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?

Well, laWeasel obviously that is bonkers and I am sorry to hear our economic system is so screwed up.

I am not in the top 10% of earners but we don't claim CTC. Perhaps we are 'entitled' to it but I prefer to support my own kids and not be a drain on the state.

the younger and less well-educated you are the less likely you are to be able to support your family. Those who choose to start their families at 15, 16, 17 are the very least likely to be able to support themselves and their children and the most likely to take out of the benefits system without putting back through their taxes.

The impression that so many of these young parents give is that the world 'owes them a living'. Well it does not. Obviously once the children are conceived, we have to look after them, but I just wish many more young people were taking responsibility for themselves and making the choice instead to be in a position to support their own children before they begin to have them.

'The UK population structure would collapse'

You know as well as I do that there are a minority of parents who disproportionately draw on the state to support themselves and their families. I do not ask that people do not have children at all, just that they do not have children they cannot afford to house, feed and clothe.

You are just hair splitting. It is irrelevant who is more or less able to support their own children when hardly any parents do provide for their children financially without help from the state.

You are also failing to provide any evidence that over the course of their life, younger mothers pay less in tax than older mothers. Although that research can't really be carried out, because you would have to look at women who are now retiring, and they generally didn't say 'I'll not have a child until I'm 35 and my fertility is in decline, because it would be immature to claim family allowance.'

I was thinking about this yesterday. I went down a pretty conventional route, uni, career, marriage, first child at 30. And to be honest, I can see now that having children earlier might not have been the disaster I thought it would be. I am a SAHM, and by the time I go back to work will have to completely retrain. If I had had my children earlier I could have been starting my new career so much earlier.

Obviously money is an issue - I would not, in all likelihood, have been able to be a SAHM in my early 20's.

But I think this idea that you need to enjoy freedom first and then have children is a bit crap. I didn't really love my teens and 20's - I was insecure and a bit rubbish really. I wonder if having children earlier would have given me the kick up the arse I needed, and if it would have been better to have the freedom in my late 30's and 40's.

I think the answer is there is no perfect solution. Certainly having children in your 30's comes with it's own drawbacks.

Even if younger parents require more support from the state, there is no reason to assume that in their later years, when the children are older, they won't contribute as much as most adults do.

It depends how young. I would say average age for a parent would be 20 - 25. I think 30 is old for a first time parent and I was shocked that people had babies in their 40s as frequently as you hear on here.

I have met a couple of people who did that but people would be very surprised to see a first time mum with baby at 40 than at aged 20 here.

Average family total wage is around the 40k mark if you need some perspective on just how many people are entitled to support.

It's up to you if you chose not to claim, but depending on where you live the choice can be taken away by crippling housing and transport costs. Yes, our economic system is a bit fucked in this regard.

But you haven't given me any evidence that young parents feel the world owes them a living (no one has posted here saying so!) and I have never met anyone who has said that (although I have met many an older person who has told me about how much tax they've paid and what they deserve and I don't - even though we pay tax too?!)

this is an english book about positive outcomes from teenage parents

Milly, it is not irrelevant.

I would be ashamed if I had children I could not afford to feed and clothe and house without taking money from the state to do so.

The fact that many people take a small amount does not make it better for those who have to be given everything because they made poor decisions in their lives early on.

The reason people 'judge' young parents is because the decisions they have made are selfish and cost society dearly. It may be horrible to say and to hear but it is true. These children are often also disadvantaged in later life themselves: for e.g of research see:

"Studies have also examined the consequences of teen motherhood for children. For example, Kristin Moore and associates compared outcomes among children of teen and nonteen mothers, using a set of standard statistical controls in their analyses for maternal background factors and other characteristics. They found that children of teen mothers experienced a significantly lower quality home environment, and children born to teens aged seventeen or younger were at a significant disadvantage with respect to cognitive development and academic achievement."
Moore, Kristin, Donna Morrison, and Angela Greene. "Effects on the Children Born to Adolescent Mothers." In Rebecca Maynard ed., Kids Having Kids. Washington DC: Urban Institute Press, 1997.

And sorry, to clarify, by 'young' I am referring to those who have children at 15/16/17.

Average age for a first baby is 31 noodle. IIRC

This has got some interesting points regarding teenage pregnancies:
www.communities.gov.uk/documents/corporate/doc/561091.doc

'Average age for a first baby is 31 noodle. IIRC'

Not here it is not! Definitely not 31 would be seen as very old.

Oh I give up.

You're not interested in the truth Bram, only justifying your own PoV.

I would just like to state that I am a young(almost, not due till June!)mum, I am 19, I live with my partner who is 21, have been with him for 4 and a half years, we both work, we have a mortgage and we don't have any benefits whatsoever.

I have just finished doing a Young Expectants Parents course, and there was a whole unit of work to do entirely about what benefits you're entitled to as a young parent. There was absolutely NOTHING about earning an honest wage. I was very :( to think that the people who wrote the course didn't think about that proportion of us.

Across the country! I'm sure it varies area to area. At my NHS postnatal group I was youngest at 21, and oldest was about 30 with everyone else spread out between.

Did you speak to your course supervisor Melly? You're right that was very stupid of them!

I had my first at 21 so not exactly a teenager but was often mistaken for one must be my youthful glow I used to get plenty of comments and dirty looks, maybe I still do, but I don't notice them anymore.

People judge you no matter what you do. "Young" mum? Must be a benefit scrounger? First time mum at 40+? Selfish cow, think of all the problems you could saddle yourself and baby with. TTC in your mid to late 30's? Tick tock, haven't got much time you know. Should have hurried up finding your "Mr Right" instead of focusing on your career.... and so it goes on. Don't seem to be a perfect age to have them nowadays in anyone's eyes.

Hold on LaWeasel - what truth have I failed to acknowledge?

I do agree that the economic system is fucked.

I also agree that it is not black and white, there is a sliding scale of need and many need a bit.

All this I acknowledge. My ire is directed at those who know they have no way to support children but still go ahead and make that choice.

I am happy to have my PoV challenged. I wish I didn't feel so judgy about it, tbh.

Yeah here it is strange if you wait to your 30s.I work in a nursery and we have 2 parents that are in their 30s. In my old nursery we didnt have any first time mums at 30. I also had no 30 years old who were on their first child in any of my baby groups.

So where I am you it would be different if you waited till 30. Everyone gets on the backs of people who havent had kids by about 25/26 here and want to know why not.

The teacher was a MW, But at the end of every unit there was a 'reflective diary' to write our personal thoughts and comments, I bet you can't guess what I wrote in that particular units diary :o

I also had a rant about the crappy use of the apostrophe in one of the diarys. They used them all wrong! They always wrote baby's instead of babys'. So nothing really made sense. There was something about a babys' development and they kept saying stuff like "blah blah a positive attitude to baby's development blah blah." I just kept thinking, baby is development???

The truth is:

There are a lot of reasons why girls get pregnant at genuinely young ages 14/15/16 and a lot of these are extremely unpleasant. (The American article quoted 62% pregnancies under 16 to girls who had been sexually abused!) Those girls need help and support not to be judged.

Teenagers getting pregnant at 17/18/19 and over are a completely different economic and socialogical entity. They are in exactly the same position and able to support themselves as well as anyone else and there should be no assumption that just because somebody is 18 and pregnant they are dependent on the government as there are also hundreds of other explanations! They legally could have been out of school and working 2 years already, supported by a spouse anything really.

It's not fair to lump in the same two age groups.

And neither deserve to be judged. Yes the first group generally provide poorer outcomes for their children, but the second group DON'T. And even if a particular girl is in the first group it doesn't mean that they personally will struggle or will be reliant on government cash. Even if that is their intention, as a foolish teenage who has had such a crap life that they deliberate get pregnant because they can't see a better option at 15years old - with positive intervention they can and still have a good 60years more of their lives to be more than that.

Judging is hugely counter productive.

"baby's development" is the correct use of an apostrophe where it refers to the development of one baby. "babys'" development is the development of more than one baby.

If it was one unit's diary, you forgot the apostrophe. The diary belongs to the unit does it not? Not saying I am brilliant at grammer, but had to say something as you were saying the use of apostrophes was wrong.

melly 19. Was there nothing about work options at all? Or even tax credits that can be claimed andused towards childcare if you work enough hours? Or how to arrange money between you if you have a partner? Or how to continue with education?