babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Pursuit of Bling or Respect?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Pursuit of Bling or Respect?
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 30 December 2005 08:41 AM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wonder......

Many argue that evolving and targetted social programmes, focused education, and choice employment opportunities would limit the lure of the gang-banger lifestyle.
What if, in the eyes of the killer of Jane Creba, respect comes from toting a gun and playing the part? What if, in the eyes of the gang-bangers, respect won't come from playing by the rules but directly from emulating certain pop-culture icons who glorify negative behavior? Are the various outlets of pop-culture visible today - T.V. and the like - responsible for this strange mix of violence and (lack of) respect?
Does opening fire on a crowd of innocent people get them the respect they think they should have?


From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 December 2005 09:13 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by caoimhin:
I wonder......

Many argue that evolving and targetted social programmes, focused education, and choice employment opportunities would limit the lure of the gang-banger lifestyle.
What if, in the eyes of the killer of Jane Creba, respect comes from toting a gun and playing the part? What if, in the eyes of the gang-bangers, respect won't come from playing by the rules but directly from emulating certain pop-culture icons who glorify negative behavior? Are the various outlets of pop-culture visible today - T.V. and the like - responsible for this strange mix of violence and (lack of) respect?
Does opening fire on a crowd of innocent people get them the respect they think they should have?



caoimhin, I'm going to start off here by channelling nonesuch. (So blame her for any missteps I take. )

I think that many people - maybe most? - live in bubbles. Most of us live in culture bubbles, more than we know, more than we like to think. We all do (and say, and write) a lot of things without even being aware, much less considering or caring, what people outside our own bubbles (and usually safely installed in their own) would think of what we do, or value in their own bubbles.

If the Boxing Day shooters turn out really to have been two gangs facing off against each other, then I doubt they knew who else was around and I doubt they cared. Maybe there are other people whose respect they would value, but I doubt they were looking for respect from most people on Yonge Street.

You say you doubt they want the kind of respect that comes from playing by the rules. I say I doubt they know what "the rules" are. They probably are aware that some people have such rules and profit by them, but above all they know that no one ever let them in on the secret. So they're probably wondering why they shouldn't cock a snoot at the rules-makers: why should they play by the rules if they don't even know what those are?

In other words, no: I don't think they have coolly evaluated one system against another and decided which they liked better. I think they are operating in the only one they know.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 30 December 2005 09:22 AM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by caoimhin:
Does opening fire on a crowd of innocent people get them the respect they think they should have?
Why do we try to conceptualize these kinds of urban conflicts with television stereotypes? People target others for revenge and their own concept of honour. How many times has a member of Hamas or other targeted group been taken out in the middle of a crowd with a missile? This kind of urban milatirism is no different.

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 30 December 2005 09:48 AM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
skdadl, thank you for your reply. I agree and disagree. I think they, the shooters, knew exactly who was on yonge and are desperate for the respect (any respect) that might set them apart. Why not get it on Yonge in a car with yer buddies?
I agree we live in bubbles, fractured as they may be, but can't agree that they don't know the rules. Taking a life, or attempting to, is as cut and dry as it gets.
quote:
In other words, no: I don't think they have coolly evaluated one system against another and decided which they liked better. I think they are operating in the only one they know.
To a point. Do they have the guts to change course, round the upwind mark, and choose a tack that society deems more appealing? Where would they get such an idea?

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 30 December 2005 09:53 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Exactly Makwa ... these people were following "the rules", it's us who are so conceited that we believe that we have a right to expect others to live by a different set of rules when they are in our presence.

If the rules are going to change, then they must change not only for the weakest members of our society, but for (especially for) the strongest as well.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
caoimhin
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4768

posted 30 December 2005 10:00 AM      Profile for caoimhin        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
these people were following "the rules", it's us who are so conceited that we believe that we have a right to expect others to live by a different set of rules when they are in our presence.
If the rules are going to change, then they must change not only for the weakest members of our society, but for (especially for) the strongest as well.

Are you saying its conceited to expect the criminal code to apply to all or that if weeker members of society believe certain rules don't apply to them we should respect that?

From: Windsor | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 December 2005 10:02 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hmmn. I dunno.

Quite frankly, I don't think that I know "the rules." If by "the rules" we mean what turns somebody into, eg, Paul Martin, or Hilary Weston, or ... (help me, somebody: I'm trying to think of biggies), then no - I don't think I know those rules.

I know some more minimal rules. But mainly, I know my place - and it's pretty lowly.

I should think these kids feel some even more extreme version of the alienation that I feel, and I tell you, mine is pretty bad.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Southlander
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10465

posted 30 December 2005 10:50 AM      Profile for Southlander     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They are playing by the rules, just not the same rules as me.
I think social services is the way to go. I have worked as a teacher with a wide variety of kids, some of who may well end up in gangs.
The most important things I can teach those kids are firstly to think for themselves, and secondly that someone cares about them.
Some girls were talking the other day and saying that if someone does something bad to you then they are responsible for your anger. They believed this totally. If a social servives person can change this attitude in one person then they may have saved the life of a child, wife, or rival gang member. We need more staff, and smaller contact groups.

From: New Zealand | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 30 December 2005 11:20 AM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
They are playing by the rules, just not the same rules as me.

Actually they are playing by precisely the same rules.
The rules of capitalism is that those with strength power and wealth crush anyone weaker beneath their feet. Individuals families, communities and countries are all open to destruction in the name of profit. Just because that form of gangsterism is formalized, legitamized and rationalized does not make it any more ethical or desirable.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 30 December 2005 11:23 AM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

Actually they are playing by precisely the same rules.
The rules of capitalism is that those with strength power and wealth crush anyone weaker beneath their feet. Individuals families, communities and countries are all open to destruction in the name of profit. Just because that form of gangsterism is formalized, legitamized and rationalized does not make it any more ethical or desirable.


Word


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
FabFabian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7496

posted 30 December 2005 12:08 PM      Profile for FabFabian        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think they are a group of people who confuse fear with respect. No different than your typical run of the mill dictator.

I don't think the likes of Hamas are in the same league as some waster gang member in a Western democratic state.


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 30 December 2005 12:34 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have represented probably a hundred gang members in court. One of the things that surprised me about them was how little they have to do with real adults.

Many of these people are theoretically adults. But they have left school, or been kicked out, and so have no contact with any teacher or guidance counsellour.

No one has ever really convinced them that schooling will pay off later, and most of them don't really think about "later" at all.

They have no job, and no possibility of moving up the ladder by conforming to the values of their superiors in the institution.

They mostly have no father in the picture, and their rampant sexism causes them to have little real respect for their mothers, whose advice they think inapplicable in their world.

Finally, although they actually do have some concern for the population generally, they have none whatsoever for members of opposing gangs, who they think deserve to die.

Consequently, the most common formula for them is to kill and be killed in gang violence, and not in violence directed against the community at large. Their attitude towards "community" deaths is similar to what Vice President Cheny thinks of Iraqis being killed: it's unfortunate collateral damage.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 30 December 2005 12:40 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A question, jeff house: What do they think of you when they meet you and talk with you?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 30 December 2005 12:40 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by caoimhin:

Are you saying its conceited to expect the criminal code to apply to all or that if weeker members of society believe certain rules don't apply to them we should respect that?

No, the code should apply to all equally ... the people who committed these killings should be punished, as also should anyone who takes part in the killing of innocent bystanders (or collateral
damage as some prefer to call these poor victims, but mostly when they are POC killed by us in some far off land.)

We are expected to respect the rule that says collateral damage is acceptable ... I'm not trying to say that we need to start calling innocent bystanders "collateral damage", but instead we need to start recognizing that calling innocent bystanders "collateral damage" is exactly the attitude we need to be fighting against everywhere, and not just when it happens in Gerrard Square, in the middle of white middle class Canada..

How dare we try and lay the blame on our popular entertainment culture for promoting this idea that violence against the innocent is acceptable? How dare we blame movies and rap songs, worlds of fantasy and imagining, when reality as presented by "fact based" media, not only condones, but praises as heroic and patriotic, the reality of "collateral damage"?

Put uniforms on these same killers, with arm patches of the Canadian or US flag, and send these people off to Baghdad and have them do the same thing against some other rival (religious) gang, and the same people who are calling to have immigrants expelled from Canada would be praising these people as heroes.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 31 December 2005 04:34 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
The rules of capitalism is that those with strength power and wealth crush anyone weaker beneath their feet. Individuals families, communities and countries are all open to destruction in the name of profit.

Capitalism's number one rule may not be "think of the other guy before yourself", but to suggest that there's a "natural" continuum that extends to shooting people over matters of honour is a pretty fragile stretch. These guys weren't playing cowboy because that's what Bill Gates did to get ahead.

And of course attempting to blame all of this on inequality, racism, poverty, alienation, etc., fails to explain how it is that the vast majority of people living or growing up in those circumstances — friends, neighbours and even siblings of gang members — do not end up being gun toting, bling-craving gangsters. How exactly is it that the majority are immune to the alleged causality of these social ills?


From: ř¤°`°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°`°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°°¤ř, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 31 December 2005 04:38 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Cut to the chase Magoo, what are you really saying here?
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 31 December 2005 06:06 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That I think the popular answers — "it's poverty", "it's racism", "etc." — are off the mark, or at least, quite insufficient by themselves. I think rival gangs driving BMW's up Yonge St. and firing weapons at each other is more of a pride/honour/macho thing than a response to being on welfare or living in a high rise. Being a "gangsta" is just one of many different ways of being a violent idiot.
From: ř¤°`°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°`°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°°¤ř, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boarsbreath
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9831

posted 31 December 2005 06:48 PM      Profile for Boarsbreath   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As I rabbitted on about in a related thread, it may be a way of being a violent idiot, but that doesn't help explain much. It's a way of getting ahead -- in the relevant "bubble", as skadl said, which bubble does not include you or me, as jeff house said.

Gates' bubble was very different. He got ahead by its rules, changing them somewhat as he went, of course, for no bubble is static. (The metaphor begins to lose tension...) Where there's no perceptible reward for devotion to employment, or study, or even for just being respectful & decent, people will play by whatever rules do lead to reward. (I'm reading a fascinating book about the Vikings, The Long Ships, featuring the quite perfectly heedless violence -- by our standards -- of our distant cultural ancestors on the Norman side...)

Where there's little such reward, as seems to be the case now in parts of Canada, many people will pursue the universal reward of status by rules we find abhorrent (and not because we're capitalist). Especially young men will do so. Moscow, Sudan, Fiji, good old T.O., wherever.

We have to change the rules so there is reward -- and that's not a matter, or even mostly a matter, of changing the legal rules.


From: South Seas, ex Montreal | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Yst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9749

posted 31 December 2005 07:13 PM      Profile for Yst     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I always find these discussions extremely frustrating because I can't help getting the feeling that virtually everyone is trying to assign blame somewhere, and it's all really a pointless exercise which ultimately achieves nothing on anyone's behalf and fails even to resolve any useful questions. Assigning blame wherever and however inevitably gains no one anything.

Blame: This is capitalism's fault! They're mindlessly imitating a formula they've seen depicted in the economic structure by which they're surrounded.

Blame: This is hip hop's fault! Popular hip hop is a non-stop mix of selfish, violent materialism which promotes such acts.

Blame: This is imperialism's fault! It's all just a metaphor for the colonial struggle and imperialist violence.

I don't see what it can possibly achieve.


From: State of Genderfuck | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 31 December 2005 07:54 PM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Capitalism's number one rule may not be "think of the other guy before yourself", but to suggest that there's a "natural" continuum that extends to shooting people over matters of honour is a pretty fragile stretch. These guys weren't playing cowboy because that's what Bill Gates did to get ahead.

And of course attempting to blame all of this on inequality, racism, poverty, alienation, etc., fails to explain how it is that the vast majority of people living or growing up in those circumstances — friends, neighbours and even siblings of gang members — do not end up being gun toting, bling-craving gangsters. How exactly is it that the majority are immune to the alleged causality of these social ills?


Well if one lives in Magoo ahistorical depoliticized world devoid of any analysis of the operation of violence force or power in the social realm or where no group has greater power and access to resources, then it would be difficult to see any casuality. If one also is views causality as beint simplistic and determistic rather than probablistic it is also unlikely you would see any connection.

No poverty does not just cause crime. Being impoverished, marginalized and excluded does create chaotic conditions of alienation, anomie, despair hopelessness and helplessness. Response to these conditions are varied inclucing poor health (physical and emotional)alcoholism, drug and certain kinds of violence. Again that does not mean all impoverished people will experience the above it is just that under certain social condtions you would expect there to be a greater probability of certain responses. Most people smoke thousands of cigarettes before they develop cancer it doesn't mean that smoking doesn't increase the probability of cancer.

In this context membership in a gang can serve obvious purpose for those who are alienated despairing and angry. It provides opportunity for belonging sense of worth and purpose, security and support that is lacking in a chaotic environment. It also provides economic incentive to escape the chaos. Saying that these youth are "bling worshiping" hardly differentiates them from most people in capitalist society. Being gang just offers greater opportunity since other avenues are not available. No one in Regents Park had Bill Bates connections let alone countless other privileges.

Even this analysis is simplified. If one takes a closer look at the discourse around crime and violence you will see that it is already highly racialized and politicized. The view of dominant culture is directed at the occurence of violence within marginalized groups and ignores other kinds of violence. Perhaps one of the greatest areas of violence across race and class occurs within the domestic context. Spousal and child abuse and other kinds of sexual violence is violence that is rarely detected reported and rarely punished. The extent that this violence occurs is actively denied and dismissed by polite society.

The other kind of violence that is unacknowledged by the dominant discourse is Racism. Racism by it's very definition is violence it is the dehumanization of the other, the annilation of the others humanity and the source of untold brutality. Racism is the justification and rational of the continued global capitalist colonial enterprise. The millions who died in the genocide against the indiginous persons of the americas(and other continents) and the enslavement and slaughter of Africans is the basis upon which the wealth of this nation was built. Although you won't hear Adam smith or any other economist speak of it. Capitalism and colonialism are inseparable and the structures that maintained white privilege, power and the assumptions of white supremacy remain. Institutionalized and systemic racism continue to operate to deny access to resouces opportunity and power. POC are denied access to education housing employment and basic human rights and global corporatism continues the violent explotation of the global south(and middle east).

Existing power structures are maintained by the extreme violence of roving gangs dressed in blue. Another form of violence that is hidden from the gaze is the brutalit of police harrassemnt and beatings of black and first nations people. Violence on the streets and a continuum of violence within the criminal justice system from the court house to prison beatings. You will hear little outcry about these forms of violence.

I don't at the moment even have the time to go into the daily violence that is a result of racism, even more subtle forms of violence brutality humiliation and assault on the human spirit that poc speak about more elequently than I but are rarely heard.

Of course none of this will have any resonance to those living in Magoo world. So Happy New year of willful ignorance. I'm off to make dinner for my beloved and to dream my simple minded dreams of a more just, humane and compassionate world. A world that might somehow understand that 500 years of violent subjigation might lead an angry youth to pick up a handgun.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 31 December 2005 09:16 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
(I'm reading a fascinating book about the Vikings, The Long Ships, featuring the quite perfectly heedless violence -- by our standards -- of our distant cultural ancestors on the Norman side...)

Would we see the Vikings differently if 99.9% of them were peaceful agrarians, and 0.1% of them sailed in big ships, raped, looted and pillaged?

quote:
A world that might somehow understand that 500 years of violent subjigation might lead an angry youth to pick up a handgun.

Will your dream include some kind of explanation for why this "500 years of violent subjugation" won't prompt 999 people to pick up a gun, and just the one teen?

Or will it just be a dream?


From: ř¤°`°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°`°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°°¤ř, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 31 December 2005 09:26 PM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Will your dream include some kind of explanation for why this "500 years of violent subjugation" won't prompt 999 people to pick up a gun, and just the one teen?

Or will it just be a dream?


Let me know when you understand the concept of probablistic causality or the interaction of innumerable variables.

The bigger question to me is why 999/1000 white people deny the existence, legacy and impact of racism.

A dream of a more compassionate world is better than the acceptance of unfettered brutality.


From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 31 December 2005 09:35 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
The bigger question to me is why 999/1000 white people deny the existence, legacy and impact of racism.
Because they don't live it and don't like the idea of taking ownership of the privilege of living as a member of the dominant culture, unlike open racists who revel in it.

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 31 December 2005 11:28 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
N.R. Kissed wrote:

quote:
quote:
A world that might somehow understand that 500 years of violent subjigation might lead an angry youth to pick up a handgun.



N.R. Kissed:

In an earlier post, you mentioned spousal abuse as being a bad thing. What do you think of this statement:

"A world that might understand that 500 years of violent subjugation might lead an angry youth to pick up a handgun and shoot his wife".

[ 31 December 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.R.KISSED
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1258

posted 01 January 2006 12:24 AM      Profile for N.R.KISSED     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
understanding doesn't necessarily mean excusing
From: Republic of Parkdale | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 01 January 2006 03:15 AM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Why do some people pick up a gun and other people don't?

Why do some people like vanilla ice cream and other people don't?

Why do some people do well in school and other people don't?

Why do some people join the army and other people don't?

It would be so SIMPLE if everybody thought the same, dressed the same, spoke the same, went to school, got B+, went on to college, got more B+, graduated, wore suits, shined their shoes, held down good jobs, paid their taxes and voted for the one true and noble political party.

Even within a family you get different reactions from different people. What one person will struggle with but rise above will drive another person to her knees. And if anybody knew the "why" and the "how" we could come up with a way to keep everyone on their feet.

Well, we don't.

This kind of violence is tragic for everyone involved. And I refuse to accept the idea that those who fall into the dead-end go-nowhere trap of gangs are in some way inferior, not worthy of our concern, just a pack of substandard throw-away rejects.

Why do some kids get the praise and respect they need by playing hockey and other kids find the whole game boring? Why isn't everybody pitching for the Blue Jays?

Somewhere along the line we missed the boat with these kids. And I'm not prepared to just shrug them off, nor am I prepared to line'em up against the wall and execute them.

We might mourn the method, but they are telling us something, they are showing us something, and if we don't stop blethering, bullshitting, and hunkering down in our bubbles things will only get worse.

God, it is sad when purportedly adult and mature people turn their backs on the most needy of young people and then maunder on about statistics and numbers and "rule of law" and other assorted untrammelled bullshit.

Makwa...the seventh generation is trying to teach us something. I hope Old Woman helps us understand what it is we have to learn.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 January 2006 03:19 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
Why do some people pick up a gun and other people don't?

Why do some people like vanilla ice cream and other people don't?

Why do some people do well in school and other people don't?

Why do some people join the army and other people don't?


Anne, it seems like your questions imply that whatever lot a person ends up with is simply dumb luck or happenstance. I still believe in personal responsibility.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 January 2006 03:23 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My niece, who is African-American, just started high school and got straight A's for the term that just ended. It's not dumb luck that she didn't end up a gang-banger. She is a very hard working kid who deserves the fruits of her labors. She should get the praise for her efforts and the killers should be shamed and punished for their misdeeds.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 January 2006 03:25 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
It would be so SIMPLE if everybody thought the same, dressed the same, spoke the same, went to school, got B+, went on to college, got more B+, graduated, wore suits, shined their shoes, held down good jobs, paid their taxes and voted for the one true and noble political party.

And if it weren't for those people paying all of those taxes, how would social programs be funded?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 January 2006 08:11 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, there are social programs and social programs.

A food bank is a social program.

A revolution is also a social program.

As are many things in between those two extremes, of course.

Great rants, N.R. Kissed and Anne.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 01 January 2006 08:31 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sven I am beginning to like you, but you missed the point entirely. And I really mean that first part.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 01 January 2006 01:14 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Sven: I'm completely on side with you when it comes to "personal responsibility". I take my own personal responsibility very seriously and try to instill the concept in my grandchildren; the result is that two of them, both First Nations, are on the principal's honour roll (now if only the table manners will happen!!) And what I see happening in the steady erosion of social programmes saddens me and angers me. Too many of us, not just young people but people of all ages in this country, are being brushed aside as if they were nothing but dust buggers and not worthy of our consideration or concern.

As part of my view of my personal responsibility I walk the sharp edge of doing my utmost to protect my grandchildren from the racism which contaminates this society and, at the same time, letting them know they will not always be protected from it and must learn to not only survive it but combat it. That one is hard. Hard to do and hard to "take".

Yes, certainly, we need a strong skilled work force paying taxes to support social programmes. How are we to have that when the suits do nothing constructive to build a strong apprenticeship programme? How are there to be jobs if corporations are allowed and even encouraged to "contract out"? And where does our personal responsibility figure in either of those challenges?

Please do not think I EXCUSE gun violence. I am appalled. I am horrified. And I would far sooner be the grandma of the child who died than the grandma of the child who pulled the trigger.

But simply locking them "all away" isn't the answer. There will be another crop coming behind them if we don't come to grips with the forces and problems which directed the current crop of severely alienated youth to what they see as the safety and comfort of the gangs. We can't just keep on taking ten per cent of our kids and putting them in cages!

And right now there is an industry thriving in this country, an industry which demands that at ALL times at least ten per cent of the population be in conflict with the law. All those police, those lawyers, those judges, those probation officers, those prison guards, the construction crews building new jails and prisons, the cooks busy boiling swill, and , probably, the real estate agents out scouting for new areas to build new jails...need "new fish"...and kids who are OBVIOUSLY in trouble, who have already started down a dreadful road to worse trouble, are not being given the help and the programmes which might get them back to health.

I'm not advocating we just scold them and turn them loose again. That's what's happening now, and they get turned loose again and again until they're in such deep crap people start yelling for the death penalty to be returned!

Programmes, of a kind which make sense. Some years ago I was deeply involved with "The Rediscovery Programme" which took kids who were "at risk" and who had some serious charges in their background out into the mountains in the Stein region , near Lytton. Rediscovery is "sorta kinda" like Outward Bound but with a slightly different slant, Outward Bound is more like man against nature and Rediscovery more like people as part of nature...not a huge difference but telling, we thought...and our "sucess" rate was incredible. Kids who had long histories of conflict with society spent anywhere from one to three months in the programme and learned something vital about themselves.

Well, in spite of the sucess we could NOT get any kind of real cooperation from the provincial government. We had more trouble with the suits than we did with the kids!!

Easier, you see, to just lock'em away, turn the key, let them simmer in a system where anarchy of the worst kind teaches them what they didn't know before they were locked away. Some call it "juvie University".

Personal responsibility goes beyond our front steps.

We don't have a lot of kids in Tahsis but all the little ones in the trailer park call me "grandma". I buy freezies by the case. One bedroom in this modular is "the toy room", and kids I barely recognize might well show up at the door, smiling, to tell me Hi grandma, I came over to play.

I go through dozens of eggs because they all seem to want poached eggs with ketchup when they get here.

And some days I'd really rather say shoo, scat, beat it, go tell your mom she wants you... but my own grandchildren might well be showing up at someone else's door saying Hi, I came over to play and if I want them to be welcomed, then I must be welcoming. If I want their world to be safe, I have to help ensure safety. If I do not want my treasures shot in the head in a store then best I get my thumb out of my bum and try to make sure there is a safety net to catch the angry kid who might one day hold a gun.

We don't really disagree, Sven (god, I nearly wrote "son"...that's an ageist thing I find I'm doing lately. called an RCMP officer "son" a couple of weeks ago and his eyes nearly bugged out of his head).

Remember that song they taught us when we were little jiggers in Sunday School.."you in your small corner, and I in mine".......

Happy New Year.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 01 January 2006 02:45 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
That I think the popular answers — "it's poverty", "it's racism", "etc." — are off the mark, or at least, quite insufficient by themselves. I think rival gangs driving BMW's up Yonge ...

I don't know, Magoo. I can appreciate the appeal of driving a BMW and gittin' with women and partying through the morning hours. Sounds glam, but just how many juvenile delinquents achieve that sort of lifestyle ?. Suzie Orman, the American TV financial advisor, says it's a myth. She interviewed a single woman who started out as a hip hop dancer who had gigs on MTV and lived common law with a rapper. And they did drugs and spent money like it was water and mingled with the underworld and rich and famous. That was umtil the money ran out and she was living on the streets of Miami with her child. And she was living a somewhat grand lifestyle as far as street living goes - spending hundreds of dollars a week on car rentals which served as shelter for her and her child, and on food. This young woman was the exception, I'm sure. She's still glam enough that rich men all over Hollywood offer to buy her companionship. She wants personal freedom to choose, and she came the realization that she didn't really have it and neither do a lot of the poor.

Like basketball, baseball and football stardom in the U.S., the glorious lifestyle of the gangsta-drug dealer-pimp is an illusion meant to keep them reaching for the brass ring. A very small percentage of the poor actually achieve it. It's a nice illusion though because people thrive on hope whatever the life chances or odds against it happening.

In fact, there is more evidence that poverty is at the root cause of criminal behaviour and gang violence. A Chicago police official produced a report on how rent increases in poor neighborhoods of that city tend to coincide with gang clashes as newly homeless gang members are forced to look for a squat in rival gang territory. The report also shows how gangland violence decreased to a significant numbers in New York after the city spend so much on affordable housing projects.

And, prison industrial complex in the States loves a revolving door of low wage slaves for the contracting out of menial labour to corporate America. Low wage philanthropy also applies downward pressure on wage expectations across the board in benefitting the rich two-fold. It would cost as much or less for the public to offer four years of university education than to warehouse the poor for one year in a privately-owned, publically-funded gulag in that country. Right-rightists are proving to the world that economic Darwinism costs more than social democracy. One only has to observe the national debt dinged-up by hawk conservatism in that country over the years to know that that system is wrong more ways than one. Wackenhut Prison Corporation and others are clamoring for a piece of the pie in Canada and around the world, and our weak and ineffective leaders would just love to sacrifice our social democracy for their benefit. Note: Loads more opportunities for kickback and graft

Skdadl's right, revolution is a social program - a very social, spontaneous response to oppression.

[ 01 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 01 January 2006 07:22 PM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Some thoughtful and illuminating posts. I've learned a lot more from this thread than from anything i've seen in the Glorp and Fail.
From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 03 January 2006 12:55 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
But simply locking them "all away" isn't the answer. There will be another crop coming behind them if we don't come to grips with the forces and problems which directed the current crop of severely alienated youth to what they see as the safety and comfort of the gangs. We can't just keep on taking ten per cent of our kids and putting them in cages!

I agree that locking people up isn't "the" answer. I see two ends of the spectrum: social programs that attempt to "cure" social problems and, at the other end, "lock 'em up". I think that social programs and jails both serve a purpose. A violent recidivist criminal needs to be locked up to keep society safe. Younger first-time offenders need guidance.

But, I think that society has failed youth because there is a great reluctance among many to shame and condemn behavior that is antisocial. I think that is due, in part, to an equally great reluctance to "moralize" about the behavior of others.

I'm no expert, but it seems like for the last several decades, antisocial behavior has been excused because it's allegedly caused by poverty, racisism, sexism, etc., etc. There is no doubt that those are social ills. Very real ones. But, what gets lost in the mix is any clear "moralizing" about behavior that this wrong.

Parents rush to defend and protect their kids even when it's obvious they are screwing up. Back in the day, kids were concerned about screwing up, not because the punishment they'd get in school but the discipline they'd get at home (teachers were backed up by the parents; they weren't viewed as the enemy of the parents).

Why is it that we have young girls becoming moms, in a day and age when abortion is readily available (certainly when compared to, say, the 1950s--a time when teen pregnancy wasn't nearly the issue it is today)? What has happened since that time? I think it's because people are reluctant to say such behavior is "wrong". I point to that because when you have a poor 14 year old girl becoming a mother, the kid the kid is having is going to be screwed up 99% of the time. Hell, most 14 year olds can't even take care of themselves, let alone a child.

I just think that there is an almost exclusive emphasis on trying to remedy social ills with little or no concerted social effort to condemn bad behavior as morally wrong. The young perpetrators' behavior is essentially excused because "the devil (social ills) made me do it".

[ 03 January 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
$1000 Wedding
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11486

posted 03 January 2006 02:38 AM      Profile for $1000 Wedding        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Anne, better be careful on how hard you yield the personal responsibility sword on this site as you may be labelled a conservative troll.

Today's youth has benefits far exceeding what young people in previous generations and other countries experienced. I am a firm believer in providing an array of social programmes to channel vulnerable youths away from crime. It not only saves law enforcement costs in the future, but it's the right thing to do. However, unlike others on this site I do not blame society for criminal behaviour. Doing so insults the majority of those from disadvantage backgrounds who make honest livings for themselves. Doing so utterly disregards the very human element of personal choice and responsibility. Parents, not society, is in charge of raising families.

Alot of people find tough law enforcement fascist, but you need positive social programmes and tough law enforcement to combat crime. And Canada's approach is too soft. When I grew up in New York city in the 70s it was a crime cesspool until Guiliani took over. He found that social programmes in the ghettos couldn't accomplish their goal unless you got crime off the streets. Instead, NY suffered a downward cycle. He and the rest of the US got tough with crime- everyone who broke laws got put through the system- and sustained social programmes such that things improved. Whether it was drug dealing or smoking weed on the subway platform- you got busted.

Law enforcement ain't social work. It's law enforcement. It means Canada needs minimum and mandatory sentencing for serious crimes (however you define it- that's another thread). We need to build more prisons. And when we decide you need to go to prison you gotta go. And prision ain't pretty- that's why you shouldn't commit crimes. There's no way to avoid the harshness of prison life.

Not being serious denigrates and disrespects the victims of crime and the rest of us law abiding citizens who pay taxes and want to make Canada better. We are the forgotten victims of crime and we have a right to law and order. I'm not in favour of the death penalty or a penal state, but criminals have to be punished.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 January 2006 07:58 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Well, there are social programs and social programs.

A food bank is a social program.


No no no! It's not! A food bank is charity. Not a social program! Social programs are what SHOULD put food banks out of business.

Social justice, not charity! (raising fist to the heavens)

Sorry, skdadl. Just had to get that out.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 January 2006 08:01 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, I rather thought my sarcasm would be evident. The contrast between programs that change little and programs that offer hope was the intention.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 January 2006 08:03 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yeah, I saw that you were making a comparison there. I just feel really passionate about bandaid programs that ease people's guilt and pretend to be solutions, that's all.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 January 2006 08:17 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, I agree, and worse than that - governments are now relying on these programs, leaning on them, when they were set up in the first place by independent activists who were desperately hoping that they would only be short-term stopgaps.

Now they seem to be figured into the accounts, and we are stuck with them.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 January 2006 03:41 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by $1000 Wedding:
Not being serious denigrates and disrespects the victims of crime and the rest of us law abiding citizens who pay taxes and want to make Canada better. We are the forgotten victims of crime and we have a right to law and order. I'm not in favour of the death penalty or a penal state, but criminals have to be punished.

The Yanks haven't been serious about social programs since at least Ronald Reagan when the gutting and slashing started, and prison industrial complex began replacing social justice in the U.S. They do go to prison in the the States, $1000DollarWedding. America is the world's largest gulag state, incarcerating its citizens at a rate of 726 people per 100,000 of its population. That's seven to 10 times as many as most other democracies. Economic Darwinism costs the public more than if they actually coughed-up the money for social justice.

[ 04 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
$1000 Wedding
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11486

posted 04 January 2006 10:57 PM      Profile for $1000 Wedding        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
No, Fidel, you failed to address my point, which was we need an approach that combines positive social programmes to alleviate poverty and educate alongside strict law enforcement. Instead of taking the reflexive, Canadian, anti-American stance, why don't we creat a unique, Canadian solution? Law enforcement is simply not strong enough in Canada to constitue a deterrent. Your solution fails to address the fact that there's a criminal element out there regardless of how much social justice you deal out and there are some criminals which need to be separated from the rest of us law abiding citizens.

And what do you mean by social justice? Exactly what programmes beyond what we are implementing now constitute more social justice? Do you mean more income redistribution? More low income housing? If I take your direction, I propose that a stronger economy with sustainable jobs will encourage people to be law abiding, tax paying citizens; and will generate the tax revenues needed to fund more social justice. They go hand-in-hand, but are separate from the issue of law enforcement.

Let's define on our terms what constitute serious crimes and deal with them seriously. We won't have a US style, super sprawling gulag because Canada doesn't jail people for marijuana possession (at least for under one pound or something like that); the US system is clogged up with these kind of felonies. But, Canada can certainly afford to jail serial, unremorseful robbers, violent criminals, car thieves...


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 January 2006 12:22 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You know what I think, Wedding ?. I think that the cost and source of crime is uniform across North America, and that homicide is a relatively small percentage of the problem in Canada. Toronto and Vancouver, as a big and scary a cities as I think they are, still don't compare with Chicago, Detroit, Washington or New Orleans when it was there. The links between poverty and crime are fairly strong, and the US system foments anger, frustration and a world of mind phuck among its lower layers of class structure. It's as if someone were doing an experiment with rats in a lab and subtracting living space and basic necessities and observing the results.

As an example of what I think is wrong with a society where inequality is most evident in the world, the U.S. with its somewhat high murder rates. A NY City cop interviewed said he came from Beirut, Lebanon at a time when homicides were problematic. He said he couldn't figure out why someone in the big apple could be shot to death for the sake of five bucks. He said that in his home country, people could at least give a reason for wanting to kill someone. He described how a young man shot another man for the portable radio he was carrying. The kid apparently didn't know that the radio was broken.But enough about you, let's talk about me, shall we?.

Blue collar crime is said to be worth about $ten billion annually on average ... some time ago. On the other hand, white collar crime, from crooked government deals on up to the Ken Lays and corporate crooks who abscond with worker's pension funds, jobs and throwing a phuck into a whole bunch of people at once, they get slaps on the wrists. White collar crime is said to be worth over ten times the value of street crime. You and I'd do more time for knocking over a liquor store than a lot of these sons of bitches. I think you're right about the need to criminalize crime, especially crime that pays. And I might not hesitate at suggesting capital punishment as a reward for crooking the people.

They should be lined-up at dawn, without cigarette or blindfold and uncerimoniously shot between their beady little eyes. And a pauper's grave with no marker to them.

Viva la revolucion!

Edited to add: And sure there'd be some innocent politicians and CEO/CFO's executed unjustly. One in seven figure comes to mind.

[ 05 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 05 January 2006 12:39 PM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I have no problem combining firm and effective law-enforcement approaches with properly resourced and committed social programs. That's just motherhood. The problem in Toronto is that we've been doing one at the expense of the other. Look at the way the police budget's been growing over the last few years while other programs get pushed waaaaay down the priority list. Kids get kicked out of school and wind up guess where? Community centres get closed. Training courses aren't there. After-school programs get axed. In other words, whole sectors of society get the clear message that society doesn't give a fuck about them.

There was a post in another thread on this board that talked about what happened when the Toronto cops (who have more than a few problems of their own) took down the Malvern Crew. It took a few gang-bangers off the streets, yes, but it also created a vacuum that other gangs rushed to fill. So, if you don't address the conditions that make gang membership, gun culture and crime such an attractive alternative, you'll just wind up with more of the same.

Despite what the "lah en erder, we need more cops, yada yada yada" types might say, we've been doing exactly what they want -- i.e. throwing more and more and more money at the cops, and what's it gotten us? Isn't doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results one of the definitions of insanity?


From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 05 January 2006 05:49 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Why is it that we have young girls becoming moms, in a day and age when abortion is readily available (certainly when compared to, say, the 1950s--a time when teen pregnancy wasn't nearly the issue it is today)? What has happened since that time? I think it's because people are reluctant to say such behavior is "wrong". I point to that because when you have a poor 14 year old girl becoming a mother, the kid the kid is having is going to be screwed up 99% of the time. Hell, most 14 year olds can't even take care of themselves, let alone a child.
[ 03 January 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]

Huh, I couldn't find a nice clean link for Canada, but the states' teen birth rate is at a 50 year low! Seems teen pregnancy was WAY more of an issue in the 1950s than you thought?

What's changed? Well, I got pregnant while unwed and university. In the 'glorious' 50s I would have been shipped off to a home for unwed mothers or obligated to marry the father. Neither oppressive option would have worked for me - thanks. Whatever's changed it's better for girl teens, young women & their children. My 11 year old daughter is thriving as is the 14 year old son of my 28 year old friend. You do the math.

[ 05 January 2006: Message edited by: Accidental Altruist ]


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
$1000 Wedding
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11486

posted 05 January 2006 10:23 PM      Profile for $1000 Wedding        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Fair enough, Fidel, I think you and I aren't that far apart. I don't think you are against law enforcement and I only want tough law enforcement against serious crime balanced with social programmes and economic fairness.

I'd like to add the real tragedy with Enron predicated by Ken Lay and his CFO is not the money lost by banks and institutional investors. Citibank can afford to write that off. The average employees of Enron who invested their 401K's in Enron stock have lost their entire retirement fund. No one is reporting about these poor victims. Business grinds whatever grist is necessary to move ahead.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 January 2006 12:14 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Accidental Altruist:
Well, I got pregnant while unwed and university. In the 'glorious' 50s I would have been shipped off to a home for unwed mothers or obligated to marry the father. Neither oppressive option would have worked for me - thanks.

My concern is not with unwed university students. They are adults. It's with children having childres.

quote:
Originally posted by Accidental Altruist:
My 11 year old daughter is thriving as is the 14 year old son of my 28 year old friend. You do the math.

And the jazz great Eubie Blake smoked couple of packs of cigarettes and ate a pound of candy every day and he lived to be 100 years old.

There are exceptions to every rule.

But, there are few people who would advocate as being a good idea that kids have kids and that they shouldn't wait until they are older. Why? It's not simply some old foggie morality that drives that. There are bad consequences. If there weren't, why should anyone care if kids have kids?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 January 2006 12:25 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Accidental Altruist, I think that the report from "Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States”, 1940-99, National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48, No. 16, October 18, 2000 provides revealing information. You can see the full 62 page report here: NVSR

As you can see, about 79% of all US teenage births are out of wedlock. Between 1940 and 1999, the rate of births by unwed teenage mothers in the US increased from 7.4 per 1,000 to 41.5 per 1,000, an increase of about 460%.

[ 06 January 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 06 January 2006 12:41 AM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
As you can see, about 79% of all US teenage births are out of wedlock. Between 1940 and 1999, the rate of births by unwed teenage mothers in the US increased from 7.4 per 1,000 to 41.5 per 1,000, an increase of about 460%.
Um, in the context of declining teen pregnancy overall (greater availability of abortion and birth control perhaps) and the decline of forced matrimony, this is kind of misleading or at least confusing. Is the rate referring to the cohort of teens or the cohort of childbearing teens, which would make more sense.

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 January 2006 12:53 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Altruistic's right, Sven. A book written by Michael Lind in States in the 90's, "Up from Conservatism: Why the right is wrong for America" quoted studies showing how single welfare mothers have no more incentive to have children than middle and upper class class married women. There are no monetary rewards from social assistance for the poor to be baby machines as the right has tended to mythicize, and statistics bear this out with birth rates being very similar across income stratas.


And this is an interesting subject that has implications for the third world. It's known that population growth of very poor countries looks pyramidal wrt to income class while columnar in richer countries. Maybe this is where the right have drawn their conclusions from when discussing welfare and poverty issues in North America. Very poor people around the world tend to have more children as a way of ensuring the survival of their families. The poor have no pension plans or social security to help them during old age and rely on being looked after by their children and grandchildren. Infant mortality is as high in some African countries as it was 2000 years ago in the Middle East. Life is a miracle to them still.

In fact, this is what the Asian tiger economies addressed after WWII - Korea, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan. They protected their small farmer agricultural base and invested in education, family planning and health care. It tended to reduce the number of hits and misses among the poor wrt birth rates, and they were able to pour more time and money into the children they did have. The result was a more prosperous generation the next time around. They implemented protectionist measures that went against the grain of what Washington consensus and IMF are advising/insisting on for the third world today with free market solutions to everything and performing badly, for the record.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 06 January 2006 01:48 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by Sven:
As you can see, about 79% of all US teenage births are out of wedlock. Between 1940 and 1999, the rate of births by unwed teenage mothers in the US increased from 7.4 per 1,000 to 41.5 per 1,000, an increase of about 460%.

quote:
Originally posted by Makwa:
Um, in the context of declining teen pregnancy overall (greater availability of abortion and birth control perhaps) and the decline of forced matrimony, this is kind of misleading or at least confusing. Is the rate referring to the cohort of teens or the cohort of childbearing teens, which would make more sense.

Exactly Makwa. NVSR only talks about wed vs unwed. In 1999, fewer teenagers were getting pregnant. And the ones who did get pregnant were much less likely to be subjected to 'shotgun weddings'.

Sven, I'm freakin' tired of single/teen mothers getting blamed for everything under the sun. It takes an egg AND sperm to make a baby.


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 06 January 2006 02:16 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by $1000 Wedding:
No, Fidel, you failed to address my point, which was we need an approach that combines positive social programmes to alleviate poverty and educate alongside strict law enforcement. Instead of taking the reflexive, Canadian, anti-American stance, why don't we creat a unique, Canadian solution? Law enforcement is simply not strong enough in Canada to constitue a deterrent.

What the hell? There is only one other democracy that imprisons more of its citizens ... the USA, and that country has a higher crime rate than Canada (despite the lies claiming the opposite that the Conservatives are spewing in their "tough on crime" speeches.)

If one were to do even the most minimal of research, it would be pretty clear that "tougher law enforcement" (whatever that means, really) is far more likely to increase crime.

It's too bad the "justice system" didn't actually put an emphasis on "justice" before the crime is committed, instead of on revenge after the the crime is committed.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 06 January 2006 05:56 PM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

I'm no expert, but it seems like for the last several decades, antisocial behavior has been excused because it's allegedly caused by poverty, racisism, sexism, etc., etc.

Why is it that we have young girls becoming moms, in a day and age when abortion is readily available (certainly when compared to, say, the 1950s--a time when teen pregnancy wasn't nearly the issue it is today)? What has happened since that time? I think it's because people are reluctant to say such behavior is "wrong". I point to that because when you have a poor 14 year old girl becoming a mother, the kid the kid is having is going to be screwed up 99% of the time. Hell, most 14 year olds can't even take care of themselves, let alone a child.
[ 03 January 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


Hell yes, I'm reluctant to "moralize" about another woman's decision whether to carry her child to term or abort!!! What kind of comment is that?!?


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 06 January 2006 06:59 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
I point to that because when you have a poor 14 year old girl becoming a mother, the kid the kid is having is going to be screwed up 99% of the time. Hell, most 14 year olds can't even take care of themselves, let alone a child.
Holy moralistic backlash Batman! Nice way to bash the poor and the young. Any data to back that up Sven? Ever hear of the extended family? Children's services? How rare is a 14 year old mother? Given that the cohort of mothers under 25 is about 3% of the total, this scenario is so rare I can't believe that we are using it to illustrate anything.

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 06 January 2006 08:23 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Did this supposed horde of unwed mom's get that way all on their own? Is it something in the drinking water? Can we stop focusing on the 14 year old girl and pay more attention to the impregnating male?

And before we start throwing stones (or casting aspersions) can we just suck back a bit and ask why ANYBODY in this day and age winds up with an "unwanted" pregnancy when there is birth control readily available.

WHAT are the factors leading to this supposed tidal wave of pregnancy?

Somehow we've managed to get rid of virtually all "rites of passage", leaving only the shadow vestige of "maturity" if you're a parent... and maybe people who feel they need ..something.. get pregnant to try to prove.. something..

In any event leaving them isolated and alone is not going to improve anything for anybody. And we won't improve bugger-nothing by spitting on them, either.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 January 2006 08:33 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by vmichel:
Hell yes, I'm reluctant to "moralize" about another woman's decision whether to carry her child to term or abort!!! What kind of comment is that?!?

That's not the issue. First, I'm pro-choice. Second, this isn't an issue about whether adults should or shouldn't have children out of wedlock. The issue is kids having kids.

Personally, I think it's "wrong" for a 14 year old to have a kid. This is not to say that once a 14 year old is pregnant that we should create legal obligation either to abort the fetus or to deliver the baby. Instead, it seems to me that adults should have the (minimal) courage to tell kids that it's not right to have a baby when you're still a kid yourself.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 January 2006 08:36 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Accidental Altruist:
Sven, I'm freakin' tired of single/teen mothers getting blamed for everything under the sun. It takes an egg AND sperm to make a baby.

I completely agree. I think that, statistically, it's just easier for governmental agencies to track unwed teenage births to the mother.

But, as far as the behavior goes, the kids (girls [b]and boys) should be discouraged from irresponsible behavior (i.e., a kid having a kid).


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 January 2006 08:40 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Makwa:
Holy moralistic backlash Batman! Nice way to bash the poor and the young. Any data to back that up Sven? Ever hear of the extended family? Children's services? How rare is a 14 year old mother? Given that the cohort of mothers under 25 is about 3% of the total, this scenario is so rare I can't believe that we are using it to illustrate anything.

So, I take it that you think it is a good idea for kids to have kids? It must either be that or you are ambivalent about whether kids have kids.

Which is it?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 January 2006 08:49 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
Did this supposed horde of unwed mom's get that way all on their own? Is it something in the drinking water? Can we stop focusing on the 14 year old girl and pay more attention to the impregnating male?

I completely agree with you, Anne. It’s a crime that impregnating males have so little responsibility for their actions. The niece of mine who got pregnant as a kid had zero support (financial or otherwise) from the male. He did his thing and never looked back. Makes me sick.

quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
And before we start throwing stones (or casting aspersions) can we just suck back a bit and ask why ANYBODY in this day and age winds up with an "unwanted" pregnancy when there is birth control readily available.

Again, I think that is something that society should focus on. It’s one of the big mysteries to me why pro-choice and pro-life people can’t get together on this (avoid the unwanted pregnancies in the first place and abortion is a non-issue).

quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
WHAT are the factors leading to this supposed tidal wave of pregnancy?

In my opinion, it’s the permissive attitude of adults. If adults are reluctant to set a standard of behavior, kids sure as hell aren’t going to do it themselves.

quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
Somehow we've managed to get rid of virtually all "rites of passage", leaving only the shadow vestige of "maturity" if you're a parent... and maybe people who feel they need ..something.. get pregnant to try to prove.. something..

That’s an interesting thought.

quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
In any event leaving them isolated and alone is not going to improve anything for anybody. And we won't improve bugger-nothing by spitting on them, either.

Obviously, once a kid’s pregnant, you can’t abandon them. There will either be an abortion or a birth. It has to be dealt with. I think we should be trying to avoid the pregnancies of kids in the first place.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sirrhosis
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10326

posted 06 January 2006 09:15 PM      Profile for Sirrhosis        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is an interesting though somewhat dated statement from a Statscan study of teenage pregnancy quoted on the site of Jessie's Centre in Toronto
quote:
Another notable difference between 1974 and 1994 is the number of single teen women keeping their baby: 25% in 1974 compared to 81% in 1994. It should be noted that Statistics Canada considers a person living common law as a single person. This definition makes it difficult to determine how many of these women were living on their own.

here is the linkJessies Centre. Interesting food for thought - Teenage pregnancy or Teenage Mothers. Hmmmm.

From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 January 2006 09:24 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think I would try to encourage young people from poor families in Canada to be optimistic about their futures. University and college tuitions may well become affordable again in Canada some day in the not so distant future. Our economy could start to produce full-time work in significant numbers with another political party at the helm. I never talk down to young people and always make a point of making some reference to the way it is and who has had the power in this country for the last 100 years in a row - the two old line parties.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 06 January 2006 09:34 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
So, I take it that you think it is a good idea for kids to have kids? It must either be that or you are ambivalent about whether kids have kids.
Ok smartie, in most traditional societies, including European, 14-year olds were considered adults, and typically married. However, in our society, we prefer to delay parenthood. All well and good. My point is constantly pulling out the reader's digest horror stories of hoards of pregnant early teens simply is untrue. As a social services caseworker for many years in the largest city in Canada, I never personally knew of one. This is not to say they don't exist, and where they do, children's services would be mandated to monitor the parent and child closely. This scare tactic is bogus.

From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 06 January 2006 09:46 PM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

That's not the issue. First, I'm pro-choice. Second, this isn't an issue about whether adults should or shouldn't have children out of wedlock. The issue is kids having kids.

Personally, I think it's "wrong" for a 14 year old to have a kid.


Personally, I think it's wrong for you presume of anyone, regardless of age, that you are better qualified than she and her family to judge whether her pregancy should come to term.


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 January 2006 09:54 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
We do know that teen pregnancies are common in African nations, the poorest of the poor. And the UN says that this Bush regime is insisting that UN aid money not be used for family planning clinics in those countries which would promote the use of and distribution of condoms and STD education.

Sometimes young, pregnant African women will find their way to a clinic and sometimes after trying to abort the fetus themselves. The results are not good.

[ 06 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 January 2006 10:08 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by vmichel:

Personally, I think it's wrong for you presume of anyone, regardless of age, that you are better qualified than she and her family to judge whether her pregancy should come to term.


Please read my words. I said nothing of the kind.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 06 January 2006 10:09 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
And the UN says that this Bush regime is insisting that UN aid money not be used for family planning clinics in those countries

That, of course, is insane (not the UN, the Bush position).


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
v michel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7879

posted 07 January 2006 12:16 PM      Profile for v michel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Please read my words. I said nothing of the kind.


You said this:

quote:

Why is it that we have young girls becoming moms, in a day and age when abortion is readily available (certainly when compared to, say, the 1950s--a time when teen pregnancy wasn't nearly the issue it is today)? What has happened since that time? I think it's because people are reluctant to say such behavior is "wrong".

which I took to mean that young women who are pregnant ought to have abortions, that is is wrong of them not to, and that we ought to tell them so. Now if I've mistunderstood that feel free to revise.

and this:

quote:

Personally, I think it's "wrong" for a 14 year old to have a kid. This is not to say that once a 14 year old is pregnant that we should create legal obligation either to abort the fetus or to deliver the baby. Instead, it seems to me that adults should have the (minimal) courage to tell kids that it's not right to have a baby when you're still a kid yourself.

which also seems clear, as does your emphasis on "legal" (implying that there should be another form of obligation such as social), and adds the ever-constructive element of public shaming to the mix.

and this:

quote:

That's not the issue. First, I'm pro-choice.

has jack-all to do with it. The decision whether to have a child or not is personal. Period. Proscribing abortion from a distance is as paternalistic and misguided as banning it is.

I don't mean to belabor the point, but this attitude really gets to me. Being pro-choice does not mean that you get to decide for abortion for other people. It means that you respect the mother and the family to make that decision for themselves, because there is no one-size-fits-all answer. It's just as horrible to say "poor unwed mothers should have abortions" as it is to say "they should not be allowed abortions." It's not your call; you don't know best.

I mean, how would you feel if you were pregnant and someone far removed from your life said you ought to have an abortion and that it would be morally wrong of you to carry the child to term? And that more people should tell mothers like you that you were wrong to keep the pregnancy, and that terminating the pregnancy would be an affirmation of our values? And we wonder why people feel alienated, why anomie sets in, where desperation comes from. Attitudes like that have a lot to do with the issues discussed at the beginning of the thread, in my opinion.

We're talking about people here. People commit acts of violence for many uniquely human reasons. People choose whether to abort or not based on unique circumstances. It would be great if a bunch of people on a website could figure out blanket rules like "people kill because..." or "14-year olds should have abortions." But to do so is dehumanizing towards the inidividuals involved.

[ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: vmichel ]


From: a protected valley in the middle of nothing | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 07 January 2006 12:40 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can't think of a single instance in which I personally knew of a fourteen year old getting pregnant. Sixteen, yes. Please, I'm not saying fourteen year olds don't get pregnant, just that I don't know of such a case.

Two years doesn't seem like very long but if you've dealt with teens you know there's a lot of growing, learning, and "smarts" can happen in that time.

I think sixteen is still "too young" to be a successful mom but the teens I've known who gave birth had support; inadequate from the government in my view, but quite wonderful from extended family.

Rosemary Brown did a documentary "no way, not me" about poverty, pregnancy, welfare..it was and is excellent. And we know that every year of education the mom gets makes an enormous difference to her life and her child's life. Some schools here have a Young Mom's programme, with a nursery space where kids can be "baby sat" while mom is in class. The moms go there between classes, at breaks and lunch hours to be with their babes. It seems to work very well. Of course, with the LiEbrals on the throne here the programme is struggling and is inadequate and...(I'll delete my predictable rant!).

I'm sixty seven. When I was a kid people whispered about one particular girl...she didn't "have a dad", her mom "made a big mistake", and some kids were warned not to play with or talk to her. Thank heaven my mom, Annie, was smarter and more compassionate, I was not warned away from this girl, who was a nearby neighbour. She lived with her mom, an aunt, and a granny, mom and aunt worked, granny "did for" everyone and weekends were work bees of laundry and heavier house cleaning. We were always welcome there, and those who hard-nosed the family were the real losers. When I was old enough to understand what "didn't have a dad" meant I asked Annie. She quoted the Bible. The part about he who is without sin cast the first stone. Then quoted Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

That pregnant teen is someone's daughter, she will soon be someone's mother. She might well be YOUR daughter. How would you want her to be treated?


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 January 2006 01:33 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think it's human nature - sex and having children. We've been doing it for a long time. We can treat all children as if they were important to our society, no matter what age the mother is, or we can apparently provide market solutions and consequences for exhibiting that same human nature engrained in us for millenia. We can't stop people from having children through welfare disincentives, or obscure poverty lines in Canada and the US, or condescending Puritanical speeches. But we can help single mothers do a better job of raising the ones they do have instead of waiting until it's too late and then having to subsidize the care of these children through foster parents in Canada and the US. Foster parenting is a necessary thing, imo. Parenting isn't for everyone and mistakes are made. But there are too many children living in poverty in Canada, and it continues to be our national shame. This is a rich country, and we have no business allowing this to happen.

Imagine what it would be like to know that your birth mother gave you up for adoption. And then society and people tell you, in so many words, that you were rejected by your own flesh and blood because there was simply not enough natural affection there to deem you worth keeping. They'll never tell you it was because your mother was living in poverty herself and was actually doing the best thing for you by handing you over to someone with monetary means. What a sharp thorn to have to live with for the rest of one's life.

Good night, you princes of Ontario, you kings of Nova Scotia.

[ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 07 January 2006 01:50 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thank you for that post, vmichel.

I think I can satisfy you that we don’t disagree on one thing: Society (legally or morally) should not be telling a teenage girl, once pregnant, whether to have an abortion or delivery a baby.

With regard to your first quote of me:

quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Why is it that we have young girls becoming moms, in a day and age when abortion is readily available (certainly when compared to, say, the 1950s--a time when teen pregnancy wasn't nearly the issue it is today)? What has happened since that time? I think it's because people are reluctant to say such behavior is "wrong".

You (understandably) read this to mean: “Sven thinks that a teen having a baby is the “wrong behavior” and he thinks that abortion should be used to stop that.”

I didn’t mean to convey that. The reference to abortion was merely an observation like: “Huh, what’s going on that the rate is increasing when abortion is so available today? There must be some other factor at play.” The point was not that abortion is the solution.

Obviously, I do think it is a problem for society when kids have kids. But, where we have a misunderstanding is the particular point of intervention. Neither of us think that a teen should be told to abort or have the baby. But, what I am saying is that we should condemn the concept of young teens becoming pregnant for two reasons: (1) It puts them in the very difficult position of having to choose between having a baby and aborting the fetus and (2) should they choose to have the baby, there are societal ills that will likely come from that.

Where I think we have agreement is that whatever those societal ills may be (if any), they do not supersede the fundamental right to choose between having an abortion or having a baby. The focus is one getting pregnant in the first place.

With regard to your second quote of me:

quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Personally, I think it's "wrong" for a 14 year old to have a kid. This is not to say that once a 14 year old is pregnant that we should create legal obligation either to abort the fetus or to deliver the baby. Instead, it seems to me that adults should have the (minimal) courage to tell kids that it's not right to have a baby when you're still a kid yourself.

The first sentence should have been: “Personally, I think it’s “wrong” for a 14 year old to get pregnant [because of the problems in (1) and (2) I noted above].” Further, the emphasis on “legal” was misplaced. I meant to convey a social mandate, whether truly legal or merely moral. Finally, my choice of word “to have a baby” should have been “to get pregnant” (again, because of the problems in (1) and (2) I noted above).

[ 07 January 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 07 January 2006 02:01 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's a wonderful post, Anne. And, I think the emphasis is in the right place (what do we do to help kids who have had kids).

Those with extended families probably do the best (my niece was successful, in a large part, because of that). Those without the support of a family to help guide them are the ones in trouble. And, no matter how much money we spend on programs, a governmental agency is never going to be an adequate substitute for a caring and loving family.

Because a pregnancy is avoidable, the emphasis, in my opinion, should be there. A lot of energy, time and money is consumed caring for kids who have kids; energy, time and money that could be saved if the pregnancies didn't occur in the first place.

And, in my opinion, three things do that: Making birth control available; making sure abortion is an option; and adults inculcating kids that getting pregnant is "wrong".


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 January 2006 03:11 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So let's say that political conservatives fail to convince poor people that having sex and children is wrong - that they must cut out this part of human nature from their lives, or delay it or whatever. Now the kids arrive. What to do now ?.

Will it cost more to give financial aid to single mothers, or will it cost just as much to pay foster parents to look after them ?.

What does it cost society when poor kids grow up with learning disabilities, emotional problems and sometimes criminal behaviour when they find it difficult to cope ?.

Does it cost more to incarcerate the poor for one year than to offer them four years of university tuition and hope for their futures ?.

Do we warehouse the poor as they do in the US and costing billions, or are there less expensive ways ? Real world examples ?


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Accidental Altruist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11219

posted 07 January 2006 07:39 PM      Profile for Accidental Altruist   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
And, in my opinion, three things do that: Making birth control available; making sure abortion is an option; and adults inculcating kids that getting pregnant is "wrong".

Getting pregnant is wrong? What about impregnating someone then? Hello.... egg + sperm = fetus.

Sheesh!


And, you DID get the part about the fact that we're at a 50 year low in teen pregnancy rates, eh?


From: i'm directly under the sun ... ... right .. . . . ... now! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sirrhosis
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10326

posted 07 January 2006 09:25 PM      Profile for Sirrhosis        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What's wrong is that teenage motherhood has become culturally acceptable. Baby Momma's are in fact respected within the community. Absentee Fatherhood is an accepted norm. The lack of a cohesive family unit is destroying these children. Community centres and Basketball courts, sex ed, money, you name it, none of these will rescue these kids. It is as if the community is committing self inflicted genocide.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 07 January 2006 09:52 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
It is as if the community is committing self inflicted genocide.

I don't know what community you're talking about, but thinking about ANY community as if they do not exist within a wider social matrix is very wrong.

The absent father syndrome is deeply connected to the relative absence of jobs, and the fact that an unemployed father is considered useless and a failure.

The attitudes of almost any community have historical roots, as well as being partially determined by present-day factors. Calling that "self-inflicted" is simply a way of refusing to think about the broader picture.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sirrhosis
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10326

posted 07 January 2006 10:18 PM      Profile for Sirrhosis        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The fact remains that a self perpetuating cycle of destruction has hold of these kids. The answers have to come from within individuals, families and then the broader community. People are not helpless, they are not ineffectual and ultimately they will provide the solution. Are you suggesting they are helpless victims buffetted by history and society and incapable of effecting change themselves? Who do you propose to lead them to the promised land? Rosedale Matrons?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Makwa
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10724

posted 07 January 2006 10:46 PM      Profile for Makwa   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sirrhosis:
What's wrong is that teenage motherhood has become culturally acceptable. Baby Momma's are in fact respected within the community.
Ok, as much as you may deny it, it is clear that you are trotting out the same old cultural stereotypes that have been used against Black folk for centuries. Why else the insistence on culturally appropriated African-American slang? For these and other marginalized communities, economic desperation has always been at the root of the fragile family structure. However, despite this, people still struggle to keep their children within their families and within the community.

It is attitudes like this that has led to whole sale invasions of so called 'well meaning' experts and bureaucrats who presided over one of the largest kidnappings of Aboriginal children in the continent from the 40's to the 70's as thousands of FN kids were systematically torn from their families and their communities. And I can tell you from personal experience it does not leave a good socially inclusive feeling in the children who grow up under such conditions.


From: Here at the glass - all the usual problems, the habitual farce | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca