A Good Book
Is non-fiction account of 2 women who come from the Bronx, living inner city, Puerto Rican and where their lives go. Author manages to write about them without bias and gives what seems to me to be a very clear account of their lives. Apparently she followed this family for 10 years. It is a great study of poverty and how systems work..often against the people who they are trying to help. This one woman had 4 kids by the time she was 22 or something like that. My immediate reaction is "Why are you having these kids that you can't possibly look after?" But reading the book, you see how she is a good mother, really loves her kids and makes all these sacrifices for them. Of course, lots of parents do, but somehow I don't think of that when I read or hear about these types of situations. I just presume that they couldn't possibly know what they're doing...mostly because if you're that poor, you don't deserve to have kids right? I read an interview by the author who was talking about response to her book and how people often have that same reaction that I do. And she makes the point that having children is not just the domain of the rich:
Having children is not a class privilege. The moments in the book when people become pregnant and people are born are part of a lifeline. We like to freeze the frame of this lifeline at the moment when a girl gets pregnant, because that is the moment when you can turn the story of social injustice into a personal blaming session. As if you can pinpoint the social problem on a single person, and then you can get into that whole useless discussion about "choice."
But in fact, I think it starts much sooner. There's also sex education, after-school programs, gender orientation. To jump ahead and say, "Let's talk about someone when she's 15 and pregnant," I just think it's a way for people to remain situated in a judgmental place that allows them not to feel the pain, and the sadness, and the shame we should feel, really -- the shame that these young people are not protected the way they should be.
That's another thing about judgment -- it's a way to stay separate from someone else. I think people do it in policy, people do it personally, and they do it literally when then they are confronted with the facts. These comments about teenagers and sex, for example. I mean, teenagers are getting pregnant everywhere, they are having sex everywhere, not just among the poor.
I thought it was a very interesting quote.
The book really mad me evaluate my judgement towards people living in poverty...and I like to think that I'm somewhat openminded. The best thing about the book is that the author writes with no judgement, even about situations that seem horrific and so easy to slip into judgement.
posted by lisaandrichard at 8:34 PM
19 Comments:
That reminds me of a series of letters I saw in the Journal a while ago -- they were talking about the increased rate of homelessness & transients in Edmonton, and some people were upset about the mess that homeless people often leave on streets, in parks, etc. Someone wrote back that it's easy to be tidy when you have closets. It drove it home to me that we have certain behaviour standards for all people, regardless of their circumstances that may make it much harder.
I don't get it. If you can't afford to raise 4 children, why would you have them? There's lots of things I have foregone because of my choices - I didn't dump my kids in daycare so I could have a "fulfilling" job. I chose the kids so made other life choices to support that. I don't expect society to pick up the slack so I can do whatever I feel like. Perhaps I am missing the point of the book.
I think the point is that the people in this book have forgone almost everything and have almost nothing. Having children shouldn't just be for people who have money or are people we deem acceptable to have children.Being poor doesn't mean you are a bad parent, but I think that I judge people's abilities to parent based on part, due to their income level.
The book is more about the study of poverty. From reading the book, it seems that it wasn't a matter of this woman dumping her kids in day care. Not only did she try day care, she tried staying at home, but would have to be on welfare. She tried working, but then had to put her kids in daycare. Looking at it, it would seem apparent that having the kids put her into worse poverty, but why is it OK to have children grow up in poverty, with not enough food and poor education? Why do we think it's OK for society to pay for roads, but not food? Why do we value the Olympics more than housing?
Of course, that's my left leaning thinking.
It really is a good book though, and not preachy at all.As opposed to me! :)
I wasn't meaning to be judgmental but was asking the question. If you can't afford to do something, why would you do it?
I have never judged people's parenting on their income. Lots of people who are committed to their children don't have a lot of money because of their choice to have a family.
I also think that even if we threw all the money at the poverty situation that is spent on Olympics or roads, poverty would still be there. A lot of money is thrown at it now and it doesn't go away. A lot of people have spent a lot of time thinking about and planning and implementing programs, but it is still there.
I think that you're right, that there would be some poverty, but why do we value those things more than people not being hungry? And often if money is spent the right way, meaning really finding out what people want and need to succeed versus what others outside the situation think is needed, the money will be a whole lot more effective. I really do think that works on large and small scales. Like when I am talking to someone about their diet and offering ideas, but really ensuring that it is the client who comes up with the plan, because me sitting there saying, well just do this, just doesn't work. It's just more work on a larger scale. I do believe that people are genuinely wanting to be healthy and happy...if they aren't, they're trying to get there, but haven't found the way.
The other thing is, that we as a society benefit from poverty, thinking about people who work minimum wage jobs, or the lowest paying jobs...who is going to wash our cars and serve us food? Even when those jobs are paid more than minimum wage, like here because of the labour shortage, people still can't afford to live here when they work at jobs that in the service industry.
I do think that people make choices all the time to do things they can't afford...ie student loans for school, buying houses on a mortgage, but society thinks a mortgage is OK, so it's not seen as a bad thing to owe money for that.
And don't even get me started on credit card debt...
Really, though, the book is very interesting and is well worth the read.
Lisa is trying to get me to say that she's right about this - but I refuse because it just dpends on your own experiences and way of looking at it - thus I say you are both right
Oh Mom, you're such a pacifist! :)
Lisa, do you think having kids is a right?
A right...a good question. I guess i do think that, otherwise I'd believe that the government would regulate it, and that you'd earn the privilege to have children,with people either being able to have them or not.
That being said, I know that I have read files of people's childhood trauma and abuse and thought that the parents should not have been able to have children. Especially when they abuse multiple children who grow up and are at the very least, severely emotionally disabled.
Again though, I don't like to think of a society where others determine the right to procreate.
What do you think Theresa?
I think having kids is a privilege. I also think that the way we think about it is rooted in the past when everyone who was able had kids because there weren't very good ways to stop them from coming. So it is just assumed that people have families and often people don't think about the commitment. I don't just mean people in poverty. People with money who have kids then hand them over to the nanny are as bad as people who just keep having them without the resources to raise them properly. But . . . if you want to adopt, you are studied and observed extensively before you can even get your name on a list.
Making a choice to get a mortgage or loan is a decision that affects only you. You have to face the responsibilities of that.A decision to have kids affects their lives too.
I am going about this, aren't I?
How would you go about regulating it? Or do you think it should be regulated?
I really do agree that there are people out there that should really never have children, or shouldn't have had them to begin with, like Britney Spears, poor Britney, I hope she gets treatment...
But if it is a privilege how do you go about monitoring parents or parents to be?
I think it's a very interesting discussion! Philosophical, yet related to everyday life.
I agree, having children means that you are taking on the responsibility of raising them and that means you should be looking after their best interests.
I was wondering about the definition of a 'right' as opposed to a 'privilege'. Governments generally are there to protect your rights, for example.
Of course that being said, we don't necessarily connect everyday living with rights -- so people do not have the right to food and shelter, for example, although these are basic needs. Rights tend to be more philosophical, I think. So we have the right to choose different paths in life but having kids, getting married, etc. isn't a 'right' protected by our gov't.
I think a lot of people do not necessarily consider the reasons they are having children. So while some people cannot provide materially for kids, others can / will not provide emotionally for them. People have kids for a million reasons: to have someone to love them 'unconditionally', because they really like kids, because they have been brought up w/ the idea that having kids is what you are to do when you are an adult, to continue their family, etc.
I think what you are saying about old ideas of becoming a parent are on it, Theresa. But there are still issues with birth control access: in the US, some health plans do not cover all birth control methods, the programs for poor people's contraception are not keeping up with cost, some women get quite sick on the pill, and 13 states actually have legislation saying that doctors can refuse to provide contraception! I know when you compare having a child to these challenges, it sounds silly - of course I would try to find another method of contraception, rather than risk having a child. But if those methods aren't easily accessible to you, it's easy not to do anything further. I think education really has to be a part of this.
Mortgage does affect others' lives, though -- your partner's, other people living with you....it's just that there is an outside body that is saying whether they think you are likely to pay the money back. It's like you are adopting a house.
Contraception is too complicated; I think I'll just keep having babies, much simpler.
Theresa, does this mean you're trying to tell us something?
Are you knocked up?
I do have 5 kids so I think I know how us baby machines think.
Well, Lord knows someone in the family had to carry on our genes.
The rest of us are not very reproductive. However, your children will have a burden caring for so many relatives as they age.
I have been preparing them for their future role. Have you ever seen that bumper sticker: Be nice to your kids. They will be choosing your nursing home.
I gave Mom a magnet that says "Better to have lots of children, one might not turn out like the rest"
Post a Comment
<< Home