[extropy-chat] change of topic

[MB]

IMHO having children is a full time job. For somebody. Dad or mom or a
combination of the two.

Yes, it is lovely that women have freedom to work now outside the
home, it is a fine and good thing.

It is an excellent thing that fathers can take time to be home with
children - that they do not have to work all the time.

However, this is a consumer society, Olga - you've complained about
it before, as have I. IMHO if one has a child one has taken on a
commitment that lasts for at least 18 years, and there may need to be
sacrifices made to honor that commitment. Financial sacrifices, even.

If one is not willing to make the sacrifices then perhaps one
shouldn't be having kids.

Single parents are in a particularly difficult place in this regard.
If I'd known then what I know now, I'd have made some different
choices. Children do benefit from two parents. Hell, *parents* benefit
from two parents. That's because parenting is a full time job. For
somebody.

Been there, done that.
Regards,
MB


On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Olga Bourlin wrote:

> From: "Kevin Freels" <cmcmortgage at sbcglobal.net>
>
> > I find many people who agree with you, but the real problem here is that
> > people simply want to "have" too many nice things. The second job goes to
> > support the second car payment, big screen TV, etc when a couple really
> > could live off of one income, albeit in a smaller house with two less
> > expensive "paid for" cars.
>
> Begging your pardon (again), but ... second job?  *Second* job?  Whose
> second job?
>
> 1) Adult people work for many reasons - even independently rich people have
> been known to work (not because they have to - but for various good
> reasons).  While not a norm in every culture, we (supposedly) value gender
> equality (and are finally able to achieve some semblance of this, thanks to
> near-perfect birth control and other reproductive options).  That's what
> equality is all about - not just equal freedom, but equal responsibility, as
> in being financially responsible = i.e., being a $elf-$ufficient grown up
> person.  Yippee, it is 2005, after all ...
>
> and
>
> 2) Not all families have two incomes because not all families (by choice of
> chance) have two adult heads-of-household.  Yippee, it is 2005, after all
> ...
>
> and
>
> 3) It may have been necessary at one time in human history (when there was
> no choice, especially in matters of birth control), but for an adult to
> somehow feel obligated to support another *adult* is a very bad idea,
> indeed.  We no longer need to do this.  (There are exceptions, of course -
> some people are not able to work, are sick, mentally unbalanced, what have
> you...).  Children are financially supported - and as a result children,
> being children - have a diminution of their "rights."  (Children, in effect,
> trade in some of their "rights" for this financial support - the way women
> in the past traded in their "rights" by being financially supported.)  But -
> yippee, and what a relief it is to live in 2005 ... when women no longer
> need to be play the part of "children."
>
> and, I think ...
>
> 4)  One can't comfortably and justifiably say "fuck you" to anything or
> anyone unless one is financially self-sufficient.  As a financially
> self-sufficient grown up woman, I wouldn't give up this privilege for a
> million bucks (i.e., I wouldn't give up my self-sufficiency for anything or
> anyone - why would *any* adult want to give their independence up?).  And
> because it's 2005 - I don't have to.
>
> "Second job" my arse.  Get serious, Kevin.
>
> Arrrrrrrrrrrrr, arrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ....,
> Olga