Well, here I go with another verbose post nobody's going to be interested in, but what the hell...

I just watched a talk on C-SPAN by psychiatrist Miriam Grossman.  Her book "Unprotected" is a diatribe against the "politically correct" sexual politics that encourage women to put off family in favor of career.  I took this with a grain of salt as she was hosted by the Clare Luce Boothe Policy Institute and she talks in terms of "PC." 
::)

In the old days this wasn't an issue.  A woman went through puberty, got married, and started a family.  Well, we decided women are more than incubators and can contribute to society in more roles than wife and mother.  I call this unequivocally a good thing.

Now, in many cases, we're at the opposite extreme.  Women rise up in stellar careers, but the maternal instinct is still there at forty.

You can get pregnant when you're 23 in a snap.  At 43, there are many more risks, complications, genetic hazards, and the ability to conceive is perhaps 5% what it was 20 years earlier.

Grossman calls motherhood the very essence of being a woman.  I say that is reactionary.  I don't agree.  However, biology is biology.  Advocates for women's careers as well as reproductive aide businesses have oversold the ability of women to bear children after 40.  Heck, even at 35 things can be dicey.

Here is what I'm thinking.  I would not change women's reproductive education to pressure women into motherhood.  That's Grossman's attitude.  I would stress the importance for young women to decide if they want children.  Women and couples should start planning in their 20s, early 30s at the latest, and understand the biological clock will wind down and stop in early middle age.

Three caveats:

1. If a woman of 25 chooses to marry and start a family instead of maximizing her career, the should be her choice alone. 
2. If a woman decides she does not want to have children, that should also be her choice.  Unlike Grossman, I believe it is absolutely fine for a woman not to be a mother.  The farm is not going to fail, the tribe is not going to perish if you don't have a baby.  Rather than discourage childlessness, we should support the decision.
3. One thing NOT to do---tell women and couples that it's fine to wait until 40 or 45.  I wish human biology reflected our social needs, but it does not. 

Dr. Grossman declared women who don't have children will regret it for the rest of their lives.  I think that's perfectly awful.  I know several women in their 40s and 50s who have no children and don't regret it.  Just because you have a uterus does not mean you have to have a baby.  In much the same way I decided never to have children, a few of the middle aged women I know should not have had children.  That does not make them lesser women.  Some women--and men--do not have the economic or psychological/emotional resources to make for good parents.  Some do and choose anoother path. So let them do otherwise and be not judged.  I would rather not see another woman have a baby she doesn't really want because reactionaries like Dr. Grossman tell her she needs to as a woman. 

Here's something else: Adoption.

My boss is 55.  She and her husband got married eight years ago.  They wanted a child, but she was menopausal.  They didn't just sit around and grieve about it.  They adopted a baby girl from needy circumstances and gave her a good home.  They're just as happy with her as they would be if she was their natural child. 

Any thoughts on issue?
???

Yeah, I've thought about this before myself.

It does seem more common for people to have kids later in life now. To a point I think this is okay, and can even be a good thing in terms of people being more prepared. Unlike in the old days, there isn't immediate pressure to grow up once you get out of high school, so people can afford to wait until they're well into their 20s, even 30s to start familes. For people who are still into partying or who want to experience some life or get going in their career before they settle down, this can work out in the positive. Of course when you have kids, you have to be responsible and put them first, so I'm sure alot of people want to get that stage of life out of their system first. Or they simply not be ready yet.

For a guy, waiting awhile is no problem, but like you said, there are health risks for women who have kids past their mid-late 30s. Even if it's more manageable than it was before (both with medical treatment and people generally being healthier and more youngish), it's still a concern. One of my English teachers had her son when she was about 34 in 2004 and that was okay. I think it's a bit easier for older women who already experienced childbirth to have another baby, but anything beyond that is starting to push it in terms of starting out.

The only thing that disturbs me is people who want to have children when they're in Senior Citizen age. I read an article about Tony Randall in 1998 having two kids with his young wife who was like 27, and how good he felt being a first time dad. Whenever I see something like that, I can't help but think it's not fair to that kid to have to worry about one of their parents getting old and dying when they're growing up. Although at least in cases like that where the dad is older, they've got a young mom to take care of them.

Yet I've also heard stories about 60-something women who want to go through childbirth. I guess in a way I admire them for being strong about it and pushing the limits, but we're not talking about climbing Mount Everest, this is somebody's life (actually two, since we're talking about both the mother and the kid to be's health). I'm sure it's not the intention, but it almost comes off as selflish, because they're thinking more about themselves than their kids having them around in the future. Or to a lesser extent, the huge generation gap, lol.

Overall, I guess a balance is the best thing, like waiting a little, but not too long. It also depends on the person, because I'm sure some 19-year olds would feel ready to get married and have kids, while some 30-year olds wouldn't.

I can't speak for all women, I can only speak for myself. I am a woman who has never had kids. Do I regret it? Some days. Some days I am very glad that I never had children. I tried with my first husband but it didn't happen. In hindsight, that was a blessing in disguise. When I started dating Carlos, I learned that he has had a vasectomy. I could have left him to find someone I could have kids with but there were no guarantees that I would find someone even CLOSE to the kind of person Carlos is so I made a decision. Like I said, most days I am fine with it but others...well, let's just say that I feel like I have missed out on something wonderful. But, Carlos and I have the freedom to enjoy our lives-we can travel, and engage in "adult activity" any time and any place in our house. And now I have 2 little girls (and a 3rd one on the way) who call me "Grandma". I get the joys of being a grandmother without the headaches of being a mother.




Cat

I'm interested Maxwell, and here's my female persective:

I did not see this broadcast but Dr. Grossman is obviously an idiot!  "Motherhood is the essence of being a woman..."  sounds like Christian propoganda.  YOU choose what the essence of your life is.  It's an insult and a jump backward for all childless women (be it their choice or biology).  

I applaud any woman who understands that she's not cut out for motherhood.  Not all women make good mothers.  It doesn't matter if they're 25, (God, Britney Spears...) or wait until they have a good foundation.  Most women today need to work.  All of the mothers at my daughter's preschool work.  My job is just that to me:  "a job", although I know plenty of women who have "careers" too.  We're all trying to keep all the balls in the air, regardless of our age.

Reproducing later in life is a slippery slope.  I can understand the focus of your life changing at 45 and regrets and all that good stuff but I personally think it is a bit selfish to do to a child.  Someone very close to me has taken this road (without a partner, mind you), and it's not pretty...  It may sound awful of me to say, but I liken it to training for the olympics at my age.  (Damn, my life wont be complete until I've won the gold medal in curling) :D  Hey, we all must make peace with our choices.

MY caveat, though, is adoption.  If there are people out there who can open their heart and homes to children born under those circumstances, it's a beautiful thing.

I can't speak for all women, I can only speak for myself. I am a woman who has never had kids. Do I regret it? Some days. Some days I am very glad that I never had children. I tried with my first husband but it didn't happen. In hindsight, that was a blessing in disguise. When I started dating Carlos, I learned that he has had a vasectomy. I could have left him to find someone I could have kids with but there were no guarantees that I would find someone even CLOSE to the kind of person Carlos is so I made a decision. Like I said, most days I am fine with it but others...well, let's just say that I feel like I have missed out on something wonderful. But, Carlos and I have the freedom to enjoy our lives-we can travel, and engage in "adult activity" any time and any place in our house. And now I have 2 little girls (and a 3rd one on the way) who call me "Grandma". I get the joys of being a grandmother without the headaches of being a mother.




Cat
Karma to you Cat, for wanting what you've got, as the saying goes.  I'm sure those grandbabies are lucky to have you.  :)

Karma to you Cat, for wanting what you've got, as the saying goes.  I'm sure those grandbabies are lucky to have you.  :)



Awww thanks. Karma right back at ya.


The funny thing is, one of those granddaughters have 4 grandmothers.  :o :o :o  2 biological & 2 step. I was talking to the 2 biological ones at her 1st birthday (we just went to her 4th on Saturday) saying, "One can never have too many grandmothers."  ;D ;D ;D



Cat

http://www.booktv.org/program.aspx?ProgramId=8574&SectionName=&PlayMedia=Yes

here's a link, incidentally.

there's an interview with christopher hitchens on the same series that i've probably listened to like four times. i don't always agree with him but damn, he sure is engaging.

I didn't want kids and I can't have kids.  I don't think the world will end if I don't contribute to the propagation of the species.  fit was my choice, and coincidentally, now i'ts jut the way it is.
all is well.

however, I sometimes wonder if there is something intrinsically female that I missed in my life by not giving birth and not nurturing.

but that's about it.

3. One thing NOT to do---tell women and couples that it's fine to wait until 40 or 45.  I wish human biology reflected our social needs, but it does not. 


Heh! They should have told my maternal Grandad and Grandmother...

They had their first (my Ma) when they were in their twenties and then had two more in their mid-forties!  :o

I suppose they decided to take a break after my Ma was born...either that, or Hitler interrupted things!  ;)

im listening to miriam whatsherbutt right now. she’s surprisingly reasonable given her point of view. she does evoke the PC bugbear from time to time but the right wing has re-written the rules on PC, what with their “surges� instead of escalations and their “death taxes� instead of estate taxes.

the thing is, gender studies and identity politics in universities DO kinda suck. but that means that they’ll never bother to parse out what this woman’s saying that might be worth considering.

Well here I am, the single woman who had a child at 39. I have a very supportive family that is extremely happy with my decision. I was healthy, and more importantly, I knew that I could support myself and the child.  I am considered a bit radical in all this, but I believe that it is fine to have a child up to a certain age. I tend to look askance more at people who have 4,5,6 children, at any age rather than older women/couples having one or two once they have become financially stable.  I also think that the spotlight shines on us now, whereas before it wasn't considered odd for a woman to start bearing children in her early 20s(or earlier, think Loretta Lynn) and dying in childbirth at the age of 40 after the 16th like my gggrandmother.  I waited until the last minute, but do believe that if I waited another year or two it wouldn't have happened.  I think that men get off easy on this question though.  Just because they can impregnate a woman does not mean they should.  What was Pavarotti thinking? and Tony Randall?  For some reason eyes aren't raised quite so high when some guy in his 40s,50s and beyond leaves one family to start another.  The truth is that sperm gets old too.  I read a report that older fathers were more likely to produce children with genetic and bipolar disorders onto their offspring, the age of the mother is not a factor.

www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/44641.php

It is certainly not one size fits all.  I don't want to sound like I'm condemning anybody.  There are women who remain fertile well into their 40s and their are single mothers who bring up healthy and happy children. 

What concerns me is something I noticed long before Dr. Grossman mentioned it.  Purported activists for women's reproductive choices promote a sense of entitlement to aggressive careering and then starting a family in late 30s/early 40s.  I don't think it's wrong to want both, but due to biology, it might not be possible. 

It's simple to see how we got here.  Women entered the workforce in record numbers starting in the '60s.  Barriers to success for women fell away, though not enough if you ask me.  Life expectancy for women in the U.S. rose to 81 years.  It would have been great if menopause went up 20 years as well, but it didn't. 

Motherhood as the "essence of womanhood" is a POV the Christian Right likes to push.  I can't say Dr. Grossman is an evangelical, but the Claire Luce Boothe Foundation caters to those types.  The Christian Right treats women like heifers.

What if you don't have children and regret it for the rest of your life?  Guess what?  You can live with regret.  There are a half dozen major decisions/events I will regret for the rest of my life, but I deal with it.  The other entitlement in our culture is the entitlement to happiness, and if you're not happy, there must be something WRONG with YOU!  Unhappy people make themselves more unhappy because the therapy and self-help books they buy don't make them happy.  It did not make me a "happy" person to accept that I will never be the "happy" type, but it brought me a little more peace of mind. 

It seems to me that when people are 25 they think the next 15 years will go by at the same rate as the preceding 15.  You're 25, out of college and working on your career, next thing you know you're approaching 40!  That's how it happens!

I agree there is a double standard with men.  Part of it is indeed biological.  I wouldn't be surprised if Hugh Hefner sired a few more pups before he croaks.  Tony Randall is a good example.  If you father a child at 78, you're not going to see that kid graduate from high school.  Heck, you might not see him off to kindergarten!  That's not fair to the children.  Of course, I'm referring to the nuclear family of the West.  If you have 10 wives and fathered 53 children, well, that's different!
::)

I hate identity politics on campus.  They're idiotic.  It brings about the "date rape" attitude: I have the right to pass out cold at a frat party and not be violated!
:D

I agreed with much of what Dr. Grossman had to say, but vehemently objected to the right-wing guilt-tripping. 
The ethos of the conservative women's movement seems to be a woman should go to college to find a good husband.  I mean, they don't say women shouldn't be career-oriented, just not so much so as men. 

The sum total of what I'm saying is, do what you choose to do, but accept the reality of biology.

Children should be like abortions:  If you don't want one, don't have one. 

I am 30 years old, and I have no biological children...not because I don't want one....because I've never been able to get pregnant. We have been raising Vaughn (my nephew) for the past few years, but I would love to have a biological child...thing is, I don't want to be an older parent. My parents had Beth when they were 39 years old, and during her growing up years...they were sometimes too tired to do the things with her, that they did with my other sister and myself...years prior.  Honestly, If I don't have a child within the next year or so...I don't think I ever want one.  Believe me, we have tried...but it just doesn't seem to work.

Children should be like abortions:  If you don't want one, don't have one. 

Boy, that's deep!
:D

Boy, that's deep!
:D
it ain't derrida but as far as aphorisms go, it does all right.

it ain't derrida but as far as aphorisms go, it does all right.

I swear when i first read that quickly i thought you wrote diarhea. then i cracked up.
then i read it again.
agreed.

I swear when i first read that quickly i thought you wrote diarhea. then i cracked up.
then i read it again.
agreed.


hahaha..me too! ;D

I swear when i first read that quickly i thought you wrote diarhea. then i cracked up.
then i read it again.
agreed.
as matthew broderick sez in the 1998 remake of godzilla: "he's from france."

I am 30 years old, and I have no biological children...not because I don't want one....because I've never been able to get pregnant. We have been raising Vaughn (my nephew) for the past few years, but I would love to have a biological child...thing is, I don't want to be an older parent. My parents had Beth when they were 39 years old, and during her growing up years...they were sometimes too tired to do the things with her, that they did with my other sister and myself...years prior.  Honestly, If I don't have a child within the next year or so...I don't think I ever want one.  Believe me, we have tried...but it just doesn't seem to work.

Well if it's any consolation, I think if Vaughn is any indication, you'd be a great mom if it happens. Both in terms of being a caring role model as well as cool/kinda like a big sister at the same time. For your sake, I hope you can someday. I know what you mean about not wanting to start out older, but I'm sure you'll be one of those people who will be youngish for a long time. You'll probably look your actual 2007 age (30) when you're 50.

My dad was 43 in 1981 when I was born, and aside from worrying about his current aging today, that was never a problem when I was younger. Heck, if an almost 50-year old played Nintendo games, I'm sure you at 35 or 40 will have no problem keeping up with your kids to be. :)

I am 30 years old, and I have no biological children...not because I don't want one....because I've never been able to get pregnant.

That's another thing about what Dr. Grossman was saying.  There are millions of women who for one reason or another cannot have children.  If motherhood is the be all end all for a woman, then what's life for them?  A vale of tears?  Gimme a break!
::)

Well if it's any consolation, I think if Vaughn is any indication, you'd be a great mom if it happens. Both in terms of being a caring role model as well as cool/kinda like a big sister at the same time. For your sake, I hope you can someday. I know what you mean about not wanting to start out older, but I'm sure you'll be one of those people who will be youngish for a long time. You'll probably look your actual 2007 age (30) when you're 50.

My dad was 43 in 1981 when I was born, and aside from worrying about his current aging today, that was never a problem when I was younger. Heck, if an almost 50-year old played Nintendo games, I'm sure you at 35 or 40 will have no problem keeping up with your kids to be. :)

Your father's older than my father, but not by much.

Your father's older than my father, but not by much.


Yeah, I guess you're about the typical age for someone of my dad's generation to have as a kid. It's sort of ironic that mine is actually a bit older.

You know what the bizarre thing about it is? When I was younger, to me his age was perfectly normal (even if he probably was alot more youthful than alot of people his same age). I'd say most of my peers have earlier generation Boomers as their fathers, like 1947-1955 born or somewhere in there. As a kid I used to think they were all super young without realizing it was the other way around. Then again, my mom was typical age (27), so it sorta balanced out.

Well if it's any consolation, I think if Vaughn is any indication, you'd be a great mom if it happens. Both in terms of being a caring role model as well as cool/kinda like a big sister at the same time. For your sake, I hope you can someday. I know what you mean about not wanting to start out older, but I'm sure you'll be one of those people who will be youngish for a long time. You'll probably look your actual 2007 age (30) when you're 50.

My dad was 43 in 1981 when I was born, and aside from worrying about his current aging today, that was never a problem when I was younger. Heck, if an almost 50-year old played Nintendo games, I'm sure you at 35 or 40 will have no problem keeping up with your kids to be. :)



thank you...hugs and kisses for the nice comments! :-*



That's another thing about what Dr. Grossman was saying.  There are millions of women who for one reason or another cannot have children.  If motherhood is the be all end all for a woman, then what's life for them?  A vale of tears?  Gimme a break!
::)



That's very true. I will say that over the past few years, I have felt so very inadequate as a woman. I know I shouldn't feel this way...but I do. It's like, there are women out there who keep having child after child, and not being able to even care for them/abusing them/etc....and then there's me...I cannot even reproduce.

thank you...hugs and kisses for the nice comments! :-*



That's very true. I will say that over the past few years, I have felt so very inadequate as a woman. I know I shouldn't feel this way...but I do. It's like, there are women out there who keep having child after child, and not being able to even care for them/abusing them/etc....and then there's me...I cannot even reproduce.

No problem. :)

Yeah I can understand how that would make you feel, especially if unfit mothers are able to keep bringing kids they technically shouldn't into this world. Either because they don't want them, or are too self absorbed to care for them the way they should. I know it doesn't seem fair in comparison (to the kids who have to grow in such an environment they didn't ask for, as well as people like yourself who would be great mothers that don't get the chance). I really think though, that even if you don't biologically have your own, what you've done with Vaughn is commendable enough.

No problem. :)

Yeah I can understand how that would make you feel, especially if unfit mothers are able to keep bringing kids they technically shouldn't into this world. Either because they don't want them, or are too self absorbed to care for them the way they should. I know it doesn't seem fair in comparison (to the kids who have to grow in such an environment they didn't ask for, as well as people like yourself who would be great mothers that don't get the chance). I really think though, that even if you don't biologically have your own, what you've done with Vaughn is commendable enough.



I agree...and I am very happy with our little family....but it would just be really nice to have someone be able to call me "mom" all the time...instead of "aunt" and occasionally, "mom".

Yeah, I can certainly understand that. It's that much more of a personal bonding feeling I imagine, when a child is "yours". It gives you something to pass on in a way. Really though, from what I know, up to 34 or 35 is okay in terms of a first time mother, so you've got at least a few years. Sorry if this is too personal of a thing to ask, but has it just ended up working out that way in terms of you not being able to get pregnant so far...or is there a known cause/reason for it?

Yeah, I can certainly understand that. It's that much more of a personal bonding feeling I imagine, when a child is "yours". It gives you something to pass on in a way. Really though, from what I know, up to 34 or 35 is okay in terms of a first time mother, so you've got at least a few years. Sorry if this is too personal of a thing to ask, but has it just ended up working out that way in terms of you not being able to get pregnant so far...or is there a known cause/reason for it?


I don't really know of the exact reason...but I've had some female types of problems that I would like to get investigated and/or corrected. To tell you the truth, my mom had the same sort of problem when she was younger. She was told that she wouldn't be able to have children...and she ended up having 3. I believe that if it is meant to happen...then it will. :)

I don't really know of the exact reason...but I've had some female types of problems that I would like to get investigated and/or corrected. To tell you the truth, my mom had the same sort of problem when she was younger. She was told that she wouldn't be able to have children...and she ended up having 3. I believe that if it is meant to happen...then it will. :)

Yeah, that's good thinking. At least if it happened with your mom when she assumed it wouldn't, there's some sense of hope. Whether it was just sudden luck or something biologically shifted allowing her to have kids, that's of course a good thing, and I believe it probably was meant to happen.

I applaud any woman who understands that she's not cut out for motherhood.  Not all women make good mothers.  It doesn't matter if they're 25, (God, Britney Spears...)

So God was a not very good mother as a 25-year-old?  That explains something 'bout the way the world runs... ;)

On-topic: I don't think it really matters what I think - it's absolutely none of my business at all whether a woman wants to have children earlier or later on in life.  Saying something like "women who don't have children will regret it for the rest of their lives." is simply an attempt to force your viewpoint onto others; sure, some may well regret not having children.  In the same vein, there are plenty of mothers (and fathers) who regret the children that they did have.. which seems to me a much sadder state of affairs.

So God was a not very good mother as a 25-year-old?  That explains something 'bout the way the world runs... ;)

On-topic: I don't think it really matters what I think - it's absolutely none of my business at all whether a woman wants to have children earlier or later on in life.  Saying something like "women who don't have children will regret it for the rest of their lives." is simply an attempt to force your viewpoint onto others; sure, some may well regret not having children.  In the same vein, there are plenty of mothers (and fathers) who regret the children that they did have.. which seems to me a much sadder state of affairs.
No, God, like Britney, was not a very good mother.  Why do you think "Jesus:  The Teenage Years" is missing from the Bible ;)

Anyway,
We are of the same opinion Philbo. 

I am 30 years old, and I have no biological children...not because I don't want one....because I've never been able to get pregnant. We have been raising Vaughn (my nephew) for the past few years, but I would love to have a biological child...thing is, I don't want to be an older parent. My parents had Beth when they were 39 years old, and during her growing up years...they were sometimes too tired to do the things with her, that they did with my other sister and myself...years prior.  Honestly, If I don't have a child within the next year or so...I don't think I ever want one.  Believe me, we have tried...but it just doesn't seem to work.
I can understand your frustration and your heartbreat, but please hang in there.  As this thread has stated, 30 is not too old to conceive or to be a mother.  I know 3 people that finally conceived after at least 10 years of trying. 

Also, what an opportunity life has provided to you in Vaughn, and what a lucky little boy.  Only a very loving person could take someone's child into their heart, even if he is their nephew. 

I can understand your frustration and your heartbreat, but please hang in there.  As this thread has stated, 30 is not too old to conceive or to be a mother.  I know 3 people that finally conceived after at least 10 years of trying. 

Also, what an opportunity life has provided to you in Vaughn, and what a lucky little boy.  Only a very loving person could take someone's child into their heart, even if he is their nephew. 


thank you for your encouragement, I truly appreciate it! :)

Another thing about Dr. Grossman's lecture I object to is her elitism.  She spoke as if  the typical woman putting off child-bearing is an Ivy League-educated lawyer or business exec.  But that's the conservative mentality for you.  If your income is less than 100K per annum, you're invisible.

A greater number of women and couples put off having children because it takes so long to be able to afford to provide a child with the middle class upbringing our parents could achieve in their 20s.  Instead of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness we get crushing debt, stagnant wages, job insecurity, and dread of the future.  "Women's lib" is no longer the cause of divorce as it was 30 years ago; it is now financial stress that is ripping families apart. 

The ruling class don't deal with this fact.  They deny it:  It is morning in America, but some of you just don't believe in Jesus, make irresponsible choices, and don't know how to invest your money.  That is the message I have heard from the Right for the past 20 years. 

I'll bet you a nickel more 23-year-olds would get married, have children (not just one child), and stay together as a nuclear family if our economy was conducive to doing so.  It isn't and has not been since the 1970s. 
::)

For a number of reasons,i've been thinking about this issue a lot lately.

Awhile back I've read a book by this french author Elizabeth Badinter,about the myth of the maternal love,she defends that the so called "maternal instinct" doesn't even exist,it's behavioral, a consequence of co-existing.This myth was used to justify why it was ok for a father to go out to work,while the mother raised the prole.It's still used now by courts all over the world who still in a divorce rule in favor of the mother. It's used to make women who don’t want to have children feel they're heartless and selfish.


But at the same time the reasons most people give to not have kids are usual negative ones, "i don't want to bring a child into this crazy world", "i don't have a stable relationship","i don't have financial security" and so on,and the truth is that if our parents had these many doubts back then they probably wouldn't have had us,and we wouldn't be here right now.In fact if we all choose not to have kids,what will happen?In order to maintain population we all should be having at least 2 kids.Even here in the "third world", the numbers dropped from 6,2 in 1940 to 2,1 in 2005.

I think women and men (because i do believe the clock is for both,biological or not) who do want kids should be prepared to have them at a age between 23 and 43,when the risks of a problematic pregnancy aren't so present,but also when they still have the energy to run around them all day if necessary and when the gap between parents and children isn't so big that the kids can't have grandparents. And i also think this trend of the one spoiled kid per couple should be stop,the later you have them the chance of having just one grows,and with a few exceptions that prove the rule,every kid is happier with siblings.

For a number of reasons,i've been thinking about this issue a lot lately.

Awhile back I've read a book by this french author Elizabeth Badinter,about the myth of the maternal love,she defends that the so called "maternal instinct" doesn't even exist,it's behavioral, a consequence of co-existing.This myth was used to justify why it was ok for a father to go out to work,while the mother raised the prole.It's still used now by courts all over the world who still in a divorce rule in favor of the mother. It's used to make women who don’t want to have children feel they're heartless and selfish.


But at the same time the reasons most people give to not have kids are usual negative ones, "i don't want to bring a child into this crazy world", "i don't have a stable relationship","i don't have financial security" and so on,and the truth is that if our parents had these many doubts back then they probably wouldn't have had us,and we wouldn't be here right now.In fact if we all choose not to have kids,what will happen?In order to maintain population we all should be having at least 2 kids.Even here in the "third world", the numbers dropped from 6,2 in 1940 to 2,1 in 2005.

I think women and men (because i do believe the clock is for both,biological or not) who do want kids should be prepared to have them at a age between 23 and 43,when the risks of a problematic pregnancy aren't so present,but also when they still have the energy to run around them all day if necessary and when the gap between parents and children isn't so big that the kids can't have grandparents. And i also think this trend of the one spoiled kid per couple should be stop,the later you have them the chance of having just one grows,and with a few exceptions that prove the rule,every kid is happier with siblings.

"Every kid is happier with siblings"?  Where did you read that bit of crap?

"Every kid is happier with siblings"?  Where did you read that bit of crap?


Lol,my house :P I have 7!

Lol,my house :P I have 7!
Not to get off topic here, but there are many misconceptions about only children, including the "selfish parents" who refuse to provide that child with a built-in playmate.  Having a sibling will not ensure happiness; I know I'm not too happy with my sister.  Maybe your odds are better though, having 7 to chose from.  ;D

Not to get off topic here, but there are many misconceptions about only children, including the "selfish parents" who refuse to provide that child with a built-in playmate.  Having a sibling will not ensure happiness; I know I'm not too happy with my sister.  Maybe your odds are better though, having 7 to chose from.  ;D


Heh heh! "Misconceptions."
:P

Again, the rising number of "only children" goes back to economics.  Forty years ago if a young man or woman did not go to college, and the majority didn't, we had an economy that allowed 18--21 year-olds to get jobs at a decent wage and start families.  Nowadays everybody is expected to go to college and college is more expensive than ever. 

In the old days you needed a large family to support a farm.  Couples had more children due to early deaths from disease, and so on. 

In modern times, children don't help out the family economically.  Some do get jobs in their teens and start helping out with expenses; however, ideally, an after school job is for pocket money and the goal is to get into the best college possible.

Thus with standards of living decline and expenses rising, it makes sense to have only one child.  The parents can invest as much as possible in the one child who will be dependent not for 16, not for 18, but for 21 or 25 years and sometime longer. 

When I was a kid it was anomolous to be an "only child."  In my fourth grade class there was two students who was an "only child."  Indeed, one was spoiled and obnoxious.  The other was even-tempered and kind. 

When the spoiled kid would disrupt the class, the teacher used to bring up his "only child" status.  "OK, now we all have to wait for Chris again.  You see, Christopher doesn't know how to behave among other children; he doesn't have brothers and sisters to teach him!"  We loved our teacher dearly even though she could be a total b!tch at times!
::)

At least half the kids in my nieces' classes are "only children," as are both of my nieces. 

Going off-topic a bit: Asthma.

When I was a kid, asthma was as common as epilepsy.  There might be one student in the entire elementary school who had asthma as there might be one epileptic student in an elementary school.  These days there's a special place for children's inhalers and meds for asthma and a third or more students in a given class has it.  Tell me we're not screwing up the environment!  One of my nieces had a serious bout with asthma in early childhood, but hasn't had a problem with it since that one crisis.  She's fortunate.  My sister takes extra care to abate mold, dust, pollen, and pet dander, which probably helps. 

The ruling class don't deal with this fact.  They deny it:  It is morning in America, but some of you just don't believe in Jesus, make irresponsible choices, and don't know how to invest your money.  That is the message I have heard from the Right for the past 20 years.


Ah, you missed the key part of the code.  "Irresponsible choices" was merely a code word for "Don't breed what you can't feed".

There's nothing wrong with that in principle -- what you've missed is that Jesus and managing your investments only come into it as marketing hooks to implement the triangulation strategy. 

The problem was, us elitist douchebags parsed it to mean "If you're too poor to afford a child, use contraception, and if you get knocked up, get an abortion."  That's a great policy.  Fewer kids born into the permanent underclass of welfare dependence.  Fewer welfare bums, more productive engineers.  Lower costs going out, more tax revenues coming in per capita, lower tax rates for everyone!  Woohoo!  Of course, we forgot about the redneck douchebags.

The redneck douchebags made the same mistake:  They parsed it to mean "Ban abortion, contraception, sex ed, and wait until marriage."  For them, that was also great policy.  The more likely sex is to turn into a life-ruining event, the less sex people will have, and the more likely they are to end up going to church on Sunday because there's nothing else to do.  Less sex, more religion!  Woohoo!  Of course, they forgot about us elitist douchebags.

What's changed in recent years is that in the 80s, Reaganites were playing the fundies like fools -- promising them everything, and giving them nearly nothing.  In the 00s, the Party bosses finally realized that the fundies outnumbered us, and it was our turn to be played.  So it goes.

The Dems do it too.  "We can't afford this war" appeals to both fiscal conservatives who are concerned about the dollar cost, and to bleeding-heart liberals who view even one human life as too high a price.  It works because (just like "Don't breed what you can't feed") at its core, it's true.  Even Saddam probably had a price at which we could have just bought his damn country and never had to fire a shot.

It's a fun game.  Come up with something that appeals to two completely different groups in two unrelated ways.  Win an election.  Pick one interpretation of your slogan to implement, and keep that carrot dangling in front of your other support base's nose.  As always in politics, keep triangulating the issue so you can continue to reward your buddies with what you skim off the top.

^ You missed my point.  I wasn't talking about people who have children they cannot afford. I was talking about people putting off having children, not having children, or having only one child because the economy sucks. 

Our nextdoor neighbors when I was growing up raised five children.  Neither parent graduated high school, and yet they managed to buy a nice little house in a quaint NH town only an hour away from Boston and bring up five kids in relative comfort. They moved from a rental in Nashua in 1963 to their own home in Mont Vernon in 1964.  They did it on one full-time factory workers' salary.  She was a homemaker.  The family didn't have much luxury.  They were frugal and ran a lean budget for sure.  Yet, they were never in danger of defaulting on the mortgage and could always pay their bills. 

That America is dead and we are a worse country for it in every way, unless you are one of those Wall Street parasites.

I agree with you that it's assanine to support the current economic fascism and discourage contraception at the same time.

Let's not kid ourselves (no pun intended).  You'll always have the high school dropout who knocks up his girlfriend.  With a blue collar economy, they've got a chance.  With a burger-flipping economy, they have not. 

You know the shocking welfare regulations we all do know so well:
A single mother gets more cash and food stamps if she has more babies.
A single mother loses her benefits and does not qualify for subsidized housing if she marries the father.

Public housing and welfare benefits were supposed to only be a stopgap solution.  That's why the rules were there, so that only the truly needy may qualify.  Yet after three generations, it was obvious the welfare state was permanent, not temporary.  The rules remained the same.  Very destructive.

I never saw the will on either side of the congressional aisle to solve the problem.  The Dems let the defunded Great Society programs limp along and refused to challenge Wall Street orthodoxy.  The Republicans gnashed their teeth because they couldn't just do away with the welfare state.  The Republicans won out.  Bill Clinton signed "Welfare Reform."  The results? Ask the director of your local soup kitchen, food pantry, charity clinic, or homeless shelter!
::)

^ You missed my point.  I wasn't talking about people who have children they cannot afford. I was talking about people putting off having children, not having children, or having only one child because the economy sucks. 

Our nextdoor neighbors when I was growing up raised five children.  Neither parent graduated high school, and yet they managed to buy a nice little house in a quaint NH town only an hour away from Boston and bring up five kids in relative comfort. They moved from a rental in Nashua in 1963 to their own home in Mont Vernon in 1964.  They did it on one full-time factory workers' salary.  She was a homemaker.  The family didn't have much luxury.  They were frugal and ran a lean budget for sure.  Yet, they were never in danger of defaulting on the mortgage and could always pay their bills. 

That America is dead and we are a worse country for it in every way, unless you are one of those Wall Street parasites.

I agree with you that it's assanine to support the current economic fascism and discourage contraception at the same time.

Let's not kid ourselves (no pun intended).  You'll always have the high school dropout who knocks up his girlfriend.  With a blue collar economy, they've got a chance.  With a burger-flipping economy, they have not. 

You know the shocking welfare regulations we all do know so well:
A single mother gets more cash and food stamps if she has more babies.
A single mother loses her benefits and does not qualify for subsidized housing if she marries the father.

Public housing and welfare benefits were supposed to only be a stopgap solution.  That's why the rules were there, so that only the truly needy may qualify.  Yet after three generations, it was obvious the welfare state was permanent, not temporary.  The rules remained the same.  Very destructive.

I never saw the will on either side of the congressional aisle to solve the problem.  The Dems let the defunded Great Society programs limp along and refused to challenge Wall Street orthodoxy.  The Republicans gnashed their teeth because they couldn't just do away with the welfare state.  The Republicans won out.  Bill Clinton signed "Welfare Reform."  The results? Ask the director of your local soup kitchen, food pantry, charity clinic, or homeless shelter!
::)


There is also the extremely precarious position of a family who opts for the stay at home mom whose breadwinner, for whatever reason, is no longer there.  What does society say to a mother who has been out of the job market for 15 years or so whose husband dies and leaves her with two or three kids a bit of life insurance and outdated skills?  It says "sorry for your loss, can't help you"  Respect for her and her position is lip service.  If she is lucky the kids are old enough to not need daycare because she won't be able to afford it. If she is lucky the family finances weren't destroyed by a long illness.  If she is lucky she has an extended family that can support her while she gets on her feet.  She gets short period of mourning not much else.

Lol,my house :P I have 7!



And I thought that I came from a big family. I have 5 siblings. My mother was perpetually pregnant from 1951-1963! Every pic of her through those years, sure enough, she was pregnant.  :D ;D ;D BTW, my parents saved the best for last.  :D ;D ;D


Whoever said that the "baby is always spoiled" did not know my family. By the time I came around, there wasn't much $$$ left. So I got all the hand-me-downs. Rarely did I have any clothes that were bought specifically for me. As I kid I hated it and felt like I didn't matter. There was a time after my parents split when my mother was having some serious problems. It was one of my sisters (the 3rd oldest-the other 2 were on their own by that time) who took care of us 3 youngest ones-and she was in her teens. My dad told me not too long ago that he & my mother should never had had 6 kids-this made me feel really good-NOT!!! But, I do kind of understood what he meant even if he didn't do a good job at expressing it. He meant that because there were so many of us, we all suffered because we couldn't get much in the way of individual attention that we should have gotten. Personally, I am glad to have my siblings even though I am not particularly close to some of them (but I am with 2 of my sisters). Today, I would LOVE to get some of my sisters' clothes.  ;D ;D ;D

The point I am trying to make is that I do believe that siblings are a good thing. However, I do think there is a thing as having too many kids-if you can't afford them both money-wise & time-wise. 



Cat

There is also the extremely precarious position of a family who opts for the stay at home mom whose breadwinner, for whatever reason, is no longer there.  What does society say to a mother who has been out of the job market for 15 years or so whose husband dies and leaves her with two or three kids a bit of life insurance and outdated skills?  It says "sorry for your loss, can't help you"  Respect for her and her position is lip service.  If she is lucky the kids are old enough to not need daycare because she won't be able to afford it. If she is lucky the family finances weren't destroyed by a long illness.  If she is lucky she has an extended family that can support her while she gets on her feet.  She gets short period of mourning not much else.

Thank you.

This is why I am perpetually flabbergasted by the right-wing's old saw about Christian charity.  If you're down on your luck, perhaps the church shelter can give you three hots and a cot for a few days, but what of the 42-year-old widow or divorcee who hasn't worked in 20 years and can't succeed in the marketplace? 

Well, she should have learned some job skills!

But you "Christians" said staying home with the kids was the right thing for her to do.

Fortunately for them, they can and do have it both ways. 

^ You missed my point.  I wasn't talking about people who have children they cannot afford. I was talking about people putting off having children, not having children, or having only one child because the economy sucks. 


Yeah, I probably should have addressed that.  You're right; that America is dead.  The question is why.


I never saw the will on either side of the congressional aisle to solve the problem.  The Dems let the defunded Great Society programs limp along and refused to challenge Wall Street orthodoxy.  The Republicans gnashed their teeth because they couldn't just do away with the welfare state.  The Republicans won out.  Bill Clinton signed "Welfare Reform."  The results? Ask the director of your local soup kitchen, food pantry, charity clinic, or homeless shelter!


Well, that's the socialist spin on "why".  The capitalist spin on "why" is similar.  The (Carter-era) Dems continued to permit the Great Society programs limp along (long after they'd outlived their usefulness) and refused to challenge the orthodoxy of the welfare state.  The (Reagan-era) Republicans gnashed their teeth because they couldn't just do away with the welfare state.  The (Reaganite/Gingrichite) Republicans won a measured victory.  Bill Clinton signed welfare reform, but didn't solve the underlying problem of a government that had grown to more than a third of GDP.  The results?  Ask any two-person family that doesn't have enough money left over after taxes to provide their kid with a college education, let alone have anything left over afterwards to donate to the director of their local soup kitchen, food pantry, charity clinic, or homeless shelter. 

The capitalist spin ends with Bush II; there's no free-market rationale for his budget.  Plenty of political advantage to what he's done, but absolutely no fiscal sense whatsoever.

What's Wrong With Kansas is that the Jesus Bloc wouldn't care how much damage is done to the economy as long as they get their religious precepts encoded into law.

What Was Wrong With Wall Street wais that we didn't care how many legislative crumbs got thrown to the Jesus Bloc as long as we got our tax cuts, and we let them steal the party out from under us.

Ask any two-person family that doesn't have enough money left over after taxes to provide their kid with a college education, let alone have anything left over afterwards to donate to the director of their local soup kitchen, food pantry, charity clinic, or homeless shelter. 


Private charity is a wonderful thing, but private charity cannot bridge the gap between the free market and human needs.  Mitt Romney is a man who required all Massachusetts residents to buy private health insurance and wants to cut capital gains taxes to zero.  That doesn't resemble fascism, that IS fascism. 

The free market (which is not "free" for if it ever became truly free, investors would pee their pants and there would be a panic on Wall Street that would make 1929 look like a walk in the park).  Where was I?  Oh yeah, the "free market" proudly exalts profit and greed as virtues and has only one prescription for every problem: Tax cuts.  This crap just doesn't work.

You cannot run everything like a business and it is a myth that business is efficient.  That's where the un-free market comes into play. 
A giant corporation screws the pooch and the government bails it out. 

When they started running my alma mater, UMass, like a business, administrative bureaucracy mushroomed, fees soared, services plummeted, and when it comes time to cut jobs it's not the paper shufflers in the administration building who get pink slips, it's teach staff, maintenance, food service workers...people who honestly work for a buck!
::)

 

When they started running my alma mater, UMass, like a business, administrative bureaucracy mushroomed, fees soared, services plummeted, and when it comes time to cut jobs it's not the paper shufflers in the administration building who get pink slips, it's teach staff, maintenance, food service workers...people who honestly work for a buck!
::)



True true true.  The trend began in the late 70's when tuitions began to rise, quite remarkably, at the same time administrative salaries began to take off.  Just as in the private sector when workers wage increases didn't match cost of living, while corporate salaries began to hit the statosphere.  It is socialism for the rich, capitalism for the working person.

True true true.  The trend began in the late 70's when tuitions began to rise, quite remarkably, at the same time administrative salaries began to take off.  Just as in the private sector when workers wage increases didn't match cost of living, while corporate salaries began to hit the statosphere.  It is socialism for the rich, capitalism for the working person.

Socialism for the rich, Wal-Mart for everybody else!
::)

I work in a department of Children's Protective Services for the county in which I live.  There are 10's of thousands of children in the foster system, many of whom the parental rights (of their birth parents) are terminated.  95% of those terminated birth parents are crack addicts who just keep having kid after kid after kid.  CPS just takes the newborns straight from the hospital birthing room if the mom already has kids in the system and already gave birth to previous babies with positive toxicology screens at birth. 
I've never seen a more fertile cluster of people than these drug-addicted souls.

I have extreme opinions on how the judicial system should work when it comes to these certain people and their reproductive rights and abilities, but that's another story for another time.....

My point is:  There are PLENTY of people being born into this world.  It's no threat to our survival or population is women are given the same robust support and encouragement when they decide to NOT have children, to remain childless, as is given to women who choose to give birth or raise children.

There are far too many women in this society who may have been nicer and happier people had they chosen NOT to have children or be ANYBODY'S mother.  All you have to do is go to a mall or public gathering (where teenagers, kids, families gather) and listen to the witchy, horrible ways too many mothers speak to their children.  In public too!  They even look miserable in the face.  The kids look depressed and the mother looks and acts pissed.  I see it far too often.  They never just stop at one child either.  They continue to have 2-3-4 kids.  I understood what was involved in raising kids after my first (and only) child was born.  I'm fine with having an only child, just one child.  A good parent is a devoted parent and that takes a lot of time and maturity.  Money too.  Kids aren't cheap :)

I just think this society needs to strongly support any woman who chooses No Children, because to NOT support her, is a grave mistake many times.

I work in a department of Children's Protective Services for the county in which I live.  There are 10's of thousands of children in the foster system, many of whom the parental rights (of their birth parents) are terminated.  95% of those terminated birth parents are crack addicts who just keep having kid after kid after kid.  CPS just takes the newborns straight from the hospital birthing room if the mom already has kids in the system and already gave birth to previous babies with positive toxicology screens at birth. 
I've never seen a more fertile cluster of people than these drug-addicted souls.

I have extreme opinions on how the judicial system should work when it comes to these certain people and their reproductive rights and abilities, but that's another story for another time.....

My point is:  There are PLENTY of people being born into this world.  It's no threat to our survival or population is women are given the same robust support and encouragement when they decide to NOT have children, to remain childless, as is given to women who choose to give birth or raise children.

There are far too many women in this society who may have been nicer and happier people had they chosen NOT to have children or be ANYBODY'S mother.  All you have to do is go to a mall or public gathering (where teenagers, kids, families gather) and listen to the witchy, horrible ways too many mothers speak to their children.  In public too!  They even look miserable in the face.  The kids look depressed and the mother looks and acts pissed.  I see it far too often.  They never just stop at one child either.  They continue to have 2-3-4 kids.  I understood what was involved in raising kids after my first (and only) child was born.  I'm fine with having an only child, just one child.  A good parent is a devoted parent and that takes a lot of time and maturity.  Money too.  Kids aren't cheap :)

I just think this society needs to strongly support any woman who chooses No Children, because to NOT support her, is a grave mistake many times.




Well said. Welcome to the board and allow me to give you your first karma.




Cat