17 Schoolgirls make "pregnancy pact."

[The Cid]

Perhaps working it into the sex-ed/biology classes would help. I remember some 80's shows (was Saved by the Bell one?) where they had to take care of a virtual baby for a week.

There was a program in my high school that did this as well, but girls had to choose to enroll in the program.

Or allow relatives of the mother to have a little chat with them.

Yeah, that'll help.
(No offense intended to any relatives or friends.)

I honestly worry that there's pretty much no stigma on a father ditching the kid and the kid's mother in our society today. The worst that will happen to a deadbeat dad is that he may, eventually, be forced to pay money to help support the child. This has created a perception among some sects of our society that fatherhood=money. Help "bring home the bacon." Don't worry about actually helping to raise the child.

However, on personal views, I think it probably varies a lot more. Especially when you start comparing different demographics in different areas of the country. I'm willing to bet the more religious someone is has a correlation with taking parenting more seriously. Also, if you compare two poor families, one from W.VA to one in a City, I'm betting that statistically the W.VA one is taking parenting more seriously.

Um...what?

Single parent families correlate. But, there are also some other factors that have a larger correlation, such as friends/relatives involved in gangs/crime.

Relatives...you mean like PARENTS? Gang members qualify as unfit parents. KKK members also qualify as unfit parents. Thieves, mobsters, general career criminals..."unfit parent" doesn't mean "single-parent home."

Unfit parents don't pay attention to their kids. They don't share vital information at vital times for the child (such as talk about pregnancy and raising babies, in this case). They are more concerned with themselves--and sometimes the image of having a family--than they are with their kids. There are always those two-parent homes where one parent beats the other, and possibly the kids as well. I singled out deadbeat fathers because they certainly aren't HELPING matters, but I did not mean to imply that single-parent homes are necessarily that detrimental to a kid. Some single parents from both genders do an excellent job at raising children.

It doesn't directly report it, but I'd be curious to see it broken down to include Urban/Suburban/Rural with those numbers as well. Urban people tend to have very different views on things than Rural people, especially parenting. Urban settings seem to be the prime staging area for crime over other locations. (Now, cause or effect or coincidence I'm not sure.)

Why does this matter? Would you ignore the problem if it were in cities or something? Or do you mean something else entirely when you say "urban?"

And besides, there's plenty of crime to go around. Yes, in cities there are street gangs and mobs. However, in suburban areas there seems to be quite a problem with teenage kids driving drunk. (Many good parents in this country have acknowledged that they can't stop their kids from drinking, but they can sure as Hell stop them from driving home drunk and killing some innocent person.) High school students in suburbs get caught selling drugs, taking drugs (and heavy ones at that--we're talking cocaine, ecstasy, meth, all sorts of speed, LSD...not to mention all of the heavy prescription drugs they steal from inattentive parents' medicine chests), and carrying guns. (I'm all for the second amendment. But if you have a kid, make sure the kid doesn't get into your guns unsupervised, okay?) In rural areas there's still a drug problem, and some of the kids are even contributing to it by not only selling, but manufacturing and distributing the drugs! Crime happens more often in cities because there are more people in cities.

I think we need to define 'unfit parent'. Or what makes one unfit. I can think of a few things, but they may not be the same as you think of. For example, I would not say a career criminal is necessarily an unfit parent as it does not necessarily have anything to do with how good of a parent they may be. Take the mob as an example, "family first". I would say that someone who doesn't take an interest in what their kids are doing is an unfit parent.

Look. I liked The Sopranos as much as the next guy, but a career criminal IS an unfit parent. For one, crime has a specific set of dangers. Suppose one's father is in the mob--there's a chance every time he leaves the house that it'll be the last time his family sees him. Furthermore, suppose that father wants his son to follow in his footsteps. (It IS a "family thing" after all, right?) Suppose his daughter develops an attraction to up-and-coming mafiosi. There's the negative influence that's created by the father intentionally or not, and it doesn't do kids any wonders to find out they've been lied to for the first sixteen years of their lives or so. ("You mean daddy doesn't manage garbagemen for a living?")

(By the way, you seem to imply that I think single parents are unfit by nature of being single parents. That is not true at all. One attentive parent is far better than two inattentive parents could ever be. I want to make that clear, because some people might have been offended if I really did come across that way.)

[Arc Orion]

Relatives...you mean like PARENTS? Gang members qualify as unfit parents. KKK members also qualify as unfit parents. Thieves, mobsters, general career criminals..."unfit parent" doesn't mean "single-parent home."

Unfit parents don't pay attention to their kids. They don't share vital information at vital times for the child (such as talk about pregnancy and raising babies, in this case). They are more concerned with themselves--and sometimes the image of having a family--than they are with their kids. There are always those two-parent homes where one parent beats the other, and possibly the kids as well. I singled out deadbeat fathers because they certainly aren't HELPING matters, but I did not mean to imply that single-parent homes are necessarily that detrimental to a kid. Some single parents from both genders do an excellent job at raising children.

Your description of an "unfit parent" does not necessarily fit your examples of one. While I'm sure many do, not all gang or KKK members "don't pay attention to their kids". In fact, I'd imagine some would not only be quite attentive, but actually push their children to do better in life.

[The Cid]

Your description of an "unfit parent" does not necessarily fit your examples of one. While I'm sure many do, not all gang or KKK members "don't pay attention to their kids". In fact, I'd imagine some would not only be quite attentive, but actually push their children to do better in life.

I didn't intend for that to be a blanket description of all unfit parents, but I'm glad you mentioned this. Inattentiveness is, I would wager, the LARGEST source of bad parenting out there. But parents lead by example as well. The kids in both examples might both grow up to follow in their parents' footsteps. If the parent's influence is worse than that of the streets, they're unfit no matter how much they care about their kids. I figured I didn't need to SAY that, but here we are.

[adciv]

However, on personal views, I think it probably varies a lot more. Especially when you start comparing different demographics in different areas of the country. I'm willing to bet the more religious someone is has a correlation with taking parenting more seriously. Also, if you compare two poor families, one from W.VA to one in a City, I'm betting that statistically the W.VA one is taking parenting more seriously.

Um...what?

Views on raising children, and in how involved the parents should be. It seems like 'inner city welfare trash' doesn't do a good job, but 'rural trailer trash' does. That, along with some other correlations between someones personal views and how good of a job as a parent they are. Does that make more sense now?

Relatives...you mean like PARENTS?

No. Relatives as in "Family members" (which is the exact phrase used in the statistics). This includes anyone in the family, brothers, sisters, grandparents, not just parents. It does not simply specify one relation or another.

Gang members qualify as unfit parents. KKK members also qualify as unfit parents. Thieves, mobsters, general career criminals..."unfit parent" doesn't mean "single-parent home."
------
Look. I liked The Sopranos as much as the next guy, but a career criminal IS an unfit parent. For one, crime has a specific set of dangers. Suppose one's father is in the mob--there's a chance every time he leaves the house that it'll be the last time his family sees him. Furthermore, suppose that father wants his son to follow in his footsteps. (It IS a "family thing" after all, right?) Suppose his daughter develops an attraction to up-and-coming mafiosi. There's the negative influence that's created by the father intentionally or not, and it doesn't do kids any wonders to find out they've been lied to for the first sixteen years of their lives or so. ("You mean daddy doesn't manage garbagemen for a living?")

But why do they qualify as unfit parents? If they are taking an active role in raising their kids, why are they unfit? A coal miner has a chance every time they go into a mine that they may not come out, and a police officer or someone in the military also may not come home. None of those you list necessarily have to do with your next statement of

Unfit parents don't pay attention to their kids. They don't share vital information at vital times for the child (such as talk about pregnancy and raising babies, in this case). They are more concerned with themselves--and sometimes the image of having a family--than they are with their kids. There are always those two-parent homes where one parent beats the other, and possibly the kids as well.

Coupled with the below is why I say we need to define what constitutes an unfit parent. I'll agree that someone who doesn't pay attention to their kids or beats them is an unfit parent. But I don't see what that has to do with them being in a gang or the KKK or a few other things. A few may be related, but it doesn't necessarily make them by definition unfit parents.

I singled out deadbeat fathers because they certainly aren't HELPING matters, but I did not mean to imply that single-parent homes are necessarily that detrimental to a kid. Some single parents from both genders do an excellent job at raising children.

Why does this matter? Would you ignore the problem if it were in cities or something? Or do you mean something else entirely when you say "urban?"

A combination of personal curiosity along with the fact that a number of problems have a higher rate of incidence in cities than in rural areas. Murder, for one. Most drugs, with the exception of meth, for another. It's mostly to find out where the primary problem is, as that occasionally gives a better clue to what may be causing the problem.

Not quoting the rest of this, because it I agree with it and don't want to waste the space. And believe me, we know about the meth problem.

Crime happens more often in cities because there are more people in cities.

However, If cities also have an increased rate of crime over most of the more rural areas, that means they have a disproportionate amount of crime compared to the more rural areas and there may be something related going on that is causing the increased rate. For example "Large Cities" account for about 2/3 of the murders committed every year. However, they do not account for 2/3 of the population. That means that there is a disproportionate amount of crime that is not simply "because there are more people" there, unless more people translates to proportionally more crime.

(By the way, you seem to imply that I think single parents are unfit by nature of being single parents. That is not true at all. One attentive parent is far better than two inattentive parents could ever be. I want to make that clear, because some people might have been offended if I really did come across that way.)

The only reason I pulled out single parents is because that was the closest thing the study had. I'm pretty sure that by definition, if a kid is in a *single parent home then the kid probably by definition has an unfit parent, it just may not be the parent who is raising the kid.

But parents lead by example as well. The kids in both examples might both grow up to follow in their parents' footsteps. If the parent's influence is worse than that of the streets, they're unfit no matter how much they care about their kids. I figured I didn't need to SAY that, but here we are.

And then you get the kid who grew up just the opposite of their parents because their parents were such a bad example and the kids make a wonderful member of society. Someone may be a bad example, but others will use them as an example of what not to do.


Cid, please, lets work out what makes someone an unfit parent by direct actions of what constitutes being an unfit parent. Not by things that are merely objectionable such as being a racist (i.e. KKK member) and may be related to the actions they would take but are not the actions themselves. We agree on inattentiveness. Lets work from there.


*single parent home meaning only one parent in the home. This is independent of the marriage status of the parents as it does not include two unmarried parents living together.

[The Cid]

It seems like 'inner city welfare trash' doesn't do a good job, but 'rural trailer trash' does.

I'll ask again: what? Excuse me, but neither of those stereotypes does a good job at parenting. When I think "rural trailer trash," I think juvenile delinquents. I think parents that have NO IDEA where their kids ran off to, and they're usually running off to do something that isn't legal. I can't agree with you here and I really think you need to take location out of the equation.

But why do they qualify as unfit parents? If they are taking an active role in raising their kids, why are they unfit? A coal miner has a chance every time they go into a mine that they may not come out, and a police officer or someone in the military also may not come home.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHY?! You mean someone whose business involves illegal gambling, murder, extortion, bribing figures of authority and the drug trade isn't setting a terrible example for their child? Honestly, you need to know why a mobster qualifies as an unfit parent? I'll say it again: what if the kid wants to follow in daddy's footsteps? You don't think the children of mobsters are more likely to become criminals because of their parents? Then how come so many of them end up, for example, in the mob?

But I don't see what that has to do with them being in a gang or the KKK or a few other things. A few may be related, but it doesn't necessarily make them by definition unfit parents.

It absolutely does. Children do not just do as their parents SAY, they do as their parents DO. If daddy beats up people who don't pay the don, their kid is going to grow up thinking that's acceptable practice in life. If mommy is part of violence against a minority, their kid could think that's a good thing to do. Would it be a surprise to anybody if that kid grew up to do the same? How can somebody be fit for parenting when they set an example like that for their kids?

Keep in mind we're not talking about EX-gang members or EX-violent racists. That's a different story, because they have learned from their mistakes. The people we're talking about are still making those mistakes. In fact, they probably don't think of them as mistakes.

Think of it this way: if the cops knew what they were doing, these people would be imprisoned for a long period of time. How can they be fit for parenting if they're not fit to be free citizens? What could you possibly expect from any children that they raise themselves?

Cid, please, lets work out what makes someone an unfit parent by direct actions of what constitutes being an unfit parent. Not by things that are merely objectionable such as being a racist (i.e. KKK member) and may be related to the actions they would take but are not the actions themselves. We agree on inattentiveness. Lets work from there.

When I say KKK members, I imply illegal activity and violence. Not just "racism." People don't join organizations like that just to bitch about people they hate, typically. They do it with the intention of hurting innocent people. When I say gang members, I imply illegal activities. People don't join gangs and watch other people participate in drive-by shootings and sling crack. And when I say mobsters, I imply illegal activity as well.

These are not just crimes these folks are committing. The people I listed are likely candidates to be involved in extreme violence and violent crime. Parents lead by example, and these examples are unacceptable. I'm sorry, they just are. Even if they're not telling their kids to join the gang, or the mob, or the Klan, they are setting an example for that kid that these are all things that you should accept and respect. Their children will in many cases embrace the lifestyle of their parent or parents. And yes, leading people to organizations of violent criminals is unfit parenting in my book.

Things that make a parent unfit in my opinion:
-Active participation in, or a career choice that condones the practice of, violent crime. Why? Because their participation sets an example for the child that this violence is acceptable.
-Inattentiveness/indifference toward children. (Absence, naturally, falls under this category.)
-Alcoholism and drug addiction. Why? It sets a terrible example, drug addiction often means bringing shady and dangerous characters into the home, and it also leads to violence and inattentiveness.
-Child abuse.
-Severe mental illness ("severe" meaning truly incapable of understanding the situation and caring for the child.)
-Delusions. We're talking explicitly violent racists, complete crackpot conspiracy theorists, violent fundamentalists, extreme anarchists...a very small group of people. These people are likely to teach their ways to their children, who will then be prone to do some bad, bad stuff.

[Arc Orion]

I am very, very glad The Cid does not run the world.

[adciv]

It seems like 'inner city welfare trash' doesn't do a good job, but 'rural trailer trash' does.

I'll ask again: what? Excuse me, but neither of those stereotypes does a good job at parenting. When I think "rural trailer trash," I think juvenile delinquents. I think parents that have NO IDEA where their kids ran off to, and they're usually running off to do something that isn't legal. I can't agree with you here and I really think you need to take location out of the equation.

Well, when I can look at that PDF I posted before and note that the juvenile arrest rate is significantly lower in some areas of the country versus others, location does seem to have some factor in it. Especially when those with the lower rates correspond to one type of area versus those with higher rates.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN WHY?! You mean someone whose business involves illegal gambling, murder, extortion, bribing figures of authority and the drug trade isn't setting a terrible example for their child? Honestly, you need to know why a mobster qualifies as an unfit parent? I'll say it again: what if the kid wants to follow in daddy's footsteps? You don't think the children of mobsters are more likely to become criminals because of their parents? Then how come so many of them end up, for example, in the mob?

Because you have not said WHY it is being a bad parent and you continue to refuse to list what it means to be a bad parent and instead list things like being criminals or KKK members and such without saying why. All you are saying is that they are being bad examples by your version of a moral code, but they are still raising their parents. Just because you may not like the way they are raising them does not mean that they are not raising them.

Think of it this way: if the cops knew what they were doing, these people would be imprisoned for a long period of time. How can they be fit for parenting if they're not fit to be free citizens? What could you possibly expect from any children that they raise themselves?

Ok then, so people that are engaging in behavior that would keep them away from their kids for long periods of time makes them bad parents?

Things that make a parent unfit in my opinion:
-Active participation in, or a career choice that condones the practice of, violent crime. Why? Because their participation sets an example for the child that this violence is acceptable.
-Inattentiveness/indifference toward children. (Absence, naturally, falls under this category.)
-Alcoholism and drug addiction. Why? It sets a terrible example, drug addiction often means bringing shady and dangerous characters into the home, and it also leads to violence and inattentiveness.
-Child abuse.
-Severe mental illness ("severe" meaning truly incapable of understanding the situation and caring for the child.)
-Delusions. We're talking explicitly violent racists, complete crackpot conspiracy theorists, violent fundamentalists, extreme anarchists...a very small group of people. These people are likely to teach their ways to their children, who will then be prone to do some bad, bad stuff.

Finally we get a list of things. These are reasons, the others listed so far have not been.

[wocket]

There's no way I'm jumping on the srs bznz train here, but I'll just say that the KKK no longer condones violence from its members. That's not to say that KKK members don't occasionally go out and beat Joe McMinority, but that is not because the organization wants it to happen. That's reserved for more fringe groups. The KKK is actually trying to fashion itself into a viable political party, and you can't do that when you're actively advocating violence against individuals.

Also, to address Fuggle's earlier question to me: It would be better. MUCH better. I have no problem with girls in their late teens having children if they realize the responsibility that comes with it. There was an extremely pregnant girl who walked across the stage at my high school graduation, but very few people had a problem with that, because she was brought up to be extremely Catholic, had already married before becoming pregnant, and knew exactly what she was getting in to.

[The Cid]

the KKK no longer condones violence from its members.

Duly noted. I also want to point out that I wasn't trying to single out one mob, one gang or one group like the KKK. With them, I'm referring to violent racists--people who actively endorse, condone and participate in violent acts against the innocent, based on what the victim looks like. The thing is, it's much harder to abbreviate that. But still, your point stands. I can't go back and edit the organization out of the posts though--a little late for that.

but they are still raising their (kids). Just because you may not like the way they are raising them does not mean that they are not raising them.

They are raising them to be gang members, mobsters, et cetera. Sorry if I believe that's a disservice to their child.

As I said before, if we're talking about EX-violent criminals, that's a different story. People can change, after all, but we are not talking about people that have changed. I cannot believe we are still talking about the merits of active violent criminals raising children.

[wocket]

I'm pretty sure the average person doesn't really know or give a shit about what the KKK is now. Since they're historically known for lynch mobs, your point was still taken the way you intended it. I just felt like being nit-picky because I go to school in something of a KKK hotspot, and there's been serious discussions about what is and is not accurate regarding the Klan.

[Lizzegirle]

Perhaps working it into the sex-ed/biology classes would help. I remember some 80's shows (was Saved by the Bell one?) where they had to take care of a virtual baby for a week.

There was a program in my high school that did this as well, but girls had to choose to enroll in the program.

Everyone had to participate in our program. Man or woman. It's pretty sexist that they only asked the girls to do it.

I had the opposite reaction to the doll though (They called it "Baby Think it Over") and I got really attached to my stupid plastic, crying machine and got really sad when I had to turn it back in. I don't think that's the reaction they intended for the product.

[adciv]

I think I like the mandatory requirement better. Make it part of Home Ec AND Shop. Although I think your response was much better than, say, leaving the kid alone for hours on end.

[ampersand]

The whole "egg" or sack of flour "baby" simulation (what else do you call it?) wasn't mandatory when I was in high school. And they didn't have it as part of the curriculum after my freshman year because of budget cuts (mostly to pay for the political advertising to try to pass an increase to the property tax so they could build an addition onto the high school and replace the "temporary" heating system put in in 1965, among other things).

Come to think of it, they didn't have a mandatory sex education in junior high either, again due to budget cuts. (Even though it was required by Missouri state law.) Did I mentioned I went to the worst school district in the state?

[adciv]

No, but it might explain a few things.

[The Cid]

Everyone had to participate in our program. Man or woman. It's pretty sexist that they only asked the girls to do it.

I had the opposite reaction to the doll though (They called it "Baby Think it Over") and I got really attached to my stupid plastic, crying machine and got really sad when I had to turn it back in. I don't think that's the reaction they intended for the product.

The more I think about it, I think these were the kind of classes people were placed in if I recall correctly. I may be wrong about that. And it was definitely only the girls. I never saw a single male kid with one of those crying dolls.

I also remember that several girls that had them wound up growing some kind of attachment to them, often speaking to the dolls and giving them elaborate names and middle names. If those dolls scared anybody, it was those girls' boyfriends.

I think they had the same name in my school--Baby Think It Over. It sounds familiar, but I thought that must have been one of those terrible early-90s pop songs or something.