Thanks for the explanation. I still don't get it. "Like the color gold" means very similar to gold...virtually indistinguishable from gold, yes?

I can't weigh in here, but I know her, and she believed these kids were sincere. She is a world traveler and taught French class after living overseas for several years.

Let me ask you this...should there be any shame whatsoever to having a child which doesn't have an involved father (from many posts here I'm assuming the answer is no for some)? If not, why is the absent or "who knows which one he is" father that great of a stretch? These women are sexually free! They bear children "sort of" for the hood! Why would they/should they/ know who the fathers are? Hold their heads high and sing this song...continuing to conceive the "sort of " hoods' children.

I would agree that like, means similar to gold, but not gold. And if I use "like" in a sentence to describe something would it not mean I recognize it as "not" that something??

I wouldn't say it is virtually indistinguishable in most cases would be correct, at least not IMO.




Will there be, yes! Should there be shame in having a child with an uninvolved child?? No!! Why?? Is it her fault he is uninvolved. Do not confuse this with conceiving a child. I think there should be some shame in getting pregnant, if you are unmarried, aren't trying, and acted irresponsibly. But from this point a woman is faced with a decision. Does she raise her child or get an abortion. If she gets an abortion, I don't believe she should be ashamed of that choice(because she is acting responsibly), but she should be ashamed, again, for acting irresponsibly when getting pregnant.

Now, if she has the kid, she is time will dictate whether she is a responsible or irresponsible mother. But having the kid without a participating father is not irresponsible in and of itself, that seems a little in far right field!! If she works, pays her bills, perseveres, sacrifices, what does she have to be ashamed of?? And if she loves her child she can no longer feel too much shame for the night of indiscretion, for with out that night and indiscretion there would be no child. So to the extent a mother is ashamed of conceiving the baby is to the extent a mother is ashamed of her baby, because the two(night of indiscretion with uninvolved father and the baby) are undeniably linked.

Also I get the impression that you think the term "baby's mama" means "they don't know who the father is" Do you?? You're last paragraph completely confused me.

No. To me, it means "irrelevant who the father is".

I don't believe having children alone and receiving a monthly paycheck from government or completely uninvolved father is cause for song and celebration.

Good point droop. I dont think Fantasia is advertising being a single mother, I think she is just giving some well deserved support to the many young moms out there who have already have been drug through the mud by society. I for one know this first hand. Although I am not a single mother (married for 2 years now) I am young, and society has not been very welcome to me being a mother. How can society continously put single moms down for years and years untill they feel as though they are a walking sin wherever they go, and then expect them to be good parents?
These girls NEED this support. This song is preaching responsibility and giving these girls a few words of encouragment, when no one else would.
Monica

Well, These will be my final words on this subject. I'm getting tired of repeating myself and using what sound, stable logic. to beat my head against a brick wall that is kimpossible. Mt final words are this.

If we do anything but condem raising a child with a single parent, then we are supporting it. This song directly supports it. If you can defend this, then let it be a warning to sensible people in this world about the generation to come.

Arg. What possible good could ever come out of "condemning" women who have already made their mistakes, have already made the decision to have their child, and have already taken on the responsibility of raising another human being? These women truly are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they have an abortion, they are "avoiding the responsibility/consequences of their actions." If they have the child and raise it themselves, then we're supposed to go around constantly condemning them, which accomplishes absolutely nothing. It does not help the mother struggling to raise a child, it certainly doesn't help the child, it helps no one but maybe stroke the moral egos of those condemning her.

What do the "let's condemn them" crowd propose we do? Should we make them wear scarlet letters? Should we make them attend weekly meetings where the rest of the community can line up and hurl insults to their faces? Exactly what should this condemning consist of, how long should it last, and what would it accomplish? How would it help the situation at all?

The bottom line is, if you see a woman with children and no father present, you don't know their situation. You know nothing about the family. You don't know if the father is in jail or dead, you don't know if the father is stationed overseas, you don't know if the mother was raped, you don't know if the father just up and left and the mother had no choice but to raise her children by herself. But it's okay, let's pass moral judgement on them anyways because we're all so much better and smarter than they are, that we're in a position to do that. Let's scream at the mother about all the bad decisions she's made, I bet that'll make the child feel really good about themselves. Let's tell the child that they were a mistake, and how stupid their mother is for raising them without a father. Sure, I can really see how this will help single mothers. But then again, the "let's condemn them" crowd really doesn't care about helping them, just... well, condeming them.

Okay, fine if you want to tell people it's irresponsible to have unprotected sex, or sex before they're ready to handle a child, or irresponsible to have sex with someone whom you wouldn't want to raise a child with. Also, fine if you want to condemn women who have abortions and fine if you want to call them irresponsible for becoming pregnant in the first place (even though for all you know they were using protection and it failed) and fine if you want to condemn them for "murdering their children" or "avoiding the consequences of their actions." But once a woman is already pregnant, and once she's already had the child, it is too late for warnings. It is too late for admonitions. There is now a woman who has to support a child by herself, and I cannot for the life of me understand why people in this thread wholeheartedly support and encourage openly demeaning and demoralizing these women for their mistakes after they have already faced up to the consequences of their actions. And then, one even goes as far to say that if you don't demean these women, you are "supporting" what they've done!

For godssakes people, we are human. We all make mistakes. No one is perfect. But for how long should we suffer for mistakes, after we've faced up to the consequences of our actions? What good does it do society, and women who have made mistakes, to continue to penalize them for choosing to carry a pregnancy to term and raise him or her alone?

Suzy....Great Post!

Monica

Is Fantasia right to celebrate proudly having children out of wedlock as no big deal as "Baby Mama" does OR is this song a case of twisted values and rationalizing irresponsible life decisions?

Reading the lyrics I think it's a symptom of the latter, but I don't think the negative aspect of Fantazia's (or whatever her name is) song is as widespread as some seem to think.

I'm disappointed those willing to "deter" unwanted pregnancies using shame haven't made the same gesture towards teenage boys. Failing to stress both genders should equally share the shame of having an illegitimate child once again demonstrates women carry the lion's share of responsibility with contraception and what she decides to do after conception.

I would give the shame deterrence idea lukewarm support if once the baby was born society would drop the nagging and accept the present instead of waxing on what should've been. No child should be ashamed for the accident of poverty, the accident of skin color, the accident of gender, and the accident of birth.

O.K. So how did you come to the conclusion "baby mama" meant "irrelevant who the father is"??

Let me give you my opinion on baby mama, because I did kind of grow up around the term. Now I am no expert so feel free to refute whatever you find genuinely outrageously unbelievable.

As I got to my teen and early twenties( this is in the 90's) "baby mama" was actually a term used by men to refer to women. As a man it showed my relationship to a woman I had a child with.

"Who the hell is J-Lo"
"oh, girl, stop sweating me, that's just my baby's mama"

I wouldn't call it a derogatory term, but it was a term that showed a connection to a woman, without showing a relationship with that woman.

Eventually, not sure when it became a categorization of single mothers, but as far as I know that it is all it has ever implied. I actually use the term to refer to single mothers, myself. If you were married and got divorced, work a job, not on welfare, and have a kid 5 or under that makes you a baby mama. If you never married you are a baby mama. If the father picks the kid up every other weekend and takes them for the summer, that woman is still a "baby's mama"

I don't believe having children alone and receiving a monthly paycheck from government or completely uninvolved father is cause for song and celebration

I don't think any of what you written is in the song Fantasia wrote, and I am having a hard time figuring out which verse you read to interpret that??

Tell me have you ever heard "thanks for my Child" by Cheryl Pepsi Riley?? It is another beautiful song, but if you had heard it I wonder if you would feel she also glorifies welfare.

Suzy makes a great point. I am curious as to why people think condeming a single mother will help anyone.

I was a single parent for 8 years -- until I met my husband, but I'm still doing most of the raising of my oldest daughter. I can tell you that the sacrifices that you have to make when you are a single parent is more than enough punishment for making the mistake of conceiving a child out of wedlock. It's many times easier raising my 17 month old having her father in the home than it was doing the single parent thing for my oldest.

If single parents are raising their kids, working, and proud of doing an especially difficult job I see nothing wrong with that. I also find the trend to condem them particularly disturbing when combined with a political climate that rejects adequate sex education, makes contraceptives difficult to obtain, and is trying to make abortion illegal.

For those that feel the need to punish these women further, I have to wonder what psychological factors are coming into play. I think it's much better for society if we treat these women with compassion rather than condemnation.

Actually, it does the mother no good whatsoever= that is the point of most social conditioning.

Do you agree that social conditioning is the strongest sort of conditioning?

It is not for the mother at all- it is for the poeple that will not copy her behavior. When I was in high school, graduated in 83, there was still much less teenage pregnancy and single moms than today- and when my parents divorced when I was 7, my parents were the only ones in our nieghborhood to do so, and we had to move, my parents were so embarrased.

Now, I am not wishing my parents should have had to stay in thier horrible relationship= not at all- HOWEVER- that does not mean it should be viewed as a socially acceptable practise either.

I myself had a divorce, and I don't think poeple should be singing songs about me proudly getting a divorce, no matter how horrible a human being she was LOL

The point of NT, I think, is that we don't need folks glorifying that single motherhood and "baby's mama" should be the "backbone of the hood"- or EVEN THAT THE HOOD IS A GREAT PLACE AT ALL-

the poeple that should hold thier head up with pride are those that managed to LEAVE the hood intact by working thier butts off and getting out of there.

To me, this is why I BELIEVE in sex ed, social programs, more funding for inner city schooling etc. I guess I am old fashion liberal in many ways- help a person out, give them a hand up as much as possible, but don't praise unacceptable behaviors.

So shaming them was a good and righteous thing in order to 'save'others? Did it work CR? Or was it just another painful excersize in human misunderstanding?

The unwed pregnancy thing is not new, it was just hidden. In the past they used to ship girls off to homes, take their babies forcebly for adoption and shame those girls, rejected by their own families until they could get free and try to forget, to be plagued by nightmares of stolen children til their dying day. ( See The Magdelenes) Many girls have died trying to self abort, many have medically aborted to save the trouble. Many adults, like myself still dont know their birth mother and will never know. Many of us here grew up in single parent homes through divorce. Most that made those mistakes are not bad people and lowly sinners-but HAVE BEEN shamed for their mistakes, many of them are our own parents, some of them are us. Mostly its been women. It hasnt done a bit of good.

These things are not man hating CR, contrarily society has been very woman hating.

I think its interesting that most single fathers are cooed and fawned over as if they are doing something really admirable, while the consensus seems to be to shame single mothers. Why would that discrepancy exist, if not for ultimatelty blaming women for having babies, and not having the crystal ball to know if the man or boy pledging eternal love at the moment of the act is going to stick around?
Worse, we keep our girls in the dark, and they are the ones that need to know, all about sex urges, all about boys, all about protection, all about how babies are made and STD's. But , we continue this blindness on not educating teens and ignoring the problem.

In the current climate of irresponsible lack of sex education to teens, a big societal stigma on abortion and zero help + shame for deciding to give birth, Id like to know where anyone expects a teen, beforehand when sex is becoming a big issue for them or already 'in trouble' to find a support system and somebody to talk to them about sex?

As the American system goes with so many things, we do not want to deal with the situation before it becomes one and choose to punish after the fact. Our overt 'head in the sand' and religious nature is hurting overall our girls.

Noone is really mad at Fantasia, they are mad at the issues surrounding the problem. Its just much easier to face a Fantasia song problem than the real problem.

Do heavy metal bands induce kids to commit suicide? No. Do they commit suicide sometimes when listening to heavy metal bands? Yes. Do we ask why our kids commit suicide and try to fix that? NO. We sue the heavy metal bands.
Its sheer frustration and feeling powerless, go after somebody, anybody.

There are songs about everything under the sun, killing folks, taking down the government, pimps and ho's and tons about how good and easy it should be to have sex with barely legal girls, half naked, almost always writhing female bodies. Anyone going after those people? No. It would be misplaced.
Youve got a woman who is a single mom giving some kudos to young single moms and what a backlash.
Single moms who got there by mistake for the most part, and mostly because somebody didnt talk to them early on, which was not Fantasias responsibility, just her life which she may sing praises for in the end.

It isnt a happy day when your 11+ year old comes home singing about baby mamas, and I can agree it is disconcerting. Time to have a talk.
My parents didnt like it much when free-sex was being advocated, when Elvis was shaking his hips like a sex crazed lunatic, when girls went nuts over the Beatles and boys started wanting to make love 'In my Chevy Van' , when 'Peace and Love' and 'What is War For' was undermining American soldiers in Vietnam and the patriotism of good Americans. The Rock Opera 'Hair' made them shake in thier very patton leather shoes and they thought rock and roll, the hippie movement and surely Jimmy Hendrix and mixed race couples were the beginning of the End of Days.

Ho hum, th hippies turned into Republicans and the earth did not stop on its axis, although we gave em a good scare there for awhile..........

This is one of the oddest debates I've had on this board as it pits me on the opposite side of two of my usual colleagues, Suzy Steamboat and Artemise, but I feel the need to issue a disclaimer here.

I do not believe that "blame and shame" is the appropriate response to teen pregnancy. I have never condemned women who have had abortions and in fact, I married a woman who had an abortion. I also believe that telling single mothers they must go to work to qualify for welfare and other assistance without providing funds for child care is unrealistic and counter-productive. It is ridiculous to promote a "pro-life" agenda while supporting the slashing of federal and state programs that benefit single mothers and their children.

End of the disclaimer.

I've read every post in this thread carefully, but I remain convinced that "Baby Mama" is sending the wrong message to young women. There is an old axiom that actions have consequences and glorifying teen pregnancy does not strike me as a very responsible or realistic message. Now if that makes me some kind of old, psuedo-conservative then I'll just have to take that rap.

The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregancy issued a report that indicates the rates of teen pregancy dropped 30 percent from 1991 to 2002.
If the rate had not dropped during the decade, 1.2 million more children would have been born to teenage mothers in the United States. Of those, 460,000 would have been living in poverty and 700,000 would have grown up in a single-parent household, according to the analysis. The federal poverty level in 2002 was a $14,494 gross annual income for a parent and two children.

"The data show the power of prevention and how prevention can make a measurable contribution to reducing poverty in children," said Sarah S. Brown, director of the campaign, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research organization.

"People love to argue about how to prevent teen pregnancy, but sometimes we fail to shine enough light on the basic problem," Brown said. "Teen pregnancy is a major contributor to poverty, single parenthood, and limited futures for adolescents and their children."

Not every teenage mother is poor, "but bearing a child as a teenager increases the chances of a mother and child living in poverty," she said.

Adolescents who become pregnant are more likely to drop out of school, which in turn leads to lower-paying jobs. And often young mothers are less likely to marry, which means their children are raised in a home with one income. All those factors mean teenage mothers and their infants are "not finding a way out from what is often a low-income community to begin with," she said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Apr13.html

Beating up on single mothers and their children is not something I wish to be a part of. I'm not in the business of pushing MY morality onto others. Morality has its place, but I'll leave that to leaders of morality. However, neither do I believe that being naive about the consequences of single-motherhood are all sweetness and light either. Fantasia's song may have the intention of being a thumbs-up to single moms who are working hard to take care of their kids and their business, but she oversimplifies the matter.

This is a emotional issue but emotions cannot be permitted to trump this FACT:

The U.S. has the highest teen pregnancy rates in the fully developed world. One in three American women conceives by the time she is 20.

Now we can take that fact and shape it to fit our own political agendas and moral beliefs, but please don't try to tell me that this is a good thing or that uplifting the spirits of single mothers is more important than discouraging more young women from joining their ranks.

Someone can correct me if I put the wrong logical fallacy up, but I believe you are using a strawman. You are saying she is doing something that she isn't doing.... attacking that position she hasn't took, and then standing behind your position that she is wrong.

Glorifying teen pregnancy is indeed very irresponsible. But how is she glorifying teen pregnancy. You do not have to be a teen to be a "baby's mama" I don't think it makes you a pseudo conservative to argue that teen pregnancy is something to be prevented. I think it make you a pseudo conservative to continue to ignore what she and others are saying to make your point.

Again, Teen pregnancy.... not good!! "Baby mamas"..... not a song about teen pregnancy or the glorification of that. Debate why you feel she is singing about teen pregnancy, or why you feel she is glorifying teen pregnancy.

The "facts" you put up only proves your point that teen pregnancy is detrimental. You don't have to show facts proving that, because most of us already agree with that. Show some facts of how Fantasia has come out and said women should have babies while still in their teens, then you'll get me to say she is glorifying reckless behavior.

Isn't that what this debate is about?? Fantasia's song....

The words, "These days it's like a badge of honor to be a baby mama" connotes a meaning of pride....something to be celebrated, yes? What other conclusion can I draw there? Single mothers are the backbone of the hood. That is reality. The majority of those boys in the hood grow up without a father figure, and the cylcle continues as they abandon their responsibilities, too. This song acknowledges this fact, and implies that it is a good thing.

You initially say one thing, but now I feel you are arguing another.

Initially you say,

I don't believe having children alone and receiving a monthly paycheck from government or completely uninvolved father is cause for song and celebration

to which I respond (not exact words) "how did you get this from the song??"

Now you say...



I agree with your assessment that the words you quoted and the song as a whole "connotes a meaning of pride... something to be celebrated", but as I say in an earlier post it seems human nature to find pride in struggle. Tell me where is she celebrating uninvolved fathers?? Where is she taking pride in check from the government?? And if you back off that one or two verses, for a second, read the whole song it will give more context to what she is talking about. Verse after verse it is talking about struggles and hardships and persevering through those struggles To make my point I will illustrate the many verses I am seeing and the few others of you are stuck on through color coordination. I'll be red, the other side will be blue, green, I will call neutral unless you contest my viewpoint.



It looks like election day map in the US all over again....

Now, when someone works hard, doing something positive they should feel pride, they should be proud of themselves. There shouldn't be pride just in the mere fact that some single mother pops babies out... but the song does not say there should be. The lyrics point to work and ethics. To struggling when the father is a deadbeat.

Again, same with nighttimer, I get the feeling some are making the song, or interpreting the song, to mean something it does not. And the reason I believe this is the arguments you are making. If the song is not saying it is good for fathers to be uninvolved, why would you interpret such?? Is it because your notion of a baby's mama is uninvolved father, how do the verses of the song support this theory of yours?? Simply by stating an plausible idea that single mothers are the backbone of the hood, does this mean she believes this is the way she likes it or the way it should be?? I am trying to understand how you can read this far into a statement, to pull out all these nefarious ideas to celebrate

As the person who originated this thread droop224 and posed the question that you categorize as a "strawman," I believe that I fully understand what it is about. And I really resent your insinuation that I do not.

Please do not try to tell me how I should debate this issue. You can disagree with my premise and my conclusions, but you are not qualified to tell me HOW or WHAT I should debate in a thread I created.

I have provided several posts regarding my objections to "Baby Mama" and if you have not found what you seek in those previous remarks, there is nothing that I can add that could clarify it any more than I already have attempted to do.

My interpretation of the song is mine and mine alone. If you interpret it differently that is your right, droop224, but I don't need you to try to browbeat me into accepting yours.

We are debating this issue, droop224, but I am not going to be sucked into an argument or a flame war.

nighttimer, Edited to remove personal attack You write this whole elaborate post, in which my name appears three times, the whole post addresses me and says nothing about the debate. You resent this, you resent that... it's your post... i'm not qualified... blah, blah, blah... You then go on to put this angry face here and that angry face there.... And then to top the whole thing of you state:


What was that last bit for, a little secret stealth cloaking from the moderators. Hey if I can spew a bunch of garbage throughout my post, then I'll give a little one-liner at the end to say how I won't do, what I just did!!

Since we are talking about messages in songs, here is another song verse for you from the deceased Tupac...


and that's actually what I am doing as I type.... laughing, because you humor me. You are trying hard to maintain, but your position is built on sand. Your argument takes one verse interprets it in ways that deserve scrutiny and when your position is being scrutinized, you resort to telling me how I can't browbeat you. But to the contrary, I can and I am "browbeating" you, due to the fact your interpretation is lacking any form of reason.

Is this not a debate site??? Am I to believe that you can merely say or imply that Fantasia's new song, "baby mamas" celebrates teen pregnancy, without being challenged. In a debate site I believe I not only have right, but I should challenge your positions, if I disagree. Which is a far cry from what you just did, which was challenge me and my abilities to browbeat you.

Yes you created this topic thread, I agree. But I don't believe that gives you free reign to take this topic wherever you wish it to go.

It was about:
Is Fantasia right to celebrate proudly having children out of wedlock as no big deal as "Baby Mama" does OR is this song a case of twisted values and rationalizing irresponsible life decisions?

Your last post before you tirade post was talking about "teen pregnancy." You even had "facts"



You can interpret things to mean anything you want, but you should support that interpretation with some reasoning. If your interpretation some how takes you to the song is saying "be a teen mama, it's great!!!" I challenge that position and your reasoning behind it.

Can we debate that?? Is that okay with you??

Fine. You've challenged my position, reasoning and interpretation. My only obligation is to present my position, reasoning and interpretation and I feel I've done so. They are subjective and can be accepted or rejected as you choose.

I do not wish to be redundant and recite chapter-and-verse what I have said previously. It is there if you wish to re-read those posts, please feel free.

But I don't think my interpretation of "Baby Mama" is "lacking any form of reason."

You do. That's your business. Not mine. Now with that established can we return to the matter at hand?

NT
"Beating up on single mothers and their children is not something I wish to be a part of. I'm not in the business of pushing MY morality onto others. Morality has its place, but I'll leave that to leaders of morality. However, neither do I believe that being naive about the consequences of single-motherhood are all sweetness and light either. Fantasia's song may have the intention of being a thumbs-up to single moms who are working hard to take care of their kids and their business, but she oversimplifies the matter.

This is a emotional issue but emotions cannot be permitted to trump this FACT:

The U.S. has the highest teen pregnancy rates in the fully developed world. One in three American women conceives by the time she is 20.

Now we can take that fact and shape it to fit our own political agendas and moral beliefs, but please don't try to tell me that this is a good thing or that uplifting the spirits of single mothers is more important than discouraging more young women from joining their ranks."


I don't think I have been articulating myself well at all on this issue. I think NT hit the salient points for me- and I have to agree with Artemise that the males in the equation get off too easily- "spreading your seed around" etc that goes on today I find horrific.

And as the stat NT pointed out- I think one of the big reasons is our society basically, if not outright condones the behavior. Like I said, I am not into scarlet letters, nor am I a right winger that wants to cut funding for sex ed or pro-choice groups or even wants to do away with social programs that help single mothers get out of the situation that they are in- but I also don't like the glorification that I see today in this area. Perhaps some don't see the glorification issue in thier eyes- but I deal with teens alot, and it sure appears that way to me!

Ahh, the beauty of art, open for interpretation. It’s obvious from the differences in opinions that the lyrics are open for interpretation. Based on that, I’ll venture to say some young women will take this as a glorification of being a single mother.

And off goes another generation of fatherless children.

The key to many of our social ills is the willingness of the affected to ‘break the chain’. Poverty begets poverty, single mothers produce more single mothers. It’s a vicious cycle that needs to be broken and not promoted. To me the song is more glorifying than one of hope. The singer could have easily included lyrics that it was a mistake, but one that was overcome. Weather it was a conscious decision or not to include the irresponsibility factor, she needs to understand that she influences people.

I think we under estimate the impact that athletes and entertainers have on our youth. I just read a statistic (sorry no link, it was in the USA Today) that 26% of kids between the ages of 8-12 have stopped following major league baseball due to the steroids controversy.

Let’s see if Fantasia follows the lead of Warrick Dunn and does anything to assist those in need. Let’s see if she speaks out against teen pregnancy.

And off goes another generation of fatherless children.

Admitting in lyrics that it was a mistake is like slap in the face to her child, nationwide, which is not about to be done by any good mother. I bet we would have seen much more upheaval from the religious right if we start talking about live children being 'mistakes'. How could this have been put gracefully? Perhaps there was a way, but then again it is just a song, that let some people know theres someone who feels their pain.

Is Fantasia right to celebrate proudly having children out of wedlock as no big deal as "Baby Mama" does OR is this song a case of twisted values and rationalizing irresponsible life decisions?

Very interesting and relevant topic as usual NT, and great responses so far.

I think that for Fantasia specifically, she should celebrate what she has accomplished proudly. Women in her situation have few options and when someone is able to succeed on the level that Fantasia has, it is something to celebrate.

On a more general level, I think people are reading to much into this pop song. This isn't the Doors or something with a deep message that only becomes clear after using a few recreational drugs - this is a pop song. Therefore by definition it is written for a demographic and it is written to make money, there really isn't anything more to it.

However, there are some much deeper social issues here that we do need to discuss. I don't see Fantasia as promoting them so much as acknowledging them.

In my opinion, the issue that society needs to deal with is sexual education and responsibility amongst teenagers. I think Artemise hit the nail on the head in her post on the tough situation women find themselves in, but it isn't just women - men find themselves in similarly hard positions.

We refuse to educate our kids about sex, about protecting themselves, about obligations of family, and about contraception because certain elements of our society just aren't comfortable with humans as sexual beings. Sex is something you don't talk about and it just might encourage people to try it if you even mention it in conversation. Don't tell little Johnny about the birds and the bees - he might go out and try it this afternoon!

We have to drop this puritanical attitude about sex if we want to really address this problem. Parents need to have honest conversations with their kids, and we don't need roadblocks from our government in our schools.

Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. From the time we hit puberty every single gene in our body is literally screaming out to reproduce, that goes for both males and females. I guess people don't realize that humans used to get married as early as 12 or 14 in previous centuries. And if people really think that not having sex education helps our kids they are dead wrong, kids learn everything and more just by surfing the internet for a few minutes - and not the right things either. Furthermore, almost everything on Tv or in movies is "selling" sex to sell a product. You'd have to be stupid to actually think kids will abstain.

The other thing that raises my ire is the attitude that anti-abortionists have about pregnancy. They are very concerned about the baby being born, don't give a care in the world about what happens when it is actually born. It simply isn't their problem anymore as soon as that baby passes through the birth canal. Who is going to care for that baby? Is the fact that it is born really going to benefit society? I almost want to say sometimes, sure you can ban abortion if you want - but every person that is anti-abortion has to agree to take care of all of the unwanted pregnancies so these kids don't end up as wards of the state or in jail draining our tax dollars away.

This thread reminds me of the scene in Ghostbusters when in the mayors office one of the busters says something to the affect of: “rivers flowing backwards, cats sleeping with dogs, etc…”. It’s refreshing to see usual political opposites agreeing on an issue.



So a good parent doesn't admint to and pass along the mistakes they've made?

Maybe a slight misunderstanding, but I never suggested the child was a mistake, only the act which bore the child. A huge difference that’s key to the issue and the cornerstone for breaking the cycle I mention in my original post. My guess is a large percentage of the fathers and mothers who choose to perpetuate baby mamas were products of baby mamas themselves or a result of the cultural acceptance of having children out of wedlock when you can’t even fend for yourself.

A responsible baby mama should pass along to their child, and all that will listen, that their act was in nighttimers original question, “an irresponsible life decision” (ie, a mistake). One to avoid at all costs, one that’s certain to limit your achievements or in the least impede your progress. And I don’t see that in her message.

Instead we now have a baby mama that makes a claim that they are the backbone of the hood. Surely you would agree that message alone is more positive than negative and if positive reinforcement in the context of her song doesn’t promote being a single mother than I’ve missed something here.

Sure, I see the hope factor but it’s over ridden by the lack of a responsibility factor. If she fails to pass along that life lesson to her child, weather in verse or conversation, than her child and her fans stand a good chance of repeating the behavior.

But hats off to Fantasia. While attempting to find out more information on her background I discovered she speaks to teenagers about teen pregnancy. Although her efforts are probably limited to a few hundred students, her song reaches millions and she needs to be mindful of her message.

Let's start with this... what act is the mistake?? What's the irresponsible decision she made. I'd like to know what it is, specifically.



I don't think you missed anything, in fact it seems you have done just the opposite. You've put something there that wasn't. She is now promoting becoming a baby mama...

To be a backbone means alot of things... like the strength... or maybe a cohesive part of something... or something that takes on hardships...

Now as Mrs P pointed out
"Single mothers are the backbone of the hood. That is reality. The majority of those boys in the hood grow up without a father figure, and the cylcle continues as they abandon their responsibilities, too." She goes on to say she thinks Fantasia makes it a good thing, but it doesn't change the basic fact that it sort of is a reality. So now just by saying what "is" we are promoting it. Granted I think you could rightfully say that Fantasia is promoting the idea that "babymamas" are the backbone of the hood. But you can not leap from that to "Fantasia is promoting women to become 'baby mamas'"

Well, before you tell me what I am qualified to do, I won' t tell you you can't make that leap(because you can) but can you see how it is a leap??

Also, in a few post there continues to be a trend of "I can interpret whatever I want, regardless what is said." Granted, you can... but then what would make fantasia song any worse than 90% of songs out on the radio now. I can go to any genre of music that talks about relationship with out speaking of marriage and then say "That song promotes premarital sex, because they don't say the couple is married." And it would be just as absurd.

Fantasia is only trying to give encouragment to the mothers. Whether you planned the pregnancy or not, whether you are married or not, being a mother is a hard job. For those that are married all of them are not getting the help and support from their husbands, it's like being a single mother. Then what about the mothers who are now divorced and not getting the help from the baby's daddy. There are a lot of ways to look at this.

Is Fantasia right to celebrate proudly having children out of wedlock as no big deal as "Baby Mama" does OR is this song a case of twisted values and rationalizing irresponsible life decisions?

No. She should not be celebrateing it. Noone should be happy that they have a child out of wedlock. I have two friends who are single mothers. And I have so much respect for them being they didn't have their children out of wedlock. One of them got a divorce and the other one's husband died. But I also have a friend who has a child out of wedlock and she couldn't be happier. I find it sickning. Now I'm not putting down women who are single parents due to a rape. That's a whole nother topic. But just because you went to a party and got drunk or high and slept with the first guy you saw does not mean you should be proud that you're a "baby mama". You should be proud of your child if they do something good but it puts all woman in a bad light.

Love Child, sung by Diana Ross

Undoubtedly some of us would rather hear these lyrics in place of Fantasia's acknowledgement of single mothers who accept the responsibility of parenthood and all that entails.

There is an ad on television sponsored, I believe, by the Army. A young woman has one very small child whose hand she is holding, while she pushes a stroller with a baby in it. She goes on to say that she wants to finish school, that she had two children by age 15, and that "Nobody should have to live this way."

Let's suppose, for a moment, that someone says that Ms. So-and-So could have done all of these wonderful things with her life had she not gotten pregnant. Okay, so Ms. So-and-So gets an abortion. No baby in the picture now. But does it necessarily mean that Ms. So-and-So is going to take charge of her life, work a job, go to school? Not necessarily. She might well continue the lifestyle that led to her becoming pregnant in the first place. You see, it really depends on the individual's motivation.

I think that sex outside of marriage is rife with problems, especially when it involves people in their teens or younger. There are moral implications to it that are not stressed that much anymore, and while that is good for the children (formerly known as bastards), the relaxation of the taboo seems to imply a degree of acceptance where adolescent pregnancies are concerned. That's not good.

Most teenagers probably do not want to get pregnant, although there are some young women who stated they wanted to get pregnant so that they would have "someone to love them" (the baby, not the baby's sire). This is not a good idea.

Fantasia is acknowledging a segment of our population who, whether willingly or unwillingly, became single mothers without support from the fathers of their children. To honor those who make the best of a less than ideal situation seems okay enough to me; these young women are entitled to their share of dignity. To condemn Fantasia for this song while giving male artists a pass on their songs of copulating freely with several ho's and beyotches seems unfair to me.

Not every song is meant to be instructive, especially when we're talking about pop songs. I wonder whether Fantasia would have been criticized for this song as much if she had poured the lyrics into a bluesier tune.

Always nice to debate with you Paladin Elspeth and when someone chooses to start a thread about male recording artists celebrating songs that urge copulating freely with "ho's and bee-yotches" I'll join you in that condemnation. However, that doesn't mean Fantasia gets a free pass. I'm not getting the rationialization that a irresponsible song is somehow less irresponsible when a woman performs it rather than a man.



A good pop song that also has a socially instructive message is like trying to determine the nutrient value of a large pepperoni pizza: there may be some there but in a amount too small to be noticed. I wouldn't care if Fantasia had done "Baby Mama" as a blues moan, a disco booty-slammer or a turn-the-amps-up-to-11 rock na' roll shouter. I enjoy AC/DC's classic Back In Black album, but I don't think there's any social uplift in "Have A Drink On Me" or "Let Me Put My Love Into You."

The difference is AC/DC never pretended there was any responsible thought put behind their songs. Fantasia is and I believe she's perpertrating a fraud. The genre of the music is irrelevant.

What if the song just talks about copulating without "ho's and bee-yotches"?? Would you condemn it then?? What if it just talked about copulating in some form or another??? Would you view it as a message of irresponsibility. I don't think Fantasia should get a free pass either, but I think she deserves a fair pass.

Premarital sex (or being left by your husband) is what causes a woman to become a "baby mama", correct?? Can we then say or interpret that any artist that talks about sex without mentioning the fact "I got married first!!" is preaching a message of irresponsibility that we as a society should condemn?? Would you consider this fair?? Of course, you'd probably be condemning 90 % of musical artists.

Well, I'm sure of one thing; this debate has lasted far longer than "Baby Mama" did on the charts.

The late film critic Gene Siskel would get into debates with his colleague Roger Ebert on their TV show on a point that I think applies here. Siskel would chide Ebert for complaining about how a given director could have shot a scene in a different way than the one that ended up in the movie. Siskel insisted you can't criticize a filmaker for the movie they didn't make; only for the one they did.

I can't answer "what if" questions about songs that haven't been made. All I can do is offer an opinion about the ones that have.



I might. Then again I might not.