I find these following points very compelling. The rabid right to life campaign against abortion has now made abortion completely unavailable in something like 3/4 of all the states in the mainland usa. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] >The technology change analysis also must in some way deal with the monkey >wrench thrown into the process by (1) declining access to sex education, >especially among rural and urban-poor areas, (2) declining access to >obstetricians and gynecologists in many states (especially those willing to >provide abortions, and (3) the fact that the >ultimate, female-oriented, weapon against teen pregnancy (RU-482) has been >available for some time, yet is outlawed in the US. There is also the >potential that as the economic system turns against the middle and lower >clases, that our growing isolation from our sense of culture and >civil society has effected the ways in which men and women >interrelate to one another, and that individual men may be more likely >and more able to express their dissaffection (pardon the pun) with >society by exerting their physical power over individual women. Thus, the >rise in reported domestic violence, date rape, stalking, intimidation, >etc., may not simply be the results of more prevelant reporting, but an >indication of real change. > >While I am certainly not an expert is this area, and I have not read the >authors' work, I am also skeptical of theories of social change >that are rooted in technical advances that are divorced from their social >contexts. If this is not what the authors argued, my apologies to them. I >will have time to read their work in one month. > > >Jeff Fellows > > > >> >> >> >> On Fri, 22 Nov 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> > Maggie C. writes that:>>I'm not sure about what technology shock >> > is, but I do think the increase in teen pregnancy is over stated. >> > I believe I've said this before, the method of reporting the >> > statistics has more to do with the increase than actually >> > increasing teen births.<< >> > >> > this point seemed to me to be part of the Akerlof/Yellen theory. >> > They point to the decline in "shot-gun marriages" which had >> > hidden the out-of-wedlock preganancies and births in the past. >> > >> > "Technology shock" to A & Y simply refers to the sudden rise of >> > the availability of contraception and abortion (which, as I said, >> > seems more than technological in nature, more sociological) and >> > how social mores did not adapt well to the change. >> > >> > Arvind Jaggi wrote: >>Maybe Akerlof and Yellen should get >> > together with Gary Becker and go bowling.<< >> > >> > that's not helpful. Are you saying that relations between the >> > sexes and issues of pregnancy are not subject to >> > political-economic analysis given the absurdity of Gary Becker's >> > theories? >> > >> > BTW, I am not advocating the Akerlof/Yellen theory. I want to >> > know what people think. >> > >> > in pen-l solidarity, >> > >> > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. >> > 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA >> > 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 >> > "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way >> > and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ >> >> Eban Goodstein email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Department of Economics phone: 503-768-7626 >> Lewis and Clark College fax: 503-768-7379 >> Portland, OR 97219 >> >> > > >----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Received: from anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu (anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu >UAA07617; Sun, 24 Nov 1996 20:20:06 -0500 >Received: from anthrax (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu >Date: Sun, 24 Nov 1996 17:18:31 -0800 (PST) >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Precedence: bulk >From: Jeffrey Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [PEN-L:7550] Re: Technology Shock and Teen Pregnancy >X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas >X-Comment: Progressive Economics >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >MIME-Version: 1.0 --------------------- Forwarded message: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeffrey Fellows) Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 96-11-24 20:20:39 EST On Fri, 22 Nov 1996, Eban Goodstein wrote: > The "theory" sounds persuasive to me-- the large rise in out of wedlock > births clearly reflects changing social norms, which in turn are affected in > major ways by technology. Attempts to reduce the phenomenon either to the > availability of welfare or the decline in the pool of marriageable males > seem like searches for a magic policy bullet to solve "the problem" of > poor single moms. > > I do think that single parenting-- in our society-- is a huge > challenge, and that children need the involvement of fathers and mothers. > How to encourage responsible fatherhood is to me the big question-- and > it doesn't involve cutting welfare benefits. > > I find the Akerlof and Yellen argument interesting, because it suggests > how a liberating technology allowed some women to "exit" from an > (oppressive) social norm of abstinence; and once a sufficiently large > number had defected, the norm lost its social sustainability. Without > this norm, male opportunities to flee child rearing responsibilities grew > even faster. The question than becomes, how do we create new, functional, > norms which encourage male involvement, when exit opportunities are so easy? > > Eban > It seems to me that the technology hypothesis may have some serious flaws in it. First, it is my understanding that technology of any kind is a directed endeavor. Would it not therefore be of more importance to understand what social conditions are driving this technology? (such as the relative redistribution of wealth, from below to above, and the effects it is having on the parents of the teens, as well as the implications to the fathers-to-be that marriage before one's economic future is secured is a much scarier prospect than it was in the past). The technology change analysis also must in some way deal with the monkey wrench thrown into the process by (1) declining access to sex education, especially among rural and urban-poor areas, (2) declining access to obstetricians and gynecologists in many states (especially those willing to provide abortions, and (3) the fact that the ultimate, female-oriented, weapon against teen pregnancy (RU-482) has been available for some time, yet is outlawed in the US. There is also the potential that as the economic system turns against the middle and lower clases, that our growing isolation from our sense of culture and civil society has effected the ways in which men and women interrelate to one another, and that individual men may be more likely and more able to express their dissaffection (pardon the pun) with society by exerting their physical power over individual women. Thus, the rise in reported domestic violence, date rape, stalking, intimidation, etc., may not simply be the results of more prevelant reporting, but an indication of real change. While I am certainly not an expert is this area, and I have not read the authors' work, I am also skeptical of theories of social change that are rooted in technical advances that are divorced from their social contexts. If this is not what the authors argued, my apologies to them. I will have time to read their work in one month. Jeff Fellows > > > > On Fri, 22 Nov 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Maggie C. writes that:>>I'm not sure about what technology shock > > is, but I do think the increase in teen pregnancy is over stated. > > I believe I've said this before, the method of reporting the > > statistics has more to do with the increase than actually > > increasing teen births.<< > > > > this point seemed to me to be part of the Akerlof/Yellen theory. > > They point to the decline in "shot-gun marriages" which had > > hidden the out-of-wedlock preganancies and births in the past. > > > > "Technology shock" to A & Y simply refers to the sudden rise of > > the availability of contraception and abortion (which, as I said, > > seems more than technological in nature, more sociological) and > > how social mores did not adapt well to the change. > > > > Arvind Jaggi wrote: >>Maybe Akerlof and Yellen should get > > together with Gary Becker and go bowling.<< > > > > that's not helpful. Are you saying that relations between the > > sexes and issues of pregnancy are not subject to > > political-economic analysis given the absurdity of Gary Becker's > > theories? > > > > BTW, I am not advocating the Akerlof/Yellen theory. I want to > > know what people think. > > > > in pen-l solidarity, > > > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. > > 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA > > 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 > > "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way > > and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A. > > > > > > > > > > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > > Eban Goodstein email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Department of Economics phone: 503-768-7626 > Lewis and Clark College fax: 503-768-7379 > Portland, OR 97219 > >
