Terry, what is your definition of rational? Are you saying that
rational does not coincide with good and justifiable? Or are you saying that
teenage women are incapable of rationality and only deserving of pity from us
more rational, older, academic beings? Are you saying that rational is some
objective quantity or method of thought which can be divorced from good and
bad?
I maintain that GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES surrounding the lives of
many young women, bearing children at an early age is a rational choice.
The reasoning behind this statement is this:
1. The majority of children in this country are raised in a single female
headed household for a part of their growing years. When I say single headed
female household, I mean a very inclusive definition: divorced, abandoned,
deserted, single mothers. When you add up all the categories, even if it is
a few years between marriages, MOST children spend a significant portion of
their growing years in a female headed household. Women heading households
have a significantly higher labor force participation (LFP) rate than women
who are married. I don't have the statistics off hand, but, if memory
serves, the LFP for men in the society as a whole is somewhere around 75%,
while the LFP for divorced women is somewhere around 77 or 78%.
2. Girls, like boys, learn their role models at a young age. If their model
is a working mom supporting the family with little or no help from a male (at
best a once removed man who sends checks), there is absolutely no reason to
assume that these girls think their lives are going to be any different. 'If
mom can do it, so can I. Mom does not have more children because she can't
afford to take time off from work, so I will have my children young before I
have to work.'
3. Psychological literature shows that girls tend to identify much more
strongly with their mothers than boys do with either parent. In fact, girls
tend not to psychologically separate themselves from their mothers till a
much later age than boys. This strong identification leads to a strong
repeat of roles from one generation to the next (reproduction). If most
girls are being raised by single moms, it would be a real shock if many of
them did NOT become single moms themselves at some point.
I maintain that you don't see this as rational only because it is a
rationality you can't identify with. In general, I think economists, and
academics, don't want to accept this as a rational choice because it does not
fit in with the definition of rational handed to us in graduate school.
Further, this rationality is completely outside the judeo-christian ethic
which was ingrained in most of us from birth. As a last point, it's a hell
of a lot easier to see teen mothers as victims. This allows anyone
(academics, politicians, economists, marxists, feminists, democrats,
republicans, teachers, ......) to engage in an outsider's debate on the
irrational actions of these victims. Taking away the priviledge of debating
the actions of victims leaves only one alternative, facing the fact that
maybe these girls are making the choices they do because they have no other
choices. If they have no other choices, then there is something terribly
wrong with our society and the way we are structured. If there is something
fundamentally wrong with the way we structure our society for women, and
teenage girls in particular, then we would actually have to try and do
something about the problem.
Ultimately, saying that all teenage girls who get pregnant act
irrationally is a way of saying that all teenage girls get what they deserve
-- babies and poor prospects. The problem is not with the system.
maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 96-11-27 08:51:35 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terrence
Mc Donough) writes:
>There is a tendency in one of Maggie C.'s posts in this thread to
>identify the notion of rationality with concepts of good or
>justifiable. What is rational may not be good (if only because of
>externalities in this case on the child and grandmother). What is
>good may not be rational.
>
>I doubt that young women are conceiving early in order to facillitate
>their labour market participation in their 20s and 30s. Having a
>child in search of a meaning and purpose in life in the face of a
>hostile society which bars the way to any other road in pursuit of
>these goals seems to me a more likely explanation of teen pregnancy
>among the disadvantaged. This motivation doesn't seem to me to be
>rational but it is hardly dishonorable.
>
>Terry McDonough
>
>
>----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
>Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu (anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu
>Received: from anthrax (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu
>Date: Wed, 27 Nov 1996 05:49:27 -0800 (PST)
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Precedence: bulk
>From: Terrence Mc Donough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: [PEN-L:7601] Re: Technology Shock and Teen Pregnancy
>X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
>X-Comment: Progressive Economics
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terrence Mc Donough)
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 96-11-27 08:51:35 EST
There is a tendency in one of Maggie C.'s posts in this thread to
identify the notion of rationality with concepts of good or
justifiable. What is rational may not be good (if only because of
externalities in this case on the child and grandmother). What is
good may not be rational.
I doubt that young women are conceiving early in order to facillitate
their labour market participation in their 20s and 30s. Having a
child in search of a meaning and purpose in life in the face of a
hostile society which bars the way to any other road in pursuit of
these goals seems to me a more likely explanation of teen pregnancy
among the disadvantaged. This motivation doesn't seem to me to be
rational but it is hardly dishonorable.
Terry McDonough
