The World Beyond BetterMost > Women Today

Woman decides full-time mothering isn't for her

<< < (14/17) > >>

Monika:

--- Quote from: Kelda on March 09, 2011, 05:36:31 am ---Agreed. I've said that - or the classic line: "I have enough trouble looking after my cat never, mind a child!"

--- End quote ---

My line is: I can´t even keep a cactus alive.(which I really can´t)

Marge_Innavera:

--- Quote from: Buffymon on March 09, 2011, 09:51:44 am ---My line is: I can´t even keep a cactus alive.

--- End quote ---

We've never been asked to babysit -- for which I'm sure are good and sufficient reasons -- but if we ever should be, we'd have to make a full disclosure; i.e., if the house catches fire, we rescue the dogs first.    :laugh:

serious crayons:

--- Quote from: delalluvia on March 08, 2011, 11:18:10 pm ---I've seen this quite a bit.  I work where I can read reports on families with children who have genetic problems.  These children suffer horribly, will probably die before they're adults and the doctors simply shake their heads - outside from where the parents can see them, of course - and wonder why these people continue to have children even though they know the risks to their offspring.  Because you see, if you cast any kind of aspersion on someone's desire to have children - no matter how misguided their reasons will be - you will likely get verbally stoned by society.
--- End quote ---

That seems kind of extreme, though. I mean, if the doctors are shaking their heads to other people, then presumably those other people aren't stoning them. Maybe the doctors aren't shaking their heads where the parents can see them not out of fear of getting verbally stoned by the parents for having un-PC ideas about procreation, but out of a professional reluctance to blame the families for their patients' health problem. I'm not saying the parents made the right decision. I'm just saying that a doctor saying, essentially, "This is all your fault -- you should never have had kids in the first place" is probably not considered ideal bedside manner.

I don't know anything about these cases. But I would bet that the parents had hoped, however foolishly, to beat the genetic odds. And if they didn't, they're no doubt suffering considerably, too.


--- Quote ---They love children!  It's an inalienable right!  How dare you criticize them for having children?!?!  And the kids suffer and suffer and suffer and I cannot imagine why these parents can't be locked up for child abuse.

People continue to have children even when they cannot feed their children because it's a mark of their manhood or womanhood.  And they'd rather sacrifice the children they have - their lives sometimes - than go against their status in their society.

I find myself thinking that whenever I see those "Save the Children" commercials.  You see this tiny child living in appalling conditions and I wonder why her mother and father even thought to bring a child into their world.
--- End quote ---

It's interesting to see the kinds of pressures felt by people who don't have children. I really don't think the pressures are that great in my community (and by community, I mean friends, family, coworkers, etc., as well as geographic neighbors). I know lots and lots of people who don't have kids, including straight, married couples (for whom it would have been relatively easy and "expected"), including several close friends, my thrice-married step-mother, and my three female cousins, now in their 50s, who grew up very traditionally on a farm in Iowa and have all been married, two of them for decades. I've never heard of anybody saying anything about these people's non-breeding (not that I'd know about all family conversations, of course).

I myself never felt any pressure, and I had my first child at almost 37. On the contrary, when I told my dad I was pregnant, his first question was, "Are you going to ... have it?" Which even I have to admit seems odd to ask, given that I was married, healthy and financially secure! Maybe he just didn't want me to make the same mistake he did. :laugh:

serious crayons:
The other thing about the "selfish" issue is, if a person who doesn't have any kids is selfish, then isn't a person who only has one or two kids at least somewhat selfish, compared to a person who has more than that? Is there some kind of moral obligation to have as many kids as you can, in order to give life to as many other people as possible?

Of course not. In fact, the opposite is far more arguably true now that planetary resources are strained.

Historically, people had kids for "selfish" reasons -- they needed workers around the house/farm/business, and needed someone to care for them in old age. Only in recent times have we shifted our views about parenting, and come to see it (culturally, I mean) as an act of love in which the effort is supposed to go almost entirely in one direction, from parent to kid. Kids should not be required to do more than a few basic chores, and parents should not be a "burden" to their children when they get old.

milomorris:

--- Quote from: crayonlicious on March 09, 2011, 09:44:16 am ---Domestic work, especially caring for one's own children, carries benefits beyond one's own family that our culture exploits but does not compensate.

--- End quote ---

So what's next? Do we compensate children for playing nicely together because they grow up to be caring citizens? Since when "should" we pay people to do the right thing?

I understand the corporate, institutional, and social benefits that emerge when there is a population of families where one parent can stay home. At the same time, that parent sees benefits too.

- Employers are compensating stay-home parents. The worker gets paid enough to provide for his/her family, otherwise both parents would need to work. Additionally, most employers who offer health/dental/vision/life insurance have plans that offer family coverage. Beyond that, employers who offer retirement plans create the possibility--in the event of the death of the employee--for the stay-home partner to obtain funds that were generated by both the company and the employee.

- As far as volunteering goes, non-profits (correctly) tell us about the benefits volunteering brings to the volunteer. Volunteering offers (among other things) the opportunity to help one's community, positive human interaction, and networking possibilities. For example, I was looking for additional work back in 2003. David suggested that I volunteer for the Republican candidate because, as he put it, "Republicans either have companies that need employees, or know someone who does," He was right. After one week of volunteering on the phone bank making get-out-the-vote calls, the campaign manager offered me a paid part-time position working in one of the neighborhood offices. That in turn led to a full-time job offer with the marketing firm that was supporting the campaign. As I have heard a United Way leader say, "Volunteering is its own benefit."

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page