|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How to solve the UK's teen pregnancy problem?
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
The UK has famously had a problem with high teen pregnancy rates for along time.
See Unicef report below for example of one of many such reports.
http://www.unicef.org.uk/Latest/News/report-card-11-child-wellbeing-uk-teens-ignored-by-government/
What surprises me is that whenever this problem is reported the recommended solution is always the same: more education, more condoms, more openness.
As such methods have been resoundingly unsuccessful I'm going to suggest a more radical solution: more parenting!
I appreciate that many in the UK will be unwilling to consider such an unorthodox idea but pause and think of the example of the Netherlands where both mothers and fathers spend far more time with their children than in the UK and the Teen pregnancy rates are amongst the lowest in Europe. See link for example below.
http://www.findingdutchland.com/happiest-kids-in-the-world/
It is common sense that the more time children spend with their parents the happier and more emotionally stable they will be. It is a basic idea behind attachment theory. In spite of this the shortsighted UK government is actually encouraging parents to spend less time with their children by introducing a childcare allowance and changing the ratio in childcare settings so that less day carers can care for greater numbers of children. This is of course all in the name of economic growth. The first place that children learn about love, altruism and obligation to society is in the family. What price must we pay for economic growth? Must we sacrifice the wellbeing of our children to this tyrannical idol?
[Edited to fix link. - Gwai]
[ 31. March 2014, 13:35: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
British teen pregnancy rates are dropping, though:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26338540
With local councils reducing their expenditure on teenagers, and families becoming more fragile, the number of teen pregnancies is unlikely to drop to zero. There are very few job prospects possible for youngsters who don't get on with education, and minimum wage jobs are frequently going to more dynamic and experienced immigrants. So some girls will continue to get pregnant early because they've got nothing to lose, as they see it.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Reality TV
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
What surprises me is that whenever this problem is reported the recommended solution is always the same: more education, more condoms, more openness.
As such methods have been resoundingly unsuccessful
I'm not sure you can argue this: it seems to me that "more education, more condoms, more openness" hasn't actually been tried in the UK beyond small pockets of good practice. My own children's experience of what passes for sex ed in schools - Miss Tor's sitting next to me as I type, and we're talking about what she's learnt - is that she knows what to do to not get pregnant, and so far, it's worked...
Fortunately, her experience has been far better than the 'Christian ethos' academy up the road which teaches an abstinence-only program, lacking in all contraceptive advice.
Part of the problem is both the above, and the fact that parents can withdraw their children from sex ed lessons. So, yes, more education, more condoms, more openness, whoever it comes from, parents, teachers, both.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
What does 'education' comprise? It's been a while since I was at school, so I don't know what's taught these days, but it seems to me that pupils are often taught the mechanics of sex (this is how you do it, this is how you stop getting pregnant, this is how you might catch a disease). What this lacks is any discussion about the situations in which sex takes place (say in a long-term relationship rather than a one night stand).
If this is correct, and we're teaching teenagers how to have sex without any guidance on when to have it, it doesn't surprise me that they then go out, do it and in some cases get pregnant.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Condom demonstrations and education are probably almost worthless if the children have already most of their sexual information from pornography. And I think they have had. I've heard this mentioned a series of times, and found this UK link about it.
quote:
The National Association of Headteachers (NAHT) says more young people are now getting information about sex from online and sex education guidelines are out of date....
At the moment, PSHE, which includes sex and relationships education, is not compulsory in England unlike other parts of the UK.
Biological facts are part of all lessons in secondary school science lessons....Beyond that parents have the right to withdraw their children from any sex education.... But The National Union of Teachers say referring to issues of porn in lessons is a step too far and that schools should only talk about it if asked by students.
If kids as young as 10 already know about blow jobs, anal sex, "money shots", and three-somes, with the basic understanding that sex is simply recreational, what on earth should we expect? In Canada, we're seeing less pregnancies probably because of easy access to the birth control, it's on the shelf in all grocery stores, though you might think in a country without any abortion laws whatsoever, it might be via abortion, but it is not.
I always think a good question for parents is what they might do when their child says they want to sleep over with their boy or girl friend. The parents usually think they should say "absolutely not", when it is obvious that their child is already having sex, and they are trying to close the bedroom door after the pants have been down for quite a while. -- so I am agreeing with parenting, but certainly if you're not dealing with it until the kids are teens, you're sunk.
I would not allow parents to opt their kids out of sexual education. Period. I'd also not allow them to opt their kids out of math or spelling.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
I would not allow parents to opt their kids out of sexual education.
Possible slight tangent - my daughter's school asked me to write an opt-out letter when they were discussing STDs as it made it easier for them to excuse her if / when she started to look green.
With an opt-out letter, my daughter could just walk out of the class if she was feeling nauseous. They had a table set up in the library for those absenting themselves from sex-ed.
I don't know if this happens in other schools, but I am more than keen for my daughter to get good sex-ed. Providing an opt-out letter didn't mean I was against sex ed.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Makepiece: quote:
As such methods have been resoundingly unsuccessful I'm going to suggest a more radical solution: more parenting!
This is not radical at all: it is a return to so-called "Victorian values." They used to call it 'lock up your daughters'.
It would be nice to think we had moved on slightly since the nineteenth century, but apparently not.
[ 31. March 2014, 09:26: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
Things might be different in the United States, but how many people in the UK actively take their children out of sex education? And are those who do opt out the sort of children who are likely to get pregnant at an early age? My instinct says they aren't.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
This school seems to have found a way that makes a difference.
Some context: Kirkcaldy is on the whole a pretty deprived area, which no doubt contributed to the high teenage pregnancy rate.
To summarise, their approach seems to have three main elements:
- an education programme that focuses on sex and relationships, delivered in small single-sex groups.
- older students being trained as mentors for the younger ones.
- a drop-in clinic at the school nurse's office, run in conjunction with the NHS. This provides advice and contraceptives.
Fife Regional Council has been at the forefront of good practice for sex and health education. My sister's family lives in a nearby town, and the youngest (aged 10) has been working through their joined-up programme since she started school at 5. This will continue right through until she finishes High School. The Council has also done very well in keeping parents informed and on side, and my sister has been highly impressed by the whole approach.
[ 31. March 2014, 09:47: Message edited by: Cottontail ]
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Possible slight tangent - my daughter's school asked me to write an opt-out letter when they were discussing STDs as it made it easier for them to excuse her if / when she started to look green.
No offense at all to your daughter, but it is an issue if we are so divorced from the reality of our bodies that learning about them makes people sick.
Part of the whole issue around sexual education is that a lot of people find it icky or awkward to discuss these issues. It's a lot more icky and awkward when one has an unintended pregnancy or disease. We need to get over this.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
This school seems to have found a way that makes a difference.
Some context: Kirkcaldy is on the whole a pretty deprived area, which no doubt contributed to the high teenage pregnancy rate.
To summarise, their approach seems to have three main elements:
- an education programme that focuses on sex and relationships, delivered in small single-sex groups.
- older students being trained as mentors for the younger ones.
- a drop-in clinic at the school nurse's office, run in conjunction with the NHS. This provides advice and contraceptives.
Fife Regional Council has been at the forefront of good practice for sex and health education. My sister's family lives in a nearby town, and the youngest (aged 10) has been working through their joined-up programme since she started school at 5. This will continue right through until she finishes High School. The Council has also done very well in keeping parents informed and on side, and my sister has been highly impressed by the whole approach.
That Fife Regional Council must be wonderfully talented to be doing all this, considering it was abolished in Scottish local government reform of 1996.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Possible slight tangent - my daughter's school asked me to write an opt-out letter when they were discussing STDs as it made it easier for them to excuse her if / when she started to look green.
No offense at all to your daughter, but it is an issue if we are so divorced from the reality of our bodies that learning about them makes people sick.
There's a difference between "learning about our bodies" and "learning about diseases that affect our bodies". Feeling sick when looking at pictures of STD-affected body parts doesn't mean the person doesn't know how those parts work, any more than feeling sick when looking at a compound leg fracture means the person doesn't know how legs work.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
I wish I had an opt-out letter when my Biology teacher showed my class a video of a woman giving birth.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
This school seems to have found a way that makes a difference.
Some context: Kirkcaldy is on the whole a pretty deprived area, which no doubt contributed to the high teenage pregnancy rate.
To summarise, their approach seems to have three main elements:
- an education programme that focuses on sex and relationships, delivered in small single-sex groups.
- older students being trained as mentors for the younger ones.
- a drop-in clinic at the school nurse's office, run in conjunction with the NHS. This provides advice and contraceptives.
Fife Regional Council has been at the forefront of good practice for sex and health education. My sister's family lives in a nearby town, and the youngest (aged 10) has been working through their joined-up programme since she started school at 5. This will continue right through until she finishes High School. The Council has also done very well in keeping parents informed and on side, and my sister has been highly impressed by the whole approach.
That Fife Regional Council must be wonderfully talented to be doing all this, considering it was abolished in Scottish local government reform of 1996.
Apologies - I don't live there. I see that they are just Fife Council now.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There's a difference between "learning about our bodies" and "learning about diseases that affect our bodies". Feeling sick when looking at pictures of STD-affected body parts doesn't mean the person doesn't know how those parts work, any more than feeling sick when looking at a compound leg fracture means the person doesn't know how legs work.
Someone who is unable to look at a picture of an STD will struggle to identify it on themselves if the symptoms emerge. Or to identify it on their partner. When it comes to common and communicable diseases, the more information the better.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
seekingsister: quote:
No offense at all to your daughter, but it is an issue if we are so divorced from the reality of our bodies that learning about them makes people sick.
Way to miss the point. Being forced to look at graphic images of diseased bodies is not at all the same thing as learning about how bodies work, as Marvin has already pointed out.
Some people do find images of medical procedures and diseased or injured bodies very distressing. I have no idea whether NEQ's daughter is one of these people, but I do know someone who fainted in the middle of a church service once because a doctor was giving an illustrated talk about her work in a USPG hospital. The slide that finally did for him wasn't even particularly graphic.
quote:
Someone who is unable to look at a picture of an STD will struggle to identify it on themselves if the symptoms emerge.
I don't think you need to see pictures of someone else's rotting vagina to know when something unusual that you need to see the doctor about is happening in yours.
The main problems in getting people to STD clinics are firstly embarrassment at having to tell the doctor about whatever-it-is that's worrying you and secondly, the fact that some STDs don't have obvious symptoms - chlamydia, for example, which is quite difficult to spot if you're female.
[ 31. March 2014, 10:30: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
This school seems to have found a way that makes a difference.
Some context: Kirkcaldy is on the whole a pretty deprived area, which no doubt contributed to the high teenage pregnancy rate.
To summarise, their approach seems to have three main elements:
- an education programme that focuses on sex and relationships, delivered in small single-sex groups.
- older students being trained as mentors for the younger ones.
- a drop-in clinic at the school nurse's office, run in conjunction with the NHS. This provides advice and contraceptives.
Fife Regional Council has been at the forefront of good practice for sex and health education. My sister's family lives in a nearby town, and the youngest (aged 10) has been working through their joined-up programme since she started school at 5. This will continue right through until she finishes High School. The Council has also done very well in keeping parents informed and on side, and my sister has been highly impressed by the whole approach.
That Fife Regional Council must be wonderfully talented to be doing all this, considering it was abolished in Scottish local government reform of 1996.
Apologies - I don't live there. I see that they are just Fife Council now.
A forward-thinking council, I think.
The system is now unitary councils. The old system of regional and district councils (1975-1996)with different responsibilities was deemed too bureaucratic. There are moves afoot to amalgamate councils into bigger areas.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Someone who is unable to look at a picture of an STD will struggle to identify it on themselves if the symptoms emerge.
They'll know something is wrong though. Is that not enough?
I mean, we don't insist on showing graphic images of leprosy or ebola or Stevens-Johnson disease (look it up) just so that people can self-diagnise should they ever be unfortunate enough to get one of them.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
Someone who is unable to look at a picture of an STD will struggle to identify it on themselves if the symptoms emerge.
They'll know something is wrong though. Is that not enough?
I mean, we don't insist on showing graphic images of leprosy or ebola or Stevens-Johnson disease (look it up) just so that people can self-diagnise should they ever be unfortunate enough to get one of them.
Those illnesses are not common. HPV and herpes are common, on the other hand.
Lots of people would incorrectly write off symptoms as pimples, rashes, ingrown hairs, etc. I do not think the average person rushes off to their GP because of a few bumps in their nether regions. However if they knew it was an STD that might render them infertile, they'd probably be a lot more proactive.
(Full disclosure: I was raised by a doctor and have a lifetime of hearing horror stories of people who weren't aware enough of their bodies to prevent or rapidly treat serious illnesses.)
[ 31. March 2014, 10:38: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
seekingsister: quote:
I was raised by a doctor and have a lifetime of hearing horror stories of people who weren't aware enough of their bodies to prevent or rapidly treat serious illnesses.
Yes, but that's not just an STD problem, is it? My father-in-law (a very intelligent man, keen on staying fit and eating healthily and all that) did not go to the doctor about his prostate cancer until it was too late to treat because he thought the symptoms were just a normal part of growing old. He was one of the unlucky few with the aggressive form of it (normally something else gets you first).
And in countries without universal health care, going to the doctor is a last resort because it's too expensive unless you're sure there is something seriously wrong. Again, that's true for all health problems, not just STDs.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I wish I had an opt-out letter when my Biology teacher showed my class a video of a woman giving birth.
No one wrote me a note for when I was expected to be present at my wife's caesarians...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Yes, but that's not just an STD problem, is it? My father-in-law (a very intelligent man, keen on staying fit and eating healthily and all that) did not go to the doctor about his prostate cancer until it was too late to treat because he thought the symptoms were just a normal part of growing old. He was one of the unlucky few with the aggressive form of it (normally something else gets you first).
STDs have external symptoms (not all of the time though, esp. with HPV) and are common. We also learned about prostate and cervical cancers in sex ed class, perhaps your father would have benefitted from those lessons as well!
We were also shown pictures of skin cancer in the non-sex part of health class, because that is also common and has external symptoms.
I do not think queasiness is a valid reason for avoiding learning about sexual health. As I've said, it is much worse when it happens.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I wish I had an opt-out letter when my Biology teacher showed my class a video of a woman giving birth.
No one wrote me a note for when I was expected to be present at my wife's caesarians...
An obstetrician I know told me that male partners fainting is a very common occurrence, and sometimes it's a major problem because they have to get in nurses to assist the guy who's hit his head on the ground while still focusing on the woman giving birth.
Another reason "feeling ill" looking at these things in school is not the best preparation for real life, which can be quite gross when it comes to health and the body.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I wish I had an opt-out letter when my Biology teacher showed my class a video of a woman giving birth.
No one wrote me a note for when I was expected to be present at my wife's caesarians...
An obstetrician I know told me that male partners fainting is a very common occurrence, and sometimes it's a major problem because they have to get in nurses to assist the guy who's hit his head on the ground while still focusing on the woman giving birth.
Another reason "feeling ill" looking at these things in school is not the best preparation for real life, which can be quite gross when it comes to health and the body.
I was told (both operations were non-standard c-sections) that both the surgical and birth teams would simply step over me if I passed out.
I think that the more squicky bits come under the "relationship" part of education. Men: holding your pregnant partners's hair away from her face as she vomits into the toilet for the umpteenth day in row is part of the relationship.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
The school asked me to provide a opt-out letter; I provided an opt-out letter. I don't know if this is standard practice elsewhere.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
A fundamental reason for this is the assumption that this is the responsibility of schools, local authorities, the government etc. etc., or even parents. It seems to be regarded as in some way backward and primitive to bring up children to expect they have to take responsibility for their own lives.
Yes, there has to be some proportionality about this, but that basic principle is, or should be, accepted as fundamental, and insisted on from an early age. It's yet another version of the claim that it is the NHS or his fellow GPs' fault that Harold Shipman's murdered his patients, not Harold Shipman's. Ever, ever, ever shift responsibility onto someone else, 'them'. 'The woman gave it me and I did eat'.
If the state does think it should take some responsibility for this, why then doesn't it advocate chastity, shame and disgrace? Perhaps that might work better?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the state does think it should take some responsibility for this, why then doesn't it advocate chastity, shame and disgrace? Perhaps that might work better?
If you look at how successful this is in several states in the US South, it's pretty clear that this doesn't work.
Fundamentally, what people are trying to shield teenagers from isn't sex in itself, but the potential negative consequences of sex. In which case more education, more access to contraception and health services, and more dialogue about what sex actually means in the context of a relationship (or lack thereof) is what is required.
[ 31. March 2014, 12:05: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
If this is the state's job, it's a bit silly leaving out one of the main arguments for fear of upsetting public opinion among the chattering classes. The question I'm really asking though is, 'why is it the state's job?'
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crśsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The question I'm really asking though is, 'why is it the state's job?'
Given that the state has to deal with several consequences of teen pregnancy (the difficulties involved in finishing out the education of teen mothers, the poverty that often follows if those difficulties prove insurmountable, the direct medical expenses involved in an unwanted pregnancy, etc.) why would you think the state should be indifferent about teen pregnancy?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jonah the Whale
Ship's pet cetacean
# 1244
|
Posted
From the OP quote:
I appreciate that many in the UK will be unwilling to consider such an unorthodox idea but pause and think of the example of the Netherlands where both mothers and fathers spend far more time with their children than in the UK and the Teen pregnancy rates are amongst the lowest in Europe. See link for example below.
It would not surprise me if more openness, more condoms and more education are as much part of the success as parents spending more time with their kids. I have no stats on that, and it is a long time since I lived in the UK, but I'd be surprised if the Netherlands was not at least as progressive as the UK in this respect.
Posts: 2799 | From: Nether Regions | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
seekingsister: quote:
We also learned about prostate and cervical cancers in sex ed class, perhaps your father would have benefitted from those lessons as well!
As my father in law was born in 1928 it is highly unlikely that he got any sex education in school at all, beyond an explanation of the basic mechanics in biology. He did know about prostate cancer, but wasn't aware that there are aggressive versions. This is a tangent, anyway; prostate cancer mostly affects middle-aged and elderly men, so by the time today's teenagers are old enough to get it (or notice they've got it) they will have forgotten most of what they learned in school sex ed.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Makepiece: quote:
As such methods have been resoundingly unsuccessful I'm going to suggest a more radical solution: more parenting!
This is not radical at all: it is a return to so-called "Victorian values." They used to call it 'lock up your daughters'.
It would be nice to think we had moved on slightly since the nineteenth century, but apparently not.
Do you really think that the model of contemporary parenting in the Netherlands, described in the OP, is 'Victorian'? I disagree, parents didn't spend particularly more time with their children in the Victorian age. Upper class children would go to boarding school or have a governess whilst many working class children were sent to work, in places like coal mines.
Anyway, I'm not sure why spending more time with your children should be described as 'locking up your daughter'. If you have a good relationship with your daughter (like Mr Bennett and Elizabeth Bennett for example) then there would be no need to 'lock her up' as she would want to spend time with you voluntarily.
This is the problem in this culture as soon as you mention the word 'parenting' polemics about 'Victorian values' come out. Why? Because people are too selfish in our culture to spend quality time with their children and put their own ambitions in second place. We haven't particularly changed from the Victorians.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
More parenting? Easily achieved. Get back to a situation where only one full-time wage is needed to buy or rent a place large enough to have a kids's bedroom and a small garden.
How do we do that? Reduce house prices. Is that possible? Of course. Remove the inbuilt bidding-war that manouvres house buyers into driving up the cost of accomodation to the maximum they can afford. Government can do that at a stroke by passing laws limiting the maximum size of mortgage a bank can offer to twice the annual income of the highest wage earner in a family (as it was as recently as the 1970s).
For those who still wouldn't be able to afford mortgages, increase the supply of council houses by:
- repealing the "right to buy" laws
- requiring all councils to build new houses to meet demand
- making it illegal for council houses or other public housing to be sold to private buyers
- rent control laws
- making it easier to get housing benefit
- giving local authorities the freedom to buy land and build on it (almost unbelievably Britain is just about the only developed country where town and city councils can't do this - they are forced to rely on private developers)
Simple.
Is any likely government going to do that? Of course they bloody aren't. Why not? Because governments of all parties have been dedicated to steadily increasing the price of land and price of houses for at least the last forty years. And because all governments want to increase the amount of hours people work to increase GDP.
And for those parents who both still have to go out to work even so, and for single parents, have cheap, or prefereably free, subsidised childcare in workplace nurseries paid for out of tax money. So the parents travel to and from work with their kids, and can see them at lunchtime, and are immediately available if there is a problem.
And enforce maximum working hours laws.
Oh, and put up the minimum wage. A lot. Say eight pounds an hour? The minimum wage for a forty hour week should not only exceed any likely benefits but also exceed half the controlled rent on a small flat. It ought to be illegal to pay an adult less money than it costs them to live, or that forces them onto benefits. Any employer who does that is stealing from the taxpayer. Low-wage bosses are the real dole scroungers.
[ 31. March 2014, 17:59: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
What surprises me is that whenever this problem is reported the recommended solution is always the same: more education, more condoms, more openness.
As such methods have been resoundingly unsuccessful
I'm not sure you can argue this: it seems to me that "more education, more condoms, more openness" hasn't actually been tried in the UK beyond small pockets of good practice.
As well as totally agreeing with Ken, above, i also agree with this.
I was trained ( as far as there is any) in PSE more than most reluctant form tutors
The wisdom was that relationships (not merely sex) education should start in primary schools but everything this is attempted, puritanical parents object. So the subject gets squeezed out as successive governments, right or left, try to appease parents.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Ken ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
The only thing I'd add is that there needs to be an end to the "just because we've had a child doesn't mean we have to change our lifestyle" nonsense, and I'm not sure where you'd even start with that. No, I don't mean parents should become child-centred doormats but some willingness to change the priorities ought to be there.
But I'm still appalled that so many families don't see conversation with their growing children about feelings, relationships, etc, as being important.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So the parents travel to and from work with their kids ...
On the crowded Underground and commuter trains? No, thanks - my then-small son once nearly got crushed by "businessmen" at Russell Square.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So the parents travel to and from work with their kids ...
On the crowded Underground and commuter trains? No, thanks - my then-small son once nearly got crushed by "businessmen" at Russell Square.
Currently-large me almost got crushed at Russel Square last week.
If more peopel stayed at home with their kids fewer people would go our to work, and those that did would work shorter hours so there would be less rush-hour crush....
My little "Old Labour" fantasy above includes nothing that doesn' go on in France or Sweden or Germany or even some states of the USA right now, or that didn't happen within my memory in Britain.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
They'll know something is wrong though. Is that not enough?
I mean, we don't insist on showing graphic images of leprosy or ebola or Stevens-Johnson disease (look it up) just so that people can self-diagnise should they ever be unfortunate enough to get one of them.
They don't get these from sex. Nor is the epidemiology if them significant enough nor are they generally contracted via behaviour so to target any public health resources. Teen pregnancy is such a public health issue. A better comparison might be obesity and diabetes, alcohol and drug abuse, about which they do show some of the consequence in what is now called 'wellness" or 'healthy lifestyles' classes here, what used to be called 'health class'.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
Ken, you are right about the financial pressures but why have people in the Netherlands been able to overcome these pressures? Surely there is an extent to which the culture needs to change before government policies will follow? My wife and I have had to face many difficult financial pressures, dangers even, in our efforts to avoid day care, but now that we across the shingle and up the bluff I think Caen and then Paris itself are within sight.
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
What surprises me is that whenever this problem is reported the recommended solution is always the same: more education, more condoms, more openness.
As such methods have been resoundingly unsuccessful
I'm not sure you can argue this: it seems to me that "more education, more condoms, more openness" hasn't actually been tried in the UK beyond small pockets of good practice.
As well as totally agreeing with Ken, above, i also agree with this.
I was trained ( as far as there is any) in PSE more than most reluctant form tutors
The wisdom was that relationships (not merely sex) education should start in primary schools but everything this is attempted, puritanical parents object. So the subject gets squeezed out as successive governments, right or left, try to appease parents.
You see my own, admittedly subjective experience, is that I had as much sex education in school as anyone could need. In spite of this as soon as the Spice Girls and All Saints began to get pregnant a number of 15 year old girls in my year followed suit. Of course I went to a comprehensive in Liverpool and its possible that the problem was particularly poignant in my home town due to social deprivation, which of course has a knock on effect on parenting.
I certainly didn't find sex ed helpful. What worked for me was remaining celibate until I married (I'm not even going to try to persuade people to this idea on here!) and this wasn't mentioned at all in sex ed. I wasn't even taught it at my church or by my parents. I read about celibacy outside marriage in Jane Austen and thought it sounded like a good idea. I also liked to be eccentric (seriously I was the only one who chose not to and most people just assumed that I had!).
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But I'm still appalled that so many families don't see conversation with their growing children about feelings, relationships, etc, as being important.
I doubt they think it's unimportant. Rather, as per ken's Old Labour rant, these are parents (in the US, anyway) who are working 2-3 jobs each trying to scrape next month's rent and groceries together. They barely have time to see their kids, much less converse with them.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Anecdata - I don't have an answer to the issue, though would like to point out that many teenagers are absolutely fantastic parents and many parents in their 20s/30s/40s are not - I come from a working class family. What I would call 'traditional' working class, not deprived. I attended a well-performing state comprehensive.
I have never really talked about sex and relationships with my parents, we don't really talk about feelings! I got a book on puberty at around 10 (in hindsight this was actually a well-thought-out solution on the part of my mum) but otherwise school taught me about sex and relationships....and not very well. I had sex ed lessons at primary and secondary level, neither covering much more than puberty and the mechanics. This was in the late 90s/early 00s, so things may have changed but to be honest I'm not so sure. For what it's worth, when I was living hostels and using local homeless/vulnerable youth services, they provided really good and comprehensive sex ed and provided a drop-in clinic to see a nurse who was a specialist in teenage sex and relationship issues. So in my case, services aimed at deprived teenagers provided me with the best sex ed I got.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
What surprises me is that whenever this problem is reported the recommended solution is always the same: more education, more condoms, more openness.
As such methods have been resoundingly unsuccessful I'm going to suggest a more radical solution: more parenting!
Do you have anything to back this up?
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But I'm still appalled that so many families don't see conversation with their growing children about feelings, relationships, etc, as being important.
I doubt they think it's unimportant. Rather, as per ken's Old Labour rant, these are parents (in the US, anyway) who are working 2-3 jobs each trying to scrape next month's rent and groceries together. They barely have time to see their kids, much less converse with them.
I'm not sure this is always true. Granted it is not a scientific study but I watch a lot of the MTV shows "16 and Pregnant" and "Teen Mom" and a fair number of the girls have two parents who do spend time with them. In several cases they were churchgoing children raised in Christian homes as well.
The common thread with all of them is that they either used birth control incorrectly, or they didn't know how to get birth control. That is not an issue that only affects people whose parents are working 3 jobs.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
If parents are doing their job then their children are not only fully aware of modern, reliable methods of birth control but also of how and from whence they may be obtained.
The two teen mums I know well (my sons' peers) both had supposedly good and close relationships with their mother - but of the "girls giggling together shopping for clothes" variety. Both mothers were voluble about being their daughter's "friend" - perhaps more mothering and less friendship was required?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
I certainly didn't find sex ed helpful. What worked for me was remaining celibate until I married ..... and this wasn't mentioned at all in sex ed.
As always, it depends opn the quality of the education and of the training of the teacher.
In the scheme of work which we followed (following the guidance that it had to be 'in a moral framework') 'waiting until you are married' was one of the topics discussed - I always remember it as being one of the hardest sections to teach because of the incredulity of the kids and the laughter it provoked.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In the scheme of work which we followed (following the guidance that it had to be 'in a moral framework') 'waiting until you are married' was one of the topics discussed - I always remember it as being one of the hardest sections to teach because of the incredulity of the kids and the laughter it provoked.
It would make a lot more sense to talk about "waiting until you are in a committed, monogamous relationship."
Marriage is a long way off for teenagers. I'm at the age where all of my friends are getting married and I haven't been to a wedding where either spouse was younger than 27.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
But I'm still appalled that so many families don't see conversation with their growing children about feelings, relationships, etc, as being important.
I doubt they think it's unimportant. Rather, as per ken's Old Labour rant, these are parents (in the US, anyway) who are working 2-3 jobs each trying to scrape next month's rent and groceries together. They barely have time to see their kids, much less converse with them.
That wasn't my experience. Both my parents worked but we saw each other a lot - we just never talked about sex or relationships. It was left up to school.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
In the scheme of work which we followed (following the guidance that it had to be 'in a moral framework') 'waiting until you are married' was one of the topics discussed - I always remember it as being one of the hardest sections to teach because of the incredulity of the kids and the laughter it provoked.
It would make a lot more sense to talk about "waiting until you are in a committed, monogamous relationship."
that was also discussed
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
