this vituperation reserved for young parents

[MitchiestInge]

for young mothers I suppose is what I mean, since people often only mention the father as a bit of an afterthought. Can someone explain why this special scorn is saved for young and unmarried women, particularly when plenty of us here have reproduced within really quite grim marriages?

Oh I totally agree with you bringonthegoat I do find it very insulting when people suggest abortion as a way of fixing it, as if it's the mature thing to do. I find it much more mature to take responsibility and try and make a go of it. I am 100% in agreement with everything you said.

Sidge I think that's the thing, what you said about not struggling with stalling careers, financial losses etc. For me, I always felt like I was starting out in life with DD along for the ride, I can build my life around her as we go. And she has always had everything she's needed, we both worked hard while I was pregnant and got everything she needed ourselves. She has everything she needs and our standard of life will just get better as our careers grow etc.

Do we have an explanation for the special scorn? I think it might take one of the scorners to come and tell us. Shall I go ask on a daily mail forum?

I think its because having a child young is all too often a path to worklessness and welfare dependency. This obviously isn't true in all cases though.

I hope I am not a scorner but I do agree with byrel. I know it isn't in all cases, but it certainly seems that a family is more likely to end up a) a lone parent one and b) on benefits if they have children when the mum / dad / both are 15, 16 or 17.

The very decision to have a child at that age marks them out as immature and irresponsible.

I don't mean that when the woman is pregnant at 15/16/17 an abortion is the answer, just that I don't believe that all teenage pregnancies are 'accidents'. Too often it is recklessness rather than accident.

Isn't it because a 16 year old parent is probably not supporting his/her child financially?

Of course that doesn't justify "scorn", or judgment on their parenting skills, but it does perhaps justify thinking they should have waited till they were able to support a child financially.

Supporting a child financially is an important aspect of parenting (well, it is if you think it is important that you stand on your own feet and don't always rely on the hard work of others to pay for you and your offspring).

So I would say that if you have planned a child without having the means to support it financially then that is already a bad reflection on your parenting. And on your maturity.

byrel out of curiosity had a google and actually the opposite is true:

"Teenage Motherhood may actually make economic sense for young women with less money, some research suggests. For instance, long-term studies by Duke economist V. Joseph Hotz and colleagues, published in 2005, found that by age 35, former teen moms had earned more in income, paid more in taxes, were substantially less likely to live in poverty and collected less in public assistance than similarly poor women who waited until their 20s to have babies. Women who became mothers in their teens ? freed from child-raising duties by their late 20s and early 30s to pursue employment while poorer women who waited to become moms were still stuck at home watching their young children ? wound up paying more in taxes than they had collected in welfare"
source here

It's not just 16 year olds though, myself and others were 19/20, I'm now over 30 and still get negative attitudes. Maybe it's me, it's something I'm doing wrong?

Barmbrack I'm treated like crap because people assume I'm on benefits and that I was immature and irresponsible to fall pregnant and keep it and look after it and bring her up as well as I could, which is pretty damn well?

Why then was I treated like crap at college, I was on the same bursary as everyone else but when I brought DD in one day at lunch to show her off people make disgusting comments, people who had been my friends, and then never spoke to me again?

And really, how much do people think benefits are?

jeanvaljean The father has two choices too. Firstly the choice to use contraception. Secondly the choice to man up and be a decent father to the child, and not cop out because "She'll do it".

The father does not have to "lump it". The "father" can walk away scot free. Isn't that what the OP was saying is deplorable?

Am really surprised by the statistics as well that most father's of pregnancies to tennage mother's are OVER 20.

So, somehow, we are blaming the teenagers, who may or may not have made mistakes but they are young and don't need punishing for that the rest of their life, and not the adults who aren't pulling their weight to support them, even though they are in a much better economic position to do so and are old enough to have definately categorically known what they were doing?

How does that make sense exactly?!

Barmbrack, your comments would apply to most mothers, as most parents use child tax credits to supplement their income, and many mothers also claim maternity pay. Taking money off the state is so widespread that I don't see why it is an issue that should be applied to young women in particular.

BertieBotts - I don't think the father does walk away scot free though. There's a child in the world that he didn't want. He now has to deal with those consequences - financial support and/or the potential for the child to come looking for him when it's older.

I would MUCH rather be a woman faced with an 'accidental' pregancy than a man. Because at least I have my own destiny in my hands.

laweasel that is in the States where the welfare system is very much less generous than it is here.

It doesn't matter how much benefits are; as someone above said there is what is seen (by me too) as the 'right way round' to do things - get an education, get a decent job, get settled with a partner, get a place to live and then have kids. If, when you plan children, you don't have an income (that can be maintained when you are on ML and looking after children afterwards - often because you have a partner who can continue working when the baby is born) and a home, then you are not in a position to have children. Sorry.

I don't know why you are treated like crap. I hope I wouldn't treat you like crap if I met you, I am sure you and your DD are lovely.

Maternity pay and child tax credits are both paid when one partner is working. Thus contributing to the tax system.

That research is interesting, it does though only focus on women for poorer backgrounds and its is based in the United States where welfare provision is far less generous than it is in European countries. I do think stigmatising young parents isn't very helpful at all though as the villification crushes aspirations and self-esteem of young mothers.

I think the fathers are equally to blame and should be held to account for their actions far more than they currently are.

Agreed byrel.

Although in the current situation, if I were a young woman choosing sex with a short-term partner who was the type to up and leave if I got accidentally pg, you can bet I wouldn't be taking any chances.

The implant, the pill and condoms are all freely available to these women.

barmbrack, you don't have to be working to be entitled to child tax credits. And maternity pay is by definition paid to someone who is not at work. Many people who are working are entitled to more in tax credits than they pay in tax, so they are not contributing to the tax system at all.

And that is rather irrelevant to your original point anyway. You claim it is irresponsible and immature to have children you cannot support. Most people who have children in the UK are not entirely supporting their own children. The state is supporting them through benefits.

Not AT WORK, obviously, but you only get maternity pay if you were working when you became pregnant.

I don't know about CTC as we don't claim them. Seems a bit weird to call them tax credits if they are nothing to do with the tax system.

Well the state are not supporting my children. I support my children myself.

I do think it is irresponsible and immature to have children you cannot afford to support yourself. Why should someone else pick up the bill for you?

My point is that in a less generous country young mothers still come out well overall.

Why wouldn't that be true here? There is no more motivation to not work here? If you get PG at 15 you are not entitled to any benefits AT ALL. Even Child Benefit will be paid to your parents. You won't be entitled to CTC or WTC, you won't get maternity pay, or help with childcare costs (which some young parents do). You won't be entitled to a council house.

There only way to provide for themselves if the father or parents won't is by working.

brambrack - there is a major inequality between wages and living costs in this country. It is something tiny like only the top 10% of families earning are not actually entitled to any tax credits, or CB once the cap comes in at all. Everybody else has been assessed by the current government as still needing that money to meet basic costs of living.

None of this has anything to do with teenage parents except that they are obviously, at 16, or 19 much less likely to be in that top 10%.

Personally, I've found I get reverse judged. I got married at 21 and became pregnant at 22, and all I heard during my pregnancy was that I'd done it all in the wrong order, if I'd waited to get married until after DD was born then I'd have a lovely council house, benefits etc, wasn't I silly for being so old-fashioned?

Whatever you do, someone will judge you. The only part that bothers me is people being so vocal about it, pipe down and do it over coffee with your friends

Barmbrack, if the 90% of parents who are supported by the government stopped having children the UK population structure would collapse.