More evilitude on the part of Polly Toynbee

[lavendersparkle]

OK, maybe not quite evilitude, if I'm being fair I'd say more things that make me have an involuntary physical reaction at someone saying something which I think is so wrong. This morning, on Radio 4, Polly Toynbee said that it was a good thing that more teenagers were having abortions. She said it in the context of the news that the rate of teenage pregnancies has gone up slightly from last year. I think her words were something like "on the plus side the rate of teenage births has gone down because more teenagers are catching their pregnancies early enough to choose to have a termination."

Polly Toynbee perplexes me because, on the surface we're both leftie feminists yet we don't seem to agree on anything. I guess it's because our approaches a based on really different bases. My politics are based upon the idea that all humans are of value and should be enabled to have the best lives they can lead. Polly Toynbee doesn't extend her concern to unborn humans and generally feels that it would be better if some types of humans (those with prenatally diagnosable disabilities) should not exist. Which sort of brings us onto another difference between us. I value difference. I want a world in which people are allowed to be really different. This is partly self-serving because I am quite different and want to be allowed to continue my life this way. It is also because I think that diversity, of opinions and lifestyles as well as race and sexuality, adds to the richness of life and our understanding of the world. I get the impression that Polly Toynbee wants everyone to be like her. She seems to think that anyone who isn't like her just needs to be educated, usually through spending three years at university, and they will become good members of the chattering classes like her. It doesn't seem to occur to her that maybe some people don't want to go to university because they don't value that kind of education and it doesn't feature in their chosen life plan, and that that decision might be just as valid as the ones made by nice middle class teenagers going off to study English for three years.

From that perspective, I can see why she wouldn't share my sadness at more teenagers killing their children to better conform to the ideals of the ruling classes.

Comments

[liv]

I don't like Toynbee very much either. However, I take issue with your idea that more teenage abortions is a class war thing. Everything I know about the demographic situation suggests that the majority of those teenage abortions are performed on girls from "nice middle class" or "chattering class" or "ruling class" (ugh, really?!) backgrounds. As you've pointed out before, teenagers from working class backgrounds have that much less to lose from having kids at a young age, and broadly speaking tend to come from backgrounds with somewhat more conservative attitudes about abortion anyway.

I do agree with you that more kids having abortions isn't something to be celebrated. And that there are other good life plans apart from going to university. But I think one has to be careful with that sort of attitude. Even now, a university education is one of the best drivers of class mobility. I'm not saying everybody should aspire to be middle class, but I also very much don't want to entrench the idea that if you were born into a plebeian background you should just be satisfied with your proper place in life and not bother with that fancy edumacation stuff.

[lavendersparkle.livejournal.com]

I think that people who want to go to university and who are able to manage the work should be able to go to university. What I'm concerned about is the sort of middle-class cultural imperialism that seems to think that the only why to have a fulfilling life is to have at least a bachelors degree. I think I've noticed this sort of approach amongst Labour party politicians when discussing increasing university participation and I've certainly seen in in previous articles by Polly Toynbee.

There are two really big problems with this approach. The first is that it might push into university people who won't benefit from it and they'll end up dropping out or with a degree which doesn't improve their life, a shit load of debt and three lost years in which they could have been working toward qualifications and goals which would have benefited them. At least when this happens to the children of affluent parents, their parents wealth can be used to support them whilst they turn around their career plans. Kids from poorer backgrounds don't have this luxury. The second problem is that this idea devalues other forms of training and career start. This has been a problem in Britain for over a century. Poly Toynbee flippantly mocked the idea of questioning expanding university participation when we lacked enough people with vocational qualifications. At the time my sister-in-law was considering retraining as a plumber as her degree in sociology wasn't helping her much.

[lavendersparkle.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure what the socio-economic background of teenagers having abortions is. In the US the abortion rate is higher amongst poorer women. I don't think ONS collects statistical data on the socio-economic background of women seeking abortion. I suspect that working class girls have a higher rate of abortion because their rate of pregnancy is so much higher.

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

I think you should find out, if possible.