[extropy-chat] change of topic

[Olga Bourlin]

From: "MB" <mbb386 at main.nc.us>

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

Hmmm, well I had two children and full time jobs (so did my mother, and my
grandmother).  Next.

> [full time job.  For somebody. Dad or mom or a
> combination of the two.

Why limit childrearing to just those two?  Other people in the child's life
(many many other people) can play important roles in child rearing.
 Nannies - child care workers - relatives - extended family - teachers -
counselors - and more inanimate "teachers" like books and television (I am
one that happens to love television, and have done a lot of
maturing/thinking through the years watching everything from old movies to
talk shows, as well as news to documentaries - TV *is* a *great* babysitter
IMO).  I wish I had "books on tape" when I was growing up, to supplement my
reading-books-the-old-fashioned-way - but I digress.

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

Lovely, you say?  (And why didn't you say "... it is lovely that men have
freedom to work now outside the home.[?]" - because they are the "default"
breadwinner of something?)  IMO - this is not just a fine thing, it's a
*crucial* thing for both men and women (and their offspring, should that
happen).  And this "thing" is not going to go away.

> 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.

Hey - as far as I'm concerned, fathers can take time to be home with
children - or not.  It's their choice.  There are others who can take up the
slack.  Fathers (and mothers) who work to support their children are doing a
lot already.  There are many ways to show children you love them - spending
time with them is one way, being away from them (at work) is another.

> 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.

I was complaining about spending money on the stupid horse-and-pony show at
the White House and cloning cats, but I'm *very* serious about the
worthiness of children.

As for self-sacrifice - I know I've said it here before and I haven't
changed my mind about it.  IMO children are an *indulgence* ... one of the
greatest *indulgences* in one's life.

There *are* sacrifices some people make for their children - I knew a woman
who had three boys, two of whom had cystic fibrosis.  The things that woman
had to go through every day was what I would consider somewhat of a
sacrifice (although I'm sure she never thought so, knowing her)

I personally had children because I wanted them (selfish reasons).  And I've
felt indulged beyond my wildest dreams.  I don't understand "sacrifice" or
"financial sacrifice" when it comes to children.  Honoring commitments?  You
mean *loving them*?  (I guess - having been reared away from the United
States - I don't understand these things very well.  There are lots of
things I don't understand about many "typical American parents" - and I
suppose I never will.)

Olga


> 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
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>