgence of the idle rich a century ago is considered practically a god-given entitlement nowadays, it’s hard to say that bringing that entitlement to more people is an unrealistic goal.

Comment #85: The Opoponax  on  02/20  at  11:33 AM

to UMich-Ann-Arbor was rescinded when instead of maintaining her overall B+ average…her last semester’s grades ended up averaging a -B.  *Grumble* Anal admissions officers *Grumble*.

Wow.  I have never heard of anything like this happening…

Then again, I come from a high school academic milieu where “slacking off senior year” meant, like, cutting a couple classes one day so you could get concert tickets, or not bothering to take extra stuff you won’t need and which won’t win you brownie points with the college you’re headed to.  More like “not working full steam ahead to the absolute top of your potential,” rather than “eh, who cares about actually going to high school anymore?” 

An example: after being accepted to my first choice school as a theatre major and knowing I would have basically no math requirements at all, I dropped calculus, because why bother?  I didn’t need it to get into the school, wasn’t expected to have taken it once I got there, and wouldn’t be exposed to any math that advanced during my college career.

Comment #86: The Opoponax  on  02/20  at  11:45 AM

For what it’s worth, I agree with you that the “17-25 carefree phase” isn’t a global universal.  And I feel pretty ambivalent about its existence in the affluent West.

There’s always been a carefree phase for the upper classes in many parts of the world and over the 2 centuries….has expanded itself into the industrialized nations’ middle classes.  This expansion may also be a side effect of the fact we’re being forced to spend more time in school to learn minimal level skills needed for even the minimum wage/dead-end jobs available these days because of the structural changes in the economy and society over the last 2 centuries. 

I’d also note, getting out of the hard-nosed Protestant side of myself, that my parents, who both went straight through without that time to grow and figure out what they wanted from life, were pretty miserable in the long run because of it.

Saw plenty of such examples among the attorneys I used to work with who got in because being a biglaw attorney paid well, “required no math”, and was perfect for a drifting “liberal arts major” unsure about his/her future profession.  They were some of the most miserable people I’ve ever met….and contributed to the 70% career dissatisfaction rate among this group of professionals. 

There were a few exceptions like an uncle who after an aborted grad school stint….went to law school and did well for himself as an attorney…but even he admitted people like him are exceptions to the rule. 

Then again, I come from a high school academic milieu where “slacking off senior year” meant, like, cutting a couple classes one day so you could get concert tickets, or not bothering to take extra stuff you won’t need and which won’t win you brownie points with the college you’re headed to.

Many of us did cut classes and do the slacking things and that’s ok…so long as your grades didn’t slide “too far”...which really meant at all. 

An example: after being accepted to my first choice school as a theatre major and knowing I would have basically no math requirements at all, I dropped calculus, because why bother?  I didn’t need it to get into the school, wasn’t expected to have taken it once I got there, and wouldn’t be exposed to any math that advanced during my college career.

You’re lucky your high school isn’t a hardnosed stickler for fulfilling requirements above those of some colleges/universities. 

If by junior/senior year you were ready to take calculus and chose to drop it because your college(s) didn’t require it at my urban public magnet high school, you may still gain secure admission to your colleges…but my high school wouldn’t allow you to graduate, will notify your colleges to rescind their admissions because you didn’t fulfill the HS’ graduation requirements, and will force you to stay another summer/semester/year to finish those classes. 

Similar things have happened to classmates who skipped senior year English lit or social studies because some of their Engineering/science schools didn’t require 4 years of such courses for admission.  Unfortunately for them….my high school could have cared less and forced them to take summer courses or repeat another semester/year to remedy their “deficiencies”.

Comment #87: exholt  on  02/20  at  02:24 PM

unlike Hector B. who apparently only sees that teen pregnancy means you can’t fit into skinny jeans and pointy-toed shoes for a few months

Au contraire. You also have to give up cosmos and appletinis.

Somebody had to argue against the prevailing view that a baby was a permanent iron ball chained to your ankle, that popping out a baby meant your life was over. Heck, you might be Naomi and Wynonna Judd (minus the shoplifting, hopefully.)

Comment #88: Hector B.  on  02/20  at  04:30 PM

You’re lucky your high school isn’t a hardnosed stickler for fulfilling requirements above those of some colleges/universities.

Enh, the academic director, who was also the director of the math department, took it pretty personally.  Our school had requirements far above the admissions requirements of most universities, but they didn’t require calculus per se.  I believe the requirement was 2 years of algebra, one of geometry, and one additional math course beyond that.  Which got me up through trig.  Calc was purely icing on the cake, and when I was accepted to my top choice school in the department I wanted to major in, I decided to replace it with an independent study in Italian.

Somebody had to argue against the prevailing view that a baby was a permanent iron ball chained to your ankle

But Hector, it is.  That’s what you’re not understanding.  It’s not a matter of the chance to spend a year abroad or do an internship at Vogue or take a year off to write a novel.  It really can, and usually does, take a huge number of options off the table, regardless of your social status.  Options that are real and significant and can spell the difference between being happy or miserable.  Yes, it can really ruin your life, for real.  9999 out of 10,000 teen moms never become Naomi Judd.

Comment #89: The Opoponax  on  02/20  at  07:53 PM

Options that are real and significant and can spell the difference between being happy or miserable.  Yes, it can really ruin your life, for real

OK fine. Bristol’s life is over, and she is never getting it back. She’ll spend the remainder of her days in a trailer. wearing a shapeless housedress, alternately suckling a child and taking a drag on a cigarette, while The Steve Wilkos Show and Cheaters blare in the background.

Comment #90: Hector B.  on  02/21  at  03:49 AM

Way to miss the point, Hector. And way to belittle the actual toll that childcare takes on women’s freedom.

Comment #91: Nobody in Particular  on  02/21  at  09:21 AM

Way to miss the point, Hector.

I have yielded to opo. Now I’m having a moment of silence for Bristol’s ruined life.

She does still have one shot at a career —she can rig a cradle in the sleeper compartment:

http://www.history.com/minisites/iceroadtruckers

Comment #92: Hector B.  on  02/21  at  01:38 PM

OK fine. Bristol’s life is over, and she is never getting it back.

Her life may not be totally over….but a lot of options which were open to her may be permanently closed.  It’s unfortunate….but that’s the reality for the vast majority of teen and even early adulthood pregnancies if the parent(s) concerned have not completed the education/training necessary to land a job barely supportive of his/her/their livelihoods….especially if their family backgrounds were not upper/middle class IME. 

Enh, the academic director, who was also the director of the math department, took it pretty personally.  Our school had requirements far above the admissions requirements of most universities, but they didn’t require calculus per se.  I believe the requirement was 2 years of algebra, one of geometry, and one additional math course beyond that.  Which got me up through trig.  Calc was purely icing on the cake, and when I was accepted to my top choice school in the department I wanted to major in, I decided to replace it with an independent study in Italian.


Your high school’s director sounds far more reasonable and sane about requirements rather than insisting on them like the stickler admins at my school. 

The thing was at my urban public magnet…..more than 1/2-2/3 of my classmates already took enough accelerated/advanced math courses that taking calc 1 in the junior or even sophomore years wasn’t considered terribly unusual.  If anything, people who didn’t take calc by junior year were considered “retarded laggards” by our high school’s standards.  As one officially had to take at least 3 years of math….most people end up taking math at least up to calc AB or BC by junior year.  There were even a few who had to complete their high school requirements by taking intermediate/advanced undergrad courses at the local NYC area colleges.  Though officially one only had to take 3 years of math….the admin and peer pressure was such nearly everyone took 4 years of math. 

Only exception to the effective mandatory calculus rule was if your junior high preparation was such you ended up starting instead of finishing the algebra/geometry/trig sequence in high school by junior high or at the latest…by frosh/soph year and/or if you failed/repeated math so many times that you didn’t get to calc by the time you graduated…such as yours truly.  ;p

Comment #93: exholt  on  02/21  at  05:07 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.