timeimmortal

I didn’t say anything about the Gloucester 17 last week, but I trust the Reader is familiar with the story, or at least the main elements of it. Seventeen girls more or less made a pact to get pregnant simultaneously (or as close to it as possible), and then prior to graduating from high school. Apparently, it was the “in” thing to do. None of the fathers seems to be, in any way, present or relevant to the scenario as it unfolds — men as sperm donors, nothing more — and most of the “men” involved were older than the girls themselves (which means, I think, that most of them would be up on charges of statutory rape if they were ever identified).

One of the girls was evidently in such a rush to get pregnant that she had sex with a 24-year old homeless man in order to meet the deadline, so to speak.

There’s so much wrong with this situation that it’s almost impossible to pick a point at which to begin. The absenteeism of the fathers is worrisome and them some, but from the beginning it hasn’t been something which has been lamented in any way. Indeed, the pregnancy pact seemed pretty much built upon the understanding that the fathers would not be involved at all in the pregnancy or the rearing of the resultant child — the dads were, in other words, just sperm donors, and nothing else. The implication that men are no longer expected to take responsibility for their sexual actions is staggering.

There’s also the matter of age disparity. I realize that were everyone involved a bit older, an 8-year age disparity between participants in a sexual relationship wouldn’t be that much of a shocker. It’s happened before. But we’re not talking 32- and 40-year olds here. And to be perfectly fair, I don’t know what the law in Gloucester says regarding the minimum age of consent — around here, some of the fathers would be facing charges. That none of the stories I’ve read on the matter have said anything about the issue of statutory rape is troubling, I find, because the silence seems to carry with it the implication that the whole issue of older people exploiting (or taking advantage) of young teens in a sexual manner is no longer an issue at all.

The response of the community and media has been laughable, as one story after another has carried the lament that more and better access to birth control, or more and better sex education, would have prevented this travesty. Such reasoning is absurd: I don’t think anyone could doubt that all these young women knew everything they would have needed to know about birth control and “protection” — and none of them had in mind a goal that could have been realized through the use thereof. Birth control and sex education mean nothing to someone who has set out to get pregnant, and no amount of sex education or free condoms would have prevented this pact from emerging or succeeding.

What might have helped prevent this mess would have been maintaining, rather than stripping away, the social stigma against teenage, pre-marital pregnancy. If you’re anxious to get pregnant at age 16, and if you’re willing to go to the absurd, and potentially very dangerous lengths of having sex with the guy who lives behind the dumpster near the corner store, a little shame over your actions is probably exactly what you need to feel. If you’re willing to essentially torpedo your future beyond high school because you’re so deluded you think a stroller is The. Hawt. High School. Fashion. Accessory. Of. The. Year, a little shame over your actions and choices might just be the tonic you need to drink.

But we don’t believe in shame anymore, nor do we believe in right judgement. Our post-Christian social attitude can only lead us to say one of two things about these girls: “Hey, don’t judge,” and “Do what makes you happy, baby.”

Of course, most of these young women — or, come to think of it, their children — won’t be “happy” in the end. One commentator asked a very disturbing, but probably accurate question: how many of these babies, once born, will survive even half a year? How many will, later on in life, suffer from shaken baby syndrome? Ace, whose article I link to above, asks what is probably an even more prescient question: “Anyone thinking these seventeen girls’ seventeen children (with many more to come in the next ten years, I’m sure) will have a happy lot in life? That they’ll grow up well-adjusted and well-parented and successful?” Personally, I think Ace’s high-ball estimate of three (out of 17, remember) growing up into well-adjusted adults is…well…too optimistic. Most of these kids will grow up in borderline poverty, and will be the “sluttified” kids at the day-care, the slightly chubby five-year olds wearing the “Juicy” t-shirts and cut-off pants.

And in due time, they’ll be the ones having babies at 16 years of age, making their mothers into grandmothers before said mothers see even their 35th birthdays.

Post-Christian sexual morality for the win!

A loaf of bread in Zimbabwe now costs $50,000.
Zimbabwe used to be the “bread basket of Africa“, one of the wealthier post-colonial nations responsible for a solid majority of African agricultural production. With the declaration of independence from Britain, and the coming to power of Robert Mugabe’s ZANU-PF party in 1980, however, things began to go south for this once strong nation.

A drought in 1992 was severe enough to warrant the declaration of a national disaster, but while this was severe, it is ultimately not what led to the hyperinflation and widespread poverty that now grips Zimbabwe. That took Mugabe’s government — and systemic Racism — to make happen. It began with the land redistribution policies that the ZANU-PF put in place to transfer arable land from white farmers to black farmers. At the time, white farmers comprised less than 1% of the population, but held about 70% of the arable land. Which sounds like a lot, but when you consider that an individual farmer might own a fair stretch of land, it really wasn’t. It simply means that most of the farms in Zimbabwe were run by white people, and were run well.

The forced removal from their land of these farmers meant that newer, black farmers were inheriting possession of the lands left vacant…which led, in turn, to disaster. The incoming tenants of these farms were not necessarily gifted farmers themselves, and indeed many weren’t anything more than local thugs who felt that the policy gave them an entitlement to claim some “white land” for themselves. The fact that they had to use the land — effectively — to grow crops seems never to have occurred to any of them.

This led to a rise in price of agricultural products, and ultimately plunged a nation that had once been a net exporter of foodstuffs into a famine. What is worse, Mugabe has held on to power in every election since 1980 through extensive use of vote-rigging and anti-opposition crackdowns and arrests. Additionally, the International Monetary Fund has suspended monetary aid to Zimbabwe for “failure to meet budgetary goals”: polite diplo-speak for “Mugabe and his cronies kept it all”, I suspect.

About the only positive outcome from this crisis has been the literacy rate in Zimbabwe, which sits at about 90.2% (higher than many “developed” countries). There is some hope there…for if and when Mugabe loses power (or dies), there is a chance that the nation could bounce back to its former prominence — the level of education in the populace suggests that they could put forth an effective government that could turn this whole landslide around. But until such a day as when that is possible, Zimbabwe will struggle under the most crippling debt and inflation, because of the kleptocratic and racist policies of its government. And funnelling more money into that nation will not solve the problem: it will only enable Mugabe and his various hangers-on to buy more exotic cars, and exotic vacations.

Regime change is the solution that would work, but it’s also the road nobody wants to discuss. And yet, sometimes, sending in the troops is indeed the best option.

Hat tip to Kate for the BBC link.