e-mail
I’ve been addicted to MTV for a few weeks now. Not for the music videos as they don’t seem to air those anymore. Does it make me seem old that I remember videos? In fact, to be honest, when a friend told me to turn it on, I didn’t know what channel MTV was on our satellite. And yet, I’ve become addicted to their show, 16 & Pregnant. Even my husband has been watching with me, leaving us discussing the unique situations for each young mother, father and family.
The premise of the show is that MTV camera crews follow around an expectant teen mother as she deals with the fallout from her decisions, makes even more decisions and eventually delivers her child. The cameras are often present in the delivery room which sometimes provides for laughs for the audience. I mean, who wears that much makeup during labor? The interesting bits and pieces come from when these young mothers (and sometimes involved young fathers) come home from the hospital and are faced with the realities of babies, lack of sleep and parenthood in general.
Tomorrow is the season finale and MTV decided to play the ratings game by showing an adoption story. That’s right. They chose the only relinquishment story as their season finale. If that’s not a ploy for ratings, I don’t know what is. Hoping for another contracted season of following girls around with cameras? You betcha.
I’m sorry that I sound cynical but I can’t stand it. Yes, I’m addicted to the show. However, I draw the line at following a mother around with a video camera while she is making the very difficult decision about whether to place her baby for adoption or parent. Why? The cameras end up being a coercive measure that ensures she places. How so? Imagine being sixteen and being followed with a video camera. You’re suddenly experiencing your fifteen minutes of fame during the most difficult phase of your life. You’re now forced with a decision that other mothers considering relinquishment don’t have to deal with: do you place and look like the hero to the watching world or do you decide to parent and come off as the bad guy? Which sixteen year old really wants to look like the bad guy to a national audience? I’d argue that very few teens could stand up against that coercive measure. The previews have this young mother saying that she wants better for her child but I still firmly believe that the cameras should not have been involved. She needs room to reconsider.
This is the reason I don’t like shows like this one or others like Adoption Stories. I don’t believe that we are acting in the best interest of the mother and child by following them around with a video camera.
So, should you tune in tomorrow night at 10:00pm EDT? I don’t know. At this point, I think a general boycott of the show won’t do much to affect a future run of the “documentary” type series. I fear it will be back, probably subtly coercing at least one other mother into relinquishing her child. And so, the question my readers are likely asking: will Jenna be watching? Yes and no. I’m actually leaving for a no-television-available camp for eight days as of tomorrow morning. That said, I do have the DVR set to record it. I won’t watch it until Monday, July 27th.
Why am I actually watching? It’s like a train wreck; I can’t look away. Plus, I need something to kvetch about upon my return, right?
Tomorrow morning I will share some opinions from around the web with you regarding the upcoming episode as opinions are flying. I encourage you to leave your opinions on the episode after it airs on both this post and the other one yet to come. Please remember that all personal attacks against me OR the young mother on the show will be deleted. Opinions for or against are welcome but name-calling is not productive. If you are boycotting, I encourage you to blog about the reasons why you are doing so.
_
Image Credit: screenshot of the website.
I don’t know if I’m going to watch this or not. I think it is SO sad that they are exploiting this poor child. Where are her parents, does she have NO support in her life?
Disclaimer: I don’t even have TV, so I’ve never seen the show.
I think following pregnant teenagers with cameras for entertainment purposes is morally reprehensible to begin with.
However, I don’t see how the cameras aren’t also coercing these young ladies to parent their children. If the cameras weren’t there, and whatever compensation they get for having the cameras follow them wasn’t there, would they consider other options? In your post, you write that the mom considering adoption would be a hero if she goes through with placement. But wouldn’t she also be vilified for “giving up” her baby on national TV? Would other expectant moms consider adoption under other circumstances, but not if they had to worry about what the MTV universe might think?
I happened to turn on this show tonight and I was moved to tears watching the pain that both the birth mother and father went through as they passed off their child.
Maybe the emotions flow from a deeper place within me because I had a birth mother that was 16 years old when she did the exact same thing. For me, it was almost therapeutic to experience what it MIGHT have been like for my own birth mom. These “kids” were making mature life altering decisions- NOT for themselves, but for their child.
If they get money or not- they are not earning fame from a show like this. I watched it more as a documentary. I commend this couple for thinking of this baby more than themselves, that’s a HUGE thing to do for any 16 year olds
I watched the episode and HATED it. It made me so angry.
I agree with Jenna that outcome of this situation was influenced by the fishbowl circumstances in which the teen parents found themselves. In fact, I believe it would have gone quite another way had they not been on television. It was clear that the extended family did not support the adoption (the baby’s grandmother would not sign the papers in the hospital-GOOD FOR HER). Second, the couple was reconsidering their decision to place while the baby was in the room. But, they were unable to rethink things privately (without the cameras), with social workers offering parenting resources present (these were conspicuously absent) and without the vulture-like agent from the agency (authority) hovering and reminding them (on camera) that the prospective adoptive parents were waiting. What was with signing papers in the hospital room???? Too soon!!!! The show allowed for NO SPACE. Anyway, the way the prospective adoptive parents loaded the baby in the car and sped off as well as the looks on their faces gave me the strong impression that they believed they’d had a close call. I believe the adoption would have failed had the parents been given support to parent and some privacy. Instead, I believe the parents were influenced to go with the program because of the public exposure and the pressure of sticking to the script.
I totally disagree with RobinC who writes:
“In your post, you write that the mom considering adoption would be a hero if she goes through with placement. But wouldn’t she also be vilified for “giving up” her baby on national TV? Would other expectant moms consider adoption under other circumstances, but not if they had to worry about what the MTV universe might think?”.
Not equal situations. Those two teenagers would not have been vilified in any significant way for surrendering their child on television. Quite the opposite, in fact (Go to the 16 and Pregnant site and read the comments—there’s no significant negativity). The mom and dad are called “unselfish”, “heroic,” “mature for their age” because they handed their baby over to the adoptive couple. Come on…we live in a society that thinks Juno (UGH) was a fantastic movie (NOT) that is representative of the “glorious” experience of teen relinquishment (NOT). Public opinion, mostly derived from people who have zero first-hand experience with adoption or its effects (Do I, you ask? Yes, I do.), supports relinquishment. Comments generally reflect the fantastical, fairytale-like thinking in which our society engages about adoption and adoptive parents, in particular. They are seen as superhuman beings who don’t divorce, get sick and die. They are “always good and kind” mature, stable married people who live in a house with a white picket fence, who love, God, America and apple pie. However, due to a cruel twist of fate, they suffer from infertility and are unable to become biological parents. Instead, they get to swoop in and save some poor child from poverty, teen parents, whatever flaws are can be identified to put the biological parents into the “unworthy” and “selfish if you keep the child” category. The relinquishing parents are just throw aways in our society…They’ve sinned by having done the nasty and conceived when either poor or unmarried. They are being given this miraculous dispensation by being allowed to “move on” (HA) with their wonderful lives (NOT). This is the environment in which people make these difficult decisions and the playing field is not set to make an objective decision even without the pressure of making it on television.
Finally, I resent it highly when people like “balvins” talk about relinquishment as “thinking about the baby more than themselves.” What makes parents “not good enough?” What’s the cut off point? Put on a continuum of attributes, we could always identify families that appear, at least on paper, to be more worthy to parent than the biological one. Is it being married, being straight, having money? I think it’s a really awful way for people living together in a society to judge one another. If there is something lacking in the bio parent situation (obviously I’m not talking about situations where there is substance or physical abuse or severe mental illness), then the kind thing for society to do is to provide the support the bio parents need to parent instead of telling them they aren’t worthy.
It’s not the first time MTV has done this. They had a true life episode about adoption and BTW most of the moms changed their minds under the fishbowl of the tv. Every person is unique in this case sounds like they placed. Can get the episode of true ife on itunes if you are interested in it.
I watched this show because of Jenna’s blog. I’m a 47 yo first mom in reunion w/my 24 yo daughter, L. I found this show to be very true to my experience. Some things have changed in recent decades (meeting aparents for example), but the thought processes and feelings those kids went through were right on the money, whether they were in front of cameras or not. I’m sorry that many will disagree with me, but I’ve always been proud of my decision to let L’s folks raise her, which not only allowed her opportunities and experiences I would not have been able to give her, but allowed me to have opportunities and experiences I would not have had if I were a single mom. I wish Catelyn and Tyler all the best, and thank them for sharing their experiences with the world, so that other young people in similar situations can see a truthful portrayal of the option of adoption.
Grizzy777,
The situation that was presented on MTV may have resonated with you. That does not mean that the presence of the camera was not a coercive force in the case of Tyler and Catelyn. Nor does it change the fact that despite the vast resources at the disposal of television programs (advertisers, etc) and the more modest, but still existing social resources, there wasn’t much presented to Tyler and Catelyn in the way of support for a parenting decision. So, I would say that it was a somewhat truthful portrayal of the circumstances that lead people to place (playing field skewed in favor of adoption because resources and other support isn’t offered) coupled with extreme pressure due to the camera. However I would not agree that birthparents, in general, feel good about/are proud of their decisions. They generally (and I’m one and have known thousands, so I can generalize) feel they had no CHOICE under the circumstances.
When I watched this episode I was almost crying. I really felt for both the young parents who seemed to have much better heads on their shoulders than both their parents. I do feel as though the camera probably added a lot of much unneeded pressure to the situation, but at the same time they ended up doing what I feel was the right decision for the baby. It was a lot more heartbreakingly sad and emotional than most of this series other trainwreck episodes where the kids think they can raise the babies, but mostly just end up fighting with their parents.
Kahoiam,
How do you know placement was what was BETTER for the baby? What is better, after all? How is that determined and by whose standards? Where do parents have to fall on the social continuum to be judged good enough or worthy enough to parent their own babies? Should the poor and disenfranchised mothers and fathers in Third World countries surrender their children to the nearest financially stable and socially appropriate (by our standards) couple in a developed country? Oh, and do you have a crystal ball? Do you know that the adoptive parents will be good parents? Do you know they will stay married and healthy? Do you know the adoptive parents don’t just “think” they can raise a baby, but really just end up just fighting with each other? Do you know they won’t lose their financial stability in an era of economic downturn and rampant foreclosures? Do you know the child will receive an education? Do you know the child won’t end up with abandonment issues?
I think the answer is NO.
Coercion can take many forms. Keenly felt prejudice against young or poor parents (It will be “better for the baby”, “such a good head on your shoulders for making this unselfish decision”), creates guilt and uncertainty. Couple this with no real offering of support and the pressure of a television camera and the result is a decision with an uncertain outcome not made objectively at all.
I can’t give an informed opinion about whether the camera was a factor in Catelynn and Tyler’s decision to go through with the adoption. I will say that I have seen other adoption reality shows where the birth mother did change her mind and keep the baby, with both good and not-so-good results.
No one can predict the future. It was clear to me that Catelynn and Tyler were looking for stability for their daughter. They were smart enough to realize that their familes could not provide what they felt their daughter deserved. Socio-economic class had nothing to do with it. The key moment was Tyler telling his father, “Not good enough for my daughter.”
It was also clear to me that the grandparents were selfish, immature, and thinking only of their own loss. The fact that they had screwed up their kids’ lives made it clear that they were in no way capable of giving their granddaughter a stable, supportive environment. They were not suddenly going to turn around and be different people.
Finally, I give Catelynn and Tyler a tremendous amount of credit for making their decision. They were the most mature and down-to-earth couples I’ve ever seen on this show. It was nice to see a couple that was brought closer together through the pregnancy, instead of ending up fighting and resenting each other. Tyler was awesome, and truly a refreshing change from most of the boys (I won’t give them enough credit to call them men) on this show. I hope they will stay together and be able to raise a family someday. I have high hopes for them!
chinamomo4f,
With no offers of resources to help them parent, either from the show or the state, it is understandable that Catelynn and Tyler would feel they could not offer their daughter “stability” and had no option other than to place her. You are kidding yourself if you think socioeconomic status has nothing to do with these decisions. I’m not saying that adoptive parents are rich, but a given the hefty expenses involved in adopting children these days, they generally aren’t in the impecunious category in which parents in crisis pregnancy often find themselves.
The whole notion of “stability” is most definitely rooted in socioeconomic status and the adoption fantasy our society buys into, involving a middle class, married mommy and daddy. Children are often split from their families and placed by mothers and fathers who have little money and feel helpless. The reality is that you have no crystal ball. You have no idea whether or not the adoptive parents will provide “stability.” They may become ill and die, divorce, lose their jobs and home, or just not be good parents. You hae no way of knowing whether or not Catelynn and Tyler would have resented each other and fought had they parented WITH resources. Further, it’s interesting to me that you characterize other people (e.g. the grandparents) who don’t buy into the fantasy and who want to preserve the child’s birthright to her family as being selfish and immature. WOW.
Thomasina,
Of course I have no idea if the adoptive parents will always be able to provide a stable environment. What was clear to me, however, was that Catelynn and Tyler did not feel their own families could provide that stability, so they made it their goal to find a family that they felt was the best choice for their daughter’s future. Was it easy or fair for them to have to do this? Of course not. I still believe they were very mature about what was best for the baby and showed a lot more maturity than their parents.
Yes, I do think the grandparents were selfish. They clearly made poor choices in their own lives–moving a lot and going to prison–so it is naive to expect that they would be able to give their grandchild what they couldn’t give their own children. Catelynn and Tyler realized that and I think it was a major part of why they chose adoption.
I’m sorry that you seem to have so much anger about adoption. I haven’t walked in your shoes or shared your experiences, but I will say that I did not adopt my four children because I felt I was better than their birthparents. No adoptive family I’ve ever known has shown that superior attitude. My husband and I adopted because we wanted children and chose children who needed a home. Might something awful happen to us someday? I don’t know. But are we a better bet for our children’s future than what they faced without us? Yeah, I think we are.
Peace out.
You make a lot of assumptions about my feelings and beliefs, chinamomof4.
I am not angry with adoption as a concept. Nor did I say adoptive families have superior attitudes. I said that society is prejudiced against unmarried, young and socioeconomically poor people raising children. Society would rather see the children of people in these categories transferred to people who are married, older and, at least, middle class than to provide resources for the people in the first category to parent effectively. Things do not change that would help people like Tyler and Catelynn (and others in the first group) to parent because the political power to transform them is in the hands who have invested in and benefit from the way things are. As a result, people continue to make decisions to place, not because they are “mature” but because they either have been made to feel they aren’t good enough to parent their own children or because they feel they have no choice (economically). It really does makes a sham out of our supposed democratic principles. That’s what makes me angry.
[...] in June, Jenna wrote a post about the 16 & Pregnant finale. The comments to that post made it onto my list of unpopular opinions to blog. One question was: [...]