The rise of single parent families

[speedymama]

BBC website have a story on the increasing numbers of single parent households and it is being discussed on the Have Your Say forum. My mouth fell open when I read some postings and I thought I would share them here. Please note that as usual, there is no mention of the fathers.

"The problem here is that many girls don't have the morals or self-respect to keep their legs shut. This lack of morals and lack of respect then permiates into the world at large - which is what causes the problem.

The stark fact is that in 21st century britain, becoming a single parent is clearly the best career option open to a large number of teenage girls.

"Of course it matters. Social decay courtesy of poor parenting and a weak Government.

If you are not in a committed relationship, don't have children.

If you are intent on being a single parent career sponger, don't have children as an economy enhancer.

I'm fed up with paying for other peoples social mistakes. Come on Britain!!"

That has to depend purely on the individual, I would never force my child to have one- neither would I prevent it, give info and retire is imo all you can do on this one.

I can't find that on the BBC site. Can someone post a link pls? Will come back and read this thread properly later.

It does piss me off at times though. I have probably worked harder than a lot of non parents but they still tar us all with the same brush.

cote, if you think a termination is the answer to teenage pregnancy then you are very wrong. I had an abortion and it was the start of my problems not the end of them.

Have read most of the thread now (although still not found the bit on the bbc).

I think the problem lies in the choices for young single mums. I'm not saying that they should automatically get free everything including education, but it seems like once they have a baby and make once choice they are trapped. I think there should be more opportunity for such girls to continue their education if they want to so that they can try to improve their situation rather than being stuck in the lower end jobs or no jobs at all situation.

I do think it sad though that many don't seem to want to improve their situation. Having my DD young made me even more determined to want to do well (OK I probably had more support & my now ex-OH was around the whole time even tho we didn't live together) but had I been kicked out or whatever I would have been even more determined to do well & prove other people wrong rather than just accepting my fate as it were. If you want to do something badly enough then I think it is possible to do it one way or another, although it will take sacrifices.

I don't see a problem with people being on benefits if they really need it or if they are forced to make a choice which means they end up having to have them or if it's the only possibly option. It's more the people who can't be bothered to try to do anything else that's annoying.

I am now actually quite proud of being a now single, teenage (although not a teenager any more) mother. Why shouldn't I be?!

Peachy - Nobody is talking about "forcing" teenagers, especially our own DDs, into abortions. However, I would try very hard to convince my DD not to carry any accidental pregnancy to term. It is no secret that teens "think" with their hormones and romantic perceptions of the world, and it is only my duty as her mother to introduce the reality into her future plans.

giddy - Sorry to hear you were traumatised by your teenage abortion. I had one too in my twenties and never regretted it.

Still, you have to admit that 15-16 whatever is not the best age to start a family. And most teenage mothers of our times are not even having the babies as the start of a "family", with a present father, but they are choosing to be single mothers from the onset. That is the time to graduate, get your degree, go out into the world and prove your worth in whatever you choose to do. Having a baby in your teens seriously narrows your options, and while there are exceptional women who have had babies while very young and then have gone on to get their diplomas and strive for great careers, they are in a very small minority.

So, I can't really object to a teenage girl getting an abortion when she accidentally gets pregnant. Why would you?

I am sure we can agree wot disagree on that one Cote

Oh not that I object to one having one at all- I think the situation varoes in each case.

I think Custard has the right idea, get your 14 year old the injection, then they can do what they want, but wont be pg.

If I think my daughter is moving towards this attitude, that is what I will be doing. Just in case.

Teenagers will always have children. Mother Nature and all that - very strong drive to reproduce at the time when you are biologically at your peak. You can try to educate them about other options given the society we live in, and that will work for a lot of people, but there will always be those who are caught out. Not least because teenagers are also not that good, in general, at being organised. So you need a safety net that looks after those teenagers, including access to safe abortion, benefits, education and childcare. Even if you are a hard-hearted Hannah who sees all teenage mothers as feckless, you can't seriously expect babies and children to suffer just to serve your moral outrage, can you?

Single parenthood, though, is a much bigger issue, covering all sorts of people who are not together with the other parent for all sorts of reasons.

FWIW my mother was a single parent for about 10 years while we were young. Only time she was on benefits was when she was made redundant and became seriously ill (ironically as a result of having an operation carried out using her former employer's private health insurance). I don't have any problems with other people being on benefits for whatever reason. Anyone who thinks parenthood is an easy option for milking the system is nuts - you still have to have a child to look after all day and night every day and night!

I suppose if you really think about it, our bodies are built to have children at a young age. I started my periods at about 11/12 ish.

No doubt this is because if we lived until we were really supposed to live in 'natural/caveman' times, we would die at about 30.

Still agree with Custy.

true UCM, although our mothers generation started their periosds on average iirc at 15- its been gettinge arlier, to dow ith nutrition etc improving (although there is an alternative debate about a link with hormones in foods).

I didnt start until I was 16, probably because I had an eating disorder then.

But there could be an argument here that when poeple say 'oooh you never had 12 years old geting pg in my day' it was also the case that you didn't usually get 12 year olds menstruationg then either. With all the hormones etc that entails.

Edam: very well put. WHat is depressing about anti-single-mum arguments is that they always boil down to this idea that it's possible to live a life of luxury as a single parent on benefits (yeah, right) and that nearly everyone who is on benefit, with the exception of the bigot's own hard-working grandmother or something, is a cheat, or a liar, or bone idel.
Sure, there are always going to be some people committing fraud, but there's only so much difficulty-making and abuse of the non-fraudsters that is reasonable to tolerate.

I don't know anyone who would seriously say people on benefits can live in luxury. But it IS possible to get pregnant at a very young age, and to have a standard of living which is beyond that of many older parents, who try to behave responsibly. That's the point i made in my earlier email about the young teenage mum we had at school who has never worked, and who must at least be getting enough benefits to wear expensive trainers and to smoke!! We need a sensible system which acts as a safety net without encouraging people to lose motivation and become too dependent. It's about balance. Really it comes down to having a bigger differential between being on benefits and working. I mean, it's all relative isn't it - we judge how well off we are compared to what other people have got. If benefits remain at the same level, and the minimum wage is increased significantly, people will be far more motivated to work. Add to this other measure , eg extending amount of free childcare, making child care tax deductible, and the economy would be far healthier. Things are moving in the right direction (may not seem like it at times, but those of you with older children will remember a time when paid maternity leave was 3 months and there were NO free nursery places). This shouldn't be an issue which sets people against eachother, it's about creating a fair and equitable society.

madames, re "WHat is depressing about anti-single-mum arguments is that they always boil down to this idea that it's possible to live a life of luxury as a single parent on benefits"

No they don't, actually, especially since in the last part of this thread, we have been talking about "teenage single mothers" rather than "single mothers" in general, because it has been agreed a bit down that anyone can become a "single mother" (through death, divorce, etc).

What we are saying is that it is possible to live A life as a single parent on benefits, which is by no means a life of "luxury" but a life of independence and financial support. A teenager unhappy at home might very well CHOOSE this life, to have a baby and her own home and some money every month, to be provided by the state.

It is not the cleverest lifestyle choice (imho) but many teenage girls are obviously making it. Hormones etc just don't explain it, given the much lower rate of teenage pregnancies and teenage mothers in other developed countries. The way to decrease the number of teenage mothers is to make the social support system less favorable, while still providing the basics - like the suggestion earlier that the council homes should be collective dormitories.

Coted'Azur: is it not at least as likely, if not more so, that teenagers get pregnant because they fall for men's bullshit about how "lovely" it would be to have a baby together? Or, indeed, that the boyfriends who impregnated them in the first place might do so in a romantic (if impractical) state of mind and then be prevented from trying to support their girlfriends by their own parents (as said boyfriends are only tenagers themselves). It's also true that teenagers are very fertile, so more likely to become pregnant through either a contraceptive mishap or taking a chance, than an older woman - and yes, some teenagers may choose to get pregnant because they feel hopeless, worthless and unloved but believe a baby will love them unconditionally.
Teenage girls are, after all, human beings: generally they are particularly emotional and a shade more vulnerable than adults. I do find this vindictive attitude towards them very depressing as, while there may be a small number who are idle, calculating and fraudulent, the majority deserve pity rather than further punishment.

hope

they deserve hope - not pity. that is where we as a society fall down. we castigate them or pity them - but as parents as a society ont he whole we are piss poor at telling them how wonderful and capable they are and informing them of the miriad of choices available to them for their adult life to come

well said custy- extremely valid point

madames, re: 'teenagers get pregnant because they fall for men's bullshit about how "lovely" it would be to have a baby together?'

You are seriously suggesting that there are many teenage boys out there who can't wait to become fathers? Really?

Even in the hypothetical (and surely minority) case you describe, it is ultimately the girl's responsibility to decide on her own future. If teenagers knew that they would not be given a house and a monthly cheque if the guy buzzed off after the birth, you bet there would be far less girls taking that bet on some guy they just met.

In the unlikely case that contraceptives don't work, condoms break, etc there is something called an abortion that is still an option.

Personally, I don't pity teenage mothers. Theirs is not a choice I made nor would I wish it on my own DD, but it is the life they have chosen. What could tip the balance on that decision is making single teenage motherhood a less attractive option to them.

Absolutely CoteDazur. It's not about pitying them, or being vindictive at all. These are just emotive words used by people to cover up the lack of coherent argument. Even if we're not SURE whether it would reduce teenage pregnancies, surely in the tide of rising numbers, it's at least worth trying other strategies. If a teenage mother and her baby were fed, clothed, given practical advice and support within the context of some kind of 'sheltered housing', but wasn't provided with the kind of money to squander on fags and nights out all the time, and alongside this, teenagers who study, go off to college or go into the world of work were seen to achieve a SIGNIFICANTLY higher standard of living,I think we'd fairly rapidly see a reversal. It wouldn't be such an attractive option to get pregnant and expect the state to support you, and it WOULD be an attractive option to work towards independence, thus gaining a better foundation for parenthood in the future.

Well, while I think it would undoubtedly be a good thing for teenagers to see all their childfree peers going off to wonderful university courses and terrific, well-paid jobs, I wonder just how that is to be managed? Seeing as the reality for a lot of teenagers is that university means running up huge debts in the pursuit of a degree which does not guarantee any kind of job at the end of it, and the bulk of the jobs which are on offer for teenagers Ie people who have little or no experience of paid employment, tend to be the boring, low-status, badly paid, dead-end ones. And this is not just a matter of teenagers having no work ethic: it's more about how appalllingly badly some corporations treat, and pay, their workers. Perhaps a higher minimum wage would be a good idea, in general.

Also, where is the funding to come from for these care homes or young-mothers' homes? Bear in mind that if the inhabitants are to be supervised or taught work skills then paid staff have got to be employed as well as suitable premises acquired and fitted out: this is a project that would probably end up costing the taxpayer more than it costs to maintain the same number of people on IS/JAS/HB etc.

Totally agree that many 'university' courses these days are a waste of time, and that trying to get half the population a degree has simply lowered standards. Also agree that some jobs are terribly badly paid and employers can be dreadful. This links with what I was saying madamez. Teenagers need to be encouraged, and rewarded for, working hard, gaining qualifications and placing themselves in a position to contribute to society. What incentive is there, as you rightly say, for a teenager to go off to college and end up in debt, or go out to work for a pittance and then have the insult of paying tax to support non-working teenage mothers? We need a total reversal of policy and thinking. To have the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Europe, there must be reasons why this is the case.

madamez - Perhaps unintentionally, you have just described the rationale for choosing to be a state-supported teenage mum. Why go through all the hassle of paying for higher education, exams, and not even having job guarantee in the end? Or get stuck in a "boring, low-status, badly paid, dead-end" job?

Better to throw the pills away and get preggy next month and get a house of my own, and a monthly cheque, all of which will probably add up to a life I couldn't possibly afford if I were to go working full time on minimum wage.

Isn't it?

And THERE is the crust of the problem. That this option exists.

And the solution is obvious: Revise the system so that this option is no longer as attractive.

Ebenezer: quite, more needs to be done to make employers take fair and reasonable care of employees doing the shelf-stacking, floor-cleaning, bottom-wiping work. Which means a living minimum wage, some sort of job security and proper health and safety standards. Because in way too many unskilled jobs, you're working for slightly less than the minimum wage, can be dismissed with no notice and may well be working overlong hours in unsafe conditions. It's important to bear this sort of thing in mind when slagging off teenagers who see benefits as a better option.
Because, Cote d'Azur, just because some teenagers think that the life of a single parent on benefits is the best option they possibly have, does not justify making that life compulsorily miserable as opposed to trying to improve the lot of all the low-paid. Especially for the ones who didn't choose to live like that - not just "some" of the mothers, but all of the children.

For the final time, cos this is getting boring, NO ONE has suggested making their life miserable (apart from you who had the idea of telling them daily how stupid they are, which I actually find a pretty offensive idea). What CoteDazur, myself and countless others are trying to discuss is ways of making society FAIRER and more EQUITABLE for EVERYBODY- including the many parents in their 30s and 40s and all THEIR babies who often have very little choice/control in their lives.

I haven't read the whole thread but I think, TBH, that many families listed as 'single parent' aren't.

As a single parent you can get housing and council-tax benefit.

As a couple it is a lot more difficult.

I don't think the UK does have a high percentage of single parent families. I think there are many two parent families who list themselves as single in order to gain benefits. And who can blame them?