The problem with teenage mothers
Wales Business — By Siobhan McClelland on October 14, 2009 6:00 am
Trouble for mum? Or for society?
WHEN times get tough politicians turn to predictable scapegoats. Many people remember Peter Lilley telling the Conservative Party Conference in 1992: “I’ve got a little list … of Young Ladies who get pregnant just to jump the housing list … there’s none of them be missed”
Then, just a fortnight ago, Gordon Brown, in his speech to the Labour Party Conference, said: “And I do think its time to address a problem that for too long has gone unspoken, the number of children having children. For it cannot be right, for a girl of 16, to get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own”
Hardly unspoken. The “problem” of teenage mums and their “feral offspring” are too frequently targeted as one of the causes of “broken society”. Of course, that society is far more broken in times of economic stringency.
It is possible for a young woman to have a child at 16, go to university, have a successful career and to bring up a child who is himself a productive and decent member of society. I know because I did it and, over the years, I have met many other young women who have done just the same. Most young mothers are, in what are often very difficult circumstances, doing their very best to bring up their children. Few recall a Vicky Pollard stereotype guesting on the Jeremy Kyle show.
And beyond the personally anecdotal, here are some facts. There is no evidence that young mothers get pregnant to get housing and benefits. Most have little knowledge of housing or social security policy before getting pregnant and what they do know often turns out to be wrong. Seven out of ten 15 and 16 year-old mothers, and about half of 17 and 18 year olds, stay at home with their parents.
It is not so much being young that is problematic, it is being young and poor. There are links, of course. Young women from lower socio-economic groups are twice as likely to become teenage mothers and becoming a mother at an early age is more likely to result in poverty. The majority of young mothers live in poverty with nearly half in the bottom fifth of the income distribution. In part, however, the continuing and increasing poverty in which teenage mothers live can be attributed to a discriminatory social policy which labels them as outside the norms of society.
Teenage pregnancy is defined as any pregnancy to a woman under the age of 18. The strategy of governments in Westminister and Wales is to reduce the number of these pregnancies. In itself this aim creates its own discriminatory framework. Society accepts an age of consent of 16 yet wants to eliminate the potential consequences of this. It is also worth noting that the number of pregnancies to women under 15 are a very small proportion of the total, so actually the focus is really on women between 16 and 18.
This discrimination can in part be explained by the changing demographics, attitudes and place of women in society. When my mother gave birth to me she was 26 and had the words “elderly primigravida” written on her hospital notes. Britain has a history of young motherhood, but the average age of a first time mother has increased, particularly over the last 20 years, and now currently stands at around 27-years-old. This owes much to a sharp increase in those women waiting until they are in their thirties and forties to have their first baby. Those women are often educated and middle class who of course have a role to play in shaping social policy. As part of these demographic changes the ‘problem’ of teenage pregnancy has in fact been reducing – in 1970, young women aged 15-19 in England and Wales were twice as likely to become mothers as they are today.
In addition, for all we often hear that children grow up too fast we are also elongating the definition of childhood, for example through the raising of the school leaving age. But just because you couldn’t imagine raising a child at 16 or 17 doesn’t mean that this is the same for everyone else. There is no magic age at which you automatically become a good parent. Some people are never ready for it.
One of the major objections to young mothers is that they are dependent on the benefits system and therefore vulnerable to the view that “if you can’t afford to have a child you shouldn’t have one”. This might at least be a consistent (if not compassionate) view if it was applied to everyone 16 or 46. It should not be forgotten that there are costs to society of having children at any age for example in maternity and paternity leave, child benefit and family tax credits for those “hard working families” so beloved by Gordon Brown.
New Labour’s family friendly policies do not apply to young people. Pregnant women under 18 receive less benefit than their older contemporaries and when they have their baby they receive over £10 less a week than those over 18 which, as anyone living on income support will tell you, is a significant amount. Mothers under 16 cannot claim any benefits at all – child benefit for her and her child are paid to her parents or to her partner if he is over 18.
And now Gordon Brown proposes this:“From now on all 16- and 17 year old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes … “
The reinvention of the Magdalene Laundries cloaked in the jargon of what will be “better for us all”. And, although Gordon says parents, it seems unlikely that there will be many young men in the 21st century homes for fallen women.
The YWCA has identified what young mothers really need – respect. This includes education, support services, childcare, trust, adequate income and above all equality. Doing this will not mean that every 16-year-old young woman will decide to become a mother.
The age at which we become parents is as unique and individual as each of us. And a man who became a father in his fifties should understand that.
Tags: inequality, parents, public debate
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
12 Comments
Fab article. Young mums (and dad’s) get an incredibly raw deal all too often in terms of peoples expectations, aspirations and preconceptions of them. Did you see this which Vince Cable wrote a week or two ago making many of the same points. Shock Horror the Daily Mail printed it, some of the comments are less good… http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1217890/Vince-Cable-Theyre-single-mothers-Gordon-fallen-women.html
This article seems to be making the argument that teenage pregnancy is not a problem – which is nonsense. The problem with teenagers having children is that the pregnancy is unplanned and often unwanted. It is the product of an education system and a society that is incapable or unwilling to teach young people to use contraception.
There is nothing wrong with being teenagers being parents – but the problem is that lots of teenagers who are – don’t want to be. This leads to the secondary problem of not being financially or socially prepared to raise the child. This IS a problem.
The points made in the article about the tone of Brown’s speech are correct – it is wrong to play to the right wing element of the audience by painting such a vulgar picture. It is also wrong, however, to characterise the problem of teenage pregnancy as some kind of ‘lifestyle choice’ that young folk are making.
Also, your comparison with Magdelene Laundries is too absurd for words. Bloggers left right and centre and been talking about how young single mothers are to be ‘locked up’ or ‘thrown in Gulags’. Once and for all it should be made clear – these hostels will NOT be compulsory – unlike the Laundries or the Gulags.
It is also worth mentioning that a number of charities that deal with teenage pregnancies have welcomed the policy as have the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group.
Whenever someone bands together ‘teenage mums’ as a negative thing, I can’t help but think of someone I knew from school. She left school at 16, married a hard-working man and got a mortgage on a lovely semi.
I saw her again at 19, walking through town with a little ‘un in a pram. She was happy, settled in her relationship, financially tick-boxed and starting the next stage in her family life.
I guess it made me think then, as it does now, that not all teenage mums are Teenage Mums.
Standard Issue Admin Warning Time:
Strongly held views and passionate argument = good
Personal attacks and abuse = bad
Any more accusations of the type seen in the last line of the last comment will be edited out, or the whole comment will be left out.
Just a couple of quick comments for Mab:
You suggest that all teenage pregnancies are unplanned and most are unwanted. How do you know this? There is quite a lot of pressure on young parents to say that the pregnancy was a “mistake” but this is unlikely to be true for all of them and this desire to become parents at a young age needs to be understood better. More importantly unplanned does not equal unwanted – this is just as true for those aged over 18.
I agree with you though that we have a problem with the funding and delivery of sexual health services but again this is something that impacts on us all not just the young. However, I think your attribution of teenage pregnancy to issues of contraception is far too simplistic.
By using the word “problem” you automatically stigmatise those you refer to. If you feel that those who are not “financially and socially prepared” are a problem I think you should apply this to everyone. Would this mean that everyone on income support should be discouraged from having children?
The charities do good work but you always need to look at who runs them and where they get their funding from.
If you look at the direct quote from Brown’s speech above it says “all” 16 and 17 year olds in receipt of support from the taxpayer will be “placed” in the supervised homes. That sounds like compulsion to me.
Mabiblogion surprisingly picks a fight with Siobhan on the subject of the Magdalene laundries. In fact the original Magdalenes were voluntray refuges where people could stay and leave as they pleased. The compulsion came in through social presure, mainly from the church, abetted by some government agencies. This is not unlike the pressure on teenage mums being whipped up by some of Mr T’s colleagues in the media.
Siobhan seemed remarkably restrained in her response. Here is the direct quote from Gordon Brown’s speech
“From now on all 16 and 17 year old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes.”
So it seems Mabiblogion is completely wrong. The Magdalenes did not start out as compulsory, whereas the hostels proposed by Brown are intended to be for those most in need, whether they like it or not.
But then someone who says, in their first sentence, that the argument that teenage pregnancy is not a problem is nonsense, then starts the third sentence “There is nothing wrong with being teenagers being parents” is clearly one stick short of a Shillelagh.
Sorry. Clearly Decies wit does not travel too far. Round Coolydoody a Shillelagh is a stick. Someone who goes into a fight with what he thinks is a stick, only to discover it is not a stick at all is to quote Mab “too absurd for words” If someone believes that there is nothing wrong with teenage parenthood, it is just the pregnancy that is a problem, then that does seem to be in Mab’s words “nonsense” like picking an argument armed with something that doesn’t exist.
By the way, when in my original I said picking a fight “with someone called Siobhan” I was not intending to be derogatory simply enjoying the irony of Mab accusing someone with an Irish name writing on the subject of young mothers of not knowing about the Magdalene laundries.
Anyway this subject is rather more important than any of this so by all means remove whatever is perceived to have caused offence.
Sláinte Mhath (if I may be so bold)
Siobhan: Thanks for your response – it’s clearly not the case that all teenage pregnancies are unplanned and unwanted, and that’s not actually my perspective (despite my comment -typo).
Doubtless there are numerous cases where people have made a choice.
Instinctively, however, I feel this is probably not the majority. To me, the issue which is central to all of this is choice. I hope to goodness that teenage girls who have children have made a choice – but I suspect they haven’t. As fulfilling as it is to be a parent, I would prefer it if they had options, and different opportunities available.
To me the tragedy of teenage pregnancy is that too many young women have their potential limited by the obligations of child-rearing far too young. This is an issue about choice – not politics and Gordon Brown made a mistake in politicising teenage pregnancy. He also used the language of the right and it sounded condemning – which is, of course, dangerous at worst and unhelpful at best.
On the issue of compulsion the government has subsequently clarified their position – there will be no compulsion for these young mothers to be in these supported homes. Brown, as ever, was tripped up by his tongue and some very variable (to be kind) or awful (to be unkind) speech writing.
The government would be insane to suggest all young mothers go into supported accomodation – and they haven’t – there will be no compulsion.
I also forgot to say that I think your article was well-intentioned and interesting.
Coolydoodyjudy: They were not voluntary institutions this was the problem with them – once you were in you couldn’t get out….
Adam: Cheers, but i’ve been called worse.
Coolydoodyjudy
It seems I’ve demonstrated my ignorance of recondite rudeness. Consider the wagging finger as retracted.
Best
Adam
Adam – recondite wit surely?
That lacks alliteration.
Interesting Article, whilst I am not a young woman I do see an awful lot of them with push chairs and toddlers at my local shops. They are usually collecting their child allowance, then its a lucky dip or other scratch card, 20 silkcut and 4 cans of Carling. I think being poor is a curse and if pregnancy is a wayout of a parents home or on the first rung of the council house ladder then so be it, sometimes by choice, sometimes by accident. Daytime TV would be alot more boring without them.