Check out this amazing profile of 20-year-old Charlie Rose (I know, crazy name), a teen mom and Smith student who is doing amazing work countering old, tired stereotypes about teen moms. An excerpt:
When she decided to have a child at 15 years old, Rose says that her biggest obstacle was not the physical pregnancy itself, which she describes as "easy," "wonderful" and "delightful," nor was it the financial burden - all of Cae's clothes and cloth diapers were handed down, and Rose made her own baby food. Instead, the hardships came from the labels and stigma attached to her decision."For some reason," she says, "people have very visceral responses to teen pregnancy. It's sort of the unifying issue, because everyone thinks that teen moms are awful. It challenges the idea of adulthood that we've established, the idea that teenagers are always irresponsible... From a patriarchal state, teen mothers are threatening because women are supposed to belong to their fathers until they belong to their husbands."
Thanks to J. Courtney Sullivan for the heads up.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Thank You Thursday: Teen Mom Counters Cliches with Badassery.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12970
This is interesting and refreshing. Thanks.
Charlie goes to my school (Smith College) and is in one of my classes that covers topics on Law, the Family and how it interacts with the State. She is incredible smart, devoted and strong. She truly is a role model for mothers everywhere, whether they are teen moms or older.
Are her parents supporting her while she's at Smith? If so, she should probably give them a shout out.
AC means she's an Ada Comstock scholar (non-traditional student). So no, her parents are not involved in paying for her education.
I agree that Charlie Rose comes off as an incredibly smart, savy woman, with a refreshing take on teen motherhood. I also agree that teen mothers in our culture face an enormous number of negative stereotypes regardless of their intentions or ability to mother.
That said...who is paying for her to go to Smith? And who is paying for the raw materials with which she makes her own baby food? The stereotypes that teenage moms are often broke, without resources to properly parent, and unable to continue school do come from somewhere...
I kind of agree. I mean, there is no doubt in my mind that a woman of any age can do anything when she puts her mind to it -- and as long as she has the resources to move forward. I know girls I went to high school with who became pregnant as teenagers, and they did not have the same resources as this bright, young woman -- unfortunately.
Agreed. While its marvelous that her choice to be a teen mom turned out so well, she could have just as easily been kicked out of her parent's house and had to drop out and work at McDonald's to pay the bills. I certainly don't think she's a role model. I'd hate for some 15 year old girl to see this and think "hey, a baby sounds awesome!" and get a rough wake up call when they don't end up quite so lucky.
Yeah, I don't think she's a role model for childless 15yo kids--i don't think any kid has the requisite experience, maturity & judgment to make that decision for themselves...but for those girls who find themselves single mothers, she's a role model demonstrating that there are still bright opportunities ahead of them.
I was actually going to forward the article to a couple of my nieces in the same situation...One considered a scholarship set up for young single mothers that would allow her to attend college & then law school; she ultimately didn't pursue it because she didn't think she could do it, she just gave up on herself. I wish she hadn't.
uh. the article says nothing about her resources, but i very close friends with her, and she has entirely made it on her own. entirely. she is impressive, has been self-supporting from a very young age, and made it work. you are contributing to the same stereotypes that she is seeking to undermine by assuming that the only way she could have succeeded is with parental support.
feminist fail, imo.
Who pays for anyone, mother or not, to go to school? I can't imagine going to school while having a child but really, time would be the bigger issue to me. If someone has the time to breastfeed and wash cloth diapers and is able to get a lot of things used, then tuition sounds a lot more expensive than a baby.
I've tutored teen moms and hearing them talk about their kids and how much they love them helped take away some of the stigma I had against teen moms. I can also think of people who were teen moms who probably shouldn't have kept their babies but I don't think they are the norm. It's unfortunate our society isn't great at making sure parents make enough to clothe and feed their children and can go to school for cheap because aside from some necessities, what does a child need besides feeling wanted and loved?
what does a child need besides feeling wanted and loved?
1) day care. costs me $190 a week and is even more for an infant.
2) medical care. my daughter is covered by insurance, but copays are still $25, medications are $10 or more each. the three emergency room visits we've had have been a couple hundred apiece. definitely not chump change.
3) gas or bus fare from hauling them around to daycare/school. also adds up.
4) toys/school supplies/etc. even though i get lots of things used and pass her things on when she's outgrown them, that stuff adds up FAST.
5) after i couldn't breastfeed anymore, formula was almost $200 a month.
tuition more expensive than a baby? perhaps so; i got scholarships to attend my state universities rather than a private school like smith. i qualify for more stafford loans because i have a dependent, as well.
but....damn. kids are expensive. and even more than that, they're time-consuming.
time and energy-
&
buckle your seat belt for the teen yrs -
Day care IS expensive. I think the teen moms I worked with got it subsidized or something or else I don't know how they would've went to school. Medical care should be free and hopefully will be in America soon. Here at least, kids get on the bus free until they're 6.
Of course in my IDEAL world it would be entirely possible to raise a baby cheaply. That is if daycare were free and all cities had big enough bike paths for pulling kids behind and good transit where kids get on free. There are places where having a kid doesn't automatically equal needing a car.
Here (NY), babies under a certain age can ride transportation for free provided they sit in their paying parent's lap. Whether or not said parent is actually courteous and responsible enough to play by the rules and actually have the child sit in their lap instead of, say, rolling around on the seat and kicking the person on the opposite side without reprimand, is another story. And another rant.
But I believe this kid is 5 and probably doesn't fall under that category. But he may also be in school now and ride that bus.
I imagine she gets financial aid in the form of grants from her college, perhaps a Pell grant from the government, and private and/or federal student loans, plus some help from her parents if they can afford it.
Which is exactly how I paid for college. Why is it suddenly an issue just because she's a parent? Are you seriously suggesting women with children aren't deserving of financial aid or help from their families?
Adas usually get financial aid in the form of grants, loans, and scholarships.
Wow, really interesting story. An unexpected pick me up. Don't know that I agree with the overall message--it takes an uncommon amount of focus & fortitude to live her life this way--but her strength is certainly admirable, and encouraging! Hope she has the best of luck.
I'm going to get attacked for saying this, but a 15 years old girl deciding to have a baby at such a young age? Wow... I just find that really sad.
You won't get attacked by me. I'm calling BULL on this one. Yes, it's great that it worked for her. But as an example to other 15 year olds, it's the equvalent of saying, " I jumped out a plane without a parachute and didn't die. Others can too!" A 15 year old can't drive, vote or be held to a contract. She can't acquire credit , rent an apartment or make the medical decisions for the child in many places.
Good for her that it worked out, but let's not make her out to be a shining example. I look at hundreds of young women who made this same decision and it is incredibly difficult for them. This is not something we want to encourage. And as for the patriarchy argument, This isn't about sexism. This is about the fact this is just a bad idea.
Good for her that it worked out, but let's not make her out to be a shining example. I look at hundreds of young women who made this same decision and it is incredibly difficult for them. This is not something we want to encourage. And as for the patriarchy argument, This isn't about sexism. This is about the fact this is just a bad idea."
THANK YOU. (Also, seconding what Salad/BrownTrashPunk said)
Jesus, editors, can't you reject the idea of isolating/shaming teen mothers without endorsing the notion that 15 year-olds having kids is just peachy? How many teen mothers can really follow Charlie's example without contributing enormous sums of money towards this? What about prevention/education on the off chance teen moms do NOT have high chances of a fairy tale ending? Do people bear any responsibility for their lives?
"From a patriarchal state, teen mothers are threatening because women are supposed to belong to their fathers until they belong to their husbands."
What an intellectually dishonest crock.
I guess if you have ANY problem with the notion of teen mothers (again...how many teen mothers can actually do what Charlie did?), you must be an irrational misogynist, not someone with a legitimate concern for the children or the taxpayers who DO usually have to step in (especially if the teen mother is poor before the pregnancy and only has the skills to get a minimum wage job, with no day care/health benefits). I suppose if the parents of single children suffer, the blame rests fully on society for not throwing more and more money at this.
Kudos to Charlie--I don't think that one's fate is set in stone if they have children in their teens but that last quote equating complicity with "patriarchy" and being at all unsettled by teen parenthood/parents who DON'T think about the long-term commitment beforehand is bullshit.
And another thing--I'm all for improving the minimum wage,educational opportunities and the safety net, but time and time again this site seems to use stories like this to wave off any and all concerns regarding teen parents as "patriarchal."
Nicholas Kristof got it, albeit in global context,not simply American.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/opinion/05kristof.html?_r=1
as a fairly young mama myself (i was 20 when i had my daughter), i think this is great. the stigma attached to being a young/teen mom is annoying and disheartening, and i think it's wonderful she's saying "hey, i got pregnant at 15, decided to keep the baby, and i'm still pursuing my dreams." good for her.
The problem that I see with this is that it could encourage other young girls to follow her path.
I had my son when I was 20. He is 2 now and since I became pregnant my life has really fallen into place and things have come together better than I ever could have imagined. The problem is that it might not have turned out this way. I was not ready for a baby when I got pregnant. While things may have turned out great, that does not change the fact that my original decision to have a baby at 19 was an irresponsible decision. There is no guarantee things are going to turn out well and choosing to have a baby so young is just stacking the odds against you.
I'm happy for her, but bothered by her message. I would never tout how amazing it is being a young mother for fear others would follow my lead and things would not turn out the same way for them.
glad to know I'm not the only one who feel that way about her.
Me too.
concur.
i'm sure most of us remember a lot of stupid shit from 15-year-old girls in high school. to think of those people also being responsible for the welfare of another person blows my mind. it's wonderful that this girl is proving that it can work out well. but the reason there's a stigma is that there's also thousands of girls for whom things haven't been so rosy.
not to mention, i'm in my third year of graduate school, and i've been a single mom the whole time (though i'm getting married in december). let me tell you, even though i'm sure you know: having a kid and going to school full-time is HARD. i would NEVER have been able to do this without a LOT of help from my mother, both financially (even though i have scholarships and student aid) and in terms of time. my professors have been understanding when i've brought my daughter to my classes because her school closes at six, and class goes until 9, or when i have to miss because she's sick. but this is FUCKING HARD and i think it actually demonstrates irresponsibility on this woman's part to encourage this for anyone. hillary was right when she said IT TAKES A VILLAGE. this woman makes it sound like he's doing this all on her own without help. that, to me, is even more offensive than her not mentioning her financial situation.
Charley might be the subject, but the journalist determines the story...You can't really blame Charley for the reporter's choice of where to focus. Apparently she wanted to write a human interest piece, not a financial statement.
well, if the reporter is leaving something out, then that's certainly a problem.
but charlie made numerous statements (such as talking about marrying the baby's father then leaving him because he was a bad parent) that indicated no one else helped her, or at least, no one she considered worth mentioning. if she's doing all that she's doing, then that kid's in preschool while she's in class, or being watched by a nanny, or what have you. she has to have a support network of some sort, but from her statements, it seems that she didn't think it was important to acknowledge that network.
THAT is what i think is really sad here. YES, it is possible to be a single mother of a toddler in college. i'm doing it right now. but *i promise* it is hard, and that support from other people (time and money) is vital to the effort. if she is going to encourage other women to have children young and assert that she is a role model, as it seems she is doing, then i think she has omitted the ***most important*** piece of advice. i consider it the height of irresponsibility to promote something like teen motherhood without being frank about what it will take to succeed.
I don't really feel like she is promoting teen pregnancy. I think she's just saying that all teen pregnancies aren't like the negative stereotypes. Teen moms can be responsible and make good decisions for their children, and that's not given a lot of publicity these days. As for the role model thing, I figure that she thinks of herself as a role model for other *already pregnant* teens, not for your regular teen who's not about to have a baby.
offensive? it's her obligation to mention her financial situation? (which happens to be WAY less privileged than you're assuming...)
the fact is, it does take a village. people watch cae because we love charlie, and because we love him. and of course, charlie's lucky to be in a supportive community, but she's also made it work for herself (gotten herself here, put together this community) and she really does deserve all of the admiration that the article provides.
no, i think if she's going to hold herself up as a role model, she ***is obliged*** to make it known what strategies she uses to do what she does because she is advocating a lifestyle that has the potential to destroy the futures of girls/women who aren't prepared for motherhood. if she's going to go out on a limb like that, she needs to talk about how she deals with the situation.
my point is that she ***has*** to have a lot of help, and she didn't make any mention of it. none. no "my friends watch him while i'm in class, my sister fills in when i'm sick," nothing.
as i said, i feel it is irresponsible to encourage teen motherhood without being honest about what one might need to succeed.
Make up your mind. Either she "made it on her own," as you said earlier, or she has a support network that helps her handle childcare and, I'm sure, a great deal of other things.
In fact, nobody ever "makes it on their own" (and nor should they have to). But to idealize somebody by claiming they've magically supported themselves with no outside help, somebody who made a dangerous decision that just happened to turn out okay for her, is intellectually and politically dishonest. The fact that you yourself had to turn around only a few comments later and admit that she gets a hefty heap of help from her buddies gives the lie to your idealized image of your friend's decision.
you're so right! it's too bad young girls are incapable of making their own decisions.
oh wait. they aren't. and that's THE WHOLE POINT of the article.
way to ignore facts in order to maintain your prejudice.
Interesting story, and Charlie seems like she's really got it together. Good for her for choosing to have and raise her child and go to Smith and rep for all teen moms. Still, I have seen lots of teens of color and teens who weren't able to attend school, who are also incredible moms, but I get the sense that they are looked on with a lot more judgment and anger by the public at large. I don't mean that to be so negative. Given her hard work at shedding the stigma of teen pregnancy, she doesn't deserve my cynicism. It's just that I feel vaguely annoyed at who gets to be the spokesperson for teen moms (though, to be fair, I realize that this article was just a profile of a student run in a college newsaper).
Good for her for choosing to have and raise her child and go to Smith and rep for all teen moms.
Because if she'd had an abortion or given the baby up for adoption then her going to Smith would mean nothing and she'd have no experiences to rep about? Please. She could be an advocate in any of those situations.
No, because it's an accomplishment to be able to do all those things at once. I was trying to give the woman some credit because I recognize she's accomplished something difficult even though I think she's only one of many many many women do the same thing and get far less credit for it every day.
You way read into what I'm saying. She and/or the author of the piece were the ones who made a point to say she "chose" to have the baby. I'm just using their language.
According to the article, Rose's own web site states, "The only true epidemic associated with teen pregnancy is the overwhelming and universal lack of support available to young mothers." Knowing this fact while holding herself out to be a "role model" (her words) strike me as incredibly irresponsible. She's bucked the odds. Good for her and her son. But in my opinion she's at least as privileged as she is badass.
Sometimes I feel "privilege" gets thrown around in a really condescending way on this site. This is one of those times, and its coming from a number of posters.
Reading the article it sounds as if she was essentially (if not legally) emancipated from her parents while still in HS, so it doesn't sound as if she has mommy/daddy's $$$ supporting her. What I think is more likely is that she earned scholarships and Smith granted her financial aid. There's also Pell Grants, school loans, food stamps, and welfare. I've always called this a social safety net, but maybe its called "privilege" now. On top of that the girl has the good sense to know how to earn a dollar and stretch a nickel. Lots of people work themselves through school, some raise kids during school, and some do both. I had a friend do the exact same thing for both Rice & University of Chicago Law School. If you're resourceful & blessed sometimes you just dig deep & get it done.
Really no offense meant, but the way "privilege" gets said around here it sounds more like, "I'm jealous [of person X]". Sorry for sounding so preachy, but I hate to see us tear a hard working young woman down like this. If the student reporter didn't dwell on the woman's resources & bank statements, blame the reporter not the woman.
I’m not offended, and I don’t think you come off as “preachy.” But I do believe that you and I use the term “privilege” in slightly different, but crucial, respects. You seem to equate being “privileged” with being financially well-off or at least comfortable. I agree that’s often a huge component, maybe even the primary component of privilege, but there’s a hell of a lot more to it than that. When I described Ms. Rose as privileged, I was referring more to her appearance. She appears to be white and conventionally attractive. That gives her a privilege in our society. Period. It doesn’t mean that all of her life is easy and it doesn’t mean that she doesn’t have to struggle to achieve her goals and it doesn’t mean that she’s not marginalized in other respects. But her privilege does mean that she does not have to face other challenges that other young women who are mothers, but who are not white or conventionally attractive probably have to face. Her privilege may have manifested itself in having school counselors that were willing to make an extra effort for her to get into College. It may have manifested itself in that when she goes into a class room at Smith College, not having to wonder whether she’ll see anyone else in there who looks like her. The article mentions she decided to marry her son’s father in order to make her own medical appointments and open her own bank accounts. That’s a privilege.
yes! (@ sly).
I don't agree completely with her statement anyway. Having been the child of a 17YO mom who went to college full-time and worked full-time, even with a large, supportive extended family it was difficult. I absolutely agree that we need more support systems in place for teen moms, but I don't think that communal support equals a good life.
In my area of the country, many parents are perfectly pleased when their 15- or 16- year olds end up pregnant, but these girls certainly don't defy the odds WRT poverty, lack of education, etc. despite that support.
I agree with everyone else regarding the privilege issues, but let's pass over that for a moment (only a moment, I promise) and dig out something that I do think is pretty right-on -- I think she's absolutely correct that there exists a totally unquestioned stigma attached to teen mothers in society, which views them as unintelligent, irresponsible, and generally "trashy" human beings, with no agency over their lives or their bodies (despite all Sarah Palin's amazing insistence upon her daughter's choice to have her baby). What good can this stigma possibly do? Shouldn't we be educating and providing assistance instead of all this shaming?
Thank you for saying this. The judgemental stuff is disheartening. I fail to see how saying, "Omigod the other girls will be led astray by her taking charge of her life!!!" is any different from those who would shame her for having an abortion, or having sex in the first place.
It's all very easy to judge women for their reproductive decision-making in a public forum. I am just not usd to it here.
I don't think the questioning or criticism of Rose stems from any judgment of her reproductive decision-making. I think it stems from the fact that she seems to be encouraging other young women to make the same choice without full awareness or examination of how incredibly difficult that choice would be.
that's ***exactly*** it.
charlie rose seems like a great mom.
but whatever her life circumstances are, she has some benefits (be they maturity, intelligence, money, legal emancipation, whatever) the vast majority of teen moms don't that make it possible for her to be the mom she wants to be.
to promote herself as a role model for others without assisting others to have those same benefits prepares them only for failure and disappointment....***highly*** irresponsible when children are involved.
i'm not judging her reproductive choices, but i sure am judging her activism choices.
Exactly. We do not know how this young woman makes her situation work financially. My mother, after having me at 17, did the exact same thing that this girl is doing. Mom went through college with a baby strapped to a her back. How? Significant scholarships, student loans, pulling 20 hour days, and yes, getting help. She received some government aid and as much as her working-class family could provide. I fail to see the privileged in that. Yes, many amazing young mothers are not given the same opportunities as this woman and my mom, but that is hardly the fault of her and Mom. Charlie Rose and my mother wanted to be seen and heard to help strike down the stigmas of being young mothers so that other young mothers could have the same opportunities and even an easier time of taking advantage of those opportunities.
KUDOS!!! I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY!!! Isn't this the same story as Obama's mother? Teen mother dumped by father, uses foodstamps, scholarships, and parent's help to get through school & earn Ph.D? Funny, I never thought of that as a privileged lifestyle.
It's sad, frustrating, and downright infuriating that young women like her are perceived in this way, when it's flat out not true.
But I wonder what would happen if we didn't have such a strong stigma attached to it; if there wasn't so much shame associated with it. I think it's generally accepted that teen moms *typically* have to deal with poverty, and can't provide for their children nearly as much as they would want to. If there wasn't as much shame, would teen pregnancy jump? I don't know, but it seems like something important to consider, as a child deserves the best upbringing possible, and it tends to be a much more intelligent choice on the part of the mother to wait, get an education, and have access to higher income professions.
This is a genuine question, not a statement. I cannot imagine dealing with the judgement this girl must suffer, and most girls who conceive at such a young age. It makes me shiver just to imagine being perceived that way constantly, and constantly having to prove oneself.
I don't think it would, honestly -- I think teenagers have much bigger considerations to worry about for something like that than whether the kids at school will be jerks to them. But I also think that, as I said above, our role is to educate, advocate, and assist -- I don't think it's our job to decide who is and is not prepared to have a child (or at the very least, we can kindly keep our disapproval to ourselves). As we engage with teen pregnancy as an issue, we need to keep our view broad, oriented towards societal phenomena on the whole, and avoid all this criticism of this or that individual as irresponsible or trashy or stupid or whatever. Instead, we should continue to advocate for comprehensive sex-ed to better enable teenagers to make their own informed decisions, and also try to make helpful services available to those who are having a hard time trying to balance child-rearing with finishing school, holding down a job, etc etc.
What worries me most is that the article clearly states that she DECIDED TO CONCEIVE at 15.
And? She obviously has access to the resources she needs to care for herself and her child (her parents are helping, I'm guessing?). What exactly is the problem, then?
My name is Victoria and I'm fifteen years old and I don't care what my Mama says - I'm gonna have a baby! I'll do whatever it takes to take care of my baby. I'm gonna dress my baby in all brand names, and if I can't support it then I guess I'm gonna steal it. My Mama thinks that I'm not ready to have a baby, but I have everything my baby will need. If my baby gets cold, it's all right because I have a blanket. If my need clothes, it's cool because I have tons of them. If my baby loses her pacifier, I got three more.
I feel like I ought to be annoyed with this comment but I can't even quite make sense enough to figure out exactly why...?
Maybe because this Veronica girl from Maury says she will steal items for her baby... not as a last resort, just a back-up plan. She also seems to think that brand names are more important than food or shelter. There's plenty to be annoyed and disturbed by in that particular comment.
Having said that, I think that it's obvious the girl quoted in Maury was not ready to have a baby... but that doesn't necessarily mean all 15-year-olds are that naive and immature. On the other hand, I sure wasn't ready for a baby at 15. Damn it, I dunno.
Victoria, I mean. Whoops!
Is that from the Maury show?
Yes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uneIieUrgI
I know this might be construed as ageist, but I don't trust any fifteen year old to be emotionally mature enough or financially stable enough to raise a child on her own. Choosing to conceive strikes me as reckless and ignorant.
hear, hear. I think it's unbelievably SAD that a 15 years old girl wanted to be a mother so she got pregnant on purpose.
Yes, people, it's possible to have a meaningful life and NOT have any children.
Maybe it wasn't a lack of meaning in her life.
I think it's possible for someone to be mature enough and emotionally developed/stable enough to make a decision like this and if she doesn't feel sad about it or regret it then that's fine.
At the same time I think it's incredibly rare for a 15 year old to be this mature - but not impossible. I don't think she's a role model. But I do think there is an unfair stigma against teen pregnancy and this case helps combat that. A lot of teenagers can become great parents, even if they didn't consider themselves ready for the responsibility at the time of conception.
We are all well aware of the prevalence of abstinence only education, anti-abortion legislation etc. and many teen parents are victims of these socially backward mindsets. I don't think she's a victim in this case, and therefore not worthy of pity.
Sooo...my point is she shouldn't be lauded as a role model but I also don't think she's someone to feel sorry for.
It's also possible to have a meaningful life and have children.
I'm not saying I would necessarily want my daughter to have a child at 15, nor am I saying Rose is typical of girls/women her age. But to label her desire to be a mother "SAD" when she herself is obviously happy with her choices is as insulting as the claims of the anti-choice crowd that women who have abortions don't really know what they're doing.
I agree completely. 15 = Young teenager, still living at home, probably doesn't have a job, still in the first half of high school, probably immature, probably underestimating how much work a baby will be.. its just not good. Generalizations obviously, but I didn't know any 15 year olds with an apartment, a decent job, and a life plan.
yeah, i think it is, to be honest. i've known 15 year olds with more compassion, common sense, and emotional strength than most people twice their age.
i think it's possible that the perceived lack of maturity in teenagers comes from being infantized by the adults who control their lives. they are treated like children so why would anyone expect them to act like adults?
please don't compare charlie to that girl from maury. that's ignorant, sexist, ageist, and generally unnecessary. instead, maybe the ease with which you discriminate and make "jokes" of other people's lives should be analyzed. or maybe you should look at the way you're hiding behind the anonymity of the internet in order to poke fun in a way you would probably never do in real life.
"When she decided to have a child at 15 years old,"
It doesn't say that she decided to get pregnant or tried to get pregnant, just that she chose to have the child - like she could have chosen not to have the child.
Oh I see where it says that. nm.
Yeah, I'm really happy that she and her son are doing so well, but the vast majority of teenage mothers don't end up at Smith. Half-baked biological arguments aside, 15 year olds shouldn't be having babies for a multitude of reasons. We shouldn't stigmatize those who do but I'm also not so sure we should be applauding them, either.
Thank you. Jesus. All of this ridiculous praise is making me sick. Of course it's great that this young woman is doing well, and maybe I'm really naive or whatever, but I always thought that the stigma attached to teen motherhood was less about them being "trashy" and more about them being irresponsible and less likely than an actual adult to be able to become educated and be able to provide for their child.
"but the vast majority of teenage mothers don't end up at Smith."
Could it be that a lot of teen moms never saw themselves going to university even before they got pregnant? It's hard to know how much being a teen mom actually changed their future. 15 is pretty young. I believe I read that at least half of teen moms have babies after 16. At that point, one is almost done high school. One could go to community college for two years and get a job if they don't mind some debt. Day care and having enough time seem like the biggest obstacles.
I don't say this to make it sound easy but it is possible. It helps if the father is around of course and sometimes he stays around.
I completely agree. There has to be a more rational way of dealing with teen pregnancy than just saying "Woo-Hoo! She did it! So anyone can!".
Charlie Rose sets an unrealistic standard for most girls who find themselves pregnant at such a young age. Not to belittle her accomplishments, but there is practically no way she could have done this without some serious help (financial, emotional, etc)-- something that a lot of teen mothers don't have. I'm not being ant-feminist; I'm being realistic.
Juno fairytales like this aren't the norm. I'm happy for Charlie Rose, but teen mothers who aren't as fortunate as her shouldn't feel somehow inferior.
Wow, I have very mixed feelings about this piece.
I completely agree with her points about people falsely equating "teen mother" with "bad mother." And the fact that society thinks that being a teen mother means you're damaged goods and you have no future. Schools play a huge part in this, and that's got to stop.
On the other hand, her comments about humans being "hard-wired to continue the species and procreate" and the drawbacks of having children as an older woman do NOT sit well with me -- like motherhood is destiny, so why not get a head start when you're in your biological prime?
(And yes, very valid points about privilege and resources from fellow feministing-ers.)
Thank you for mentioning this, AnatomyFightSong. I'm not bothered by a decision this young woman made for herself, and I'm glad it's worked out so well for her.
But why couldn't we get this message without the subtle digs at other equally valid choices? ("Don't get to meet their grandkids." Psssh.)
While having a child when you are older is a valid choice I do believe having a child when you are younger (but not so young it is physically dangerous for you to be pregnant / give birth) has some advantages. I write as someone who's mother died when I was 11, and she was 35, and also as someone in my mid twenties who has problems with my joints that are getting gradually worse and affecting my mobility. The fact is the younger you have your child (after an age where you can bear children safely) the longer you get to spend with them, the longer they get to have you in their life. If my mother had waited till 30 to have me, I possibly wouldn't have any memories of her. If I wait too long to have children I will not be able to run and play with them. I will not be able to race them, piggyback them or skip with them.
I have not had children yet, but as soon as I find someone I want to have children with, I will not be mucking around, whether my finances are perfect or not. Lets face it there is no perfect time to have children. There are benifits to having your children younger, and to having them at an older age (more financially sound, more mature etc). At the end of the day it is an individual CHOICE, which for me is what feminism is all about - the right to make that choice based on my wants and needs without being condemned for it.
i agree with her and was so so so happy to see such a strong woman breaking down stereotypes of teenage motherhood. i also think it is so important to stop vilifying teen moms and assuming that it is always a horrific situation for those young women.
HOWEVER, i feel stressed that she did not address her privilege. i think that for sure she is a role model but i also think it is important for her, and any other person who is a role model, to be transparent about how they got to be where they are. i certainly dont know about her situation, how she was able to go to college, etc. im not making assumptions about her background...i just wish that she would have been more open about that.
Im glad that she seems happy about her choice, but arguing that teens are "hard-wired" for pregnancy and the fact that she wants to meet her great grandchildren..
Theres are reason why people WAIT to have children. And that reason is almost always financial. Yea shes addressing the social stigma that teenage mothers have to deal with, but what about the financial hardships they encounter? Which is certainly much harder to overcome that "looks" or "comments" people give to teen moms. Why am I getting the sense that Charlie has no idea how insurmountable it would be for so many moms to pay for school, diapers and rent all by themselves? Why wouldnt she even touch upon the subject of money? Maybe because it wasnt an issue she had to deal with?
I NEVER doubted that teens moms love their children less, even at the age of 15. Its just that when the odds are stacked against you, its extremely hard to properly take care of a child. When youre working two jobs and living off food-stamps that wears on a person. Therefore a child's opportunities are slashed. Who can even think about karate lessons or tutors when you have to worry if you can get food on the table or pay for a sitter?
Wait.. "never doubted that teenage moms love their children just as much as an older mom" was what i was trying to say..
But isn't it the duty of the privileged to bring these things to light? Since we have the power to begin with...
Yes, she's white. Yes, she has financial support. Yes, she made the choice to conceive. Of course she doesn't represent the majority of teen parents.
That's not what this article is about. I don't think anyone is looking at her and saying, "Hell yeah, I wants me a baby!" It's about her showing the stigma people have towards teen mothers. Ok, so she's not addressing the financial side of it too. Wasn't there a book *ahem* written about girls over-taxing themselves by trying to do everything?
As a young, white feminist, I feel this pressure constantly. Hell, I'm sure every feminist does. It's so easy to watch someone's efforts and then say, "But you forgot this marginalized group and this one and this one and you didn't even consider how these people would feel about your event." I mean, damn, it's like in college when I would try to write a paper about Shinto or something, and I'd have to focus on just one area of the religion so I wouldn't write an entire book instead of just 20 pages. Then everyone tells you, "That's great. But what about the shrines. I'm really interested in the shrines. You should've written more about the history of shrines in Shinto."
And that's my rant.
I wholeheartedly agree! They can't cover everything in a small school newspaper article.
I don't think that Charlie is necessarily the norm for teen moms, but that doesn't mean she doesn't deserve a round of applause for being what sounds like a kickass mom, even at her age. Even if I don't necessarily agree with her decision to consciously conceive at that age, she's made very good decisions for her son. She fought tooth and nail with her high school to get to her prenatal appointments, she broke up with Cae's father when it became clear she was in a bad relationship, and she's teaching her son not to necessarily conform to gender stereotypes by letting him play with dolls if he wants to and not restricting his belongings to outside "the pink aisle." She's also continuing her education, which is a good thing regardless of whether it's a function of her privilege or the result of massive scholarships and loans.
As for the role model thing... I don't think that every 15-year-old should get pregnant. Hell, I don't think the vast majority of 15-year-olds should get pregnant. But for 15-year-olds who ARE pregnant... yeah, they should strive to be a mother like Charlie Rose.
from konkonsn: "Yes, she's white. Yes, she has financial support."
...incorrect. both assumptions are incorrect.
"..nor was it the financial burden - all of Cae's clothes and cloth diapers were handed down, and Rose made her own baby food."
WTF? Yes, a majority of a parent's day-to-day cost is probably food and diapers, but there's so much more to worry about. There are plenty of health care costs to think about, especially in the first few years, and what about child care?
As for making your own baby food and going with cloth diapers, I can't speak from personal experience, but I can say that my sister decided against these two options purely because of the additional time involved.
I've got no beef with Charlie Rose, but I just think that part of the article is a little simplistic. For example, home-made baby food only cut costs so much--Rose still has to pay for more raw ingredients than she would consume by herself, so her living costs have still increased. As others have pointed out, the article is really about stigmas facing teen moms, but it just doesn't seem altogether honest to imply that cloth diapers and home-made food (both of which require an additional time commitment than their mass-produced analogues) are going to solve your financial problems as a parent.
The only issue I had with the profile was her assertion that 'late teenage' years were biologically ideal for motherhood, and the equation of 15 with 'late teenage.' I'm too lazy to look up stats right now, but my understanding is that pregnancy/birth for teenagers (I'm think under 19, but someone ought to look up the data) is significantly riskier than for parents in their 20s-30s in terms of complications with pregnancy, birth defects, low birth weights, etc. It starts to spike up again in the 40s, of course. (And I say 'parents' intentionally, since the age of both mother and father are clearly correlated with these issues.)
This isn't to say that we should therefor outlaw pregnancy under 19, or that all teenagers who have children are necessarily irresponsible or dangerous or something--just that her statement that the 'late teenage' years are biologically ideal for motherhood is factually untrue.
Other than that, from the profile she seems like a smart, gifted person, and I wish her and her son all the best.
I think there's a lot of ways to talk about privilege, and when discussion of it is a) limited to discussion of material resources or b) dismissed as jealousy, it really closes the door to talk about how it impacts those who are not endowed with all that 'privilege' entails.
I was really troubled by this piece. Particularly since I've spent significant time teaching teen pregnancy prevention about 15 miniutes south of the privilege of Smith, to young, poor, Latina girls. Privilege to those girls is not about who is going to pay for the baby clothes and food that result from a young pregnancy- it's about what the whole of society has told them about what their place should be in the world from the time they were born. 'If you work hard, you can succeed and go to Smith like Charlie Rose' is an adage that is steeped in privilege, and assumes that everyone starts the race at the same place, is given the same chances and opportunities. It's inspiring and empowering that Rose took the stigma applied to her when she became visibly pregnant and turned it around to activism, but what if that same stigma was applied to you for just simply being what you didn't choose- young, poor and a woman of color.
I personally know a dozen teen moms who I am more inspired by than Rose, and they're not at Smith or starting websites, or talking about teaching their sons that playing with dolls is great in order to subvert the patriarchy. Because Rose could "choose to conceive", like it was just another elective course she was going to take in high school, and that did not drastically affect her ability to achieve what she's done in the same way it would with the girls I know. Smith was practically inaccessible for a lot of them, dispite being a few miles up the road, and not because they weren't trying hard and applying themselves. Not to be trite, but dismissing "privilege" as an invalid way to look at this situation smacks of, well, privilege. I'm not really interested in looking at what this girl overcame, I'm interested in looking at what she was already born with.
So in your 3 part test of "privilege"--young, poor, POC--Charley fails the last piece and is thereby assumed to be "privileged" with all that supposedly entails? Oh, wait, she was intelligent, so we're supposed to hold that against her.
As a POC I find this argument offensive & disheartening & dismissive all at the same time, because that's the logical equivalent of saying, "Well, hell, I'm a poor, black, single mother I may as well just give up."
A good deal of life is making the best of the hand you're dealt, and when someone wins the hand, we shouldn't dismiss it as just "privilege"--there's luck involved in poker, but there's skill too.
sly- I'm sorry I offended you, but I certainly didn't say those three points are my exclusive foil for privilege. I do, however, feel it's pretty important to acknowledge that privilege defines more than access to material possessions, as several other posters seem to be suggesting.
I also, having lived and worked in the communities surrounding Smith, have a really high sensitivity to the school's profiling of Ms. Rose as being a young mom who beat the odds and is a role model, when the school is just minutes north of communities with the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the state and certainly doesn't do as much to engage them as they should. I don't presume to know what your experience has been, but I do know how tough it is for the women I've known in this region. Talking about race in contexts like these is certainly not what anyone would prefer to do, but that doesn't make it any less of a factor in western Mass.'s socio-political environment, especially relating to the teen pregnancy issue.
In re-reading the article, I'm particularly struck by Rose's quote, "For some reason, people have very visceral responses to teen pregnancy." I can tell you that in parts of western Mass, where Smith is based, the reasons aren't "some" mysterious factor to be ruminated on- any fifteen year old with a baby can and will tell you what she feels these community responses are based on. A lot of those "visceral reactions" in this particular community come from more directly race/class-related issues than from anti-feminist/patriarchal issues, as much as we all know here that they're related. And the people having these "visceral reactions" whose voices are published and referenced (again, in this particular community) are mostly, though certainly not all, white and middle to upper middle class. So I do think it's very fair to raise these points.
I missed the implications in my comment that I was suggesting anyone "give up" because they might happen to find themselves in a disenfranchised group, or that being smart and driven were somehow detractors from the accolades Rose deserves. There's a difference between asking for consideration of factors that might be outside of the realm of Ms. Rose's experience, and stating that those factors define the experience of every person who has led a different life than she.
I'm with you, Zaharat. Charlie is *not* a typical teen mother, she should not be a role model, and if she's a typical Ada, she is getting a lot of help from Smith in terms of monetary support, housing, health insurance, (possibly) a reduced course load, and so on. The girls down in Holyoke and Springfield who get pregnant often aren't even thinking of STCC or HCC, let alone Smith, as viable options for education, and they sure aren't going to have the cultural privilege that comes with being a reasonably cute white girl.
I'm also pretty shocked that the Sophian published this...but then again, I nearly had a heart attack a couple of weeks back when the Smith Alumnae Quarterly arrived and I learned that my alma mater now has a cheerleading squad, almost all of it perky blondes. What the hell is going on with Smith?????
I certainly commend your sincerity Zaharat, and your passion for these teen Latinas you're teaching. Since you asked why I thought you were suggesting poor, black women should give up, here you go:
" 'If you work hard, you can succeed and go to Smith like Charlie Rose' is an adage that is steeped in privilege, and assumes that everyone starts the race at the same place, is given the same chances and opportunities. "
The flip side of this argument is that those unfortunate to be born into privilege can't succeed through hard work, etc. But the problem is that the only people who ever make it out of the hood do so through hard work, etc. I know this first hand, having been blessed to make it out myself, and having seen some others do it, and others not. I'm passionate about this because one of the critical few repeatedly proven differentiators of success in minority youth is the belief that hard work will pay off. We need to make sure they're realistic about the challenges they face, but we can't dismiss hard work & intelligence as mere privilege. In that respect, we make our own privilege.
I don't think the word "privilege" as it's used here really means what you're construing it to mean. What it means here isn't just ways in which someone happens to have come out on top, but also e.g. the collection of ways in which they find themselves in a relatively easy position from the get-go and thus myopically imagine everyone else to have it similarly easy -- and so they imagine that everyone else has the same advantages that they do, that the playing field is level. And the playing field is not level. This isn't to say that it's impossible to raise oneself up from a disadvantaged situation through hard work, but rather to say that the situation is more complicated than just some kind of bare-bones correlation between hard work and success. For a really simplistic example, it's obviously harder for someone from a poorer family to go to an expensive college than it is for people who have money -- maybe with a lot of hard work they can win scholarships or something, but it will still be on balance more difficult for them. This is just a fact. Not being "privileged" doesn't mean that something is impossible, but it does mean that it is less probable, and that is a problem, especially when the determining factors include things like race, sex, and economic status.
So, to bring it back to the OP, I think the reason many people here are worried about the "privilege" of the girl in question is that several details -- the fact that she is at Smith, the fact that she has time to concern herself with making baby food at home, etc -- seem to indicate that she has a certain amount of advantages that are not necessarily across-the-board common for teen mothers in the U.S. And if that's the case, it's problematic if she's holding herself up as an exemplar of the American Teen Mother, because it means that she can't actually speak to many of the real struggles that teen mothers in this country do face, and furthermore that perhaps the naivete of imagining herself to be a representative of teen mothers everywhere might belie a deeper sort of ignorance on her part.
BUT, as I said above, even if all that's true, I still think she has a really good point about the stigmatization and shaming of teen mothers in this country, and I think she is absolutely right that our cultural image of "teen mother" is in need of a serious overhaul.
charlie actually does notfail the last part of the test, fyi.
Like many of the commenters here, I do think she is a great role-model for any girl who finds themselves pregnant at a young age. She is a great example that you can continue to believe in yourself and hopefully continue to fulfil your dreams.
However, the article DOES say, "Rose made the conscious decision to conceive when she was 15 years old." I honestly do not think that a 15-year-old is mature enough to make a decision like this. It worked out great for her, but for many 15-year-olds, they're starry-eyed about cute baby clothes and cute baby smiles, and not thinking about the fact that this is a life-long decision. I simply don't believe that 15-year-olds are in a position where they can make a rational and well-informed decision to have a child.
Finally, I can't condone actively trying to having a child when you are not in a position to fully support said child by yourself, without need for additional aid. While I do believe support should be available - life happens! - I never think it should be someone's 'plan' to have to use it.
Just out of curiosity -- I swear this is not a backhanded question, I am genuinely curious -- do you think, therefore, that people below a certain poverty line should not be allowed to have children (or, a little more reasonably, should be considered irresponsible for having children)?
Here's a better profile of Charlie Rose: http://aff.sagepub.com/cgi/pdf_extract/22/3/302
She was a national merit scholar, volunteers 300+ hours every year, she is a math/pre-med double major, etc. She is clearly remarkably energetic, intelligent and resourceful.
But she's a role model for teen moms in the same way that Martha Stewart is a role model for homemakers. Yeah, you can do what they did, ONLY if you have the skills and talents they had starting out too. They're the exceptions, not the rules.
Btw, this is why I hated that Will Smith movie "The Pursuit of Happiness." You too can pull yourself up by your own bootstraps! Oh, but one tiny little thing, you need to be able to solve this rubik's cube puzzle in under three minutes. It's easy if you just put your mind to it!
I get what you're saying, and for the most part, I agree: Charlie is the exception, not the rule, and a lot of what she was able to achieve seems to have to do with privilege.
However, the one point in the article you referred to that was not mentioned in your post is that Charlie moved out of her parents' home at 14. So apparently she wasn't quite the trust-fund child we might imagine.
I just think that, while we shouldn't ignore the things she had going for her, we can't just gloss over the hardships she did face. I am in no way saying her case is similar to that of a poor minority teen, but we can't just assume the only reason she's succeeded is that her life was a bed of roses. She may have had privilege on her side in some respects, but she still had to work hard and be smart about it to get where she is today, and I think we shouldn't discount that hard work.
No, I'm not even talking about her financial privilege. I'm talking about how she is extremely intelligent and active, to a degree that she becomes exceptional. It's a different kind of privilege.
She's a National Merit Scholar, right? That means she's good at taking standardized tests. You can teach that, to a degree, but after a certain level you can't. It becomes something innate. I mean, how many wealthy kids do you know who after months of prep courses still only scored a 1290 or something? This girl just has that skill. She has that energy.
A lot of what she has just can't be taught. It can be acheived through plain old hard work. That's why I'm reluctant to say that she's a role model. So many people can aspire to be like her, but those goals are just not realistic.
So let me ask something for clarification, would you call someone like Tupac Shakur, born into a life of poverty and raised by a single, crack addicted woman in the projects, "privileged"? Or what about, say, Jesse Owens, who was born into rural poverty?
I ask because "privilege" as used by you, and other posters, seems to mean anyone born with any above average intelligence, talents, traits, gifts, character, income, assets, connections, and/or white. Maybe that's indeed what you meant, but I think it makes the concept meaningless & sounds condescending.
Chris Rock had a great line: "Somewhere there's a one legged, white busboy with a 6th grade education, who if I asked him if he wanted to trade places with me would say, 'Nah, I think I'm gonna ride this white thing out.' " Of course he was just joking.
I think that she is a role model in the way she handled the cards she was given. Yeah, she may have had an advantage in being white and conventionally attractive, and she may have had disadvantages in terms of finances and age. My point is that she did a good job and made good choices. I'm not saying that someone less privileged can get where she is with the same amount of work - I'm just saying that she did work hard to get where she is and that shouldn't be discounted simply because she is intelligent and white. When I look to role models, I don't necessarily think I can or will be just like them. I see what they do and how they handle things and incorporate it into my own life. She is a role model as a responsible teen mother not just because she's at Smith (which may or may not be possible for other teen mothers) but because she's a good mom, from what I can see.
And maybe this is petty, but as a National Merit Scholar myself, I kind of resent the implication that any academic accomplishments are just because we were born smart. It may be easier for intelligent people when it comes to academics, but it still takes dedication and discipline.
Bottom line: yeah, unprivileged teen moms may not get as far as Charlie Rose has, but that doesn't mean they can't see her as a role model in terms of making good choices and being responsible. This in no way means she should be the top role model or anything - I'm sure there are tons of minority teen moms who also make great decisions and don't have an article written about them. But Charlie's privilege in race and looks should not be a reason to write her accomplishments off.
This is probably going to sound ridiculous, but -- some people really are just born smart, and do reap lots of benefits directly because of it. I am very sure of this mostly just because I am one of them. For example, I could get scores on standardized tests that other people would've killed themselves for, and I rolled in there on two hours of sleep without having even looked at the material in months. I don't think smart people should flatter themselves too much by thinking about how very hard they worked to get where they are -- after a certain point, yes, there is hard work involved, but you never would've even had the opportunity to do that work in the first place if you hadn't been born into a position to do it.
/rant
The profile says that Rose is a Hispanic National Merit Scholar. So, she's not unequivocally privileged in that regard, either.
She's a role model in the sense that a Major League Baseball player is a role model. Just because you look up to someone doesn't mean you take their life as script for your own.
Exactly! Thank you!
And whoops! on the whole white/Hispanic thing.
The Martha Stewart model is apt for many reasons. Martha makes it look easy when it isn't, and when she isn't doing half the things she says. Having watched the show, and as a good cook, I know that many of Martha's tips don't work. She doesn't have time to check them because she's got too much going on.
No one who does 300 hours of volunteering, has a young child, and is a student at Smith is really doing all that without (as Martha does) a LOT of uncredited help. Which, of course, even most adults haven't got, to say nothing of 15 year olds.
If I'm emotional about this, it's partly because I work in the Teen Center of a public library, and my patrons do not need this unrealistic inspiration to further romanticize teen pregnancy and further complicate their lives.
I became a mother and turned 23 when my son was 2 months old.
Nothing
Nothing
Nothing
I have done since or did before comes anywhere close to comparing to the challenges that motherhood presents.
It's more than making baby food and cloth diapers- way more.
To pretend it is easy breezy for anyone is to lie lie lie
Let's be careful and lets be fricken real for a change.
Imagine how much she could do if she didn't have a child to sacrifice most of her funds, time and energy for.
What is the magic switch that flips at 18 that makes anyone think a 15 year old isn't responsible enough to decide to conceive and carry through consciously, and an 18 year old is?
If a 15 year old isn't mature enough, then an 18 year old probably isn't. And if an 18 year old isn't, then who's to say a 21 year old is?
Having a baby is something that puts women in today's society at a disadvantage of varying levels at almost any age or stage of life.
Good for her for going for what she wants and proving she's more responsible than many adults - regardless of what narrow-minded people think of her decision.
Hmm. I think maybe you missed the point. I don't necessarily think anyone has been saying there is a "magic switch". In fact, many of these people are saying how hard it is to have a baby at ANY age, let alone when you are still an adolescent. Also, I might point out that when you are 15 you aren't fully developed yet. You're still growing, and learning.
Do I think 21 is better than 15? Yes. Do I think it's optimal? No. I am more prepared to deal with a baby at 21 than I was at 15. I wouldn't want to get pregnant now, but that's beside the point. Experience and emotional maturity factor in. Lots of factors play in to having a baby... Usually people say it's better to have a baby when you have a partner by your side to help share the workload. Usually people say it's better to be financially stable before you have a baby. Both of these things don't tend to lend themselves to the teenage years or even the early twenties. There are exceptions to every rule. I think what people are trying to point out is that Charlie is the exception and should in no way be seen as the traditional teen mom.
A couple of things:
First, it says that she wasn't living with her parents when she had the baby. It DOESN'T say that she wasn't receiving some sort of financial support from her parents. I don't think we can assume either way from the bit about where she was living.
HOWEVER, someone who is able to volunteer 300 hours a year to me sounds like someone who does not have to work full-time. So from that I would guess she received financial support in high school from some sort of older relatives.
Another obvious drawback to this situation: she made the decision to conceive with someone who she determined three years later was a bad father. Not to say this can't happen to anyone, because it totally can. But it's probably more likely to happen to teenagers.
Also, yeah, the bit about biology bothered me too...
Finally, I'd just like to say I went to Smith College for awhile. It's not a bad school, but I really didn't think it was that hard of a school, and the average student didn't seem to spend that much time studying. I actually don't think Smith is as prestigious or rigorous as it was a few decades ago when women's options were more limited because it's not all that selective now compared to the other institutions it is often compared to. I have to work a lot more at the school I transferred to. Which maybe just puts her story in perspective a bit -I don't think her achievement is much different from teen moms who manage to put themselves through school elsewhere.
Finally, I'd just like to say I went to Smith College for awhile. It's not a bad school, but I really didn't think it was that hard of a school, and the average student didn't seem to spend that much time studying. I actually don't think Smith is as prestigious or rigorous as it was a few decades ago when women's options were more limited because it's not all that selective now compared to the other institutions it is often compared to. I have to work a lot more at the school I transferred to.
I couldn't disagree more about Smith and the quality of the education it offers. If you transferred before graduation you likely didn't take an upper level seminar. This is not a fair comparison, since you seem to be saying that first and second year classes at Smith aren't as tough as upper class seminars at other schools. NO intro classes are as hard as the advanced seminars, whether you attend the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople or Harvard! The upper level courses at Smith are as hard or harder than what I've seen in graduate schools, and I have an MA and am beginning work on a second.
I graduated from Smith almost thirty years ago, live near the school, and know some current students. Believe me, it's tougher now than it was in my day, and the students are every bit as bright and dedicated. And my class had the disadvantage of getting girls with *lower* SATs and ACTs than Smith attracts now because my generation of girls were the first ones who could attend the Ivies instead of the Seven Sisters. A lot of the best and brightest went to Harvard and Dartmouth and Yale instead of Smith and Wellesley and Mount Holyoke.
The human body doesn't reach maturity until the age of about 20-25. Now, I understand some people mature quickly and grow up fast, but having a child at age 15 seems a bit too "child-with-a-child". I'm very glad that she is supporting her child well, but I wouldn't call her a role model. Telling every teenage girl that getting pregnant in your teen years is an admirable thing is an irresponsible message. Many girls cannot support a child at 15.
I know she didn't make the conscience decision to get pregnant, but she's sending the message that she did, even though she says herself she "didn't have any legal rights because [she] was a minor." Saying that if a 15-year-old thinks they are making a responsible decision by getting pregnant, they should do it.
I understand it is hard for her at 15 to face such prejudice and I DO admire her for doing such a wonderful job of this situation, but I don't think it's a good idea to post a picture of a teen mom around America with the essential message of "THIS IS A GOOD IDEA!" written across it.
Back again, to my utter astonishment, STILL reading a lot of judgemental crap about her personal reproductive choices. Although I. too, arch an eyebrow at any teenager who would choose to become pregnant, I would NEVER try to trot out some statistics to support what is obviously just a personal prejudice. Otherwise, it wouldn't be directed at HER and it wuldn't be done in such a public way.
I can not FATHOM how the same people who would defend her right to have sex at 15, to use birth control, to access abortion and to choose that, are all over her for choosing to have a baby.
She felt ready to have a child? Is it because of her age that she was wrong? Does that mean that age IS a deciding factor in personal responsibility? Are there any circumstances in which she COULD have decided to get pregnant, that would pass your TEST of her agency?
I am completely disgusted right now.
Well, you see, once you become a mother (teen or not) EVERYone gets to judge everything you do. As soon as you are visibly pregnant you become collective social property and the whole world takes great joy in getting all up in your business and telling you what you're doing wrong.
Poor, disenfranchised teen mother? You're failing yourself and your children. Well-off, "successful" teenage mother? How dare you do well and be proud of it, it might encourage other teens to breed willy-nilly and fail themselves and their chidlren.
Here, here! Well said!
I would defend her right to all the things you mentioned, including her right to keep her child. However, I personally would not condone a 15-year-old having sex, though I would not hold it against them either.
Everyone is different. Some 15-year-olds are incredibly mature and responsible, and, as this girl has shown, make excellent parents. However, many are not. They may feel 'ready' to have a child without fully understanding the consequences. We recognise as a society that many young teenagers may not be equipped to make informed important decisions, which is why the age of responsibility is 18.
Does this mean she shouldn't be allowed to keep her baby - or any 15-year-old shouldn't? Of course not - but I do think it means that we should not trumpet one success story as proof that having a kid at 15 is everything you dreamed it would be.
The big difference, to me, between having a baby at 15 and having sex, using birth control, or having an abortion at 15 is that the last three primarily affect /you/. At 15, most people are learning to take care of themselves, both physically and emotionally/mentally. You have to feel all this out - how far am I willing to go? Who do I like? What feels right? Do I need to be on BC? Do I agree with abortion? If you make a wrong decision, you may get seriously hurt, especially emotionally/mentally. And this is terrible. But this is also life - we feel around, we make a decision, and it sometimes goes wrong. And most of the time, we pick ourselves up, nurse ourselves back, learn, and move on. When you have a child, your actions are now directly affecting someone else. If you decide a year later that you regret getting pregnant, you can't just pick yourself up and move on. You might not have completely figured out yourself yet, but you are now responsible for someone else as well, and all of your failures might significantly impact this child's life. I personally feel that is not something to be taken lightly at all. While I would never deny someone their right to do it, I could not condone it. And at 15, most of us felt like we had the world figured out, and then most of us found out we didn't - so it is hard for me to support 'feeling ready' as a good excuse for such a serious decision at 15.
So, in short, yes, age is a deciding factor when it comes to personal responsibility. Like it or not, there is a large part of time in each of our lives when it was probably a very good thing that we were not completely responsible for ourselves. Where that line is to be drawn is, of course, fuzzy, but I do personally believe that 15 is still in an age of discovering yourself before you plunge into adulthood.
The thing is, it's not for you to condone.
if she is being put out there like a role model, it is her right to condone or condemn
Good point. I'm sure that Rose knew that once she started presenting herself as a role model (by literally pasting that phrase on her picture, no?) she would be putting herself up to some scrutiny.
I don't think it's out of line for Feministing readers to weigh in on her viability as a role model.
Very, very much agreed.
Another thing...how the hell is it that people time and time again can't tell (or don't care) about the differences among reproductive choices? The "choice" to having a baby when you are 15 and have no support from family or friends is a decision that involves you, your child, and whoever is expected to provide for the material welfare of your kid. It's delusional and insulting--not all "choice" has the same ramifications. What absolute bullshit. But that seems to be the underlying argument.
I guess it's just a war of semantics--maybe people who have any problem with the idea of adolescents getting pregnant in high school and putting their futures at risk can just say they're "pro family planning" instead of pro choice. (The anti-choice movement hears "family planning" and replies, "planned murder." What would the counterpart of that be here--"chauvinistic", "racist," "classist"?) Pick a term, anything that designates the person as being 100% irrational if they DON'T feel Charlie's Rose's story is representative of the bulk of a significant portion of teen parents.)
The less costly "choices" are 1) at least attempting to consistently birth control/contraception 2) waiting to have a child before one can take primary responsibility (before taxpayers, before the babies' grandparents, whatever) for THEIR kid.
"I am completely disgusted right now." Well, likewise--because time and time again being a "feminist" and feeling sympathy for vulnerable populations ALSO means that by default you have to endorse and subsidize the risky planning/decision-making that goes into ill-thought out parenthood (and for many fifteen year-olds, including those who say they "want a baby", it IS poorly thought out) and the error-prone outcomes (like being a parent at 14 or 15, when there's a high chance you're not mature enough and don't have the resources).
The debate seems to always come down to this--"Either you're this, or you're that." No middle ground in the overarching discussion, none that actually acknowledges personal responsibility or personal role in risk-taking the part of individual parents. (Obviously sexual assault or birth control sabotage precludes any of that.)
The only thing that bothers me about this is that she was too young to legally access many of the things you need to live on your own. She was a minor - she couldn't get a credit card, rent an apartment, or even open a Blockbuster account on her own. That's why she had to get married (though that policy is weird, too, and smacks of coverture to me). I don't know if being legally emancipated from your parents allows you to bypass the majority laws.
Choosing to conceive a kid at 15 isn't wrong necessarily; that said, for someone who seems to be able to plan enough to carry on her schoolwork and everything while having a kid, that seems to be a detail worth considering. Like it or not, 18 is the age of majority and ability to contract. That arbitrary age might be up for discussion, but choosing to conceive a child but still being restricted to under-18 work hours, for example, has real consequences that shouldn't be ignored simply because she may have been mature enough in many other ways to have a child (and I don't just mean physically - I think she puts a lot of thought into childcare techniques, probably more than my mid-30s parents did early in my life.)
She sounds like a great mom though, and I definitely think we need a world where women who are primary care-takers for children can also participate in activism, education, and non-profits, regardless of their age.
Where is the idea coming from that this woman is advocating that all 15-year-olds should get pregnant immediately?! If you haven't noticed, the picture says "THE WAY I PARENT MAKES ME A GREAT ROLE MODEL," not "LOOKIT! I'M PREGGERS, AND YOU SHOULD BE, TOO!" She's saying that her parenting style is something to look up to, even if she is only 20 now. That is NOT the same thing as saying that she thinks all teens should procreate immediately!
/rant
I guess this quote kind of compounded things:
"Unable to identify with this construct surrounding adolescence, and sensing an innate maternal instinct, Rose made the conscious decision to conceive when she was 15 years old. "Humans are pretty hard-wired to want to continue the species and procreate," Rose says, recalling her strong maternal urges and desires to become a parent. "Biologically, the best time to have a child is during the late teens... I knew it would work out."
Perhaps coupled with this:
"There are a lot of women now who, for whatever reason, delay their childbirth and then they don't get to meet their grandkids," Rose says. "The older you get, the harder it is to sustain that really active level of involvement. It's really important to me to meet my grandchildren, and to meet my great-grandchildren. I want Cae to be able to have me as a resource and a friend and a support through the majority of his life."
Those are the reasons she had for getting pregnant at 15. How was she supposed to answer the question "why did you have your son so early?" She's not saying that it's what every teen should do, but it was the right choice for her. I get where you're coming from in that she's making her choice seem like a relatively easy, biologically driven one, but I don't feel like that's the same thing as telling all teens they should have a baby, too. I don't necessarily agree with her reasoning, but I don't feel like she's pushing this choice on teens that aren't ready for it.
I agree, I don't think she necessarily meant it that way, or intended it to come across that way.
However, the essentialism in those quotes did not jive with her recognizing her exceptionality.
She did not have to resort to that kind of abstract justifier, and I suspect that had an influence on the responses to her story.
I agree.
Wow! A commenting thread that actually ended harmoniously! Who'd have thunk it? ;)
"From a patriarchal state, teen mothers are threatening because women are supposed to belong to their fathers until they belong to their husbands."
I think this is the part of the article I take issue with. Some conservatives may have a problem with single women having children per se, but I think the judgement meted out to teen mothers largely comes from a different root. In Britain, where we have the highest teen pregnancy rate in Europe, the perception is (and I'm not saying this is right, just passing it on) that teen mothers are parasitical, irresponsible and lazy. This is part of a larger problem where many people feel the British welfare system is far too easy to take advantage of, and a perception that teen girls get pregnant because they will automatically qualify for free housing.
Whilst I don't agree with such reactionary views, I do think there's a trend of girls in this country getting pregnant not just because they don't know how to prevent pregnancy, but because they don't really care either way as their life and education options are already so limited that adding a child to the mix won't make much difference. That's what I find sad and troubling. Some teen mothers get on well and make the best of it, but that doesn't make it a desirable state. Having a child and expecting society to support it and your goals before you've ever had a job, much of an education, or contributed to the welfare state that you're asking to look after you does seem pretty obnoxious, and I can see why it gets people's backs up. I don't think the objections are from the patriarchy, it's largely from people asking 'why should I bust my hump at a job I hate so teen mums can claim benefits and sit at home watching daytime TV with their baby?'. Even if you think that's a sanctimonious and judgemental p.o.v, I think we need to acknowledge that's how people - male and female - often feel about teen mums, nothing to do with patriarchy.
So the reason people have a problem with teen motherhood is that teen moms get too *much* support?
In the UK, yes, there is definitely a prevalent mindset that teen mums get an easy ride. They are automatically entitled to and prioritised for state housing, and are entitled to various benefits (housing benefit, council tax reduction, child tax credits to name but a few). I accept that the situation may be different in the US, but over here a lot of the bile aimed at teen mums comes precisely from the perception that they 'have it easy' and 'just do it to get a council house'.
I think those that have a problem with teen motherhood from a moral 'arrgh look, young women having sex/independently raising a child' are very much in a minority over here. People in the UK seem to have generally realised that the time has passed for telling teens to 'just say no' and are fairly relaxed about people having babies outside marriage/nuclear families. We don't have the same kind of religious right with the same social/political clout over here, as is the case in the US. Occasionally one of right-wing the newspapers will get up in arms about single moms, but again the bile seems to mainly come from the notion that 'they're just leeching off the state'.
Yippee that her pregnancy was easy but it is an incredible burden on a body that has not yet finished growing.
No, I do not think anyone should have children before being able to support them. It's irresponsible to say otherwise.
And being fifteen makes things harder: "She broke up with Cae when it was clear he was not a good father..." hello! Although adults can and domake bad judgements in relationships, bad judgements are even more likely at 15, and here IS one, so let's stop pretending she has superhuman mom powers.
She is no role model. More of an icky fantasy.
Actually, the more I read of this the more this is an icky, patriarchal Madonna/Whore thing.
Look! A child! With no man around! No bad consequences! And she's still cute.
where do you get patriarchy from in this?
It's a patriarchal tradition to have a pretty girl (and I use the word girl on purpose) that you can love and leave.
Of course I don't like that tradition, but it's a common fantasy.
I don't agree that the reaction is due to her not having a man. I think it's got a lot more to do with her age when she had a child. Whilst patriarchy is to blame for a great many ills, I'm not sure it applies here. I don't care whether she has a man or not, is pretty or ugly, has been sexually promiscuous or only had sex once - but I do care if giving birth at 15 is being held up as a good idea for young women. That's my only concern as a feminist.
I'm late to this, but i thought I 'd throw in my two cents.
A lot of the comments are troubling to me and reveals how deeply entrenched are stereotypes about teen moms. When I became pregnant as a teen, the worst thing for me to deal with was the shame. I wanted to tell everybody I was raped (which I was) so people didn't think I was 'stupid' enough to get pregnant, even though I had been having sex, even though I could have ended up pregnant in the consensual manner which makes people call girls 'stupid'.
The second hardest thing for me to deal with was the amount of love I already felt for the collection of cells in my uterus juxtaposed against the fear I felt about being able to support my daughter. Make no mistake: I wanted to parent, I wanted to have my baby, so by default I went on with the pregnancy.
I was also already living alone and had supported myself through the last year of high school for various dysfunctional family reasons. I was filling out applications for college. I was divided by love of what was happening to me and a desire for a future I knew was denied to young, unattached women who get pregnant.
My question is this: why is that future denied young pregnant women. Sure, it's a reality that single parenthood is damn hard, sure, young women are still maturing. Hell, I'm 33 now and am still maturing, am still amazed that I am a mother. So, we say it is a 'reality' that life is hard, too hard, for young women who wish to parent without a man to support her. So why don't we change that 'reality'. I know lots of feminism is working toward this very goal, but why when these stories are trotted out do we blame women who try to live their lives despite the 'reality'. Hell, it's a reality that life is tough if a woman divorces her husband, but we wouldn't say she was 'stupid' for choosing to leave her husband and becoming such a 'drain' on society. At least not on a feminist site.
I placed my first daughter for adoption with a family who was older and had considerably more money than I did then, and, by the way, considerably more money than my husband and I have now. Yet, I can plainly see that, for all I couldn't offer my daughter then, I could have parented with more love, intelligence and feminism than her adopted, financially stable adopted parents. A semi-open adoption, I have contact with my teenager and wince at the messages she is receiving and wish I could do more for her. But I can't.
I stumbled through ten years of live living like a zombie, unable to turn off the hormones that needed to mother, grieving the infant I loved so much I gave her to parents everybody told me she would be better off with, because of 'statistics'.
I got a BA, got married, struggling to get up most mornings, struggling with the simplest social interactions, until, I had my second daughter and could begin to heal, to have an outlet for the part of me that was on hold after the birth of my first daughter. Was I any more mature? In some ways. But I was a shell then and it was parenting which forced me from my shell, which allowed me to expand.
I have a second daughter now, who will be two soon, and I've decided I've contributed enough to the world's population and am going to graduate school in september. Will be busy and blissful and creative.
But those lost ten years... Had there been supports, had there been a society which values parenting however it comes about, however one chooses to enter parenting, what we could have done, my oldest daughter and I!
The point being that this woman, however problematic some of her other statements are (she's only 22, let her make some mistakes, be defiant, she hasn't had an easy time), is saying that society DOES NOT SUPPORT women who choose to be mothers. We can decided that society will support women who choose to support mothers.
If we judge this woman because she wasn't in a financially perfect position to have children (I still am not in a financial position to afford children and I'm parenting two), it is the same as judging a woman who leaves her marriage and brings her children with her because she will be a drain on the government's resources, obviously she will need scholarships, grants, tax breaks, and/or welfare...
Should all teens do it? No. Not all teens want to do it. But saying having a baby will ruin your life is missing the underlying issues. People have babies and go on to overcome obstacles and should be applauded. Others have babies and because of other issues in their lives (poverty, depression, emotional trauma) do not overcome obstacles. And just because you don't have babies does not mean you will be able to escape the cycle of poverty. Many single, childless people are as poor at 40 as they were at 16....
There's quite a difference between making the best of a difficult situation (leaving an abusive husband and having to care for the children alone) and trumpeting the decisions that put you there as a great idea.
Her saying that the best time for childbirth is late teens? Her saying she knew it would be ok? That actually gives weight to the teen-mothers-as-clueless cliche.
Rose made her choices and seems to be doing well with them. That's fine. And it was fully her business, until she cooperated in making it everyone's.
Her being made a hero bothers me. Most teens don't have her resources and many people never will. Someone made an analogy of jumping without a parachute, I can do it--so you can. That analogy fits very well.
I was really, really bothered by the judgmental tone she took towards women who put off childbearing/rearing.
"There are a lot of women now who, for whatever reason, delay their childbirth and then they don't get to meet their grandkids," Rose says. "The older you get, the harder it is to sustain that really active level of involvement."
To me, that doesn't sound that different from the rhetoric of rightwingers who want to guiltrip women like me for postponing childbearing until I'm established in my career and have the financial and community support resources to pay for housing, childcare, college savings, retirement, etc.
It's also not based on any empirical evidence: Research shows that children of older mothers have stronger cognitive skills than those of younger mothers. (Researchers believe this is because older mothers are more educated, have more established support networks and financial resources, etc. Ironically, older fathers are correlated with declines in cognitive outcomes) Yes, there's an increased incidence in birth defects for older mothers, but teens as young as Charlie was when she had her son are also at elevated risk for birth defects as well as low-birthweight, which can lead to cognitive and physical problems.
I'm happy she's happy, but that doesn't give her the right to judge people who have taken other paths.
Ultimately it comes down to this, for me. I'd much much rather see a picture of teen mother being a good parent with the words "Role Model" emblazoned over it, as opposed to the ad trying to prevent teen pregnancy described in that article with the word "Cheap" printed on the teen mom's belly.
If THAT was the kind of imagery she's been bombarded with about herself, hell yes she should counteract it was something positive. Good for her.
We're all against demonizing teen mothers, but somehow this woman is some sort of awful pied piper leading young girls to rampant fornication and breeding because she refuses to be ashamed of herself and is (horror of horrors) proud of her decisions and what she's accomplished.
One other thought: While I don't begrudge Ms. Rose any of the public subsidies and supports that may have helped her support herself and her son, it would be nice if she acknowledged any she did receive--you know, to help make the case for their value to support other young women who need them, rather than suggesting that it's possible to just "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" here.
Charlie is clearly an exceptional individual who should be admired. But I would caution against extrapolating out from her experience to that of all teen moms. For the majority of teens, motherhood is crippling. It means greatly reduced chances of ever going to college or often, finishing high school.
I'd compare this story to that of the "boot-strap capitalist" argument used to defend American capitalism. So American capitalism is characterized by a steep social gradient where there are very rich and many, very poor. American capitalism perpetuates economic oppression. Arguments for changing this system are often met with the bootstrap capitalist argument where an example of a dirt poor individual or immigrant makes a millionare out of themselves through sheer hard work and talent. And ergo, because they can do, nothing is wrong with American capitalism or so the argument goes.
Of course, the bootstrap capitalist is an exception. They do indeed exist and are worthy of our admiration. But the example is employed to obscure the real and larger issue of masses of hard working poor who never "make it."
Teen mothers overwhelmingly fail to "make it" -- having a baby as a teenager is an incredibly poor decision. Just as American capitalism needs to be re-vamped, motherhood (and fatherhood!) need to become something that people enter into when they are prepared (economically, emotionally) and decidedly not, when they are teens.
Thanks for the post! Very refreshing.
I've always hated the slogan for teen parents "Children having children." Well, I'm sorry, teenagers aren't *kids*. It's just this day and age, we're not forced to grow up, we gotta finish high school, go to college, go to grad school etc.
Sounds like Charley is much more an adult than many adults.
Hello, Charlie here. I'm super surprised to see this here. Thanks, Sarah, for the head's up. And thanks to everyone who has been supportive of me and what I am trying to do.
I am definitely privileged - not quite the privileges that have been imagined for me, but privileged nonetheless.
I guess the way that feels most natural to reply to the responses is to tell you a little bit about myself and, in that way, address some of the assumptions that have been made. But then I'd also like to address things on a larger scale, because I feel like many of the comments are indicative of a larger scale problem.
I am a Latina American and my mother immigrated to the US from Mexico as a 16 year old. I do not come from anything close to middle class. My parents have 15 children, the majority of whom are adopted. The only experience I have with middle class life comes from living with a middle class family my senior year of high school and more recently, transferring to a very wealthy college where I am surrounded by lots of people who's parents made more in a month than my parents made in a year.
My parents kicked me out of their house at the age of 14 when they found out I was on birth control. I moved in with an older sister who was in grad school 90 miles away.
I moved out of her house early on in my pregnancy and moved home to live with my parents for nine weeks so I could mend our relationship before I told them I was pregnant. I moved back to Austin at the beginning of summer and got an apartment with my child's father who had just graduated high school. This time, I enrolled myself in school. We received a very helpful $150 dollars a month from my parents, money that they received as part of Veteran's disability benefits for my father from the time Cae was 0-7 months old. We had food stamps and medicaid. He worked at a catering job and I went to school. After Cae was born he partied a lot and I took care of our infant. I worked for two different nonprofit agencies, doing work that I felt passionate about and earning part of the money that we lived off of.
When I left my son's father I stayed with random friends for a while and then was invited to stay with an amazing family that I love very much. I went to high school with their oldest son and they lived really close to my school. They provided me with shelter, the use of a vehicle and emotional support and I was able to cover the rest of my expenses with my two jobs and food stamps. Living with them was the first time in my life I was living with people who were not living month to month. I learned from them about the college program I originally attended and also about my current college. (My parent's had never heard of Smith until I told them I was going).
I lived with them for my senior year and then moved into family housing at the University of Texas. Like most college students, I have been living off of financial aid since. For the first two years of college I was more financially stable than I or my parents ever were. I loaned them money when they needed it. Recently my parents have become much more financially stable (although I guess a lot of people would argue that a large credit line and zero savings does not equal stability) they only have three kids and my grandmother left at home and they have been able to loan me money when I am in a bind - like this summer when I moved across the country to go to Smith, they charged my mattress on their credit card and I paid them for it slowly, until they gifted us with the last $500 or so of it.
So, as you can see from this story I am privileged. I am able bodied and generally in good health and the same is true for my son. I have light skin and clearly, as shown in the above comments, "pass" as white. I have always had somewhere to go. I have always been really book smart. No matter how broke my parents were, we always had food. I went to a kick ass high school with free child care and a self paced curriculum and an amazing guidance counselor. I knew how to navigate social service systems. I had internet access and a cell phone. I kicked ass at applying for scholarships. I have had an amazing activist community surrounding me since I started volunteering at an anarchist book store as a fifteen year old and continued my work there until the kidlet was too old to be content sitting on my hip in the store - a community that supported my parenting decisions to breast feed, co sleep, cloth diaper, wear my baby in an awesome hand me down sling. They gave me their kid's diapers and clothes and I passed those things on when I was done. I have always worked really hard wherever I am to help build community and I have always helped other mothers and relied on a network of like-minded parents and non-parents.
Onto the broader stuff. I am very very aware of my privilege. If you visit girlmom.com, the website that I site produce, you will see by the mission statement that is a VERY privilege aware space. I think it is very problematic though that posters on a feminist site posted a lot of the things that they did. First of all, the assumption that I must come from a middle class background and live with my parents or be financially supported by my parents based on the fact that I am "successful" rankles me.
Also, the assumption that the statement "The way that I parent makes me a great role model" = hey all you teenagers have lots of babies and be just like me is absurd. A childless 15 year old and my self do not have very much in common. But I am a good role model - for parents. No matter how old they are. I think there is an assumption that the young cannot teach the old anything, but I am a kick ass mom. Also, did you take the time to appreciate the image I was trying to combat? You know, the racist sexist terrible ad campaign that calls young pregnant women trash and cheap? Young Parents can be role models and it does not mean they are telling people to have kids. I am a good role model for young women in general because I am passionate about social justice, because I love my community and contribute a lot to it, because I work really hard at school, because I believe in a young womans' potential, because I am a feminist and an advocate for reproductive justice.
Also why is it that the fact that my pregnancy was planned negates any positive spin of my story? As a feminist, I believe that people no matter their socioeconomic class have a right to create a family. Do the above posters only support accidental poor families?
Also, I think it is important to consider the target audience of this article.... my academic peers at Smith. The majority of whom would be very very confused if I started telling them how privileged I think and know I am.
Hey Charlie,
I'm really glad you posted this and that I came back to this thread to see if more discussion had developed.
Like a lot of the people who commented, I assumed you were white and middle-class (and thus, privileged in the traditional sense), until I saw the link to the Women and Social Work journal (only the first page was available, but it had some info about your background). I often give people a hard time for not doing their research and getting the whole story before forming an opinion... and that's exactly what I did. (Well, to be honest, I googled "Charlie Rose" and then had a "duh" moment when I got a bunch of results about the other Charlie Rose.)
I can't speak for other people, but I guess I assumed you were white and middle-class based on how you look in that photo and my stereotype of Smith as a very white, middle-class place. And probably in the back of my mind was Bristol Palin and Jamie Lynn Spears and how the mainstream media totally glossed over their privilege in its coverage...
Anyway, as I mentioned in my comment above, I don't agree with everything you said in the profile, but that's not really the point here -- feminists disagree all the time. The important thing is, even though most people think 15 is too young to have a child, that certainly doesn't mean that teen mothers should be shamed or stigmatized, or that society shouldn't offer them more forms of support. That was the main point I took away from your story, and you're doing great things organizing around that message.
Young people talking about their reproductive choices would add a lot to the dialogue. We don't get enough of that -- it's mainly adults speaking FOR teenagers.
PS -- How about reposting this on the community boards so more people see it?
Thanks for the response. I'm not sure how to repost it... I've never really used this site.
Charlie, thank you so much for your thoughtful response to some not-so-thoughtful comments. You definitely sound like you're a fantastic mom, and that rocks.
I'm glad you realize your privilege, and I'm glad all the posters here on Feministing now realize the areas in which you were not as privileged as might have been expected.
The thing about privilege is that, while it's great for a person to recognize their privileges and acknowledge that other people have it harder, it shouldn't negate the hard work that that privileged person does. It's not like every man that accomplishes something should just be written off as "oh, well, he just got that because of male privilege." Privilege needs to be taken into consideration, of course, but it can't be used as an excuse to downplay someone's achievements. Privilege is just one component of how a person gets where he or she ends up. The important part is recognizing your own privilege, and not just pointing out the privilege of others and assuming that's the only reason they got where they are today.
So basically, go you! And go all the other responsible teen moms out there, whether they're in as good a position as you or not! I think that if a person makes good choices and plays their cards right, they should be applauded, no matter who that person is. :)
I wish the best of luck to you and little Cae!
Hello, Charlie here. I'm super surprised to see this here. Thanks, Sarah, for the head's up. And thanks to everyone who has been supportive of me and what I am trying to do.
I am definitely privileged - not quite the privileges that have been imagined for me, but privileged nonetheless.
I guess the way that feels most natural to reply to the responses is to tell you a little bit about myself and, in that way, address some of the assumptions that have been made. But then I'd also like to address things on a larger scale, because I feel like many of the comments are indicative of a larger scale problem.
I am a Latina American and my mother immigrated to the US from Mexico as a 16 year old. I do not come from anything close to middle class. My parents have 15 children, the majority of whom are adopted. The only experience I have with middle class life comes from living with a middle class family my senior year of high school and more recently, transferring to a very wealthy college where I am surrounded by lots of people who's parents made more in a month than my parents made in a year.
My parents kicked me out of their house at the age of 14 when they found out I was on birth control. I moved in with an older sister who was in grad school 90 miles away.
I moved out of her house early on in my pregnancy and moved home to live with my parents for nine weeks so I could mend our relationship before I told them I was pregnant. I moved back to Austin at the beginning of summer and got an apartment with my child's father who had just graduated high school. This time, I enrolled myself in school. We received a very helpful $150 dollars a month from my parents, money that they received as part of Veteran's disability benefits for my father from the time Cae was 0-7 months old. We had food stamps and medicaid. He worked at a catering job and I went to school. After Cae was born he partied a lot and I took care of our infant. I worked for two different nonprofit agencies, doing work that I felt passionate about and earning part of the money that we lived off of.
When I left my son's father I stayed with random friends for a while and then was invited to stay with an amazing family that I love very much. I went to high school with their oldest son and they lived really close to my school. They provided me with shelter, the use of a vehicle and emotional support and I was able to cover the rest of my expenses with my two jobs and food stamps. Living with them was the first time in my life I was living with people who were not living month to month. I learned from them about the college program I originally attended and also about my current college. (My parent's had never heard of Smith until I told them I was going).
I lived with them for my senior year and then moved into family housing at the University of Texas. Like most college students, I have been living off of financial aid since. For the first two years of college I was more financially stable than I or my parents ever were. I loaned them money when they needed it. Recently my parents have become much more financially stable (although I guess a lot of people would argue that a large credit line and zero savings does not equal stability) they only have three kids and my grandmother left at home and they have been able to loan me money when I am in a bind - like this summer when I moved across the country to go to Smith, they charged my mattress on their credit card and I paid them for it slowly, until they gifted us with the last $500 or so of it.
So, as you can see from this story I am privileged. I am able bodied and generally in good health and the same is true for my son. I have light skin and clearly, as shown in the above comments, "pass" as white. I have always had somewhere to go. I have always been really book smart. No matter how broke my parents were, we always had food. I went to a kick ass high school with free child care and a self paced curriculum and an amazing guidance counselor. I knew how to navigate social service systems. I had internet access and a cell phone. I kicked ass at applying for scholarships. I have had an amazing activist community surrounding me since I started volunteering at an anarchist book store as a fifteen year old and continued my work there until the kidlet was too old to be content sitting on my hip in the store - a community that supported my parenting decisions to breast feed, co sleep, cloth diaper, wear my baby in an awesome hand me down sling. They gave me their kid's diapers and clothes and I passed those things on when I was done. I have always worked really hard wherever I am to help build community and I have always helped other mothers and relied on a network of like-minded parents and non-parents.
Onto the broader stuff. I am very very aware of my privilege. If you visit girlmom.com, the website that I site produce, you will see by the mission statement that is a VERY privilege aware space. I think it is very problematic though that posters on a feminist site posted a lot of the things that they did. First of all, the assumption that I must come from a middle class background and live with my parents or be financially supported by my parents based on the fact that I am "successful" rankles me.
Also, the assumption that the statement "The way that I parent makes me a great role model" = hey all you teenagers have lots of babies and be just like me is absurd. A childless 15 year old and my self do not have very much in common. But I am a good role model - for parents. No matter how old they are. I think there is an assumption that the young cannot teach the old anything, but I am a kick ass mom. Also, did you take the time to appreciate the image I was trying to combat? You know, the racist sexist terrible ad campaign that calls young pregnant women trash and cheap? Young Parents can be role models and it does not mean they are telling people to have kids. I am a good role model for young women in general because I am passionate about social justice, because I love my community and contribute a lot to it, because I work really hard at school, because I believe in a young womans' potential, because I am a feminist and an advocate for reproductive justice.
Also why is it that the fact that my pregnancy was planned negates any positive spin of my story? As a feminist, I believe that people no matter their socioeconomic class have a right to create a family. Do the above posters only support accidental poor families?
Also, I think it is important to consider the target audience of this article.... my academic peers at Smith. The majority of whom would be very very confused if I started telling them how privileged I think and know I am.
"I started volunteering at an anarchist book store as a fifteen year old..."
Why would someone who has benefited so much from the services currently offered by the government (Medicaid, food stamps, VA benefits) want to volunteer at an anarchist bookstore? I guess maybe I'm just not well-informed about anarchist principles, which is why I'm rather confused about this. Not trying to be sarcastic--I really am curious.
"Also why is it that the fact that my pregnancy was planned negates any positive spin of my story? As a feminist, I believe that people no matter their socioeconomic class have a right to create a family. Do the above posters only support accidental poor families?"
I can't speak for anybody but myself, but (based on what I read in the linked article) it seemed as if you were stating that human beings are biologically hard-wired to have children--no ifs, ands, or buts. One thing that I, personally, feel incredibly grateful for is that other feminists have spent a hell of a lot of time trying to convince society that women are more than just baby-making machines.
Saying that you "[sensed] an innate maternal instinct" (obviously the reporter's words and not yours) seems to perpetuate the false idea that all women, no matter what we say, are biologically driven to motherhood, which I think is about as faulty as saying that all men are incredibly preoccupied with spreading their seed or whatever.
Anyway, that's just my two cents.
You should read my below comment. I definitely do not believe that women are "baby-making machines"
Thanks for your reply, Charlie. I checked out your comment below (as you instructed) but I still stand by my statement that I was initially rather shocked to see that a fellow feminist would imply that childbearing is a biological necessity and that all women experience "innate maternal [urges]." Obviously you care deeply about defending the reproductive rights of women in all socioeconomic classes, but phrases like "innate maternal instinct" (again, the reporter's words) tend to put my guard up.
Re: the anarchist bookstore... I'm still confused. I hope you know I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I really am wondering about why someone who has taken advantage of government benefits would donate her time to a bookstore promoting anarchy. I'm just trying to wrap my brain around that dichotomy and, obviously, you would be the best person to explain it to me.
Since you asked, there are reasons this pregancy being planned is a negative thing: most teens do not have your resources, not in brains, not in friends. Yes, you are privileged more than the teens in my circle who see the story. And it is more responsible to plan a pregnancy when you know you can actually care for your child. No, this doesn't mean you are not a feminist. And yes, it does make a difference that the target audience was students at Smith.
This is an interesting question. Do you think it's a bad idea for women/couples (of any age) to have children if they don't have the financial resources to support them?
I'm at that age where people are constantly asking me if I'm planning to have kids, and my answer (when it's not "none of your business") is, "Not any time soon... we can barely support ourselves, let alone a child." But what about women/couples who'll never have the financial means?
(Not directing this at you, specifically... just something I've been thinking about lately.)
Yes, I think its a bad idea to have kids if you know there's no way you'll be able to support them.
From the first few times I saw commentors start hollering "but this will CONDONE teen pregnancy!" all I could think of was the similar rhetoric from the right saying condoms/daycare in school/sex ed all condone teen pregnancy. It was just surprising to hear it on feministing. Sometimes I get really sick of the "it's a woman's choice, BUT" that goes on around here. Seriously, if, on the one hand, Charlie was a privileged white girl who chose to have a baby, she gets throttled here because she's too young to make a choice and a drain on the system, and when it's revealed that she isn't said privileged white girl, we back up off the privileged schtick to wax philosophical about whether her choice was a good one. I don't get it- is it her choice ultimately or not? And if so, how is anyone to judge whether her choice was a good one? Financially supported or not, she wasn't forced to give birth, she did everything more or less on her own terms, and some may not like it, but she used public assistance. As far as I know, the system doesn't discriminate on intention or not, so should only accidentally pregnant people be allowed assistance?
I found her comments about older mothers insulting.
I've been a married a couple years and we've put off the decision to have children until I'm done with school and we've both gotten steady jobs. I have to take crap from various family members for not trying to squeeze babies out as soon as the honeymoon ended. Now I have to take this attitude from a FEMINIST website?
If I get around to having kids in the next couple of years I'll be in my early thirties. I realize that teens think anyone over twenty is "old" but why the hell does she think someone like me isn't going to live long enough to meet my grandkids?
Also, I am sorry if the comment about delaying childbearing was taken out of context. It was part of a larger conversation about how exciting intergenerational living is to me. My son has three living great grandmothers and I think it is really special. My family, as troubled as our history might be, is really important to me. I think moms can be wonderful at any age. And I support a woman's choice to create a family at any time in her life. As a feminist, I believe that women should be entrusted with the decisions that shape their lives. They should be given the tools to delay or end pregnancy and they should also be given the tools to be good mothers when they do choose to parent.
Also the biological bit is in response to the constant attack on young women who become pregnant, kind of like some of the comments on here - like I must have wanted a child because my life felt meaningless or because I had low self esteem or because I wanted a toy that I could dress up... when really women ARE biologically structured to want babies. It's how ovulation and hormones work. In NO WAY does this mean that ALL women want babies or that all women should have babies, but it does mean that it is a perfectly natural urge.
Also I'd really like to see some reputable sources about the health risk of adolescent pregnancy. You know, sources that control for things like poverty and what not. I've actually seen a lot of recent studies that say women in poverty who have children young actually fare better than their child-bearing-delaying peers.
From a paper I wrote:
The studies that ‘reveal’ these results do not seem to take into account that the majority of teen mothers are living in poverty, a state with similar symptoms as the ones listed above. In a study of high-poverty black women, infant mortality was half as likely for women who were 15 than for women who were 25 (Geronimus 2003; 883). Teen pregnancy also has ‘devastating’ economic repercussions. The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy estimates the ‘cost of teenage child-bearing’ to society to be approximately $9.1 billion (National Campaign). The data lists as its source the government investigational study, Kids having Kids (1997). Population studies researcher, Arline T. Geronimus, also sites the Kids having Kids (1997) study, but comes to a very different conclusion – teen mothers from high-poverty communities actually fair better economically, and cost society less than their delayed fertility-timing peers (Geronimus 2003; 883).
Geronimus, A. T. (2003, September). Damned if you do: culture, identity, privilege, and teenage
childbearing in the United States . Social Science & Medicine, 57.5, 881-893.
Link between teen pregnancy and low-birthweight, pre-term delivery, mortality does hold up in large scale epidemiological studies even after controlling for race, education, risk factors, etc. Here's one example: Teenage pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes: a large population based retrospective cohort study
Xi-Kuan Chen; Shi Wu Wen; Nathalie Fleming; Kitaw Demissie; George G Rhoads; and Mark Walker
Most of the evidence I have seen suggests that there are risks to having babies either at the young or the high end of the spectrum (although the high end goes much higher with fertility treatments and stuff). But there's a very strong media message that women who put off childbearing will have health and birth defect problems. The public concern about teen mothers seems to be primarily focused on economic and children's cognitive/life/school outcomes for young mothers, and I'd agree that those are much more difficult to sort out from socio-economic factors.
Should note: That study also includes citation notes to other studies with similar findings that include different control methods.
Giving birth has more risks in many contexts - obesity, diabetes, smokers, women coping with various illnesses - and yet still women have children, whatever the risks, whatever the age.
Some commenters here have said it is irresponsible to have children if one can't properly care for them financially. That would exclude most parents on earth, as the majority of people of the earth's population are living in poverty. How about making sure people have a chance to better their circumstances and education whether or not they have children. Might be a more realistic focus. IMO.
I think the issue, at least as properly phrased, is with people who aren't financially, socially, physically, or emotionally prepared for parenting not being willing to wait a few years until, still quite fertile, they will be. People who are trapped in poverty for circumstances beyond their control are in one situation; teenagers who are temporarily not in a position for parenting - i.e., aren't ready yet - are in another one altogether, and the two are not closely comparable, or maybe not comparable at all. And I do think that most teenagers in our society are not ready to be parents. There's a reason for age of majority laws (although they're imperfect) - which only lowered the age to 18 from 21 in response to draft/voting issues - adolescents are not adults in physiology, experience, temperament, and judgment. Most people who aren't yet ready to live on their own, vote, drive (in some cases), drink alcohol, smoke, or consent to sex with adults would be better off waiting a few years to try and conceive children. And when someone who has defied the odds and done okay is touted as a "role model" who's made a choice that is implied/outright stated to be a generally viable one, it's both inevitable and reasonable that people will point this out.
"adolescents are not adults in physiology, experience, temperament, and judgment"
To be fair, this is very culture-specific and certainly not universal.
Wow, I'm very taken aback by a lot of the "poor shaming" going on in this thread, and the accusatory stings aimed at this young woman.
How did she pay for college? Probably the exact same way that I, a childless young adult, did. Through Pell Grants, scholarships, and a lot of hard work. My parents did help me out a bit, and it sounds like hers didn't. Does this mean I should be ashamed that I have resources that other young women do not? Or does it mean that I should take advantage of it to help better the lives of other women?
I get very riled up at comments like "people shouldn't have children if they know they can't afford them." I highly doubt her pregnancy was planned, and while abortion should be legal, for many women it is an option that they do not choose for a multitude of reasons, none of which should be vilified any more than the reasons that women choose to go through with abortion.
I guess I'm getting riled up because I am the daughter of a teen mom and I have seen this conversation come up so many times when a young teen mom is successful. Lots of accusatory statements and disgusted sounding posts. It's upsetting.
She states many times that the pregnancy was planned.
My problem isn't so much with her personal choice. It's hers. I'm allowed to have an opinion on it, but it's her choice. My problem is with deifying someone who makes an ill-informed, irresponsible choice. She's still arguing that late teens is the best time to give birth, yeesh.
There is a difference between dealing with a situation and glorifying it. Can there be great teen mothers? Yes. But stop the glory.
I guess she's a great mom and really pulled herself up by her bootstraps and apparently could make life changing decisions at 15. But she personally labeled a smug picture of herself with the words "role model." NO THANKS. God, could anyone be more self-promoting?
This is why I get so sick of college students. They always over-estimate their own importance. If anything all the testimonies about successful young mothers on here prove that she's nothing special. So why is she getting lauded for being so revolutionary? Because she's real-life Juno? cause she's cute? Cause she's just super-duper great at self promotion?
Agreed. Labelling yourself as a role model is pretty tacky.
and labeling someone else as trash or cheap is cool? I was imitating/combating a very specific ad campaign. I made lots of different posters and the role model one happened to be the one chosen for the article.
Obviously the "Role Model" poster was the most attention-grabbing--and for good reason! Most people wouldn't paste that label on their photo because of the public scrutiny it would most likely cause.
I'm curious about the campaign in question (with the derogatory implications about teen moms) and also interested in seeing Charlie's other posters. I think that the "Role Model" poster (while I think it can stand on its own as a definite statement) was taken somewhat out of context in the linked article.
It would be cool to see the derogatory posters and the "Role Model" poster together. Then I think it would be more apparent that Rose is probably not saying, "Hey, teens, have babies! Yay!" but instead trying to prove that young moms are anything but trashy or cheap.
She's getting the attention because she's smart and savvy. Had she done any other adult-like thing successfully at 15 that framed her life as she continued into college and gone on to talk about it in a campus newspaper, she would have been lauded in this forum...
But having a baby is different, it seems. And talking back to efforts to frame her as cheap are different it seems. Because she had a baby before our culture thinks she is ready to have a baby (forget whether she thinks she is ready... and hell, many people aren't ready to have babies at 30, or 40, but we do, because that is what we do...) Also the crux is that teenage mothers = poverty.
Our culture hates those people that feed off the system, don't we. Everybody should be self sufficient, and if you have babies in a situation where you can't be then that is selfish. Which begs the question I brought up earlier - a woman leaves her husband, a woman's husband dies, a woman loses her job and falls into poverty, should she be condemned for being selfish enough to still want to raise her own children and not give them up to someone with enough money... It's not much farther along the continuum of 'if she's doesn't have the money she selfish and irresponsible to have a child.
Seems to me it isn't pregnant teens who are a drain on the system: it's POOR pregnant teens who need help, teens from dysfunctional families, teens whose families aren't there for them. Teens who have babies from well off families usually get the support they need from their parents, the same way teens from richer families get the support they need to go to college, to travel to Europe, to start a business to buy a house, all the things that make it easier for them to get the higher paying jobs, live a comfortable life...
Teens without that support weren't necessarily headed for college (and not all people dream of college education), weren't necessarily able to find their way out of poverty, out of difficult situations. This girl did and should be applauded. But most of these girls would end up in similar situations even if they waited to have babies, stuck in minimum wage jobs that would offer nothing for mat leave, struggling to pay off student loans if they got themselves to college.
There's the assumption that, given a few years and a little hard work, these women could turn themselves into monied, middle class, college educated women who would be so valuable to the market place they would immediately land great jobs which they could then leave to have their babies... And that's just not true.
As I said before, sure many teens aren't great parents. Many monied, stable people aren't great parents. Many people from many classes of society aren't great parents, but they still have babies, and aren't reviled for doing so. What we have to decide as a society is how much are we willing to support child-rearing in our society. Not just for teenage moms, but for all parents who need daycares, who need days off to be with a sick child, maternity leave and breastfeeding rooms. Yes, it's tough being a teenage mother, but it doesn't have to be that tough: it's easy to adjust scholarships and schedules and our prejudices to accommodate and respect mothers whatever their situation.
Most women who have children in their 20's and 30's juggle all those things as they work, get more education etc. It's tough for them too. But life goes on after kids, and it could be easier if we all had supports. When we blame teenage moms for the 'reality' that raising kids is tough, we forget that we should instead attack the 'reality' that refuses to support parenting and measures which would provide all mothers easier access to education, the workforce and a better standard of living.