Ms. Lauren needs to get better at shamelessly self-promoting. She has a really incredible piece up at RH Reality Check about what young parents actually need — and in an election where pro- and anti-choice groups are in full attack mode, where one of the candidates’ children is a pregnant teenager, and where there’s a whole lot of talk about “values” without very much meat behind it, it’s certainly worth discussing what we can actually do to promote healthy families.
Aid to families and children seems like a no-brainer political issue to me — something that pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike should be able to agree on. And yet the supposed party of “life” and “family values” opposes many of the common-sense measures that Lauren suggests — measures like safe and affordable housing, health care, education, and access to healthy foods. That should be a major talking point for every pro-choice, pro-family candidate, including Barack Obama.
Just go read Lauren’s piece.
{ 5 comments }
Awesome article. One thing I’ve never understood about the right and funding programs like the ones mentioned in the article is why, since they seemed so concered about the money, they don’t run a cost-benefit analysis of creating a system that makes for healthy, safe, and educated children and young adults. I do wonder what national childcare would cost, just curious, as it would have to be a huge program and open 24/7 to really accomodate all working people. Still would be more than worth it, for me from a human standpoint and again I dont see why people on the right cant see it as a net-plus.
I agree that it’s a great article and that Lauren needs to start with the promoting.
I dont see why people on the right cant see it as a net-plus
My personal theory isn’t particularly forgiving, but it really is what I believe. The right is not looking for a net good. The people pulling the strings benefit from inequality and don’t give a shit about the morals behind it. The people voting for them are caught up in the mentality of who “deserves” what. I remember reading in Killing the Black Body about a study which I found astonishing but also just reconfirming of inklings I already had, that showed many people who would benefit from increased social benefits were willing to go without them if they felt it would prevent people who don’t “deserve” those benefits from also receiving them.
I’ve recognized it in my own father from an early age. He’s a white dude who grew up fairly poor. And he joined the Navy, used that to get himself a degree, worked hard, etc. and is now very successful — “pulled himself up by his bootstraps.” What he is utterly incapable of understanding is how even growing up poor he had privileges that many other socioeconomic groups do not, thanks to his race, gender, sexuality, etc. — and that even among white guys, it’s not particularly common to jump classes. Oh, and that he actually did use a form of government assistance (what I see to be an incredibly shitty form, but government assistance all the same). He says — he actually has said this to me — that he did it, so everyone else should be able to and so he doesn’t believe they deserve his tax dollars because they’re just not working hard enough and therefore don’t deserve it. It’s a sentiment I’ve heard repeated a lot . . . though more often than not, it’s from people who started out middle class anyway.
But eh, that all from my soapbox tonight. In any case, while I don’t think that it explains the views/actions of everyone who votes conservatively, I do think my theory fits a pretty damn big chunk of them.
Brilliant and perfect. That piece needs to be read by as many people as possible.
I was not a teen mom, but my daughter was born just ten days after my 22nd birthday. It was hard enough, and I didn’t finish college. As much as I struggled I can not imagine how much more difficult it is to do what I did as a teenager.
Thank-you for writing it, Lauren, and thank you, Jill for promoting it.
Cara, FWIW, I think you are right about your opinion covering a large chunk of people. So much so that I think some people who need that assistance as young parents are embarrassed and ashamed to try to get it. I cried through many a meeting w/ so many people who were supposed to help me (and so many of them contribute to that feeling of shame) until one woman told me that I had in fact earned it by working when I was younger, and that everyone deserved help when they needed it.
It seems the problem can be fixed in a couple of ways, really: you can provide more access to abortions (reducing the demand) or you can provide a whole slew of good-but-expensive social services (addressing the demand.) As the party of supposed fiscal conservatism, i would expect republicans to prefer the first option. yeah, right…
Awesome piece and I am total agreement. No person should be made to suffer for deciding to keep their child. It makes no sense to me treat teenage mothers as throw aways. For a small investment for a few years what they will actively contribute to society far outweighs any cost that we bare. It seems to me that daycare and education would lead to a citizen that pays taxes rather than living on welfare for life trapped in poverty.
The one thing that really stood out for me was the change in classification should a woman decide to enter a relationship and co habitat. There are no gurantees in life and we are will aware of our high divorce right so why should we assume that because a man enters the picture all is solved. If we remove the little support that they get and the man turns out to be an abuser it is trapping a mother and child in a terrible situation. Women need to independent not only for their benefit but for the benefit of their children.
When you have something new up, you should definitely provide us with the link. I would love to read more of your excellent work.
Comments on this entry are closed.