Yesterday the Republican Vice-Presidential Candidate, Governor Palin, announced her 17-year-old daughter is five months pregnant.
First of all, this should never be used as criticism as to the Palins’ parenting skills. Being a parent myself, observing other parents and interacting with many others demonstrates that no matter what you do, sometimes your children do things you wish they hadn’t. It is part of the maturing process.
You can be the strictest parent, with tight control over their time, friends, and locations. They can still get in trouble. (We sure did.) You can be a parent who wants to be a friend, and imposes no rules whatsoever. They can still get in trouble. And—in the same range—each set of parents could have wonderful kids who never ever do anything wrong at all.
Until we can legally bring back iron chastity belts—regardless of your parenting skills—your child can become a parent.
Should the Palins have done something different? A pretty stupid question at this point. If they didn’t want their daughter to become pregnant, obviously they should have done something different. At the least, chain her to the radiator on a certain day. (I’m kidding….sorta.) As parents we all look back with perfect hindsight, smacking ourselves on the forehead, exclaiming, “I should have….” That is easy. The harder question is what to do in the future.
I do not know Governor Palin’s position on sex education. From what little positional statements I could find, as well as her background—it would not surprise me if she was a strong supporter of abstinence education. If so, I would hope she re-evaluates this position and recognizes abstinence-only education is not effective. Certainly we hope our children are abstinent; but we also hope to never be put in a nursing home. 50% of you reading this blog will be. Hope and reality are two very different creatures.
What pained me, upon reading the press release, was the “assurance” that this 17-year-old girl was going to marry the father of the child. As if to say, “Don’t worry, everybody. The marriage will legitimize this whole thing. What seems to be a minor bit of a spot right now will be washed clean by the sanctity of marriage and we can all breathe easy.”
Bristol Palin is 17.
17.
Who were YOU dating at 17? 11th or 12th Grade in High School for Americans. Think back to him/her. Would you like to be married to them?
Oddly enough, I knew my wife when we were 17. And I would have liked to date her. Yet part of my maturing process involved dating others who were not like her, sorta like her, and had various qualities, in order to learn who it was that I yearned for. As the silly saying goes, “You have to date a lot of frogs to get your prince.”
There is some truth in that. We learn through the process as to what we can live with; and what we can’t. While I ended up marrying a woman I would have dated at 17; I seriously question whether we would still be married if we had married at 17.
Bristol Palin dated Levi (the name of the father) for a period of time, I suppose. We don’t know many details about him. She liked him. Liked him enough to have sex with him. But did she really want to marry him?
Now we will never know, because the pregnancy has “forced” the issue.
See, this happened often enough in the Christian community we lived in. Guy and girl date awhile. Decide to get married. Married the next month. Seven months later God delivers a miracle 8 ½ pound “preemie” baby. It happened enough, my friend made up the saying that is the title of this blog entry—“Once they’re married, it is not polite to count months.”
What is it about being married that makes a bit of difference? Why do they think having a marriage certificate before a birth certificate somehow makes it “better”? (Cough, Cough—not to bring up a troubling topic in the middle of this, but if “human life” begins at conception and not at birth—why treat birth so special?) If you think about it—it is almost amusing the race to “beat the clock.”
Resulting in couples marrying in hospitals hours before the birth, so they can legitimately declare, “This child was not born out of wedlock.” What a difference 12 hours can make!
I don’t fault the Palins’ parenting skills because they have a 17-year-old daughter with a world famous pregnancy. That could happen to any parent. What I do question is where they go from here? Nothing has been said about Bristol marrying Levi prior to the birth. (Although I’ll bet they do.) However, we all know the pressure Bristol is under to marry this guy.
I wish the Palins would tell Bristol, “Look. The two of you have a child. That is a big responsibility, and we will work through this as best we can. But you are 17. There is no law requiring the two of you to get married. We can wait. If you want to get married after one year, after two years—we can consider it.” I wish they would take that social, familial and most importantly spiritual pressure off Bristol and rather force another bad decision on top of the first, let Bristol make her own decision.
Yes, I know there are anecdotes of people marrying at 17 after becoming pregnant, and staying married for 96 years. And anecdotes of people being forced to marry for the same reasons and divorcing within 4. The point is—can’t we learn from that? Let Bristol choose to marry free from the constraints of have to marry?
My greatest concern of the parenting skills of the Palins is not what happened before. It is what will happen later.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Dagoods,
ReplyDeleteI understand your point, but two things need to be considered. Didn't Levi and Bristol already make their commitment? They have to come together for that child, regardless.
Two, marriage protects the woman. My sister and her daughter were unwed mothers. In each case, the man (should say "boy") said that they'd marry them after the baby. Why rush? Guess what, they never married them, and I don't think ever intended to. Is that better? While the law has gotten better for chasing down boyfriends, it seems to me that chasing down a man who has made a marriage commitment is easier than one who hasn't. Worth mentioning is the fact that guys feel they are free to roam around the harem until that wedding ring is on.
Last, my wife and I discuss these scenarios with my daughter regularly. Yesterday, I repeated how important it was to think consciously, for a young lady. First, the likelihood of abortion is greatly reduced when you don't have sex just for fun (it's also reduced to near zero when they know what it is). Sex is a sacred act that is reserved for someone you would marry (which my wife and daughter agree is someone with Daddy's personality - actually very easy-going - but with money). Will she listen? I hope so. But, as you said of the Palin girl, it's her choice.
Abstinence-only education is OK, but if anything is going to nip risky sexual activity in the bud it's teaching the cosequences of sex. Too many kids believe that oral sex doesn't spread STDs or that withdrawing reduces the risk of impregnating to zero.
I have to say Jim's comment confuses me. How does the marriage protect the woman? So the man can beat off wild animals with sticks while she's on her back in labor? Or are women stupid creatures that can't manage their own lives well enough without a man? Of course, I can understand if they aren't being taught something as simple as correct condom use, they probably weren't instructed in anything more complex like getting a job or finishing school; and therefore their parents are not to be trusted for the support they're trying to pawn off onto some unrelated guy.
ReplyDeleteI was having sex at age 17, and love wasn't even part of the issue at first - I just liked sex. But we decided we never wanted to part, so we got married less than a month after I turned 18, and I was most assuredly not pregnant at that point. (Shocking to hear of someone my age NOT having a shot-gun wedding, I know.) In fact, I didn't get pregnant till a year later, when I intentionally got off the pill.
I will say one good thing about marriage - if a girl picks the right guy (or girl), she has a much stronger ally in him than she ever will in anyone else in her life, including her parents. Nobody has supported me in my wants and needs, and in my hopes and dreams than my husband. My child or lack thereof is irrelevant to that relationship.
Oh, and my son will know damn well where the condoms are kept, and how to use them, and what will happen to him if he doesn't.
Jim: Abstinence-only education is OK, but if anything is going to nip risky sexual activity in the bud it's teaching the [consequences] of sex.
ReplyDeleteHeartily agreed; particularly the consequences of unsafe sexual practices. And teaching should ideally mean direct encounters with the possible results. You can kill multiple birds with one stone by doing volunteer work with organizations that seek to care for people who've fallen prey to mistakes in their sexual (and other life-affecting) decision-making.
I intend to expose my daughter to as much information as possible, as soon as she's old enough to understand and handle it. There is so much misinformation on the subject, particularly from word-of-mouth and, yes, the media.
Hollywood can be a force for evil or for good, in this case. Finding movies that address these topics head-on, with realism and accurate information can be useful (if difficult ;) ). Unfortunately, the vast majority of such films seem to focus primarily on pregnancy, which is relatively easy to avoid, and not so much on the problem of STDs, which is a more difficult, and frequently more disturbing, subject.
thenerd: How does the marriage protect the woman?
By preventing her from having to be both the child-rearer and the provider. That is an exceptionally difficult pair of roles for one person to provide. How do you work at a job and care for your kids simultaneously? Unless you have an extremely flexible work-at-home job, you simply can't. Surely you've encountered single parents for whom simply surviving requires a tremendous effort? The exceptions are when the job is sufficient to provide for both sustenance and child care (frequently not the case), or when other support structures are in place (such as willing-and-able family members; also frequently not the case).
Or, how many single teen moms have been denied any realistic opportunity for completing their education and obtaining a sufficient career to live comfortably? Compare that with the number of single teen dads you know who've fallen into the same trap (do you know any? I don't).
With a long-term, committed relationship (not necessarily a "marriage", but marriage has the advantage of formalizing the relationship), the work involved with those two roles can be split evenly (hopefully: it usually isn't, especially since the "child-rearing" role is usually a much larger responsibility than the "providing" role, and if the "provider" parent isn't also deeply involved with "child-rearing", then it's still a lop-sided partnership).
This is a topic I've been giving a lot of private thought lately: it seems to me that the "marriage before sex" philosophy made a huge amount of sense in the days before the advent of safe and reliable birth control methods, as otherwise women were too-often victimized. I believe (and I know Jim will disagree) that it's somewhat less relevant now, but only when sexual partners can make informed decisions about sex and parenting.
DagoodS: You can be the strictest parent, with tight control over their time, friends, and locations. They can still get in trouble. (We sure did.) You can be a parent who wants to be a friend, and imposes no rules whatsoever.
DagoodS, I would go so far as to say that both of these cases are likely to produce kids that get into trouble. You've chosen two extremes, without considering middle-ground. I've known families from both of those categories. I've never known anyone from the latter category who "never do anything wrong at all"—the kids usually turn out to be supreme assholes; from the former category, my (anecdotal) experience has been that they end up rebelling against their parents' ideals and everything their parents stood for (the latter case isn't always a bad thing).
I'm firmly convinced that laying down rules, even with the harshest of consequences, without explaining the why's behind those rules, is a recipe for disaster. I've found in my own life, and observed in the lives of others, that the moment we begin to think for ourselves, we reject any of the principles that have been handed down to us without whose reasons we don't comprehend.
For instance, for several years during my Christianity, I'd come to the conclusion that there was nothing wrong with most "swear words". The Bible doesn't have anything to say about "swear words". It says plenty about "swearing", "cursing", and coarse or profane speech; but from context, "swearing" and "cursing" were clearly meant in their literal meanings, and scripture doesn't really define what "coarse speech" is: I think it's expected to be generally pretty obvious (and somewhat culturally relative) what constitutes coarse speech. I could never come up with a reasonable argument for why the word "poop" is okay, but the "S word" somehow isn't. They're both just words and I don't think that words can have any intrinsic good or evil, it's how you use them. And since these two words refer to exactly the same object (and, add to that the fact that the "S word" wasn't always considered to be offensive), it seemed silly and arbitrary to differentiate between them. I still avoided using it around people who I suspected would be offended (my family had been taught that even the word "butt" was offensive, for some reason), but I ceased worrying about using it with folks that weren't bothered by it.
That's obviously a fairly benign example, but I've seen the same thing happen regarding drug abuse and poor sexual decisions: the thou shalt nots have far less impact than a solid, honest, and objective education on the subject.
Micah--the thou shalt nots have far less impact than a solid, honest, and objective education on the subject. Exactly!
ReplyDeleteNerd.
There's a Spanish saying for a married man: "Burro amarrado, lenya segura" which translates - "Donkey tied to a firm post". Think about it.
Micah Cowan,
ReplyDeleteI go with TheNerd on this one.
Most teenage mothers are NOT child-rearer and financial provider. Either they receive support from their family (most often the parents) in one or both fashions, OR they receive support from the government on both fronts.
What good does adding a 16 or 17 or 18 year-old father in the mix as a “financial supporter”? They will find raising a family of three (3) near impossible at the level of salary available to them in the American economy. I would suspect the vast predominance of such situations, the parents of the daughter still provide support rearing the child or financially to the couple.
Look at it this way. If Levi and Bristol (using our example) went out to get an apartment—it most likely will require a guarantor on the lease. Who do you think that would be? Or if they wanted a car—who do you think will be the guarantor? If Bristol is to continue her education—who do you think will watch the child? She has just as much limitations whether married to Levi or living at home.
You are quite correct that single dads of teenage years are NOT as limited. Primarily because of the lack of child-rearing involvement. Not finances. But how does making them marry (through social pressure) make that any different? They would still have far more freedom than the mother.
Secondly, marriage is so much more than finances. Would you like to be married to a person who didn’t want to be married to you, but felt pressured into doing so? Would you like to be married to a person who resents the marriage? Of course not—regardless of the financial benefit.
Women look for security in marriage. While that security certainly is perceived as financial stability, in part, it is so much more. It is the security of a person committed to you. The security of knowing they are not having an affair. Security of being able to share your faults without condemnation. Security of commitment. Security of future. Security of emotional, physical and yes—financial support.
The greatest single tragedies of my career are the women who stay with abusive husbands, because they think it is better to be married and abused than not married. They find more “security” (for lack of a better term) in being beaten but married, as compared to the fear of the “insecurity” of not having a husband. A shame.
My fear, here, is that the religious and moral culture is forcing the boy (Levi in our example) to marry. Levi may think at the moment he wants to marry her. Levi may even convince himself. Levi may grow to love, be committed and have a wonderful 73-year marriage with Bristol.
But is that the exception rather than the rule?
I wonder how many of these teenage boys who marry the teenage mothers of their children eventually divorce? How many become abusers out of resentment of losing the opportunity to go out and “sow their oats.”? How many become alcoholics? Or absentee fathers? Or have affairs?
I question whether the slight to insignificant financial benefit is worth it.
And, on this topic, while picking on the Palins—did you know their oldest, Track, was born 8 months after the marriage? (I know, I know. “Not polite to count months…”) And Mr. Palin has had a drunk driving, some run-ins with the law, and joined some odd fringe groups?
There may be financial stability, now…but is there satisfaction in picking the right person out of love for that person, rather than the social pressure of marrying someone you had sex with?
Dagoods---social pressure of marrying someone you had sex with
ReplyDeleteBristol does come from an upbringing that would point out that sex is not casual. Is AIDS or pregnancy casual? No. Sex is not casual in her family's worldview (Christian view is that it's sacred). I see this young man as being consciously chosen by Bristol.
Levi is not likely to be a complete jackass who would beat his wife. If he's abusive, it ends in divorce, like any other abusive marriage should. If they get divorced anyway, so what? People get divorced. You'd have to get inside their head to do what you're inferring when you say My fear, here, is that the religious and moral culture is forcing the boy (Levi in our example) to marry.
That points to another problem. Where is the priority of the child's well-being in all this? He/she would be better off growing up in a two-parent home with the support of the rest of the family. Imagine the built-in babysitters, the other two sisters particularly. Bristol will have to grow up a lot sooner, but the baby's well-being is worth the consequence.
I predict the Left will see these unprecedented attacks blow up their faces. Women have children and families, not just the liberal standard of one child, if any, and two cats, and families are messy. Women are on the front lines dealing with teen pregnancies, children with disabilities, and a host of snafus that can arise in a large family.
Go ahead and mock this woman for her daughter's pregnancy, criticize her for having a Down syndrome baby, and question her ability to be a mother and Vice President. None of these questions would be made of a man, and women know it, and they're already getting pissed off. If McCain's trapping of the Left in their own hypocrisy works, he wins 48-45% or better in November. Cheers.
blow up their faces
ReplyDeleteBlow up IN their faces.
Levi is not likely to be a complete jackass who would beat his wife.
ReplyDeleteGood grief, not likely? How can you know that? You'd have to get inside his head to know that.
Everyone is making assumptions. There's a little truth in what everyone is saying but we have to cherry pick our way through it all...remind you of anything?
I'm one of those babies, conceived out of wedlock, to Christian teenagers who married a.s.a.p.
We can speculate until the cows come home about how this will all work out and what the odds are that it will. My thoughts are with the baby. I've been there.
DagoodS wrote, "I do not know Governor Palin’s position on sex education. From what little positional statements I could find, as well as her background—it would not surprise me if she was a strong supporter of abstinence education."
ReplyDeleteShe is, in fact.
3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.
The source has been deleted, but you can read it from cache.
It is becoming more and more common for prosecutors to review defendant’s MySpace pages to find incriminating indications of who they really are to be used at the time of sentencing. Like finding pictures of a college student drinking alcohol while on probation for minor-in-possession.
ReplyDeleteLevi Johnston (Bristol’s….”fiancé”?) has made his MySpace page private. Too late.
On it he described himself: “I’m a fuckin’ redneck” who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes.
"But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some shit and just fuckin’ chillin' I guess."
"Ya fuck with me I'll kick ass.”
He also claimed to be "in a relationship," but states, "I don't want kids."
Here
He is 17-years old and entering his Senior year of High School.
This is the kid people think it is “better” for Bristol to marry?
Evegardengod, I too hope for the baby. Not much, though. It has wealthy, well-connected grandparents who have indicated a willingness to be supportive. Presumably both financially and physically. It is in the top 1% bracket for what it has going for it as compared to other teenage mothers.
How many children born today in Canada and America to teenage mothers without such advantages?
I guess I wrote this, tired of the “they are going to get married so that makes it O.K.” Why should it be “better” for Bristol to marry a guy who is “in a relationship” (nothing there about being committed or having a significant, long-standing girlfriend) who doesn’t want kids (but has to say he does now) and wants to go out with the boys and do some chillin.’ Rhetorical question, of course, not directed at you.
Call me Rebecca. :-)
ReplyDeleteI don't think it is necessarily better for her to get married, not at all.
Who knows. Maybe she'll change her mind. She's been thrown into a whirlwind I'd have a difficult time surviving if I was her.
It's a shame that in many ways, the religious right is going to hail her a hero, while at the same time, in church after church, around the world, many young women are made to bear a terrible burden of guilt and shame for their out of wedlock pregnancies.
I see this young man as being consciously chosen by Bristol.
ReplyDeleteJim, I'm not sure where you are going with this, but, I think you are reading far too much into Bristol's selection of Levi for her sexual partner. You make it sound like her decision to have sex with him was a calculated and mature decision based on her Christian identity and upbringing.
**I do not know Governor Palin’s position on sex education. From what little positional statements I could find, as well as her background—it would not surprise me if she was a strong supporter of abstinence education. If so, I would hope she re-evaluates this position and recognizes abstinence-only education is not effective. **
ReplyDeleteThis would be the only reason why I would consider her daughter's pregnancy in terms of the political process. If she taught something that was clearly not followed, and this is her daughter, what basis is there for insisting the rest of the country follow it?
I realize that 17 year olds aren't all that well-known for following parental advice, but even so.
**It's a shame that in many ways, the religious right is going to hail her a hero, while at the same time**
This is one of the big things that bothers me about this entire situation. I can't help but feel if this were the daughter of Democratic candidate, we'd be hearing how this is a symptom of no moral values, or decaying moral values. Can we honestly say that if Obama's daughter was in this situation and decided to keep the baby that she'd be receiving the same acclaim?
eve,
ReplyDeletenot a mature decision but not a casual one either. They should get married because it's the best thing for their child.
I'm confused on something. It's worthless to teach them that they should abstain from sex, but it's also incumbent on the government to teach them how to have sex, and, in the end, presuming they weren't taught how to have sex, they obviously knew how anyway.
8-)Big brother getting too big in my opinion. Here we are talking about it as if Governor Palin should do something about it....
**It's worthless to teach them that they should abstain from sex, but it's also incumbent on the government to teach them how to have sex, and, in the end, presuming they weren't taught how to have sex, they obviously knew how anyway.
ReplyDelete**
I'm not sure anyone is saying that abstaining from sex is worthless. It's a matter of I don't want that to be the only thing taught, and for teenagers to be unaware of how to protect themselves from STDs and pregnancy. Everything I'm reading says that abstitnence only education doesn't prevent teenagers from having sex, it simply means they're having unprotected sex.
From a health standpoint in terms of society and all the teenagers out there, I find that dangerous. Whereas sex education means that teenagers are more likely to wait.
But it's also not teaching teenagers to have sex -- they want watch tv and the internet for that. It's telling them that if they have sex, at least be careful.
Here's a short checklist:
ReplyDeleteDoes your tenn know that STDs like Hep C and herpes can be transmitted through oral sex?
Do they know the STDs and their characteristics?
Do they know that withdrawal before ejaculation may not be effective as millions of sperm has already been secreted?
Do they know that 10% of condoms fail and how other forms of contraception can fail?
There are more questions but that's all I can think of off the top of my head.
Question: Do parents need the government to teach them those things?
Question: Do parents need the government to teach them those things?
ReplyDeleteYes, because too many parents aren't teaching their kids these things. Sarah Palin, who home schools her kids, apparently didn't.
If they get divorced anyway, so what? People get divorced.
I'm surprised that as a divorcee yourself you would make such a cavalier statement about it. Doesn't Jesus himself teach that divorce isn't something to be taken lightly and that remarrying after divorce (even for domestic abuse) is adultery?
I predict the Left will see these unprecedented attacks blow up their faces. Women have children and families, not just the liberal standard of one child, if any, and two cats, and families are messy.
The Left (as if it were some monolithic force) is not attacking Bristol Palin. Pointing out how Sarah's policy positions are failures is perfectly legitimate. If Sarah Palin is going to use my tax dollars to pay for ineffective abstinence-only education, I will also end up paying more in tax dollars to support teenage mothers who will have to resort to the public health system.
I'm also surprised that it is now The Left who has such a rigid view of family structure. If I recall correctly, it is The Left that supports equal marriage rights for all citizens and the right to adopt (thereby reducing the number of abortions performed). It was not The Left that howled with laughter when Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested that It Takes a Village (i.e., extended family, church and neighborhood) To Raise a Child.
In responding to comments on my previous note, I'd just like to make it clear that I absolutely do not advocate "automatic marriages" between unwed teens who find themselves expecting a baby, as seems to have been inferred. I was merely pointing out how marriage (not necessarily to the father) can (and often does) protect the mother. I still hold that position, though I don't feel like debating it at length right now.
ReplyDelete