Dear Gordon Brown,
I just read your speech from the British Labour Party Conference which took place over the past few days. I'm sure there's a multitude of bloggers who will dissect it line by line, in far greater detail and in a far more entertaining fashion than I ever could, but I did have to mention one particular bit that stuck out for me;
And I do think it's time to address a problem that for too long has gone unspoken, the number of children having children. For it cannot be right, for a girl of sixteen, to get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own.From now on all 16 and 17 year old parents who get support from the taxpayer will be placed in a network of supervised homes. These shared homes will offer not just a roof over their heads, but a new start in life where they learn responsibility and how to raise their children properly. That's better for them, better for their babies and better for us all in the long run.
We won't ever shy away from taking difficult decisions on tough social questions.
I cannot describe how offensive this is. This smacks of Magdalene Laundries. In case you have forgotten, they were also institutions for young women who became pregnant and they were forced to go there against their will.
You may as well have stood up at your conference and said:
We must address the issue of fallen women, for it is wrong for a teenager to become pregnant outside of wedlock and then for the State to have to provide them with a home, as this goes against the idea of individualist thinking on the traditional nuclear family unit. If a fallen woman receives support from the State she *must* go in to a group home (read Mother and Baby/Magdalene home) because her status as an teenage parent who receives any form of benefit, makes her unfit to raise a child without supervision of someone on behalf of the State (let's just hope it's not a religious order). These shared homes (read "forced co-habitation") will provide them with a roof over their heads and a place where they can learn to raise their children properly because obviously, the fact that they are teenage mothers who may need some form of social welfare support means that they cannot raise their children properly. They are de facto unfit parents. This Government knows what's best for these fallen women and what is best for their children. They could not possibly know what *they need* themselves. We will not be afraid to take decisions that please those who are moving towards a more socially-conservative leaning (in both name and attitude) party, regardless of whether it works or not.
Excuse me, Mr. Brown. We did this in Ireland, and in case you missed the memo, it didn't work. Here's a novel idea, how about addressing the problem of "children having children" by introducing comprehensive sex education, and free access to contraception before young girls become pregnant, rather than trying to add fuel to the moral panic fire that teenage girls are to blame for the moral decline of society. Then when teenagers do become pregnant, why don't you look at what supports they actually want and need, rather than hiding them away from the rest of society on the off-chance that teenage pregnancy is somehow contagious. Sure, maybe some teenage mothers would like the idea of a group home and communal living with in-house parenting classes. Maybe some would like to stay with their own families. Maybe some would like to live alone with their children. But I bet the vast majority of them are capable of making the best decision for them and their children, according to their circumstances.
Mr. Brown I know you are trying to ease the fears of Tory voters, and would-be Tory voters by announcing such an ill-thought out and patronising plan but this is not the road you want to go down.
Is mise,
Stephanie.
Related links:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/29/gordon-brown-labour-conference-speech-in-full
http://www.magdalenelaundries.com/
http://www.rirb.ie/ryanreport.asp
[Note- Gordon Brown is the British Prime Minister]
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: An open letter to Gordon Brown (Magdalene Homes are wrong) .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16299
This has to be one of the most shameful moments in Irish history; it would be so tragic for other nations to follow us down this path.
Thank you for posting this.
Thanks for the post! It does look as a way to ease tories' fears, but is inexcusable, classist, and sexist all the same. One could add as context another dimension of the British govt's approach to sex, as reflected in the NHS sponsored STD adds that precede films in movie theaters (sorry, can't seem to find it in youtube). I have seldom seen a more sex-negative approach to STD prevention, including slut shaming, and a general portrayal of sex as dirty and dangerous in and of itself. It's not surprising to see that their women-negativeness spills over into the pregnancies of the women they were trying to shame in the first place!
I am unaware of the history of any "magdalene houses", so maybe my thinking is off (wouldn't be the first time) -- but dedicating these kind of resources to helping teenage mothers with no other support system learn to live better lives and be better parents seems like a good thing.
From the statements above, it appears that this program is meant for teenage mothers who are being supported financially by the state. They don't appear to be advocating ripping teenage mothers out of their parents' homes or out of residences that the government isn't paying for. If they have a support system, or can support themselves, then they will be able to continue as they are, won't they?
We cannot on one hand demand that the government arrange financial assistance, housing and education for teen mothers -- and on the other be offended when the government sets up a system to deliver housing, financial assitance and education to teen mothers.
kbz
I agree KBZ, as my father once said to me when I wanted money for a car, if you want my money, it comes with my rules...
In my experience, 16 & 17 year olds can't take care of themselves, much less another person.
Well in my experience, my own mother had me when she was 17, and she did pretty well.
It's a judgement call. I'm not saying that *every* teenage parent can look after themselves and a child, but I am saying that automatic presumptions are dangerous. In fairness, I know 35 year old married couples with children who have at best, what could be described as questionable parenting skills. And I don't hear anybody talking about them. It's ok like, cuz they're married....
I could understand the anger if there was a requirement to supervise adult unmarried women or if teens who received financial aid were forced to live away from their parents and in a group home, but it seems that these teens that are targeted are ones with no social support system and no willing family to help. It's like the theory of emancipating minors and sending them off to make it on their own. How can a kid suvive & thrive on their own? Why struggle when you can have help? And isn't it better to have an adult around to answer questions and help rather than young people who don't know any better than you?
Well obviously there are some differences between what Gordon Brown proposed and the Magdalene Laundries or the Mother and Baby Homes that existed in Ireland. But the premise is the same, the idea that exists behind both is that these teenage mothers are inherently unfit parents. This, in my view is completely wrong. From what I can gather, this is aimed at those who depend on “benefits” or “social welfare” and Brown’s speech merely reinforces this idea that teenage mothers from a working class background are not fit parents.
I’m not saying that the government should not arrange such a programme if that is proven to be something that is genuinely wanted and needed. But this is a sop to Daily Mail readers. And an insult to teenage mothers.
It's a speech so these are all just talking points that may or may not ever actually be acted on. I'm American so I don't know the ins & outs of Britain's family services, but I found this section of the speech more disturbing:
"Family intervention projects work. They change lives, they make our communities safer and they crack down on those who're going off the rails.
Starting now and right across the next Parliament every one of the 50,000 most chaotic families will be part of a family intervention project – with clear rules, and clear punishments if they don't stick to them.
And we have said that every time a young person breaches an ASBO, there will be an order, not just on them but on their parents, and if that is broken they will pay the price.
Because whenever and wherever there is antisocial behaviour, we will be there to fight it.
We will never allow teenage tearaways or anybody else to turn our town centres into no go areas at night times."
I'm generally in favor of government assistance programs, at least if they actually help. However, Gordon Brow's tone is distinctly paternalistic. There's the implication that people must be taken in hand and shown the "right way" to live.
The context to this is the inquiry about a mother who killed herself and her teenage daughter with learning disabilities after years of torment by local thugs. If it sounds paternalistic it's because there is a problem with children out of control on the streets whose parents in turn were inadequately parented. We're talking about borderline sociopaths. There's a growing body of neuropsychological and sociological evidence which supports the idea of a need for early involvement with young single mums.
I worked for a while in a deprived outer London borough which has the highest rate of council housing in the UK and teenage pregnancy in Europe and I have no doubt that removing the incentive of having a child to get a flat will help, because it's an explicit strategy for young women who want a way out. Sadly I've worked with young mums who do not have any sense of the baby as a person and I'd like to blame it all on stigma, but it's more complex.
The other part of the story is the growing view that our care system has arguably swung too far the other way, and we leave children to die at the hands of their parents. I think if done right, supporting the parent and child dyad is an excellent alternative to the other option brewing, which is to take children away from their mothers much sooner.
How is this any different than the power exercised by parents over their own 16 and 17 year olds? If it is wrong for the state to supervise 16 and 17 year olds, having assumed the role of parent by providing for them, then the age of majority should clearly be lowered to 16.
I think there’s something wrong when the State is saying that if you are in *receipt of benefits* and have a baby at this age then forced cohabitation is for you. It’s alright for those who are in families with the means to support them, but if not, you have to go and live with other teen mums and a group of social workers and probably be further stigmatised by your family and class status.
Stephanie, I agree with you 100%.
(What I never knew was that there were Magdelene laundries in Australia instead. I saw a documentary (in installments) on Youtube about a woman who was in them)
What struck me about the first quoted part in Gordon Brown's speech is, again, no mention of the fathers of these children. Just some loose young "girls" of sixteen having kids and getting flats.
Here's that Guardian link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/30/labour-conference-teenage-mothers
BURN.
Quick fixes sound good until one analyzes them and they fall apart. What surprises me most about this analysis is that, as you mention, no mention is given to the fathers, as though teen pregnancy happens in isolation only to mothers.
Birth control needs to be extended to and taught to every woman, and unfortunately middle class women and above are the ones who are best informed and most inclined to use it. This is where class distinctions dictate policy and reinforce stereotypes.
The flats aren't given to fathers, hence the reference to "teen mothers and their children"...if they're married that's different...
I am not British, but I am familiar with the history of Magdalene Homes and, in America, we have similar history of "homes for unwed mothers." In fact, one of the last remaining Florence Crittenden Homes is right here in my city, and though it has definitely modernized (girls are no longer locked away and shamed, but instead given support in completing their educations) it does continue to serve as a place for pregnant teenagers who cannot or do not want to live with their families to live and get support.
Frankly, I don't think handing over the keys to an apartment to a 16 year old new mother sounds like a very good idea. In the U.S., that girl would not be considered legally old enough to have her own residence, whether or not she was a mother.
Again, not British here, so I haven't kept up with what Brown has said about the issue, but it sounds like he is saying that *if* a teen mother receives state support, rather than turning over flats to very young teenagers (16 or 17 is still a girl in my book, and according to the laws I've grown up with in my country) and just telling them "good luck", the support would come with the stipulation that the teen mother receive supervision and guidance in an organized environment. If I'm reading it correctly, he also seems to say that if a girl receives no state-sponsored support, then she and her family can do as they see fit.
Essentially, it sounds like he is proposing changing the form of state support offered to those teen mums who use it from council flats to supervised living. If people are going to be supported by the state, then the state has some right to dictate the terms of that support (just as my parents used to tell me "as long as you're living under our roof and supported by our money, we have a say in your life").
Again, perhaps it's my American-ness showing, but I can't even conceive of the idea that a 16 or 17 year old would be able to legally have their own dwelling, state-sponsored or not.
I don't think that prohibition on 16- and 17-year-olds having their own dwellings is a good thing. It leaves youth with abusive parents the choice between an abusive environment, foster care, or the street. It would be far better for many young people if they could become emancipated minors with their own dwellings, although they should be given some social support. It looks like the problem in Britain is not so much that teenage girls who get pregnant are given apartments as that teenage girls often can ONLY get a place of their own if they get pregnant.
In fact, I actually know one woman in the States who got married at 16 to get away from an abusive environment, and another who fled to a repressive, patriarchal Hare Krishna temple in order to get away from an abusive environment! Teens need to have options, whether they have children or not.
I agree that we are not doing enough to provide these young women and their babies with alternative futures. But all homeless people can get access to emergency housing via hostels. The issue is getting a permanent home. It's just that the baby bumps your priority up, and you get one faster.
Two babies will get you a bigger flat, and you'll get far less benefits if the father is supporting you or living with you. Our system sets people up to fail.
But for some, being placed in social housing will not be an escape to safety and can have its own problems - especially on some estates where the vulnerable are systematically targeted, or their children have to either join a gang or face being a target by all the gangs.
I don’t think that it’s ideal to hand over keys to a new apartment to a 16 or 17 year old. If they are under 18, they are still a child as defined under the UNCRC and I think everyone would be on board with saying that it’s a decent document – and then you have to look at what is best for that child, and their child. Sure, it would be preferable for them to live in a loving and caring and supportive environment with their families but sometimes that’s not an option. And for the State to presume in such a paternalistic manner that she needs to go to a group home in order to learn how to raise her child, is downright nuts.
I agree with you. It's not ideal for people that young to be on their own, but sometimes it's the only solution, and in those cases it should be made possible.
As much as I hate to agree with Gordon Brown, I think he's doing right here and Stephenie is making a huge mistake by assuming that 16 year olds are fit to make their own decisions. Patronising or not, they are children and I believe that those isolated in this way so that they are dependent upon the Government for accommodation and money need some further support and shouldn't just be left alone.
Imagine, 16... all alone with the baby. It's a terrifying thought. And yes, there is no mention of the Fathers but Brown isn't suggesting this scheme as a way of pointing the finger of blame at the mother, but rather helping them get by when so many of the selfish young men involved just turn their backs on them.
As for the Magdalene Homes, these took women of all ages who were unmarried and was a way of treating them like an outcast or a criminal. Brown is giving support to young girls who cannot really take care of themselves (it's not anti-feminist, it's a fact).
Well spoken.
Although there are some 16 year old girls (that's what they are) that're mature, you need to think about the needs of the many and not the few, and most 16 year old people (not just girls) are still KIDS.
As someone who moved away from home to university on my own at 17, as is commonplace in Scotland, I find it patronising to say that someone of that age is unfit to look after themselves.
You can get married at 16 in Scotland, so looking at these ages from a US perspective is pretty different!
I suppose it's a matter of age being a shortcut for emotional maturity. Most of my friends who got a flat at 16 immediately used it as a crash pad for their friends to get wasted.
I think the difference is that Brown is thinking about the kind of girls who will never get to University - the kind of young women who had poor experiences of being parented and whose social resources are minimal, missed out on educational opportunities, no secure relationships, at high risk of mental health problems. Anyone facing those sorts of problems might struggle to look after themselves at any age.
Mine is not a US perspective actually, I come from the UK and I know full well that we are legally allowed to get married and live alone at 16. However, I don't agree with this as I do believe you are still a child at that age. I'm not trying to be patronising because I'm not much older myself now but I do think it's a bad idea leaving so many important decisions solely in the hands of someone barely out of high school.
I know 17 & 18 year olds @ University & in the military, and 99% of them, even the 'best & the brightest' as they say, are pretty immature. What's that George Bernard Shaw quote, "youth is wasted on the young"? For the few people not wise beyond their years, maturity is learned--and it can't be learned in a book.
As someone who moved away from home to university on my own at 17, as is commonplace in Scotland, I find it patronising to say that someone of that age is unfit to look after themselves.
You can get married at 16 in Scotland, so looking at these ages from a US perspective is pretty different!
I honestly think it's not very fair for Americans to hold a strong opinion on this matter if they have no idea of the context. I am a feminist, but in the UK it IS a fact that 16 year olds with a baby can get a flat on their own from the government. It is not a stereotype that some teenagers get pregnant as quickly as possible so that they can get their flat, but this is essentially harmful to the teenager (who is normally not ready to live alone) and harmful to the baby. Brown is essentially proposing a support network for these women, who otherwise would be living alone in a flat with a baby in a very rough part of town. He's proposing a system whereby teenage mothers can support each other and their babies can play together, but they will still receive help from the government rather than a free apartment with no questions asked. It's essentially a positive strategy and I am offended that you compare it to the Magdalene Laundries.
Brown does not indulge in slut-shaming. " For it cannot be right, for a girl of sixteen, to get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own. " The key her is "ON HER OWN" -- it is grossly unfair and ridiculous to expect a teenage mother to be able to cope alone, and this is partly what Brown addresses.
The UK in general does not "slut-shame" nearly so much as many parts of America, if this was the case then why are 16 year olds allowed to live on their own with their babies? Our age of consent is universally 16 rather than the 18 in many parts of America, we're pro-choice, and while in America the level of sex-ed one receives depends on the state one resides in, here every teenage girl and boy will be taught to put a condom on a plastic penis. Etc.
For a start please don't compare going to a uni with a huge support network and the option to bail at any moment. With having a kid and having to take the most serious adult responsibilities when you are little more than a kid yourself.
The background to this is the attack on a mum and her disabled daughter by group of local kids. The attacks were so relentless and the response of the authorities so useless. That the mum took her life and the life of her daughter, rather than suffer any more abuse. Gordon has latched onto the latest moral panic to save his political skin. However that doesn't mean that the idea doesn't have merit.
At the moment teenage mums are given the keys to a council flat and told to get on with it. Not only does this create a bizarre incentive for young vulnerable women to have kids before they are ready, instead of staying on at school. I can say from personal experience that it isn't much good for the mums themselves. My cousin found herself in this situation, she got pregnant at 16. Now she wasn't giving up a bright future for her kid, she failed every exam at school, and was looking at a minimum wage job at best (for most people work is a minimum wage grind, not the rewarding empowering thing that most feminist think it is). The boyfriend walked away, to be fair he was little more than a kid himself. She couldn't cope, she was isolated with a kid she didn't know how to look after. Then some people moved in with her, and took advantage of her, for her flat. In the end her mum stepped in to help, and now looks after the kid. My cousin has her own flat and she her kid regularly. God knows what would have happened if she hadn't had family nearby. So maybe a commune of single mums would been better for her, people to talk to, people to help out. We certainly should go after fathers and make them take more responsibility. Still you have to remember that many of them are kids as well.
The whole thing is a mess and we are to blame. We have created a society which suits us, the middle classes, the educated. Nobody ever thought about the effects all this would have on the poorest and most vulnerable.
But is the problem here that teens can get apartments if they get pregnant, or that teens CAN'T get apartments if they DON'T get pregnant? Certainly teenagers who have children or who want to live on their own for other reasons should be given some social support and supervision, but Brown's proposal would require many teen moms to choose between forced communal living and destitution.
To be fair the guy is stuck between the fire and the frying pan. In an ideal world the state wouldn't get involved in people's sexual and family lives. When it does it always in danger of creating preverse incentives. I would agree with that making such a home voluntary would be better. It should only be a short term option, till people get on their feet.
The trouble is we have pretty much abolished the institution of marriage, without thinking about how to replace it. Now I am not religious, and difficult as you might find this to believe. Britian tends to be more progessive when it come to family and sexual rights than America. The new system is too the advantage of middle class women who can get a good education and a rewarding career. Single motherhood is a viable option for them. However we haven't considered what happens to working class women without those options. The state has stepped in as a kind of provider of last resort, and as society we haven't got a clue how to make that work. I'm gropping around in the dark as much as anyone.
I suspose that this is the darkside of the 60's dream of a liberated society, with sexual freedom. Just as economic liberalism tends to leads to poverty and a divided society. Sexual and social freedoms seem to create their own underclass. Returning to our old value system isn't an option, it was too opressive. That doesn't mean we should simply sweep the problems created by our more liberal society under the carpet (oh I use liberal in the old fashioned sense. I know in America it has become some sort of insult, I don't think they know what the word means anymore).
I appreciate this post because it has an international perspective. In America we should not think that this is just a British issue, because our country is more conservative on social issues than the Brits and I could see America taking on this idea. I think as Womanist (as I am) or a feminist we should build stronger alliances with our international sisters. To join an international dialogue on issues affected women please visit:
Ecumenical Women at the United Nations:
http://ecumenicalwomen.org
Sorry to pour cold water on the moral panic of teenage women "get pregnant, be given the keys to a council flat and be left on her own. " There is a really acute shortage of social housing in the UK - during the Thatcher (79-97) period swathes of council housing were sold off, and rules introduced by Labour post 97 made it extremely difficult to build new social housing. Some of these women may get a council flat, but they are likely to have other issues apart from a new baby as well - there are rules prioritising who gets any available social housing in order of need. This speech is just posturing to Tory voters - and there is no chance at all of Labour winning the next election in 2010, anyway, so it won't happen because Brown says so. Though I could see the Tories doing it.
If this is done right, I can see this being something worth doing. As others have mentioned, bringing young mothers together to hostels were they can more easily receive state aid in raising and education their children might make the hard task of raising brats at such a young age a little easier.
And of course, if the stereotype of young girls who get pregnant for the PURPOSE of getting the flat would be more easily monitored for instances of neglect (I don't necessarily believe that this is actually the case in general, but none can deny that it does happen, and in that case the child deserves society's vigilance just in case...).
I don't think is quite as simple as you suggest. There is a reported phenomenon (and more importantly for politicians, endless scare stories about a perceived phenomenon) whereby women with few economic prospects have a baby to get their own council house, and then live on benefits as a new sort of underclass. I think this move is meant to tackle that, to maintain some sort of state support for young mothers and their children while removing any incentive to have children they're (possibly) not equipped to care for.
If they want to have a baby and have family support or are clued up, they're not the sort of person designed to fall into this scheme I suspect. So I think it's less about moralistic judgments and more about removing a fairly cold-blooded and socially destructive pattern of behaviour, whereby people have a baby solely or principally as a meal ticket (and yes, much as we'd like to think otherwise, that DOES happen - albeit not as much as the UK tabloids would have us believe).
I think to compare this to the Magdalene laundries is ridiculously misleading.
I'm Irish too and very familiar with what they were. They weren't 'group homes' or mother/baby homes. They were institutions for women, some (not all) of whom had had babies 'out of wedlock'. The children were taken away from them and the women were left there, never to leave or become independent. They were forced to work in the laundries and were fed and clothed by the nuns who ran them. Even when the laundries closed many of the women were so institutionalised that they remained in the convents as lay-people, as they had no idea how to survive outside.
None of the above is what is being suggested by Gordon Brown. Whether you agree with the policy or see it as Tory posturing is irrelevant. The stated aim is to provide support for teenage mothers who don't have support at home or cannot remain at home and are seeking housing elsewhere. The idea is that they're not just left with their flat and benefits to fend for themselves. Here they can share experiences, have others to talk to, and learn some skills.
Dragging the Magdalene laundries into the argument seems like melodramatic scaremongering to me.
In fairness, I was making the link between the thinking behind both ideas (Magdalene Homes and Brown's proposal) that teenage mothers are automatically unfit parents by virtue of the fact of their age and that they would not be able to provide adequate care for their children.
In a lot of cases in the Magdalene Homes, the babies were kept with the mothers until adoptive parents were found and then the nuns would take them and they would dissappear. Sometimes this was a matter of hours and sometimes it was days and sometimes it was three years.
The language used by Brown is Tory posturing and nothing else. I'm not suggesting that teenage mothers should be left to fend for themselves - obviously there should be supports there, as there should be for all parents regardless of age. But the indications that this would be linked to benefits is a whole different story.
And regardless of that, it does reinforce the stereotype that all teenage mothers in Britain are only having children to "get a flat". It's the same in Ireland. It doesn't matter that many teenage mothers who have their babies will end up 5 years on a local authority waiting list...
Again, I disagree - the thinking behind both ideas is very different. The women who went to the Magdalene homes were not sent there because they were unfit mothers or because of their age. The ones who had had children were sent because it was sinful to have sex outside of marriage and they had brought shame on their families.
However, the Magdalene homes were not exclusively for them. Many of the women sent there had not had a child or even sex. They were merely considered at risk of having sex - whether because they were too pretty and men couldn't help themselves, or because they dared to speak to boys. Other women were put there because they were raped or had been someone's mistress and it was an easy way to keep them quiet.
They are an awful, shameful part of Irish history - and recent history at that. It strikes me as entirely inappropriate that you're rolling it out here to compare it to a Labour policy that you disagree with.
You have lots of valid points to make about this policy - and Labour have been very short on detail about it. I just wish you could make them in their own right without ramping up the drama quotient by comparing it to the Magdalene Laundries. This policy is nothing remotely like them and the thinking behind the two is very, very different.
..”The women who went to the Magdalene homes were not sent there because they were unfit mothers or because of their age. The ones who had had children were sent because it was sinful to have sex outside of marriage and they had brought shame on their families...”
It was a combination of the two. Yes, they were there because they had sex outside of marriage, but if they weren’t deemed to fit as parents then why were they not allowed to keep their children? Or was that *just* the punishment for having sex? The majority of women who were in the Magdalene homes were there because they were pregnant or had a child. I can see why you dislike the comparison, but I am not saying that they are absolutely the same. I’m just saying that Brown’s idea to automatically segregate young welfare-receiving mothers is wrong. It’s easy to pick a group within society who are already vulnerable and incredibly stigmatised and then present this as the option on how to deal with it. Much in a similar vein as how Blair introduced ASBOs to deal with “anti-social behaviour”. And look how well that turned out. For Brown, it’s about being seen to be doing something, and I don’t think buying into the idea that young women have babies to get council flats. There’s no actual evidence to say that this happens anyway.
I do understand that the concept in itself seems a little disorientating, and the term "supervised" laden with a rather sinister and paternalistic tone which it may or may or not deserve, but the essence of this article is plain wrong.
The UK has comprehensive sex education, and free contraception. Believe me, I'm not a teenager, pregnant, or in need of housing, but I've had condoms and sound scientific advice showered on me since pre-adolescence. Whilst these things are absolutely essential to countries that strive to give women reproductive choice and personal freedom - they absolutely are - they aren't fixing the problem, which is not teenagers who conceive per se but the potentially unforeseen socio-economic disadvantages girls and women in this situation can suffer.
It is certainly an arguable opinion that this measure addresses that issue appropriately, but it is not the case that the intention in this is anti-feminist or in any way designed to oppress or conceal pregnant teenagers.
Also, you do not mention that only individuals with no family support, who would normally be eligible council housing, are given this option and that it is certainly not uniform or compulsory; however, it would clearly be naive to think that girls and women living without support will have other realistic alternatives, and if drafted as legislation, this measure will require further scrutiny.
I’m not disorientated by the concept, I just don’t agree with how the whole thing has been framed within such a paternalistic fashion, and I don’t think it’s healthy for a leader of government to repeat half-baked notions not backed up by any evidence.
Britain might have comprehensive sex education, which is wonderful – for those who are in school when it’s being delivered. Not everyone sticks around for that. There are a substantial amount of teenagers who leave school before that bit, or just don’t hang around for that part of the day. And even where there is comprehensive sex education, it doesn’t always work.
And I totally agree that addressing the socio-economic disadvantage that’s thrust upon teen mams in this situation is a huge part of what needs to be done. But I genuinely believe that Brown couching his proposal (regardless of the merits of having separate “homes” for teenage mothers on benefits) in such a fashion serves to add to the idea that these young women are “scroungers” who connived to get pregnant, who need to be sorted out. It was him who said that they needed to go there to learn how to raise their children properly. Implying that they have babies for council houses is completely dehumanising whether you agree with my take on it or not.
So Stephie, what support would you like to see for 16 and 17 year olds who have children and don't have home support.
From your quote above this is being offered to :all 16 and 17 year old parents who get support from the taxpayer". It's not compulsory and no-one's being forced to apply for support. But for young women who need it, and since you don't think they should be in group housing - what would you do?