Oh, this is rich irony:
<snicker>
This program, and the whole patronizing, contemptuous anti-child attitude that went along with it, always rubbed me the wrong way. So now I am just absolutely basking in the schadenfreude. 
I too enjoy a good hearty laugh at the expense of misguided teens and their babies. The icing on the cake is that they are more likely to be poor, stay poor, be poorly educated and generally have the odds stacked against them and their children for the rest of their lives.
Warms my cold heartless soul it does.
Yes, I expected to hear this from the CW crowd. Fine, let’s just drive it home how having a child is the pits. How it will ruin your life. How there’s nothing warm and tender and loving and fun about it. And then let’s hope that doesn’t become a self-fulfilling prophecy when they do end up having kids, whether now or later. Even if this cynical intervention had worked, how many screwed-up people would it have made in the next generation?
ETA: I’d also like to add that it is highly dubious to assert the arrow of causality only goes one way (“they are more likely to be poor, stay poor, be poorly educated and generally have the odds stacked against them and their children for the rest of their lives”).
Having a baby simulator that acted like SlackerInc would surely dissuade anyone of any age from ever having kids. The simulated parent would conclude that infants are total dicks with no redeeming qualities.
So is the implied “arrow of causality” that having a baby will make them poor and miserable, or that they’re already poor and miserable when they have a baby they can’t afford? And which of those is preferable, in your mind?
All this straw and no barn to lay it in. Wait, I know…!
It took them 20 fucking years to do an actual study on these things? :smack:
ha! teenage pregnancies, that is funny.
:mad:
Country Western? :dubious:
I’m saying that if you look at statistics and say “hey, here’s a correlation: between having babies young, and being poor and uneducated”, it might occur to you that maybe it’s just as likely, even more likely, that people who are not destined (regardless of their maternal status) to be college graduates or highly paid professionals are more likely to be the type of people to have babies young. Which is to say that tricking them into not having those babies isn’t likely, I suspect, to give them radically different outcomes. IOW, don’t blame the baby.
Think of all the babies they helped midwife into the world during that time! Oops. Serves 'em right, the cynical bastards.
ETA: CW stands for “conventional wisdom”.
No one blamed the baby AFAICT.
But you are partially missing the point. Statistics certainly show that poor uneducated teens get pregnant more. Statistics also show that poor uneducated teens who get pregnant stay poor and uneducated more often than poor uneducated teens who don’t get pregnant.
The notion that they are destined to be poor and uneducated whether they get pregnant or not is less than accurate. Unwed teen pregnancy is both an effect, and a major cause, of long-term poverty.
Is there a link to the studies themselves? It sounds like one effect was to reduce abortion. Was there an affect where more teens actually got pregnant if they used the simulated baby? The interviewee seems to be saying so. Did more of them get pregnant, or did the same number get pregnant and they aborted less?
Regards,
Shodan
And apparently nobody had ever thought that people more likely to enjoy dolls and who like them better if they’re more realistic might also be more likely to enjoy having a living one… (with my apology to actual babies). Because yeah, all those peeing dolls, crying dolls, pooping dolls? None of them has ever, ever sold a single unit.
I see. So the odds are already stacked against them, the future is immutable, the dumb rubes can’t be taught anyway, so no point in trying?
The outcome is unquestionably ironic, in that it was the opposite of the intended result. I don’t see the humor, though, nor the “patronizing, contemptuous anti-child attitude” that you’re projecting onto the program.
You could say that. You could say a lot of things. But saying something isn’t the same as actually having data to support your claim. So, got any cites that show those not college bound are better off just having babies early? Or are you just here to thumb your nose at all those egg headed “CWs” because you’re so much smarter than everybody?
Who is doing that?
Just for thought… in most teen pregnancies, the father is notably older.
Right? Or that after a few days, you get used to it. And then you start to think, “You know, it was hard at first, but I could totally do this! Let’s have a baby!”
I mean, isn’t the point of training to get people more comfortable and skilled at doing a hard thing?
The piece I heard on NPR said that outcomes don’t change. It doesn’t have to do with the baby - it has to do with the opportunities available if you are poor. By the time the baby comes - or doesn’t - a poor girl’s life has usually been set.
And motherhood is the one accomplishment she feels she can have. And that once a baby comes along - when the child is young - her support network becomes more supportive - so yes, she actually does better having a child at 17, because there isn’t a living wage job waiting for her at 18 and she hasn’t been set up for educational success.
Exactly. And I think this could actually be useful as a “home ec” type thing more in the conventional way those classes are intended. It could help make young people better parents. But the intent was completely different from that, which is what bugged me and hence the reason for my schadenfreude (not, you understand, toward the young parents but toward the busybodies who thought they were going to scare them straight).
Look, I believe there is some causation in both directions. I said it’s “just as likely, even more likely,” that the causation was more in the realm of poverty---->teen pregnancy than the other way around, but I was still leaving some room for it to go the other way as well.
But if you are so sure the pregnancies themselves are causal, what’s your evidence? With these kinds of correlations, it’s very difficult to determine causality. After all, you can’t take two random groups of teenaged girls from a variety of demographic backgrounds and assign everyone in one group to get pregnant while preventing everyone in the other group from doing so.
Both. Well, technically “both” is impossible the way you worded it–but there were both more pregnancies, and fewer abortions.
Right. Now of course, a lot of the people behind these programs are likely to see these results and say “well, obviously we need to make the simulated babies much more horrible”. But this isn’t all about twisted propaganda, no sir.
It all makes me think of the C.M. Kornbluth story “The Marching Morons”, which I suspect was the inspiration for the movie Idiocracy. The story describes a somewhat plausible future with a small high-IQ class and a much larger subclass of, well, morons. A 20th century man awakens from suspended animation in this time, and the high-IQ crowd explains to him that it was the fault of educated professionals like him, who tended to have few or no children (this was written way back in 1951, in the midst of the Baby Boom, but the subsequent years have borne this idea out). The high-IQ people obviously run everything, and they try to discourage the underclass from breeding using crude propaganda films with comically over-the-top titles, which work just about as well as these dolls:
In all of them, I’d say. We’re talking about a baby here.
I don’t see why it is all that difficult. You compare the teenage mothers with those who get pregnant later. And you find all kinds of higher incidence of negative consequences for the younger mothers -
Cite.
Also -
Cite.
Giving birth as a teenager makes a difference. It is not just as likely that poverty causes teen pregnancy as that teen pregnancy causes poverty.
There is such a thing as the cycle of poverty, where a poor teen ager gives birth because she is poor, and stays poor because she gave birth, which negatively impacts her children, who grow up poor - and then get pregnant, thus making it more likely that they stay poor.
Is it absolute? Of course not. Is it a real effect? Of course it is.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ve been unable to find the details of the study to answer one question I have about it.
In my experience as a teacher, there isn’t tons of time to just use for whatever extra material outside forces want to insert. So how much time was spent for sex ed for these two groups? Did the “baby simulator” group just get all the time for the baby simulator instructions added to the standard sex ed? Or was the time for the regular instruction about contraceptives and STDs compressed to make time?