Comment by pesmhey | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pesmhey | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Is it a truly a bad thing for teenagers to have children and then remain within their extended families and communities for support? Not forever, of course, but for a handful of years. I'd say that the claim 'teen pregnancy is bad (or not good)' requires a lot of evidence to back it up, rather than taken as a given.

This issue probably has very little to do with sperm quality or the availability of abortion, but with our culture in general. The assumption that teen pregnancy = bad, the stigma around it, etc. In your comment, the mentality that life starts later. Like, life starts at birth.

I'd imagine that same mentality is responsible for the loneliness epidemic written about in the same places. This idea that life is some achievement to be gained after doing things like going to college. Like, you can't live your life until you've completed some rites of passage, except they get increasingly more detached from reality every decade. And as we read about in the WaPo and other sources, has the college rite of passage really served the amount of people who have gone through it? Student loan debt, bad job prospects, starting life later...

Another interesting fact, younger couples have healthier children. Not like, 13 young, but late teens early 20s young. As couples age, the risk of genetic faults and things like autism rise.

tldr, it's not sperm count or abortion. Our rites of passage into adulthood suck.

There is abundant evidence that teen pregnancy has a severe negative impact on the economic prospects of young women. Many of these women will drop out of high school and almost none will complete college degrees.

And yet, we’re having a discussion about a fertility crisis. A discussion that is happening in parallel with a discussion about whether or not the benefits of a college education are worth the costs, for either gender. And a political climate where a demagogue rose to power on a promise to return to a time when these weren’t discussions. A general lack of respect for tradesmen and blue collar workers - despite the many benefits they provide to the economy. An epidemic of loneliness, the destruction of communities all across the country. For a great number of people in the US, there’s a longing for a return to traditional values. The answer is somewhere in between both extremes. Not every man or woman need to start life later. Economic outcomes would be a lot better for a lot of people (and the US in aggregate) if that wasn’t the narrative being sold to them.

Of course, for a lot of other people, college, and starting life later is absolutely the right answer, economically, socially, etc. I’m not saying that everyone needs to strive for the traditional nuclear family and forego college, I’m saying that there’s an incredible lack of respect for the people that do, much to everyone’s detriment. Does a woman who enjoys the idea of being a mother and a homemaker really need to go to college? Is it ok for women to want to be president, or to bake cookies for their family. It seems like we’ve really told them ‘no, if your goal is to bake cookies and make a warm home, then you’re pretty much a garbage proletarian.’

Disclaimer, I’m a man, talking about what women can or can’t do, so take it with a grain of salt, hopefully a woman can provide a perspective based on experience.

Now of course the question is what exactly are traditional values and who would loose if we returned to them. And who would win.

Because for all the nostalgia, teenage girls who got pregnant and their children were heavily stigmatised and paid the price. People who married as teenagers divorced more often. When divorce was not available due to laws, the nad marriage remained bad including domestic violence and such.

It is not just that she won't get education even if she had brain for it. She will have hard time getting and keeping job. She will be completely dependent of help of other people and such situation royally sux. Which does not mean she won't be lonely, because when you depend on people they are less likely to treat you like an equality friend.

Lack of respect toward blue colar translates into much less respect for both pregnant teenager and homemaker. The reality is, the warm homemaker happily making cookies is largely rose colored fiction. It kind of ignores reality of it all, for both genders. Men prefered being with male friends over warm home anyway and women were butt of joke anyway.

Speaking about loneliness, being stay at home mom can be loneliest experience ever. Lonely guys who have jobs and online games are not nearly as lonely as homemaker situation.

Edited to add: you know the stereotype of women being on the phone so much and being extremely talkative? Both are because homemaker is completely alone whole day doing everything alone except when she is on the phone and thus talks more in social situation or when husband comes home.

Agreed, traditional values are often seen through rose-colored glasses. We trade one set of problems for another. Domestic violence, unhappiness, worse economic outcomes absolutely necessitated women’s empowerment. I agree with all of your points, but wonder if we threw out the baby with the bath water in some ways. Like, in the past, traditionally defined gender norms left little choice for people who wanted something else for the lives. And now, maybe our newly constructed gender norms are restricting the choice for people who might want something else - something more ‘traditional’.

My whole point is that people, men and women, shouldn’t be stigmatized for following traditional gender norms any more than they should be stigmatized for creating new ones, and I feel like that may not be the case today.

All of this hinges on my initial point that lowered rates of fertility are caused more by culural reasons than lowered sperm count or the availability of abortion. I’ve got no real evidence to back that up, maybe it’s just plastic in our water. Doesn’t seem like any of the researchers in the article know either.

My points were not about what who wants, but what happens after they get it. A guy may want traditional marriage, and still may grow resentful when it leaves him stuck in job he hates while wife does less and have additional demands on him at home. The wife at home won't really appreciate his issues, because she has zero experience with any of that.

The traditional roles split worked as long as there was a lot of real home work and not much choice. Then it worked as status symbol for a while, but it was status wifes who eventually rebelled.

Unmarried teenage pregnancy is not what people generally means when they talk about traditional role of gender. Unmarried pregnant teenager is better off now compared to whatever you means by traditional time.

Large reason for lowered teenage pregnancy rates is sexual education - kids know about contraception and know to use it. Conversely sexual discussion being taboo in the past meant more teenagers pregnant.

Having children at all is a severe negative impact on the economic prospects of women of any age. Once you have children you're out of the career grind for a few months and you get back into the game with a lower participation rate (fewer hours, for example).

The impact on education is easily avoidable by doing exactly what the parent commenter suggested: having children in extended families so the mother isn't the sole or primary caregiver for the new child. This frees the mother up to finish school, continue her career, etc.

Because American society punishes pregnancy. There is no practical reason why teenagers who get pregnant can't have a full education.

Economic prospects aren't everything. Life is more than that, and many people place a high value on family.

Lots of the trouble with "teen pregnancy" is really not about age. It's about not having a stable marriage with a decent breadwinner. Pregnancy in the mid-late teen years is biologically ideal.

Dropping out of college or even high school isn't so bad. It makes perfect sense if you value children and think that family comes first. You have to start early if you want to have a big healthy family.

I’ll wager the vast majority of teenage pregnancies don’t come from a stable marriage with a decent breadwinner. This reads to me as practically naive to make a worldly claim.

Because there are different issues at play and you're only willing to look at the economic impact.

And if that family does not work out the way old school romance books write about, then you are f-ed along with children. The father is f-ed too for that matter. Parental stress is game change for children who are more likely to become target of parental frustration. The divorce rates for young marriages are higher then those for people who marry older.

High school drop outs with or without children do very badly in this economy. But when you have children while relying on unstable minimum wage income from irregular hours, then it is all triple harder.

Lastly, teenage years are not biologically ideal. Teenagers have more pregnancy complications, including expensive ones and dangerous ones. As in, having child during your twenties is healthier for you and child. Both under 18 and over 35 are associated with more risks.

The situation is normally happily-ever-after for people who choose to make it so. FWIW, I know a pair of couples who started dating in middle school and married as soon as legally possible, and they are happy decades later. It helps to have a strong sense of duty and responsibility in your culture.

Not that the current economy is bad, because it isn't and many high school dropouts are getting jobs now, but I'm not seeing how that relates to the economic well-being of a full-time mother. The father could be a decade older, settled into a career as a petroleum engineer or stock trader.

It's a given that a study of pregnancy age will fail to compensate for factors unrelated to age. The big and obvious one: on average, there is something different about the personality of a person who gets pregnant at that age. (and thus unhealthful choices, etc.) I do not accept any claims to have properly accounted for non-age factors. The ideal age is going to depend on your DNA (when do you reach full size where it counts?) but FWIW that is likely near age 16 for many people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com