More members in the growing “Only Mommy and Me” class

This news item about the sisterhood of the stretch-panel pants has puzzled the nation. Assuming that the story is reported accurately, why exactly would this be puzzling? First, in a nation of 300 million, a large percentage of whose adults seem to be engaged in some effort to make themselves look cool well short of their years, there are going to be some who do things that strike the others as odd (perhaps because the latter didn’t think of doing that first). And at least a few are unable to get 15 minutes of fame and an audience by appearing in a “reality TV” show. Teenagers emulate the example of adults, and these kids have made a name of sorts for themselves.  At least they didn’t start shooting people.  A little less public narcissism as a cultural attribute of contemporary adults would be a welcome start in setting proper standards for children.

Second, the problem here has less to do with teen pregnancy than with single parenthood. Teen pregnancy is not unknown as a historical practice.  While it is certainly not desirable in our social and economic system, the very real problems associated with it would be far less daunting if the pregnancy occurred within a stable two-parent relationship.  I agree that often there is little that is “stable” in teenagers, but cultural standards can nudge even teens in appropriate directions. In prior generations there were stronger social, religious, and cultural forces that exerted pressure against fornication.  If fornication occurred and produced offspring, there was, through the dominant cultural paradigm, pressure to marry.  Going against those rules was branded scandalous and wrong.  I remember as a young teenager that the very topic of the Supremes’ song “Love Child” was deemed controversial.  Now, popular music is likely to discuss romantic relations nonchalantly in terms of “f…ing,” “b…ches,” “ho’s,” and similar unprintable terms of endearment.  The partners in the relationship are made expendable and insignificant.

Similarly, the problem in Juno is less the allure of teen pregnancy than the perception that the father is just a sperm-donor and otherwise irrelevant, except maybe to get some monetary support out of him while mom gets to control what happens with the child. That is why those girls could look upon the currently available homeless guy as equally suitable to some more socially elevated guy who might not become available until the girls themselves matured and became more socially elevated.

I have posted about the dangers of same-sex marriage.  One of those dangers is the further minimizing of the importance of the two-parent, opposite-sex family.  Recognition of same-sex marriage exacerbates that trend. If society must, as the California court said and the Massachusetts court at least implied, give formal recognition to any family-type relationship, that sends a message.  On top of that, these girls see pop icons and movie stars flaunt single-parenthood, and that, too, sends a message. How can one be shocked when the girls simply do what they see adults doing very publicly with the apparent approval of the culture? I am surprised that there aren’t more such cases.  As an aside, I seem to remember self-congratulatory statistics being cited within the last year about the decline in teen pregnancy since the 1990s because, it is claimed, contraceptive education is so successful.  If that’s true, these few girls are not exactly a cause for handwringing. I would not be surprised, though, if the teen pregnancy rate has increased.

Third, I’d like to know the socio-economic and ethnic background of these girls.  Illegitimacy rates for Whites are currently about what they were for Blacks shortly before the break-down of the Black family structure in the 1960s.  Black illegitimacy rates are now about 70% for the first child a woman has. While it seems a bit dubious to assign a single cause for this social disaster, I have heard of studies that assign a good part of the blame to new welfare laws in the 1960s that provided more generous benefits for children, but reduced those benefits if the recipient married the father. There is at least a correlation between those developments, and it may well represent a cause-and-effect connection.

Finally, in a complete non sequitur to the subject matter, the article claims that sex education can prevent teen pregnancy.  That may be correct as far as it goes, and it is one reason why I am in favor of such factual information being made available with cautionary advice to teens at a suitable age (not 13). The writer then predicts ominously that, unless Americans get over their hysteria about giving teens access to birth control, they’ll continue to have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the Western world. So, countries like Ireland, Mexico, and Chile, say, have lower teen pregnancy rates than the U.S. because they make birth control so much more readily available and not because of a host of cultural and religious restraints?  And the U.S., where teens have a constitutionally protected right to birth control that they can exercise with greater independence and less government involvement than taking a vitamin tablet to school, is “hysterical”?

What, in any event, does this story have to do with access to birth control? These girls wanted to get pregnant.  They made a pact.  Those that didn’t succeed in their task were disappointed.  They set upon the nearest available male to get things done. They could have had a class in “Advanced Condom Rolling” to go along with their basic elementary school, middle school, and high school sex education courses (plus labs), and it would have made no difference.  No one proposes that the cure for arsonists is to make them aware of the availability of free fire extinguishers and instructions for how to use them. If one is intent on setting a fire, that information is irrelevant. If one is intent on getting pregnant, installing yet another condom dispenser (in lieu of the harmful soda vending machine, perhaps) is an exercise in futility.  Far more fundamental steps are required.  Changing the perception that a child is simply a woman’s choice would be a good start.