Why Teen Mothers Like Jamie Lynn Spears Keep Getting Shocked Up By The Media.

Here's a game. Match the tabloid quote to the new mom it is discussing: Jamie Lynn Spears or Angelina Jolie.

"Having [another] baby now would only be a recipe for disaster,"

"[Her] family is hysterical [about the news that she is pregnant again] and pressuring her to abort."

"I was considering her for an upcoming cover," CosmoGIRL! editor-in-chief Susan Schulz told Usmagazine.com Friday. "But with this news, I'd have to rethink that."

Ding, ding, ding. You guessed, I'm sure, that all three of these are about Jamie Lynn Spears. In a story that starts "Whoops -- she did it again!" The National Enquirer broke the news that "Teen Prego Queen Jamie Lynn Spears has another bun in the oven... and her pals are begging her to abort." And the quotes above are from the Enquirer and Us Weekly.

What's really at stake isn't whether it's true or not (the story has since been declared not true, then true again) but the way pregnancy news is delivered (har har) depending on the age of the mother, and then the way that pregnancy and birth are treated by the media and public.

The Spears story was one of the two top tabloid stories this week. The other was that of Angelina Jolie's recent interview in W magazine, about her happy pregnancy and family life, accompanied by "intimate" and "private" photos of her and the kids taken by Brad Pitt (all of which was subsequently written up in all the tabs).

It's an understatement to say the two women's stories were treated differently.

Reportedly, friends and family are encouraging Spears to abort and Casey Aldridge, the baby's father, "erupted in anger when he found out."

Most commenters under the TMZ version of the story weren't pleased either: "YOU KNOW IT"S TRUE THATR GIRL IS A STUPID REDNECK WHORE!!! FILL HER VAGE WITH CEMENT!!!!!!" (sic) offered one.

And "The stupid redneck whore is Sarah Palin's daughter. Like mother, like daughter" added another.

In a related story, Us Weekly had a call out to "see more shocking photos of teen pregnancies." They were all photos of smiling, wealthy, well-nourished teenagers, so I guess the pregnancy alone is enough to classify the photos as shocking.

On the other hand, the most popular quotes from W's interview with Jolie that ran in all the tabs were: "I think one of the life changing things that [Brad Pitt] did, one of many, is that I was absolutely never going to get pregnant. I never felt that it was the right thing to do. Now I wouldn't trade that experience for the world. It taught me a lot about life, just the process of it, and now we have three other beautiful children that wouldn't otherwise be here."

And then "I'm with a man who's evolved enough to look at my body and see it as more beautiful, because of the journey it has taken and what it has created," she says. "He genuinely sees it that way. So I genuinely feel even sexier."

People commenting after the Jolie interview said such things as "I love her," and "I love that family."

Pitt's photos that ran with the piece show Jolie laughing with her kids, breastfeeding a baby, smiling. The photos of Jamie Lynn Spears were of her looking stressed while shopping in Wal-Mart.

"Angelina is the Madonna and Jamie Lynn is the whore," as the media plays it, says Deirdre Kelly, a professor of educational sociology at UBC and the author of Pregnant with Meaning about teen mothers. The word "whore" has come up repeatedly in the Spears story, and Kelly says there's a long history of using it in this way. Even in Victorian England, "whore" didn't mean prostitute or sex worker, but was a slur directed at women, often middle or upper class ones who broke the rules of propriety. It was a way to suggest the woman was lower than her class, and cheap, as a result of behaving in sexually stigmatized ways. The term also has racialized implications, much like the racist slur "white trash" that's sometimes applied to teen mothers (and has often been applied to her sister Britney).

Kelly says that even though Spears is wealthy, and the star of a TV show, Zoey 101, she's "coded" as working class because of becoming a teen mom, and because of the various scandalous behaviors of her sister Britney.

Angelina Jolie, however, is as far from working class as it's possible to be. She's glamorous, successful, powerful and partnered with a man who's equally so. "Instead of being from a supposed family from hell, she's seen as altruistic, giving money to charity and helping developing countries. She's the Madonna."

On the other hand, even though it was the norm to be pregnant at 19 even a few decades ago, it's now heavily stigmatized. Even if teen moms are wealthy or highly capable, they're always seen as too young and therefore immature." And there are hints that they will be abusive or neglectful." All doubly so if they're living in modest situations or receiving social assistance.

Is it the case that they're not up to the job? "There's nothing inherently about young mothers that makes them less able" says Kelly. When she was writing her book, she interviewed about 50 teenaged mothers in depth, "and most of them were excellent."

The key is that "women of all ages need support to do a good job. It's just that if you're middle or upper class, you can buy that support." It's well publicized that Jolie and Pitt have many nannies, including several that are there during the day and others that stay through the night. Whereas, of course, most teen moms wouldn't be able to provide that.

But certainly most mothers in their 20s, 30s and 40s can't afford that either and they're considered OK. Further, there's been no media criticism of Ashley Simpson, who's 23 and expecting. Or Nicole Ritchie, who also gave birth at 23. "Most of the so-called teen mothers are 18 or 19 years old. They're old enough to vote, they're full-fledged citizens. I think the distinction between 19 and 23 is arbitrary. We all know people who are immature at age 40 because of their lack of life experience, and others who are mature at a young age because of what they have to handle."

And women in history, who tended to have kids very young, weren't all considered terrible mothers. My parents tell me quite the opposite -- that one woman they knew, who was 34, my age now, was labeled an "elder prima" by the hospital, and friends urged her to think carefully about keeping the baby since she might be too old to deliver and raise it healthily.

One reason for the shift to thinking teenaged motherhood is a bad thing, according to Kelly, could be that women now are largely expected to be co-breadwinners. Many teenage mothers can't afford to get support so that they can attend post secondary, "and we know women can't find jobs that pay a living wage without it."

So, in a sense, society is stigmatizing teen moms for prioritizing breeding over climbing the job ladder, even though they could do both if we stopped stigmatizing them.

The other factor is that "there's something Puritan about our society -- that we want to punish people." Nobody thinks about how we could all do better by providing good sex education or providing better support to teen moms. Instead, we want teen moms to "wear a scarlet letter." Ironically, she said that means teen moms don't always get the support and resources they need since they sometimes forego getting medical and community help rather than deal with judgmental attitudes.

I've never met either Spears or Jolie and know nothing of either's actual parenting skills. I'm just wondering why we automatically assume that Jolie, a woman who encourages her son to use knives, is a good mother. And Spears, who risked public censure and her career to have a child, is automatically unfit.

This post originally appeared on The Tyee.

Comments

[PatchyWarrior]

Read the post again. She is 'advocating' nothing, just observing the huge gulf between how Jolie and Spears are treated, and examing the attitudes involved. There is a massive difference between saying that 18-yr-olds aren't intrinsically terrible mothers and advocating teen pregnancy: JLS is villified, whereas AJ is lauded, although the public knows next to nothing about their actual mothering abilities (nor should they, IMHO).

[Aelinie]

Thoughtful post Vanessa! And an interesting comparison to Jolie. However, I think it's a flimsy argument to compare any mother to mothers from previous generations. As you pointed out, 34 used to be considered old to have a child because only a few decades ago 34 was considered to be the cusp of middle-age. Now, 34 is the tail end of adolescence. Even 2 generations ago, an 18 year old girl was considerably more mature than an 18 year-old is today, in part because the culture still valued being an adult. Now? Not so much. There is one thing for sure, being a mom grows you up, fast.

[SlippingInTheDip]

has anyone noticed other than me that Jolie's latest pics are from "W"..."W" is Disney, so I see in the near future Disney featuring the Jolie-PuPs in a remake of "The Lil Raskles".

[DavidATolucaLake]

Although harsh and sometimes vulgar, the recommendations that a 17 year old should wait to give birth until she is more mature and not a teenager is FANTASTIC advice. The method of delivering that message is wrong, but the message is correct. A 17 year old is too young to have a child.

You keep referring to the wealth of mother. Wealth itself does not transform a 17 year old mother into a responsible one.

Although being 21 years old does not guarantee a responsible outlook either, it increases the odds of having more life experiences to shape an individual for child birth and rearing.

Comparing Angelina Jolie and Spears is odd. Jolie is an adult woman, Spears is the same age as some high school juniors. Advocating the pregnancy of a 17 year old, whether wealthy or not, is exceptionally ill advised.

[sunnybunny]

I love your post I'm glad someone finally said it and said it so well !

[MSat70]

Of course these two pregnancy stories are being treated differently. On the one hand, you have a 30 year old adult who has planned both her pregnancies as well as three adoptions, and has enough life experience - good and bad - to make family planning decisions that make sense for her and her partner. On the other, you have a 16 year old girl (YES, she was 16 when she got pregnant the first time) who has had no real life experience except being shuttled back and forth to TV sets or watching the trials and tribulations of her older sister, getting accidentally impregnated by an older, irresponsible boy. Neither of them had completed high school, and if it weren't for Jamie Lynn's TV career would have no skills to support themselves with. I think the first time it happened, there was a lot more outrage about the parents than the girl herself. Where were Lynne and Jamie Spears while their youngest child was practically living with a 19-year-old boy? As long as that Nickelodeon money was coming in, they didn't care.

Jamie Lynn should be commended for taking responsibility for the mistake of an unplanned pregnancy. It's clear she is trying to be a good mom -but then to turn around and do the same thing again, just a few months later? Why should that be presented in the media as a happy occasion?

[sunnybunny]

Why do you think it's ok for a 30 year old woman to intentionally get pregnant by someone elses husband? And how responsible is it to have 6 kids - no matter how rich you are ? 15 years from now they won't be so cute and little. Do they realize they are going to have 6 teenagers at the same time? I don't begrudge them their happiness, but I don't think they have better morality or judgement than someone who decides to start their family at a younger age.
Jamie Lynn , on the other hand may or may not be pregnant again by her OWN boyfriend. Her sister was in her 20s and married when she got pregnant. We do not know whether or not they were planned.
We need to as a society start respecting peoples desires to live their lives as they see fit and not persecuting those that differ from us in their lifestyles.

[violettefemme]

I was surprised with how much I disagreed with what you wrote!

There is so much I want to address in your post, but don't have the time for all of it, but one thing I think that actually can sum up why I feel the entire thrust of your article is wrong on many levels is this quote from your words, above (emphasis mine):

"So, in a sense, society is stigmatizing teen moms for PRIORITIZING breeding over climbing the job ladder, even though they could do both if we stopped stigmatizing them."

Hello? 15 year olds who get pregnant are not "prioritizing" ANYTHING....they are being stupid in having sex at all (having sex at a young age does not benefit females, nor does young childbearing, all well documented) and then compound their horrible choices and judgment by having UNSAFE sex.

That situation is as far from "prioritizing" anything, let alone becoming a mother, as you can get.

And if women in our 30's and 40's struggle to parent and still have personal professional or academic success, how can you even suggest that not only can a teen do it, but the only thing holding them back from all this rampant success is society's "stigmatizing" of them?

That "stigma" came about because it's that important to control fertility, period, no matter your age. To make it seem like this idea is random and stigmatizing, only feeds the ignorance that creates young, unprepared parenthood in the first place.

[gymbunnybee]

I agree with both Violette and MSAT - and highly disagree with Vanessa's post. It is absolutely appropriate that the two cases havent been treated in the same way. A 16 yr old, unmarried/unpartnered child is in no way ready to be a mother; and she also represents a bad example for girls her age.