http://www.aarpmagazine.org/people/Articles/a2003-07-08-babyblues.html

Interesting article...

it does make a person think


Kass
mother of 3


"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Vs9sb.13599$hB5.13509@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... http://www.aarpmagazine.org/people/Articles/a2003-07-08-babyblues.html

Interesting article...but I can't see myself regretting my decision
not to have any children when I turn 60. I knew at a very young age I
didn't want to be a mother and that feeling has remained throughout
the years. I just turned 37 and I still feel that way--no biological
clock ticking for me!

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:00:21 GMT, "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote:
http://www.aarpmagazine.org/people/Articles/a2003-07-08-babyblues.html

"Kim/Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:ikd3rvc41krla8dciku808vu4vjirm9q3n@4ax.com... Interesting article...but I can't see myself regretting my decision not to have any children when I turn 60. I knew at a very young age I didn't want to be a mother and that feeling has remained throughout the years. I just turned 37 and I still feel that way--no biological clock ticking for me!

I feel the same way. I have plenty of nieces and nephews, and I have the
freedom that not having kids gives me.

I'm not knocking kids (never do). I'm sure kids are fine, especially once
they get older, but I dunno - I'm not so sure it's worth going through what
I see many parents go through.

Just my observation: for every happy family I know, I would guess I know
three not-so-happy ones. Where the parents just plod from day to day,
working jobs they'd rather not work but can't afford to quit, having no time
or energy for fun with each other, doing the "daycare shuffle", never doing
"adult" things, worrying about credit card bills and which parent has enough
sick days left to miss work in a snowstorm when schools are closed...Ugh.
Not the life for me.

"whisper" <noway@notnow.com> wrote in message
news:CScsb.29107$E9.10971@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... Interesting article... it does make a person think

Yes. Did you notice how the woman stopped herself from wallowing in self
pity? She switched from focussing on what she didn't have to focussing on
what she did have. A wise move, in my book.

Amy

It is much better to be old with a bunch of children and grandchildren
taking interest in you, than to be old alone.

Children are a pain, but they also are the most faithful friends for
life.

i

In article <k4jsb.75800$ri.13394354@twister.nyc.rr.com>, JWB wrote: "Kim/Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:ikd3rvc41krla8dciku808vu4vjirm9q3n@4ax.com... Interesting article...but I can't see myself regretting my decision not to have any children when I turn 60. I knew at a very young age I didn't want to be a mother and that feeling has remained throughout the years. I just turned 37 and I still feel that way--no biological clock ticking for me! I feel the same way. I have plenty of nieces and nephews, and I have the freedom that not having kids gives me. I'm not knocking kids (never do). I'm sure kids are fine, especially once they get older, but I dunno - I'm not so sure it's worth going through what I see many parents go through. Just my observation: for every happy family I know, I would guess I know three not-so-happy ones. Where the parents just plod from day to day, working jobs they'd rather not work but can't afford to quit, having no time or energy for fun with each other, doing the "daycare shuffle", never doing "adult" things, worrying about credit card bills and which parent has enough sick days left to miss work in a snowstorm when schools are closed...Ugh. Not the life for me.

On the other hand, I have a smart and faithful friend at home, who is
very happy to see me every day, and who agrees to play with me on any
day as well. I can talk to him and discuss various stuff etc.

Kids are a hassle sometimes, granted, but at other times they are
great companions. Young ones are not much worse than older kids,
actually.

I definitely do miss the free time. Just last weekend, I savored a free
day when the kid was at grandparents. I went to a gun range and had a
great day. But, on the other hand, I never feel lonely with a 2.5 year
old in the house.

i

But there is no guarantee that the children a person has will be there for
them when they get old. My mother works in a nursing home and has for quite
sometime and she's seen so many people there spend day after day all alone,
their kids and/or grandkids never spending time with them. Plus I feel
having children just so that you have someone to take care of you in your
old age is not a good reason to have children.

"Ignoramus32131" <ignoramus32131@NOSPAM.32131.invalid> wrote in message
news:bote8o$q59$0@pita.alt.net...
It is much better to be old with a bunch of children and grandchildren taking interest in you, than to be old alone.

I have a perspective on the subject that comes with age.

I barely remember life before children, but I did have one.
Then I had a life with babies, toddlers, children, adolescents, teens
and college age live aways. Now I have grandchildren and adult
offspring. Now is the best of times. I wouldn't have these times,
at least in this way, if I had not gone through the other times, not
that they were bad at all.

Looking back, I would not change a thing.


"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message
news:k4jsb.75800$ri.13394354@twister.nyc.rr.com... "Kim/Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:ikd3rvc41krla8dciku808vu4vjirm9q3n@4ax.com... Interesting article...but I can't see myself regretting my decision not to have any children when I turn 60. I knew at a very young age I didn't want to be a mother and that feeling has remained throughout the years. I just turned 37 and I still feel that way--no biological clock ticking for me! I feel the same way. I have plenty of nieces and nephews, and I have the freedom that not having kids gives me. I'm not knocking kids (never do). I'm sure kids are fine, especially once they get older, but I dunno - I'm not so sure it's worth going through
what I see many parents go through. Just my observation: for every happy family I know, I would guess I know three not-so-happy ones. Where the parents just plod from day to day, working jobs they'd rather not work but can't afford to quit, having no
time or energy for fun with each other, doing the "daycare shuffle", never
doing "adult" things, worrying about credit card bills and which parent has
enough sick days left to miss work in a snowstorm when schools are closed...Ugh. Not the life for me.

In article <botf0h$1iqlrv$1@ID-75132.news.uni-berlin.de>, Dreamspinner3 wrote: But there is no guarantee that the children a person has will be there for them when they get old.

Agreed.

But if you do not have children and grandchildren, there is a
guarantee that they won;t be there when you get old.
My mother works in a nursing home and has for quite sometime and she's seen so many people there spend day after day all alone, their kids and/or grandkids never spending time with them. Plus I feel having children just so that you have someone to take care of you in your old age is not a good reason to have children.

Again, I agree with you here.

i
"Ignoramus32131" <ignoramus32131@NOSPAM.32131.invalid> wrote in message news:bote8o$q59$0@pita.alt.net... It is much better to be old with a bunch of children and grandchildren taking interest in you, than to be old alone.

On 12 Nov 2003 13:57:44 GMT,
Ignoramus32131 <ignoramus32131@NOSPAM.32131.invalid> wrote: It is much better to be old with a bunch of children and grandchildren taking interest in you, than to be old alone. Children are a pain, but they also are the most faithful friends for life.

Tell that to Mr. and Mrs. Menendez ;)

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:botf0h$1iqlrv$1@ID-75132.news.uni-berlin.de...
| But there is no guarantee that the children a person has will be there for
| them when they get old. My mother works in a nursing home and has for
quite
| sometime and she's seen so many people there spend day after day all
alone,
| their kids and/or grandkids never spending time with them.

You reep what you sow I think, and from my experience those who have been
terribly loney during old age have been loney people all thier lives; kids
or no kids.



Plus I feel
| having children just so that you have someone to take care of you in your
| old age is not a good reason to have children.

I agree, but I don't think many of us have children for that reason. Last
week an elderly friend of the family passed away from cancer in her home and
I was so in awe at how all the children, grand children, great grand
children and long time friends had gathered day after day to be with her
until she passed; people were flying in from overseas to say goodbye to this
beautiful woman. And I found myself thinking how wonderful for her to have
this huge family who wanted to sit with her day after day, reading to her,
talking and so on, and then I thought of my own grandmother who has maybe
one grandkid visit her a year and I don't ever call her or see her even
though she's just down the road. I wonder if she ever ponders why no one
wants to visit her. She's reeping nothing as far as I can tell...

Having a great family to cares for you when you are old is a bonus and not
something expected. It's those who do have children for that reason who get
sorely disapointed in the end if you know what I mean?







|
| "Ignoramus32131" <ignoramus32131@NOSPAM.32131.invalid> wrote in message
| news:bote8o$q59$0@pita.alt.net...
|
| > It is much better to be old with a bunch of children and grandchildren
| > taking interest in you, than to be old alone.
|
|

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:12:22 GMT, "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote:
I have a perspective on the subject that comes with age.I barely remember life before children, but I did have one.Then I had a life with babies, toddlers, children, adolescents, teensand college age live aways. Now I have grandchildren and adultoffspring. Now is the best of times. I wouldn't have these times,at least in this way, if I had not gone through the other times, notthat they were bad at all.Looking back, I would not change a thing.

Just keep telling yourself that, funboy!
"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in messagenews:k4jsb.75800$ri.13394354@twister.nyc.rr .com... "Kim/Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:ikd3rvc41krla8dciku808vu4vjirm9q3n@4ax.com... Interesting article...but I can't see myself regretting my decision not to have any children when I turn 60. I knew at a very young age I didn't want to be a mother and that feeling has remained throughout the years. I just turned 37 and I still feel that way--no biological clock ticking for me! I feel the same way. I have plenty of nieces and nephews, and I have the freedom that not having kids gives me. I'm not knocking kids (never do). I'm sure kids are fine, especially once they get older, but I dunno - I'm not so sure it's worth going throughwhat I see many parents go through. Just my observation: for every happy family I know, I would guess I know three not-so-happy ones. Where the parents just plod from day to day, working jobs they'd rather not work but can't afford to quit, having notime or energy for fun with each other, doing the "daycare shuffle", neverdoing "adult" things, worrying about credit card bills and which parent hasenough sick days left to miss work in a snowstorm when schools are closed...Ugh. Not the life for me.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:26:03 GMT, Kim/Dreamspinner3
<dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> wrote:
Interesting article...but I can't see myself regretting my decisionnot to have any children when I turn 60. I knew at a very young age Ididn't want to be a mother and that feeling has remained throughoutthe years. I just turned 37 and I still feel that way--no biologicalclock ticking for me!

I know EXACTLY how you feel!

--

Whenever you face a difficult decision and are unsure how to proceed,
stop and ask yourself - What Would Kendricks Do?

"Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> writes:
But there is no guarantee that the children a person has will be there for them when they get old. My mother works in a nursing home and has for quite sometime and she's seen so many people there spend day after day all alone, their kids and/or grandkids never spending time with them.

Life has no guarantees.
Plus I feel having children just so that you have someone to take care of you in your old age is not a good reason to have children.

That's true. It is a bad reason. A good reason is that it is a joy
to share their lives when they are young, and there is _some_ chance
that the joy gets to continue as everyone gets older.

Doug Anderson wrote: "Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> writes: But there is no guarantee that the children a person has will be there for them when they get old. My mother works in a nursing home and has for quite sometime and she's seen so many people there spend day after day all alone, their kids and/or grandkids never spending time with them.

That's why it sucks that there are no over-the-counter meds you can get, so
when you reach that point, and assuming you want to, you can comfortably 'check
out'. The thought of having to end up in a nursing home, and spending your
remaining time there, is about as depressing as you can get, at least to me.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:31:24 GMT,
WWKD <jdk00@yahoo.com> wrote: On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:26:03 GMT, Kim/Dreamspinner3<dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> wrote:Interesting article...but I can't see myself regretting my decisionnot to have any children when I turn 60. I knew at a very young age Ididn't want to be a mother and that feeling has remained throughoutthe years. I just turned 37 and I still feel that way--no biologicalclock ticking for me! I know EXACTLY how you feel!

That's good. Some of us should not reproduce.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

In article <J3tsb.8415$nz.7441@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, Bill in Co. wrote: That's why it sucks that there are no over-the-counter meds you can get, so when you reach that point, and assuming you want to, you can comfortably 'check out'. The thought of having to end up in a nursing home, and spending your remaining time there, is about as depressing as you can get, at least to me.

shotgun shells are sold over the counter.

i

"Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:d3ksb.7645$aT.1808@news-server.bigpond.net.au... "whisper" <noway@notnow.com> wrote in message news:CScsb.29107$E9.10971@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... Interesting article... it does make a person think Yes. Did you notice how the woman stopped herself from wallowing in self pity? She switched from focussing on what she didn't have to focussing
on what she did have. A wise move, in my book. Amy

That's applicable to everything in life though. There's always so many
roads that were left untaken. I regret my entire first marriage. I
regret not going to college sooner. So many things, and wallowing in self
pity doesn't change the past. All a person can ever do at any given time
is make what choice seems most logical and move on from there. Maybe when
I'm old I will regret not having children, but then again to have them,
I'd have to divorce my husband, find a new man who wanted children, be
likely to have to go through fertility treatments, take a 50/50 chance
that the marriage would not work and I'd be left a single mother, and
perhaps if things worked out in such a way that my children became
productive citizens who made lots of money and lovingly took care of me in
my old age (although a look in any nurse home shows this is seldom the
case) maybe it would be worth the sacrifice. But I'd still be left
sitting there regretting the costs of what I'd given up. That doesn't
seem like a good plan to me and certainly it seems far better to stay in a
happy marriage and not have children that I don't even want to start with.

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message
news:k4jsb.75800$ri.13394354@twister.nyc.rr.com... "Kim/Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:ikd3rvc41krla8dciku808vu4vjirm9q3n@4ax.com... Interesting article...but I can't see myself regretting my decision not to have any children when I turn 60. I knew at a very young age I didn't want to be a mother and that feeling has remained throughout the years. I just turned 37 and I still feel that way--no biological clock ticking for me! I feel the same way. I have plenty of nieces and nephews, and I have the freedom that not having kids gives me. I'm not knocking kids (never do). I'm sure kids are fine, especially once they get older, but I dunno - I'm not so sure it's worth going through
what I see many parents go through.

Everyone has a different perspective. I am the mother of a 3yo and a 7 week
old. It does not feel like "going through" to me. This is my life and I love
it. So far, each stage of my son's (the elder) has been better, more
rewarding and more fun than the last. So I am thinking that I will still
love it when they are older. But they sure are sweet when they are little
too.
Just my observation: for every happy family I know, I would guess I know three not-so-happy ones. Where the parents just plod from day to day, working jobs they'd rather not work but can't afford to quit, having no
time or energy for fun with each other, doing the "daycare shuffle", never
doing "adult" things, worrying about credit card bills and which parent has
enough sick days left to miss work in a snowstorm when schools are closed...Ugh. Not the life for me.


I do not think that is strictly the life of a parent. Many people are
miserable because they cannot figure out that they are responsible for their
own happiness, whether by chosing to do something else with their life, or
just chosing to be happy. I certainly agree with you that a person who
cannot be happy having kids should not have them. I hope that the days are
gone when a person was considered weird or abnormal if they did not have
kids. But plodding day to day is NOT the lot of a parent, specifically.
Anyone too clueless to be otherwise can blame themselves.



S

P.S. I am back as much as my 7 week old will let me. Hi.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:HZssb.182256$Fm2.165171@attbi_s04... "Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> writes: But there is no guarantee that the children a person has will be there
for them when they get old. My mother works in a nursing home and has for
quite sometime and she's seen so many people there spend day after day all
alone, their kids and/or grandkids never spending time with them. Life has no guarantees. Plus I feel having children just so that you have someone to take care of you in
your old age is not a good reason to have children. That's true. It is a bad reason. A good reason is that it is a joy to share their lives when they are young, and there is _some_ chance that the joy gets to continue as everyone gets older.

I believe that if you savor this joy, you will pass it to your children. And
you increase your likelihood, without even trying, of your children being
there for you.

S

In article <botpg4$1ia7ra$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Chrys wrote: case) maybe it would be worth the sacrifice. But I'd still be left sitting there regretting the costs of what I'd given up. That doesn't seem like a good plan to me and certainly it seems far better to stay in a happy marriage and not have children that I don't even want to start with.

you can always have enough money to take care of yourself. You do not
need your children to be rich. But having company of younger people is
wonderful.

i

"Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message
news:w%tsb.694$Re.628273@newshog.newsread.com... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:k4jsb.75800$ri.13394354@twister.nyc.rr.com... "Kim/Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:ikd3rvc41krla8dciku808vu4vjirm9q3n@4ax.com... Interesting article...but I can't see myself regretting my decision not to have any children when I turn 60. I knew at a very young age I didn't want to be a mother and that feeling has remained throughout the years. I just turned 37 and I still feel that way--no biological clock ticking for me! I feel the same way. I have plenty of nieces and nephews, and I have the freedom that not having kids gives me. I'm not knocking kids (never do). I'm sure kids are fine, especially
once they get older, but I dunno - I'm not so sure it's worth going through what I see many parents go through. Everyone has a different perspective. I am the mother of a 3yo and a 7
week old. It does not feel like "going through" to me. This is my life and I
love it. So far, each stage of my son's (the elder) has been better, more rewarding and more fun than the last. So I am thinking that I will still love it when they are older. But they sure are sweet when they are little too. Just my observation: for every happy family I know, I would guess I know three not-so-happy ones. Where the parents just plod from day to day, working jobs they'd rather not work but can't afford to quit, having no time or energy for fun with each other, doing the "daycare shuffle", never doing "adult" things, worrying about credit card bills and which parent has enough sick days left to miss work in a snowstorm when schools are
closed...Ugh. Not the life for me. I do not think that is strictly the life of a parent. Many people are miserable because they cannot figure out that they are responsible for
their own happiness, whether by chosing to do something else with their life, or just chosing to be happy. I certainly agree with you that a person who cannot be happy having kids should not have them. I hope that the days are gone when a person was considered weird or abnormal if they did not have kids. But plodding day to day is NOT the lot of a parent, specifically. Anyone too clueless to be otherwise can blame themselves.

I agree. I know I am responsible for my lot in life, and I alone have the
power to change it. I control my own happiness. I would think that if I
*did* have a kid, I would not end up like those parents I mention (that plod
along). But I see so many of my friends just having a not-so-fun life like I
mention, and they *all* have kids. In fact, the kids are prettymuch the
reason why they *can't* make big changes (like career / where they live /
etc). At least on the surface, I seem to have a better life than they do. I
could not imagine not having the freedom I have.

Will I feel differently later? I won't know until then. I do have to say I
enjoy my nieces and nephews very much (ages 2-8). But I enjoy going home
with just my wife too :)

In article <igusb.81346$ri.13631104@twister.nyc.rr.com>, JWB wrote: I agree. I know I am responsible for my lot in life, and I alone have the power to change it. I control my own happiness. I would think that if I *did* have a kid, I would not end up like those parents I mention (that plod along). But I see so many of my friends just having a not-so-fun life like I mention, and they *all* have kids. In fact, the kids are prettymuch the reason why they *can't* make big changes (like career / where they live / etc). At least on the surface, I seem to have a better life than they do. I could not imagine not having the freedom I have.

To me, I think, the key is not to have too many kids.

If I had more than one kid, I would likely be miserable. I just cannot
imagine the logistics of caring for more than one child. What if one
starts walking in one direction and another, in another direction? How
do you catch them? Or what if one needs to sleep but another
interferes. etc etc.

For some people one is too many, for me, I think, two is too many. I
would not want to be burdened by too many children for the sake of
reproduction,

We are not as dis-similar as you might think.

i

"Ignoramus32131" <ignoramus32131@NOSPAM.32131.invalid> wrote in message
news:botrqo$nu5$1@pita.alt.net...
We are not as dis-similar as you might think.

actually, I find I usually agree with you more than anyone in this group.
I'd even be happy to have you as a neighbor :) You are logical and
calculating. Much like me.

In article <Mvusb.81418$ri.13634500@twister.nyc.rr.com>, JWB wrote: "Ignoramus32131" <ignoramus32131@NOSPAM.32131.invalid> wrote in message We are not as dis-similar as you might think. actually, I find I usually agree with you more than anyone in this group. I'd even be happy to have you as a neighbor :) You are logical and calculating. Much like me.

We both are beautiful people! just kidding

If you were my neighbor, I would give you some fresh chicken eggs from
my hens.

i

Maybe you will find a nice Jamaican nurse to take care
of you during your nursing home stay.

"Chrys" <me13@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:botpg4$1ia7ra$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de... "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:d3ksb.7645$aT.1808@news-server.bigpond.net.au... "whisper" <noway@notnow.com> wrote in message news:CScsb.29107$E9.10971@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... Interesting article... it does make a person think Yes. Did you notice how the woman stopped herself from wallowing in self pity? She switched from focussing on what she didn't have to focussing on what she did have. A wise move, in my book. Amy That's applicable to everything in life though. There's always so many roads that were left untaken. I regret my entire first marriage. I regret not going to college sooner. So many things, and wallowing in self pity doesn't change the past. All a person can ever do at any given time is make what choice seems most logical and move on from there. Maybe when I'm old I will regret not having children, but then again to have them, I'd have to divorce my husband, find a new man who wanted children, be likely to have to go through fertility treatments, take a 50/50 chance that the marriage would not work and I'd be left a single mother, and perhaps if things worked out in such a way that my children became productive citizens who made lots of money and lovingly took care of me in my old age (although a look in any nurse home shows this is seldom the case) maybe it would be worth the sacrifice. But I'd still be left sitting there regretting the costs of what I'd given up. That doesn't seem like a good plan to me and certainly it seems far better to stay in a happy marriage and not have children that I don't even want to start with.

Ignoramus32131 wrote: In article <J3tsb.8415$nz.7441@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, Bill in Co. wrote: That's why it sucks that there are no over-the-counter meds you can get, so when you reach that point, and assuming you want to, you can comfortably 'check out'. The thought of having to end up in a nursing home, and spending your remaining time there, is about as depressing as you can get, at least to me. shotgun shells are sold over the counter.

Are shotgun shells a comfortable way to check out, Igor? i

In article <XDvsb.10553$6c3.2707@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink. net>, Bill in Co. wrote: Ignoramus32131 wrote: In article <J3tsb.8415$nz.7441@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, Bill in Co. wrote: That's why it sucks that there are no over-the-counter meds you can get, so when you reach that point, and assuming you want to, you can comfortably 'check out'. The thought of having to end up in a nursing home, and spending your remaining time there, is about as depressing as you can get, at least to me. shotgun shells are sold over the counter. Are shotgun shells a comfortable way to check out, Igor?

They are the most comfortable way to check out, yes. You feel no pain
at all. Poof, and you are gone.

i

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<k4jsb.75800$ri.13394354@twister.nyc.rr.com>... Just my observation: for every happy family I know, I would guess I know three not-so-happy ones. Where the parents just plod from day to day, working jobs they'd rather not work but can't afford to quit, having no time or energy for fun with each other, doing the "daycare shuffle", never doing "adult" things, worrying about credit card bills and which parent has enough sick days left to miss work in a snowstorm when schools are closed...Ugh. Not the life for me.


Well, you could be over-interpreting how they really feel. I'd bet if
you asked those not-so-happy types whether they'd give up their
children, very few would.

I have a friend who was determined never to have children. The only
children she liked were my kids -- she felt they were polite and
obedient and not unruly like other children.

Then lo and behold, she got accidentally pregnant at 36, and after
much thinking, decided to have the child. Just saw her recently and
her toddler is just the cutest, sweetest thing! And she just loves
being a mom -- everything about it! She gushes on and on: "why didn't
you tell me it would be so great??" Now she's thinking about having
another one.

You know, I always suspected she'd be great with older children, since
she is good at not talking down to kids and very patient. But I wasn't
so sure how she'd handle the whole baby thing. Turns out she is a
natural mother. I'm very impressed. I have never seen her happier and
I've known her forever!

jen

Ignoramus32131 wrote: In article <XDvsb.10553$6c3.2707@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink. net>, Bill in Co. wrote: Ignoramus32131 wrote: In article <J3tsb.8415$nz.7441@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, Bill in Co. wrote:> That's why it sucks that there are no over-the-counter meds you can get,
so> when you reach that point, and assuming you want to, you can comfortably> 'check out'. The thought of having to end up in a nursing home, and> spending your remaining time there, is about as depressing as you can get,> at least to me.> shotgun shells are sold over the counter. Are shotgun shells a comfortable way to check out, Igor? They are the most comfortable way to check out, yes. You feel no pain at all. Poof, and you are gone.

If our society was as "advanced" as it sometimes thinks it is, it would provide
those over the counter drugs, so people who are facing the "prospects" of
ending up in a nursing home would have a comfortable alternative. And you
saw what happened to Dr. Kevorkian.

Heck, our society would rather keep some people in a vegetative state "alive"
(note the quotes), SIMPLY because they can't deal with death. Yup, that's
some advanced "caring" there....

"Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<botf0h$1iqlrv$1@ID-75132.news.uni-berlin.de>... But there is no guarantee that the children a person has will be there for them when they get old. My mother works in a nursing home and has for quite sometime and she's seen so many people there spend day after day all alone, their kids and/or grandkids never spending time with them.

That's very true. On the other hand, my parents are still living at
home in spite of all their health problems because their kids and
grandkids make that possible. I know of many many parents that are
helped to the same degree. Some parents are able to avoid the nursing
home altogether.

I also know of childless senior citizens that are looked after by
nieces or nephews. Deciding not to have kids does not doom you to a
lonely old age but good relationships with people of younger
generations are extremely helpful IMHO to the happiness and wellbeing
of members of older generations (and vice versa).
Plus I feel having children just so that you have someone to take care of you in your old age is not a good reason to have children.
I don't think so either, but it is not lost on me how much joy my
parents experience having their kids and grandkids gathered around
them.

"Ignoramus32131" <ignoramus32131@NOSPAM.32131.invalid> wrote in message news:bote8o$q59$0@pita.alt.net... It is much better to be old with a bunch of children and grandchildren taking interest in you, than to be old alone.

"Ignoramus32131" <ignoramus32131@NOSPAM.32131.invalid> wrote in message
news:bou0vo$7mr$0@pita.alt.net... In article <XDvsb.10553$6c3.2707@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink. net>, Bill
in Co. wrote: Ignoramus32131 wrote: In article <J3tsb.8415$nz.7441@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, Bill
in Co. wrote:> That's why it sucks that there are no over-the-counter meds you can
get, so> when you reach that point, and assuming you want to, you can
comfortably> 'check out'. The thought of having to end up in a nursing home, and> spending your remaining time there, is about as depressing as you can
get,> at least to me.> shotgun shells are sold over the counter. Are shotgun shells a comfortable way to check out, Igor? They are the most comfortable way to check out, yes. You feel no pain at all. Poof, and you are gone. i

How could you be so sure that....

A. There is no pain.
B. You are gone.

What do you know of quantum physics?

It's always sad when people get caught up in a mindset that is trendy or
popular as the women's liberation movement was in the 1970s. It was
attractive to be a "career woman" rather than a wife and/or a mom, and
sadly, many a person whose heart wasn't really in it subscribed to a
philosophy that they later regretted. It seems that this article is written
by just such a person.

Clearly she is not happy with her decision, and for that I feel badly for
her.

On the other hand, there are many of us who have made the childfree choice
for a myriad of reasons that have nothing to do with being trendy or popular
or belonging to some group. For us, being childfree is a blissful and happy
choice that we will never regret.

In order to be fair, however, we need to look on both sides of the issue and
examine how many people are miserable having children because they were led
to believe that it was the right thing for them to do.

SD

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message
news:igusb.81346$ri.13631104@twister.nyc.rr.com... "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message news:w%tsb.694$Re.628273@newshog.newsread.com... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:k4jsb.75800$ri.13394354@twister.nyc.rr.com... "Kim/Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:ikd3rvc41krla8dciku808vu4vjirm9q3n@4ax.com... > Interesting article...but I can't see myself regretting my decision > not to have any children when I turn 60. I knew at a very young age
I > didn't want to be a mother and that feeling has remained throughout > the years. I just turned 37 and I still feel that way--no
biological > clock ticking for me! > I feel the same way. I have plenty of nieces and nephews, and I have
the freedom that not having kids gives me. I'm not knocking kids (never do). I'm sure kids are fine, especially once they get older, but I dunno - I'm not so sure it's worth going through what I see many parents go through. Everyone has a different perspective. I am the mother of a 3yo and a 7 week old. It does not feel like "going through" to me. This is my life and I love it. So far, each stage of my son's (the elder) has been better, more rewarding and more fun than the last. So I am thinking that I will still love it when they are older. But they sure are sweet when they are
little too. Just my observation: for every happy family I know, I would guess I
know three not-so-happy ones. Where the parents just plod from day to day, working jobs they'd rather not work but can't afford to quit, having
no time or energy for fun with each other, doing the "daycare shuffle", never doing "adult" things, worrying about credit card bills and which parent has enough sick days left to miss work in a snowstorm when schools are closed...Ugh. Not the life for me. I do not think that is strictly the life of a parent. Many people are miserable because they cannot figure out that they are responsible for their own happiness, whether by chosing to do something else with their life,
or just chosing to be happy. I certainly agree with you that a person who cannot be happy having kids should not have them. I hope that the days
are gone when a person was considered weird or abnormal if they did not have kids. But plodding day to day is NOT the lot of a parent, specifically. Anyone too clueless to be otherwise can blame themselves. I agree. I know I am responsible for my lot in life, and I alone have the power to change it. I control my own happiness. I would think that if I *did* have a kid, I would not end up like those parents I mention (that
plod along). But I see so many of my friends just having a not-so-fun life like
I mention, and they *all* have kids. In fact, the kids are prettymuch the reason why they *can't* make big changes (like career / where they live / etc).


This is horse-pucky IMO. Yes, parents are responsible for the well being of
their children. This is a major consideration, one that is hopefully not too
onerous. But people with children change jobs, go back to school, move...
all the time. Kids do not need Money and Reboks.
At least on the surface, I seem to have a better life than they do. I could not imagine not having the freedom I have. Will I feel differently later? I won't know until then. I do have to say I enjoy my nieces and nephews very much (ages 2-8). But I enjoy going home with just my wife too :)

I have a very good girlfriend who has NO interest in kids whatsoever. I
respect her for deciding not to have kids. It is better for her, and better
for the k,ids she did not have. Everyone has the right, nay the
responsibility, to have their own priorities. I am just lucky she feels like
you do about other people's kids. She loves mine! There are certainly
responsibilities in parenting that are inconsistent with other priorities.
There are lifestyles and lines of work for which I think it is actually
irresponsible to have kids.

Anyway, may you continue to find joy and satisfaction in your chosen way.
The only sad thing would be to regret. I will hope that that does not happen
to you. I see no more reason to see that it would happen to someone who
chose not to have kids than to someone who chose to, say fogoing a career.

S

"Ignoramus32131" <ignoramus32131@NOSPAM.32131.invalid> wrote in message
news:botrqo$nu5$1@pita.alt.net... In article <igusb.81346$ri.13631104@twister.nyc.rr.com>, JWB wrote: I agree. I know I am responsible for my lot in life, and I alone have
the power to change it. I control my own happiness. I would think that if I *did* have a kid, I would not end up like those parents I mention (that
plod along). But I see so many of my friends just having a not-so-fun life
like I mention, and they *all* have kids. In fact, the kids are prettymuch the reason why they *can't* make big changes (like career / where they live
/ etc). At least on the surface, I seem to have a better life than they
do. I could not imagine not having the freedom I have. To me, I think, the key is not to have too many kids. If I had more than one kid, I would likely be miserable. I just cannot imagine the logistics of caring for more than one child.


Ha. I am a new expert on more than one kid! I wish I had been able to have
the second kid FIRST! You definitely stress less about every wimper, etc.
Breastfeeding is a snap. OK, I know that does not happen to everyone. But
you can beleive it when you think to yourself "This too shall pass."

Anyway, I ramble since I think any number of kids or no kids at all can be
great for a family. I, personally, cannot imagine having only one kid. Who
would s/heplay with while I read? ;) I come from a family of 7, and I am
close with my sibs. I cannot imagine my children not having sibs.
What if one starts walking in one direction and another, in another direction? How do you catch them? Or what if one needs to sleep but another interferes. etc etc.


This stuff seems to work out on its own. I had no idea how I would handle
ANYTHING with my first. The firt time I went out with my little baby I
thought WHAT WILL I DO IF HE GETS HUNGRY???!!!!??? You see, I could not
nurse him without getting half undressed. I wound up showing plenty of
flesh. It worked itself out. Now, I cannot even remember what I did for it
to work out except put my foot out the door.
For some people one is too many, for me, I think, two is too many. I would not want to be burdened by too many children for the sake of reproduction, We are not as dis-similar as you might think. i

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:10:39 -0800,
Chrys <me13@privacy.net> wrote: "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:d3ksb.7645$aT.1808@news-server.bigpond.net.au... "whisper" <noway@notnow.com> wrote in message news:CScsb.29107$E9.10971@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... Interesting article... it does make a person think Yes. Did you notice how the woman stopped herself from wallowing in self pity? She switched from focussing on what she didn't have to focussing on what she did have. A wise move, in my book. Amy That's applicable to everything in life though. There's always so many roads that were left untaken. I regret my entire first marriage. I regret not going to college sooner. So many things, and wallowing in self pity doesn't change the past. All a person can ever do at any given time is make what choice seems most logical and move on from there. Maybe when I'm old I will regret not having children, but then again to have them, I'd have to divorce my husband, find a new man who wanted children, be likely to have to go through fertility treatments, take a 50/50 chance that the marriage would not work and I'd be left a single mother, and perhaps if things worked out in such a way that my children became productive citizens who made lots of money and lovingly took care of me in my old age (although a look in any nurse home shows this is seldom the case) maybe it would be worth the sacrifice. But I'd still be left sitting there regretting the costs of what I'd given up. That doesn't seem like a good plan to me and certainly it seems far better to stay in a happy marriage and not have children that I don't even want to start with.

There's always adoption.

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:F3vsb.28677$y95.9155@nwrdny01.gnilink.net... Maybe you will find a nice Jamaican nurse to take care of you during your nursing home stay.

Maybe she'll even know how to cook jerked chicken. YUM!

SD

Ignoramus32131 <ignoramus32131@nospam.32131.invalid> wrote: In article <65wsb.8539$nz.7718@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, Bill in Co. wrote: So what? Want to stop selling Chlorox too? Don't be stupid. chlorox is not an effective poison.

Tylenol is. Quite painful, but it produces fatal liver damage quite
effectively in moderately large doses.
I didn't say that. I said *that choice* should be there, should be made available, just as I stated (if you can comprehend it). Deal with it. It is already available.

Running a cheap car into a piling is also quite effective.

"Ignoramus32131" <ignoramus32131@NOSPAM.32131.invalid> wrote in message
news:botshd$rrd$0@pita.alt.net... In article <Mvusb.81418$ri.13634500@twister.nyc.rr.com>, JWB wrote: "Ignoramus32131" <ignoramus32131@NOSPAM.32131.invalid> wrote in message We are not as dis-similar as you might think. actually, I find I usually agree with you more than anyone in this
group. I'd even be happy to have you as a neighbor :) You are logical and calculating. Much like me. We both are beautiful people! just kidding If you were my neighbor, I would give you some fresh chicken eggs from my hens.

and every now and again, I'd mow your lawn :)

Shashay Doofray wrote: "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:F3vsb.28677$y95.9155@nwrdny01.gnilink.net.. Maybe you will find a nice Jamaican nurse to take care of you during your nursing home stay. Maybe she'll even know how to cook jerked chicken. YUM!

Maybe she'll be totally HOTT. Lotsa Jamaican women are.

- YOUKNOWWHO!

"Shashay Doofray" <Shashay@email.com> wrote in message
news:bou46r$1ifdtr$1@ID-177524.news.uni-berlin.de...
In order to be fair, however, we need to look on both sides of the issue
and examine how many people are miserable having children because they were
led to believe that it was the right thing for them to do.

I think this will always be a silent faction. Because it's just not popular
or "right" to say you just don't want your kids. Oh sure, a few do (and give
them up for adoption or whatnot), but I wonder how many people just think
life means "grow up / get married / have kids". I know many people with kids
who now seem miserable (for a variety of reasons at least indirectly related
to the kids) who never even gave being CF a passing thought.

"Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message
news:2owsb.700$Ob3.730158@monger.newsread.com...
This is horse-pucky IMO. Yes, parents are responsible for the well being
of their children. This is a major consideration, one that is hopefully not
too onerous. But people with children change jobs, go back to school, move... all the time. Kids do not need Money and Reboks.

I didn't imply that none of them move / change jobs, etc. There's no stats
for this, but I can speculate: I feel a high percentage of parents feel like
they are trapped in their lives. CNN just had an article yesterday -
according to their survey, 80% of people would change jobs if they could.
Even if it's somewhat innacurate (CNN isn't the gospel of what is), that's
still a staggering number.

Now, why "couldn't" someone feel they could change jobs? Probably has more
to do with kids than any other excuse (at least if you ask them)

Granted, it IS all up to the individual and their drive, too. But I think
kids are the excuse that keeps many of these parents punching that timeclock
while grumbling about it.

At least on the surface, I seem to have a better life than they do. I could not imagine not having the freedom I have. Will I feel differently later? I won't know until then. I do have to say
I enjoy my nieces and nephews very much (ages 2-8). But I enjoy going home with just my wife too :) I have a very good girlfriend who has NO interest in kids whatsoever. I respect her for deciding not to have kids. It is better for her, and
better for the k,ids she did not have. Everyone has the right, nay the responsibility, to have their own priorities. I am just lucky she feels
like you do about other people's kids. She loves mine! There are certainly responsibilities in parenting that are inconsistent with other priorities. There are lifestyles and lines of work for which I think it is actually irresponsible to have kids. Anyway, may you continue to find joy and satisfaction in your chosen way. The only sad thing would be to regret. I will hope that that does not
happen to you. I see no more reason to see that it would happen to someone who chose not to have kids than to someone who chose to, say fogoing a career.

And may you continue to find joy in parenting :)

I'm pretty sure I will have no regrets, partly because I seemingly enjoy my
life SO much more than my parented friends.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:38:42 GMT, Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com>
wrote:
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:31:24 GMT, WWKD <jdk00@yahoo.com> wrote: On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:26:03 GMT, Kim/Dreamspinner3<dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> wrote:Interesting article...but I can't see myself regretting my decisionnot to have any children when I turn 60. I knew at a very young age Ididn't want to be a mother and that feeling has remained throughoutthe years. I just turned 37 and I still feel that way--no biologicalclock ticking for me! I know EXACTLY how you feel!That's good. Some of us should not reproduce.-Tony

Unfortunately, WAY too many do.

Marcus Ulpius Traianus wrote: Ignoramus32131 <ignoramus32131@nospam.32131.invalid> wrote: In article <65wsb.8539$nz.7718@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, Bill in Co. wrote: So what? Want to stop selling Chlorox too? Don't be stupid. chlorox is not an effective poison. Tylenol is. Quite painful, but it produces fatal liver damage quite effectively in moderately large doses. I didn't say that. I said *that choice* should be there, should be made available, just as I stated (if you can comprehend it). Deal with it. It is already available. Running a cheap car into a piling is also quite effective.

Hey yeah! Now there's a really peaceful way to go! (I can see them lining
up right now for that one).

Ignoramus32131 <ignoramus32131@NOSPAM.32131.invalid> writes:
In article <J3tsb.8415$nz.7441@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, Bill in Co. wrote: That's why it sucks that there are no over-the-counter meds you can get, so when you reach that point, and assuming you want to, you can comfortably 'check out'. The thought of having to end up in a nursing home, and spending your remaining time there, is about as depressing as you can get, at least to me. shotgun shells are sold over the counter.

How many do you have to swallow if you want to do yourself in?

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes:
"Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message news:2owsb.700$Ob3.730158@monger.newsread.com... This is horse-pucky IMO. Yes, parents are responsible for the well being of their children. This is a major consideration, one that is hopefully not too onerous. But people with children change jobs, go back to school, move... all the time. Kids do not need Money and Reboks. I didn't imply that none of them move / change jobs, etc. There's no stats for this, but I can speculate: I feel a high percentage of parents feel like they are trapped in their lives.

You can speculate all you want. A low percentage of the parens _I_
know feel trapped in their lives.
CNN just had an article yesterday - according to their survey, 80% of people would change jobs if they could.

But this doesn't apply only to parents. This is a general problem
that people (parents and non) have; not realizing that only they can
control their lives.
Even if it's somewhat innacurate (CNN isn't the gospel of what is), that's still a staggering number. Now, why "couldn't" someone feel they could change jobs? Probably has more to do with kids than any other excuse (at least if you ask them)

Nah. People think they can't change jobs because they feel like they
have no control over their lives. This has nothing to do with whether
they have kids. People who feel out of control still feel that way
after they have kids. People who feel they _can_ affect their lives
still feel _that_ way after they ahve kids.
Granted, it IS all up to the individual and their drive, too. But I think kids are the excuse that keeps many of these parents punching that timeclock while grumbling about it.

Oh, sure. Lots of people use their kids as _excuses_. But those
people would have other excuses if they didn't have kids.

Doug Anderson wrote: Ignoramus32131 <ignoramus32131@NOSPAM.32131.invalid> writes: In article <J3tsb.8415$nz.7441@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, Bill in Co. wrote: That's why it sucks that there are no over-the-counter meds you can get, so when you reach that point, and assuming you want to, you can comfortably 'check out'. The thought of having to end up in a nursing home, and spending your remaining time there, is about as depressing as you can get, at least to me. shotgun shells are sold over the counter. How many do you have to swallow if you want to do yourself in?

No, no, you missed it. Igor is really into guns, in fact, I even think he
said something about teaching his son all about them in a couple of years (or
so), if my memory serves me right.

Wait a minute - his son won't even be in kindergarten then. Igor, it's too
damn soon.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aYEsb.186606$Tr4.536017@attbi_s03... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in
message news:2owsb.700$Ob3.730158@monger.newsread.com... This is horse-pucky IMO. Yes, parents are responsible for the well
being of their children. This is a major consideration, one that is hopefully
not too onerous. But people with children change jobs, go back to school,
move... all the time. Kids do not need Money and Reboks. I didn't imply that none of them move / change jobs, etc. There's no
stats for this, but I can speculate: I feel a high percentage of parents feel
like they are trapped in their lives. You can speculate all you want. A low percentage of the parens _I_ know feel trapped in their lives.


*shrug* ok

CNN just had an article yesterday - according to their survey, 80% of people would change jobs if they
could. But this doesn't apply only to parents. This is a general problem that people (parents and non) have; not realizing that only they can control their lives.


This is true, but how many workers do you think are parents? More than are
not parents? I would guess that is true. So you can make a correlation.


Even if it's somewhat innacurate (CNN isn't the gospel of what is),
that's still a staggering number. Now, why "couldn't" someone feel they could change jobs? Probably has
more to do with kids than any other excuse (at least if you ask them) Nah. People think they can't change jobs because they feel like they have no control over their lives. This has nothing to do with whether they have kids. People who feel out of control still feel that way after they have kids. People who feel they _can_ affect their lives still feel _that_ way after they ahve kids.

I agree to a point. I think most people in general are spineless sheep who
would eat **** for their paycheck if the boss demanded it. But as far as
adults go, parents outnumber non-parents by quite a bit, so when you talk
about "people" in a general sense, you are largly talking about "parents".

Granted, it IS all up to the individual and their drive, too. But I
think kids are the excuse that keeps many of these parents punching that
timeclock while grumbling about it. Oh, sure. Lots of people use their kids as _excuses_. But those people would have other excuses if they didn't have kids.


Maybe. Maybe not. One will never know.

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aYEsb.186606$Tr4.536017@attbi_s03... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message news:2owsb.700$Ob3.730158@monger.newsread.com... > This is horse-pucky IMO. Yes, parents are responsible for the well being of > their children. This is a major consideration, one that is hopefully not too > onerous. But people with children change jobs, go back to school, move... > all the time. Kids do not need Money and Reboks. I didn't imply that none of them move / change jobs, etc. There's no stats for this, but I can speculate: I feel a high percentage of parents feel like they are trapped in their lives. You can speculate all you want. A low percentage of the parens _I_ know feel trapped in their lives. *shrug* ok CNN just had an article yesterday - according to their survey, 80% of people would change jobs if they could. But this doesn't apply only to parents. This is a general problem that people (parents and non) have; not realizing that only they can control their lives. This is true, but how many workers do you think are parents? More than are not parents? I would guess that is true. So you can make a correlation.

That isn't a correlation. The only correlation would be if a higher
_percentage_ of parents were like this. Surely you realize this?

"Chrys" <me13@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:botpg4$1ia7ra$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de... "Amy Lou" <amylouisa@bigpond.com> wrote in message news:d3ksb.7645$aT.1808@news-server.bigpond.net.au... "whisper" <noway@notnow.com> wrote in message news:CScsb.29107$E9.10971@nwrddc01.gnilink.net... Interesting article... it does make a person think Yes. Did you notice how the woman stopped herself from wallowing in self pity? She switched from focussing on what she didn't have to focussing on what she did have. A wise move, in my book. Amy That's applicable to everything in life though. There's always so many roads that were left untaken. I regret my entire first marriage. I regret not going to college sooner. So many things, and wallowing in self pity doesn't change the past. All a person can ever do at any given time is make what choice seems most logical and move on from there. Maybe when I'm old I will regret not having children, but then again to have them,

<snip long list of hurdles you'd have to jump to have children, children
that you don't want to have anyway>

You sound like you could benefit from a course on Positive Thinking. The
only reason you regret things is because you focus on the negative side.

So you're not going to have kids. Great. Think about all the positives to
that decision, not the negatives.

Amy

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message
news:DCAsb.83488$ri.13761909@twister.nyc.rr.com... "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message news:2owsb.700$Ob3.730158@monger.newsread.com... This is horse-pucky IMO. Yes, parents are responsible for the well being of their children. This is a major consideration, one that is hopefully not too onerous. But people with children change jobs, go back to school,
move... all the time. Kids do not need Money and Reboks. I didn't imply that none of them move / change jobs, etc. There's no stats for this, but I can speculate: I feel a high percentage of parents feel
like they are trapped in their lives. CNN just had an article yesterday - according to their survey, 80% of people would change jobs if they could. Even if it's somewhat innacurate (CNN isn't the gospel of what is), that's still a staggering number.

Phooey on them. :)
Now, why "couldn't" someone feel they could change jobs? Probably has more to do with kids than any other excuse (at least if you ask them)

My opinion is that you used the correct word here and that is "excuse."
Granted, it IS all up to the individual and their drive, too. But I think kids are the excuse that keeps many of these parents punching that
timeclock while grumbling about it.

I won't disagree with that. I wonder if they did not have kids if they would
find some other excuse to be miserable grumps.
At least on the surface, I seem to have a better life than they do. I could not imagine not having the freedom I have. Will I feel differently later? I won't know until then. I do have to
say I enjoy my nieces and nephews very much (ages 2-8). But I enjoy going
home with just my wife too :) I have a very good girlfriend who has NO interest in kids whatsoever. I respect her for deciding not to have kids. It is better for her, and better for the k,ids she did not have. Everyone has the right, nay the responsibility, to have their own priorities. I am just lucky she feels like you do about other people's kids. She loves mine! There are certainly responsibilities in parenting that are inconsistent with other
priorities. There are lifestyles and lines of work for which I think it is actually irresponsible to have kids. Anyway, may you continue to find joy and satisfaction in your chosen
way. The only sad thing would be to regret. I will hope that that does not happen to you. I see no more reason to see that it would happen to someone who chose not to have kids than to someone who chose to, say fogoing a
career. And may you continue to find joy in parenting :)

Maybe tomorrow. Today I just feel sick. :)
I'm pretty sure I will have no regrets, partly because I seemingly enjoy
my life SO much more than my parented friends.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gUEsb.185210$HS4.1575652@attbi_s01... Ignoramus32131 <ignoramus32131@NOSPAM.32131.invalid> writes: In article <J3tsb.8415$nz.7441@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.ne t>, Bill
in Co. wrote: That's why it sucks that there are no over-the-counter meds you can
get, so when you reach that point, and assuming you want to, you can
comfortably 'check out'. The thought of having to end up in a nursing home, and
spending your remaining time there, is about as depressing as you can get, at least
to me. shotgun shells are sold over the counter. How many do you have to swallow if you want to do yourself in?

That cracked me up. Thanks

S

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Vs9sb.13599$hB5.13509@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... http://www.aarpmagazine.org/people/Articles/a2003-07-08-babyblues.html

In order to get a fair and balanced perspective, equal time should be given
to the millions of parents who, in hindsight, wish they had drowned their
children before their eyes were open.

--VA

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:32:26 -0500,
Vulgar Argot <VulgarArgotREMOVEALL@CAPSinsidejoke.tv> wrote: "urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:Vs9sb.13599$hB5.13509@nwrdny02.gnilink.net... http://www.aarpmagazine.org/people/Articles/a2003-07-08-babyblues.html In order to get a fair and balanced perspective, equal time should be given to the millions of parents who, in hindsight, wish they had drowned their children before their eyes were open.

Like your parents?

-Tony

--
"If the grass appears to be greener on the other side of the fence, it's time
to fertilize your lawn!"
Want to jump start your marriage? Consider a Marriage Encounter weekend.
Check out http://www.wwme.org for more information.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:32:26 -0500, "Vulgar Argot"
<VulgarArgotREMOVEALL@CAPSinsidejoke.tv> wrote:
"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in messagenews:Vs9sb.13599$hB5.13509@nwrdny02.gnilink .net... http://www.aarpmagazine.org/people/Articles/a2003-07-08-babyblues.htmlIn order to get a fair and balanced perspective, equal time should be givento the millions of parents who, in hindsight, wish they had drowned theirchildren before their eyes were open.--VA

LSHIBSAOTM!!!

(Laughing So Hard I Blew Snot All Over The Monitor)

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pmFsb.189193$e01.702151@attbi_s02... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:aYEsb.186606$Tr4.536017@attbi_s03... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: > "Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message > news:2owsb.700$Ob3.730158@monger.newsread.com... > > > This is horse-pucky IMO. Yes, parents are responsible for the well being > of > > their children. This is a major consideration, one that is
hopefully not > too > > onerous. But people with children change jobs, go back to school, move... > > all the time. Kids do not need Money and Reboks. > > I didn't imply that none of them move / change jobs, etc. There's no stats > for this, but I can speculate: I feel a high percentage of parents
feel like > they are trapped in their lives. You can speculate all you want. A low percentage of the parens _I_ know feel trapped in their lives. *shrug* ok > CNN just had an article yesterday - > according to their survey, 80% of people would change jobs if they could. But this doesn't apply only to parents. This is a general problem that people (parents and non) have; not realizing that only they can control their lives. This is true, but how many workers do you think are parents? More than
are not parents? I would guess that is true. So you can make a correlation. That isn't a correlation. The only correlation would be if a higher _percentage_ of parents were like this. Surely you realize this?

ahhhh... I see what you're saying. My bad.

So, are you saying that having kids has zero effect on your career choices?

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes:
ahhhh... I see what you're saying. My bad. So, are you saying that having kids has zero effect on your career choices?

I think it is like every other decision you make that increases your
responsibility. It means you have to take more things into account
when making changes.

But people who make excuses are people who make excuses; kids or no.

Doug Anderson wrote: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: ahhhh... I see what you're saying. My bad. So, are you saying that having kids has zero effect on your career choices? I think it is like every other decision you make that increases your responsibility. It means you have to take more things into account when making changes. But people who make excuses are people who make excuses; kids or no.

And I think this is (yet) another one of those "getting stuck in the tree"
things. (Losing track of the forest, so to speak).

Modes of communication again, I guess (the thing we were talking about before).

"Most fascinating" ....said Spock.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9kOsb.140519$275.425231@attbi_s53... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: ahhhh... I see what you're saying. My bad. So, are you saying that having kids has zero effect on your career
choices? I think it is like every other decision you make that increases your responsibility. It means you have to take more things into account when making changes.

But that's what I've been saying....

Ignoramus32131 wrote: In article <k4jsb.75800$ri.13394354@twister.nyc.rr.com>, JWB wrote:"Kim/Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> wrote in messagenews:ikd3rvc41krla8dciku808vu4vjirm9q3n@4ax .com...Interesting article...but I can't see myself regretting my decisionnot to have any children when I turn 60. I knew at a very young age Ididn't want to be a mother and that feeling has remained throughoutthe years. I just turned 37 and I still feel that way--no biologicalclock ticking for me!I feel the same way. I have plenty of nieces and nephews, and I have thefreedom that not having kids gives me.I'm not knocking kids (never do). I'm sure kids are fine, especially oncethey get older, but I dunno - I'm not so sure it's worth going through whatI see many parents go through.Just my observation: for every happy family I know, I would guess I knowthree not-so-happy ones. Where the parents just plod from day to day,working jobs they'd rather not work but can't afford to quit, having no timeor energy for fun with each other, doing the "daycare shuffle", never doing"adult" things, worrying about credit card bills and which parent has enoughsick days left to miss work in a snowstorm when schools are closed...Ugh.Not the life for me. On the other hand, I have a smart and faithful friend at home, who is very happy to see me every day, and who agrees to play with me on any day as well. I can talk to him and discuss various stuff etc.

So do I :) My husband.

Cari


--
email:
cari_p at comcast dot net

Ignoramus32131 wrote: In article <botpg4$1ia7ra$1@ID-198599.news.uni-berlin.de>, Chrys wrote:case) maybe it would be worth the sacrifice. But I'd still be leftsitting there regretting the costs of what I'd given up. That doesn'tseem like a good plan to me and certainly it seems far better to stay in ahappy marriage and not have children that I don't even want to start with. you can always have enough money to take care of yourself. You do not need your children to be rich. But having company of younger people is wonderful. i

I agree :) Especially younger people I can give back at the end of the
day :)

--
email:
cari_p at comcast dot net

JWB <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote:
"Kim/Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:ikd3rvc41krla8dciku808vu4vjirm9q3n@4ax.com... Interesting article...but I can't see myself regretting my decision not to have any children when I turn 60. I knew at a very young age I didn't want to be a mother and that feeling has remained throughout the years. I just turned 37 and I still feel that way--no biological clock ticking for me! I feel the same way. I have plenty of nieces and nephews, and I have the freedom that not having kids gives me. I'm not knocking kids (never do). I'm sure kids are fine, especially once they get older, but I dunno - I'm not so sure it's worth going through what I see many parents go through.

I'm guessing that happiness is more about a capacity to be happy then it
is about a particular lifestyle (extremes excepted, of course). From
knowing you here, I believe you would be happy with children, because
you'd figure out a way to be happy with children. And I think I'd be
happy without children, too. Of course, I take antidepressants, so that
changes things in a way, but IMO, not really. I take them because I
won't settle for not being happy. I want it too much.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:14:04 GMT, Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com>
wrote:
On 12 Nov 2003 13:57:44 GMT, Ignoramus32131 <ignoramus32131@NOSPAM.32131.invalid> wrote: It is much better to be old with a bunch of children and grandchildren taking interest in you, than to be old alone. Children are a pain, but they also are the most faithful friends for life.Tell that to Mr. and Mrs. Menendez ;)

And Mr. and Mrs. Kinkel.

We had a case around her in the 90's, though no names were published
to protect the minor.

Tara

Neither of those parents.. were the best parents either..


Kass


"Tara D" <manderly@eol.ca> wrote in message
news:7868rv0h8fcgkum2o08ttnsv5g890ng240@4ax.com... On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:14:04 GMT, Tony Miller <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote:On 12 Nov 2003 13:57:44 GMT, Ignoramus32131 <ignoramus32131@NOSPAM.32131.invalid> wrote: It is much better to be old with a bunch of children and grandchildren taking interest in you, than to be old alone. Children are a pain, but they also are the most faithful friends for life.Tell that to Mr. and Mrs. Menendez ;) And Mr. and Mrs. Kinkel. We had a case around her in the 90's, though no names were published to protect the minor. Tara

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:9kOsb.140519$275.425231@attbi_s53... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: ahhhh... I see what you're saying. My bad. So, are you saying that having kids has zero effect on your career choices? I think it is like every other decision you make that increases your responsibility. It means you have to take more things into account when making changes. But that's what I've been saying....

OK. You actually wrote "A high percentage of parents feel trapped."
So I thought you were implying more parents feel trapped than
non-parents.

If you meant simply "a high percentage of people feel trapped" then
why pick out parents?

On 12 Nov 2003 13:57:44 GMT, Ignoramus32131
<ignoramus32131@NOSPAM.32131.invalid> wrote:
It is much better to be old with a bunch of children and grandchildrentaking interest in you, than to be old alone.

No one person can possibly know that.

Yer only guessing...about one or the other.


Have a nice week...

Gus

Certified breast self-exam subcontractor.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:12:23 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Dreamspinner3" <dreamspinner3@hotpop.com> writes: But there is no guarantee that the children a person has will be there for them when they get old. My mother works in a nursing home and has for quite sometime and she's seen so many people there spend day after day all alone, their kids and/or grandkids never spending time with them.Life has no guarantees. Plus I feel having children just so that you have someone to take care of you in your old age is not a good reason to have children.That's true. It is a bad reason. A good reason is that it is a joyto share their lives when they are young, and there is _some_ chancethat the joy gets to continue as everyone gets older.

Another good reason is spare, compatible body parts! lol


Have a nice week...

Gus

Certified breast self-exam subcontractor.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:40:30 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com>
wrote:
I do not think that is strictly the life of a parent. Many people are miserable because they cannot figure out that they are responsible fortheir own happiness, whether by chosing to do something else with their life, or just chosing to be happy. I certainly agree with you that a person who cannot be happy having kids should not have them. I hope that the days are gone when a person was considered weird or abnormal if they did not have kids. But plodding day to day is NOT the lot of a parent, specifically. Anyone too clueless to be otherwise can blame themselves.I agree. I know I am responsible for my lot in life, and I alone have thepower to change it. I control my own happiness. I would think that if I*did* have a kid, I would not end up like those parents I mention (that plodalong). But I see so many of my friends just having a not-so-fun life like Imention, and they *all* have kids. In fact, the kids are prettymuch thereason why they *can't* make big changes (like career / where they live /etc). At least on the surface, I seem to have a better life than they do. Icould not imagine not having the freedom I have.Will I feel differently later? I won't know until then. I do have to say Ienjoy my nieces and nephews very much (ages 2-8). But I enjoy going homewith just my wife too :)

You could have even MORE freedom if you didn't have a wife. But you
seem to be doing very well...and enjoy...being married.

Why do you think that folks with kids can't ALSO adapt?...if indeed
you want to call it adapting.

I think ANY aging scenario is just DIFFERENT...not necessarily any
EASIER. Single...married...divorced...widowed...they all have their
tribulations and ecstasies.


Have a nice week...

Gus

Certified breast self-exam subcontractor.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:qtVsb.192890$HS4.1617420@attbi_s01... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:9kOsb.140519$275.425231@attbi_s53... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: > ahhhh... I see what you're saying. My bad. > > So, are you saying that having kids has zero effect on your career choices? I think it is like every other decision you make that increases your responsibility. It means you have to take more things into account when making changes. But that's what I've been saying.... OK. You actually wrote "A high percentage of parents feel trapped." So I thought you were implying more parents feel trapped than non-parents.

"trapped" = "take more things into account"

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:33Osb.82662> So, are you saying that having kids has zero effect on your career
choices?
Hmm, having kids may have made me take my career more seriously, and made me
think about setting a good example as far as working hard, getting an
education, being responsible - but they didn't have anything to do with what
line of work I chose to get into. I picked that on the basis of local
prospects and general interest.

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes:
"trapped" = "take more things into account"

OK. Not my definition of trapped.

To me "trapped" = "stuck in a situation you don't like with no way out."

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cDWsb.195333$Tr4.550895@attbi_s03... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "trapped" = "take more things into account" OK. Not my definition of trapped. To me "trapped" = "stuck in a situation you don't like with no way out."

Or at least with no palatable ways out. I do agree - taking things into
account does not equal trapped, in my book. It just means you are thinking
through the ramifications of your decisions.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cDWsb.195333$Tr4.550895@attbi_s03... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "trapped" = "take more things into account" OK. Not my definition of trapped. To me "trapped" = "stuck in a situation you don't like with no way out."

But that's the jist of what I was getting at. That all other things being
equal, having kids makes it more likely that you would stay in a job you
didn't like.

For example, I have a good friend who's an auto mechanic. His wife is a 30k
corporate worker (marketing or the like). They have a home and 2 young
children. He *hates* being an auto mechanic. He thought it would be a good
career - he thought wrong. Going to work everyday sucks. But, he makes 50k,
and has zero education besides his auto mechanic cert. The way he sees it,
he has absolutely no way out, period, until the kids get older.

Now, he could go to school at night (he's thinking about it... but currently
is working 6 days a week and doesn't want to put in the time)... he could
buy lots of lottery tickets (he doesn't gamble) ... he could open his own
shop... (he won't, because the risks are too high). I realize when you get
right down to it, he's holding himself back more than the kids are. But he's
holding himself back *because* of the kids. If he didn't have kids, it would
be *easy* to just quit and go do something else. Or take a risk and open
your own shop. *That's* my point. You seem to completely ignore that kids DO
factor into decisions on whether to open a risky business, quit a job, start
a new career, etc etc.

Sometimes, it's not just the people, it IS the kids.

JWB

"Gus" <gusaufdenkinder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4l98rvcqvc72hb09sbl0tbeaircr3bliq6@4ax.com... On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 17:40:30 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote:
Icould not imagine not having the freedom I have.Will I feel differently later? I won't know until then. I do have to say
Ienjoy my nieces and nephews very much (ages 2-8). But I enjoy going homewith just my wife too :) You could have even MORE freedom if you didn't have a wife. But you seem to be doing very well...and enjoy...being married. Why do you think that folks with kids can't ALSO adapt?...if indeed you want to call it adapting.

Excellent point.
I think ANY aging scenario is just DIFFERENT...not necessarily any EASIER. Single...married...divorced...widowed...they all have their tribulations and ecstasies.

Of course. Among those tribulations and ecstasies we have to find a balance
to get any satisfaction in our lives. For some people satisfaction is
allusive.

My DH for eg has a personality where he wishes he had the opposite of what
he has. He has a nice home, nice kids, nice wife, yet he wishes he had the
personal possessions and life of a single man. When he was a single man he
had all those things he wants now yet he was lonely and actively searched
for a partner (me) willing to have a family with him. Its a cycle. Or is it
having your cake and eating it too? I say what's wrong with just being happy
with what you have? He says that people need to strive for more. I say why?
He says because otherwise people will never be happy. I say what a funny way
of viewing happiness!

Amy Have a nice week... Gus Certified breast self-exam subcontractor.

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cDWsb.195333$Tr4.550895@attbi_s03... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "trapped" = "take more things into account" OK. Not my definition of trapped. To me "trapped" = "stuck in a situation you don't like with no way out." But that's the jist of what I was getting at. That all other things being equal, having kids makes it more likely that you would stay in a job you didn't like.

OK then, I disagree. If you are the sort of person who believes you
can't control your life you are likely to stay in a job you hate (kids
or no kids). If you are the sort of person who believes you can
control your life, you are likely to find a way to get out of a job
you hate (kids or no kids). You just might do it a bit more
carefully.
For example, I have a good friend who's an auto mechanic. His wife is a 30k corporate worker (marketing or the like). They have a home and 2 young children. He *hates* being an auto mechanic. He thought it would be a good career - he thought wrong. Going to work everyday sucks. But, he makes 50k, and has zero education besides his auto mechanic cert. The way he sees it, he has absolutely no way out, period, until the kids get older.

But that is because this is the way "he sees it." It ain't because
that's the way it _is_. You know this. Unfortunately he doesn't.
Now, he could go to school at night (he's thinking about it... but currently is working 6 days a week and doesn't want to put in the time)... he could buy lots of lottery tickets (he doesn't gamble) ... he could open his own shop... (he won't, because the risks are too high). I realize when you get right down to it, he's holding himself back more than the kids are.

Yup.
But he's holding himself back *because* of the kids.

Nope. He's holding himself back because he is afraid of risk. Plenty
of families live in $30K. It isn't as easy as living on $80, but he
can switch careers if he wants to.
If he didn't have kids, it would be *easy* to just quit and go do something else. Or take a risk and open your own shop. *That's* my point. You seem to completely ignore that kids DO factor into decisions on whether to open a risky business, quit a job, start a new career, etc etc.

Sure they factor in. I'm not ignoring that; I've said it explicitly.
But if people feel "trapped" in a job and they blame their family,
they are fooling themselves. What "traps" them is fear of risk and
fear of the unknown.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RuYsb.141030$mZ5.977532@attbi_s54... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cDWsb.195333$Tr4.550895@attbi_s03... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: > "trapped" = "take more things into account" OK. Not my definition of trapped. To me "trapped" = "stuck in a situation you don't like with no way
out." But that's the jist of what I was getting at. That all other things
being equal, having kids makes it more likely that you would stay in a job you didn't like. OK then, I disagree. If you are the sort of person who believes you can't control your life you are likely to stay in a job you hate (kids or no kids). If you are the sort of person who believes you can control your life, you are likely to find a way to get out of a job you hate (kids or no kids). You just might do it a bit more carefully.

But that's my whole point. "Carefully" could possibly take *years*

Ok, let's get right down to it - would you agree that a childfree couple has
more flexibility regarding work / place to live / etc than a couple with 2
or three kids? On average? Forget who's controlling what and just answer the
question.

That's kinda my point in this whole thing. I think the childfree couple
does, all other things being equal. I don't say that like it's a bad thing,
or that one is better. One is certainly better for ME.

*snip*
But he's holding himself back *because* of the kids. Nope. He's holding himself back because he is afraid of risk. Plenty of families live in $30K. It isn't as easy as living on $80, but he can switch careers if he wants to.


actually, no. In his area, 30k for a family of 4 is pretty close to poverty.


If he didn't have kids, it would be *easy* to just quit and go do something else. Or take a risk and open your own shop. *That's* my point. You seem to completely ignore that
kids DO factor into decisions on whether to open a risky business, quit a job,
start a new career, etc etc. Sure they factor in. I'm not ignoring that; I've said it explicitly. But if people feel "trapped" in a job and they blame their family, they are fooling themselves. What "traps" them is fear of risk and fear of the unknown.

On that, we agree.

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message
news:_iZsb.169423$pT1.164812@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Ok, let's get right down to it - would you agree that a childfree couple
has more flexibility regarding work / place to live / etc than a couple with 2 or three kids? On average? Forget who's controlling what and just answer
the question.

Just to throw in an alternative point of view, for some people it is the
spouse who is more or less a millstone around their neck, whereas the kids
don't cause much difficulty. I'd say that your spouse has the potential to
limit your flexibility far more than your kids do.

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:RuYsb.141030$mZ5.977532@attbi_s54... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cDWsb.195333$Tr4.550895@attbi_s03... > "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: > > > "trapped" = "take more things into account" > > OK. Not my definition of trapped. > > To me "trapped" = "stuck in a situation you don't like with no way out." But that's the jist of what I was getting at. That all other things being equal, having kids makes it more likely that you would stay in a job you didn't like. OK then, I disagree. If you are the sort of person who believes you can't control your life you are likely to stay in a job you hate (kids or no kids). If you are the sort of person who believes you can control your life, you are likely to find a way to get out of a job you hate (kids or no kids). You just might do it a bit more carefully. But that's my whole point. "Carefully" could possibly take *years*

Well, that is a bit too carefully probably. But if you've intertwined
other people's lives with your own, you don't quit on the spur of the
moment without thinking about it.
Ok, let's get right down to it - would you agree that a childfree couple has more flexibility regarding work / place to live / etc than a couple with 2 or three kids? On average? Forget who's controlling what and just answer the question.

Sure. And an unmarried person has more flexibility than a married
one. And a renter has more flexibility than someone who owns their
own home. And a homeless person has more flexibility still.

The thing I don't see any reason to believe is that there are more
people with children who feel "trapped in their jobs."

I mean we choose our paths. Someone who likes the "on the road" life
probably thinks anyone with a lease is a wage slave. You seem to
think parents are wage slaves (more than non-parents). To me, this
isn't how it works. I like having security in where I live, so I'm
willing to trade a bit of spontaneity for that. I like having kids,
so I'm willing to trade a bit of spontaneity for that too.

But that doesn't make me trapped.
That's kinda my point in this whole thing. I think the childfree couple does, all other things being equal. I don't say that like it's a bad thing, or that one is better. One is certainly better for ME. *snip* But he's holding himself back *because* of the kids. Nope. He's holding himself back because he is afraid of risk. Plenty of families live in $30K. It isn't as easy as living on $80, but he can switch careers if he wants to. actually, no. In his area, 30k for a family of 4 is pretty close to poverty.

Sure. But I bet there are lots of families who are making a go of it
on $30K anyhow. I mean I realize it isn't necessarily easy to live on
that, but my wife and I lived in one of the most expensive metro-areas
in the US on about $15K a year a few years ago. And as a parent I
have to say that as much as people go on about how expensive kids are,
4 can live more cheaply that twice what a couple requires.
If he didn't have kids, it would be *easy* to just quit and go do something else. Or take a risk and open your own shop. *That's* my point. You seem to completely ignore that kids DO factor into decisions on whether to open a risky business, quit a job, start a new career, etc etc. Sure they factor in. I'm not ignoring that; I've said it explicitly. But if people feel "trapped" in a job and they blame their family, they are fooling themselves. What "traps" them is fear of risk and fear of the unknown. On that, we agree.

"Joy" <fairly_happy_doesn't_need_any_more_spam@withoutspa myahoo.com> wrote
in message news:jnZsb.2512$oo.2005@bignews4.bellsouth.net... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:_iZsb.169423$pT1.164812@twister.nyc.rr.com... Ok, let's get right down to it - would you agree that a childfree couple has more flexibility regarding work / place to live / etc than a couple with
2 or three kids? On average? Forget who's controlling what and just answer the question. Just to throw in an alternative point of view, for some people it is the spouse who is more or less a millstone around their neck, whereas the kids don't cause much difficulty. I'd say that your spouse has the potential
to limit your flexibility far more than your kids do.

This is true. But I still think if you took 1000 childfree couples, and 1000
couples with kids and asked them, I think the CF couples would report being
more flexible in work / place to live, etc.

I mean, think about it - what's one of the top selling / buying points of a
home?? School district. A big factor that can be very limiting. You can't
tell me that isn't a major point - every ad in a good school district touts
it. That can be very limiting to some.

Or if a CF couple are each making 30k, and one quits a job to try and sell
paintings, it's not the end of the world. 2 people can live on 30k almost
anywhere. But a family of 4? Maybe in some places, but certainly not all.
It's not a realistic option without major upheaval and/or planning.

Again - this isn't a bad thing. I think some people are taking this as an
attack on families and kids and trying to make it seem like families with
kids are just as flexible as families without.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xQZsb.141564$mZ5.984337@attbi_s54... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes:

Ok, let's get right down to it - would you agree that a childfree couple
has more flexibility regarding work / place to live / etc than a couple with
2 or three kids? On average? Forget who's controlling what and just answer
the question. Sure. And an unmarried person has more flexibility than a married one. And a renter has more flexibility than someone who owns their own home. And a homeless person has more flexibility still. The thing I don't see any reason to believe is that there are more people with children who feel "trapped in their jobs."


Ok, wrong choice of words then. How about "limited in their options"? Or
even throw the word "immediate" before "options"?

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:

I've come to this thread late and haven't read all the posts. So I am
not sure what points are already discussed, but here is mine:
Ok, let's get right down to it - would you agree that a childfree couple has more flexibility regarding work / place to live / etc than a couple with 2 or three kids? On average? Forget who's controlling what and just answer the question.

Yes, that is true. But so what? Is this thread about flexibility or
desirability of children? It all boils down to what you value. Being
single also affords a person more freedom and flexibility - and if
someone values that over everything else they may feel happier (and
should remain) single, that doesn't mean they don't miss out on
somethings. I wouldn't change my married life for all the freedom and
flexibility in the world!

Children sure require a lot of adjusting and adapting of one's life,
but that is not necessarily a negative thing for everyone (I do agree
that for some it is). I don't like having pets, and always think how
fortunate I am that I don't have to worry about what to do with the
dog when I suddenly decide to go away on some nice long weekend, like
my sister has to. Not to mention vet visits, costs, hair all over the
house etc. How free I am from all these nuisances and burdens! But my
sister tells me that I can never comprehend the pleasure that she gets
from her dogs. And she is right. As they say, anything worth having
comes at a price. The question is what one values most.

I was one of those who although enjoyed my kids baby and child stages,
did feel the loss of freedom and flexibility. Now that I am out of
that stage, nothing comes close to the pleasure of having them. And
when I look at the lives of my parents and in-laws, and the incredible
value that we and our kids add to their lives, I feel I want to have
that too when I am older. Yes, there is no guarantee for anything, and
we happen to be very lucky to have wonderful parents with whom we have
very close relationship.

For us, though we both have very full lives, great careers, and by no
means only focussed on our kids, life is much richer with them. The
price that we have paid in form of freedom or flexibility doesn't come
close to what we have received in return. This is, of course, our
personal experience and doesn't reflect everyone else's. All I am
saying is it's irrelevant whether parents have less freedom or not, if
that is not what they value most.

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:27f68249.0311140839.c97cc08@posting.google.co m... Children sure require a lot of adjusting and adapting of one's life, but that is not necessarily a negative thing for everyone (I do agree that for some it is). I don't like having pets, and always think how fortunate I am that I don't have to worry about what to do with the dog when I suddenly decide to go away on some nice long weekend, like my sister has to. Not to mention vet visits, costs, hair all over the house etc. How free I am from all these nuisances and burdens! But my sister tells me that I can never comprehend the pleasure that she gets from her dogs. And she is right. As they say, anything worth having comes at a price. The question is what one values most.

The pet comparison is a very good one, very easy to understand. It's one
that's also very relevant to me personally. I absolutely love animals. I
have cats because they're easy to fit into my lifestyle. I can go away
for days at a time and they're fine. Sometimes I complain about all the
fur everywhere, but in general the benefits outweigh the negatives. I've
had dogs before and as much as I love them, they don't fit my lifestyle.
The benefits are real, but the negatives in terms of extra responsibility
are way too much for me to ever want to deal with. It's the same with
children. Some people don't enjoy them and thus would get no benefit,
others love them but think the negatives are too high, and then many have
them because for their own lifestyle, the benefits are definitely worth
it.

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:27f68249.0311140839.c97cc08@posting.google.co m... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news: I've come to this thread late and haven't read all the posts. So I am not sure what points are already discussed, but here is mine: > Ok, let's get right down to it - would you agree that a childfree
couple has > more flexibility regarding work / place to live / etc than a couple
with 2 > or three kids? On average? Forget who's controlling what and just
answer the > question. Yes, that is true. But so what? Is this thread about flexibility or desirability of children? It all boils down to what you value. Being single also affords a person more freedom and flexibility - and if someone values that over everything else they may feel happier (and should remain) single, that doesn't mean they don't miss out on somethings. I wouldn't change my married life for all the freedom and flexibility in the world!


I totally agree. I don't see it a big deal. Doug, I think, was trying to
defend it by saying CF people can be just as limited, etc etc, and it really
doesn't need defending.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 04:59:38 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com>
wrote:
But that's my whole point. "Carefully" could possibly take *years*

Time passes regardless.

I learnt that from my father, who started his BSc when he was 40, and
finished it when he was 49.

Course this was the same man who made a major career change when he
was 35 causing the family to move 100s of miles. Hmm, same thing
happened when he was 27, only difference was it was 1000s of miles and
a different country.

Tara

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:56:24 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "trapped" = "take more things into account"OK. Not my definition of trapped.To me "trapped" = "stuck in a situation you don't like with no way out."

Obviously, a higher percentage of people with kids are trapped than
those without, numbnuts.

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes:
"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:27f68249.0311140839.c97cc08@posting.google.co m... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news: I've come to this thread late and haven't read all the posts. So I am not sure what points are already discussed, but here is mine: > > Ok, let's get right down to it - would you agree that a childfree couple has > > more flexibility regarding work / place to live / etc than a couple with 2 > > or three kids? On average? Forget who's controlling what and just answer the > > question. Yes, that is true. But so what? Is this thread about flexibility or desirability of children? It all boils down to what you value. Being single also affords a person more freedom and flexibility - and if someone values that over everything else they may feel happier (and should remain) single, that doesn't mean they don't miss out on somethings. I wouldn't change my married life for all the freedom and flexibility in the world! I totally agree. I don't see it a big deal. Doug, I think, was trying to defend it by saying CF people can be just as limited, etc etc, and it really doesn't need defending.

Hell, I wasn't defending anything. You implied parents people feel
more trapped in their bad jobs than childless people, and I disagreed.
That's all.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hPftb.198934$HS4.1699457@attbi_s01... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:27f68249.0311140839.c97cc08@posting.google.co m... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news: I've come to this thread late and haven't read all the posts. So I am not sure what points are already discussed, but here is mine: > > > Ok, let's get right down to it - would you agree that a
childfree couple > has > > > more flexibility regarding work / place to live / etc than a
couple with > 2 > > > or three kids? On average? Forget who's controlling what and
just answer > the > > > question. Yes, that is true. But so what? Is this thread about flexibility or desirability of children? It all boils down to what you value. Being single also affords a person more freedom and flexibility - and if someone values that over everything else they may feel happier (and should remain) single, that doesn't mean they don't miss out on somethings. I wouldn't change my married life for all the freedom and flexibility in the world! I totally agree. I don't see it a big deal. Doug, I think, was trying to defend it by saying CF people can be just as limited, etc etc, and it
really doesn't need defending. Hell, I wasn't defending anything. You implied parents people feel more trapped in their bad jobs than childless people, and I disagreed. That's all.

I still think more of them do. But no matter, we probably won't get anywhere
;)

JWB wrote:
Hell, I wasn't defending anything. You implied parents people feel more trapped in their bad jobs than childless people, and I disagreed. That's all. I still think more of them do. But no matter, we probably won't get anywhere ;)

Yes, this can easily get into a circular discussion. The issue really isn't
being trapped or not trapped in a job, but how important it is to people. Even
if we accept that more parents feel trapped, a more relevant question would be
: do people who feel trapped say that they would have not had kids if they could
do it over again? In other words, the importance of "feeling trapped in a bad
job" is different for different people. There are people (many in fact) who
would admit they feel trapped, but at the same time wouldn't even think of not
having children for any level of freedom. It's all about what we value.

ellie_first@hotmail.com (Ellie) wrote in message news:<27f68249.0311140839.c97cc08@posting.google.com>... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news: I've come to this thread late and haven't read all the posts. So I am not sure what points are already discussed, but here is mine: > Ok, let's get right down to it - would you agree that a childfree couple has > more flexibility regarding work / place to live / etc than a couple with 2 > or three kids? On average? Forget who's controlling what and just answer the > question. Yes, that is true. But so what? Is this thread about flexibility or desirability of children? It all boils down to what you value. Being single also affords a person more freedom and flexibility - and if someone values that over everything else they may feel happier (and should remain) single, that doesn't mean they don't miss out on somethings. I wouldn't change my married life for all the freedom and flexibility in the world! Children sure require a lot of adjusting and adapting of one's life, but that is not necessarily a negative thing for everyone (I do agree that for some it is). I don't like having pets, and always think how fortunate I am that I don't have to worry about what to do with the dog when I suddenly decide to go away on some nice long weekend, like my sister has to. Not to mention vet visits, costs, hair all over the house etc. How free I am from all these nuisances and burdens! But my sister tells me that I can never comprehend the pleasure that she gets from her dogs. And she is right. As they say, anything worth having comes at a price. The question is what one values most. I was one of those who although enjoyed my kids baby and child stages, did feel the loss of freedom and flexibility. Now that I am out of that stage, nothing comes close to the pleasure of having them. And when I look at the lives of my parents and in-laws, and the incredible value that we and our kids add to their lives, I feel I want to have that too when I am older. Yes, there is no guarantee for anything, and we happen to be very lucky to have wonderful parents with whom we have very close relationship. For us, though we both have very full lives, great careers, and by no means only focussed on our kids, life is much richer with them. The price that we have paid in form of freedom or flexibility doesn't come close to what we have received in return. This is, of course, our personal experience and doesn't reflect everyone else's. All I am saying is it's irrelevant whether parents have less freedom or not, if that is not what they value most.


I've stayed out of this thread for the most part. And I'm tacking on
here although this may not seem related. (Thanks for the space,
Ellie!)

I've said before that I think that relationships are the whole meaning
of life. It occurred to me tonight, while soothing my kids over the
loss of their beloved hamster, that that's precisely why I value
having my kids in my life. It's not about raising little carbon copies
of myself, or having someone to care for me when I'm older, or inherit
my worldly goods when I die; it's about the challenges the
relationship I have with my children presents in my life. Challenges
that make me grow as a person.

No, it's not easy, and yes, I do make sacrifices that at times I've
resented. It is not the same as a romantic relationship, nor is it the
same as a friendship, nor a nephew you can give up at the end of the
evening, nor is it the same as the relationship you might have with a
pet, no matter how dear. The parent-child relationship is completely
unique and unlike anything else one can experience short of having
your own child.

Schnarch's differentiation theories take on a whole new, richer
meaning, when you apply them to the concept of parent-child
relationship. Your child is half you, and yet not you. As they grow,
they are driven to differentiate from you, naturally. Yet you cannot
walk away. There is no "crucible" moment. Instead, it's a series of
moments that grind away at you both until you become polished like a
diamond.

I am a better person because I have children. It's not about the
pleasure they give me, which they do; but that is too much of a
short-sighted way of looking at things. It's about how they help me to
grow. Growth is not always fun and carefree, sometimes it hurts, but
always the outcome is good.

jen

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes:
I've said before that I think that relationships are the whole meaning of life.

(maybe that and statistics.)
It occurred to me tonight, while soothing my kids over the loss of their beloved hamster, that that's precisely why I value having my kids in my life. It's not about raising little carbon copies of myself, or having someone to care for me when I'm older, or inherit my worldly goods when I die; it's about the challenges the relationship I have with my children presents in my life. Challenges that make me grow as a person.

That plus. Plus loving someone the way one loves one's children feels
good. Plus they're really interesting. Plus they're cute. Plus they
make you experience things you wouldn't otherwise (and some of them
are even good)!
No, it's not easy, and yes, I do make sacrifices that at times I've resented. It is not the same as a romantic relationship, nor is it the same as a friendship, nor a nephew you can give up at the end of the evening, nor is it the same as the relationship you might have with a pet, no matter how dear. The parent-child relationship is completely unique and unlike anything else one can experience short of having your own child. Schnarch's differentiation theories take on a whole new, richer meaning, when you apply them to the concept of parent-child relationship. Your child is half you, and yet not you.

A really specific example that has taught me a lot. My daughter is a
_lot_ like me. The things that are the most painful for me are
dealing with things she does which are like things _I_ do that I don't
like. It is an intense growth experience which is quite unlike the
experiences I have with my wife. (And also unlike my son - he is
rather unlike me, sometimes that makes him hard for me to deal with but
not usually in the painful way my daughter can be hard to deal with.)
As they grow, they are driven to differentiate from you, naturally. Yet you cannot walk away. There is no "crucible" moment. Instead, it's a series of moments that grind away at you both until you become polished like a diamond. I am a better person because I have children. It's not about the pleasure they give me, which they do; but that is too much of a short-sighted way of looking at things. It's about how they help me to grow. Growth is not always fun and carefree, sometimes it hurts, but always the outcome is good. jen

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0311141957.55af1338@posting.google.c om... ellie_first@hotmail.com (Ellie) wrote in message
news:<27f68249.0311140839.c97cc08@posting.google.com>... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news: I've come to this thread late and haven't read all the posts. So I am not sure what points are already discussed, but here is mine: > > Ok, let's get right down to it - would you agree that a childfree
couple has > > more flexibility regarding work / place to live / etc than a
couple with 2 > > or three kids? On average? Forget who's controlling what and just
answer the > > question. Yes, that is true. But so what? Is this thread about flexibility or desirability of children? It all boils down to what you value. Being single also affords a person more freedom and flexibility - and if someone values that over everything else they may feel happier (and should remain) single, that doesn't mean they don't miss out on somethings. I wouldn't change my married life for all the freedom and flexibility in the world! Children sure require a lot of adjusting and adapting of one's life, but that is not necessarily a negative thing for everyone (I do agree that for some it is). I don't like having pets, and always think how fortunate I am that I don't have to worry about what to do with the dog when I suddenly decide to go away on some nice long weekend, like my sister has to. Not to mention vet visits, costs, hair all over the house etc. How free I am from all these nuisances and burdens! But my sister tells me that I can never comprehend the pleasure that she gets from her dogs. And she is right. As they say, anything worth having comes at a price. The question is what one values most. I was one of those who although enjoyed my kids baby and child stages, did feel the loss of freedom and flexibility. Now that I am out of that stage, nothing comes close to the pleasure of having them. And when I look at the lives of my parents and in-laws, and the incredible value that we and our kids add to their lives, I feel I want to have that too when I am older. Yes, there is no guarantee for anything, and we happen to be very lucky to have wonderful parents with whom we have very close relationship. For us, though we both have very full lives, great careers, and by no means only focussed on our kids, life is much richer with them. The price that we have paid in form of freedom or flexibility doesn't come close to what we have received in return. This is, of course, our personal experience and doesn't reflect everyone else's. All I am saying is it's irrelevant whether parents have less freedom or not, if that is not what they value most. I've stayed out of this thread for the most part. And I'm tacking on here although this may not seem related. (Thanks for the space, Ellie!) I've said before that I think that relationships are the whole meaning of life. It occurred to me tonight, while soothing my kids over the loss of their beloved hamster, that that's precisely why I value having my kids in my life. It's not about raising little carbon copies of myself, or having someone to care for me when I'm older, or inherit my worldly goods when I die; it's about the challenges the relationship I have with my children presents in my life. Challenges that make me grow as a person. No, it's not easy, and yes, I do make sacrifices that at times I've resented. It is not the same as a romantic relationship, nor is it the same as a friendship, nor a nephew you can give up at the end of the evening, nor is it the same as the relationship you might have with a pet, no matter how dear. The parent-child relationship is completely unique and unlike anything else one can experience short of having your own child. Schnarch's differentiation theories take on a whole new, richer meaning, when you apply them to the concept of parent-child relationship. Your child is half you, and yet not you. As they grow, they are driven to differentiate from you, naturally. Yet you cannot walk away. There is no "crucible" moment. Instead, it's a series of moments that grind away at you both until you become polished like a diamond. I am a better person because I have children. It's not about the pleasure they give me, which they do; but that is too much of a short-sighted way of looking at things. It's about how they help me to grow. Growth is not always fun and carefree, sometimes it hurts, but always the outcome is good. jen

Wow. You really got it Jen.

"urf" <urf@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<54rtb.25241$hB5.3370@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
Wow. You really got it Jen.

Thank you!

I consider that quite a compliment since it comes from you!


jen

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message
news:%vAsb.83487$ri.13759255@twister.nyc.rr.com... "Shashay Doofray" <Shashay@email.com> wrote in message news:bou46r$1ifdtr$1@ID-177524.news.uni-berlin.de... In order to be fair, however, we need to look on both sides of the issue and examine how many people are miserable having children because they were led to believe that it was the right thing for them to do. I think this will always be a silent faction. Because it's just not
popular or "right" to say you just don't want your kids. Oh sure, a few do (and
give them up for adoption or whatnot), but I wonder how many people just think life means "grow up / get married / have kids". I know many people with
kids who now seem miserable (for a variety of reasons at least indirectly
related to the kids) who never even gave being CF a passing thought.

What would be the point to giving over to that kind of thinking? "Unpopular"
or "wrong" only touch the tip of the iceberg. If you have kids, whether it
was the best choice for you as an individual or not, you are stuck with your
choice. But most importantly--if you spend much time thinking about how it
was the wrong choice, or how you wish you'd done things differently, it will
inevitably color (I'd even say "poison") your relationship with them and
prevent you from making the best of what may, indeed, have been a bad
choice.

I'll admit it. I probably shouldn't have had kids. But that's one glob of
toothpaste I'll never get back in the tube, you'd better believe it!
Fortunately, even though it might not have been the best choice, that
doesn't mean I have to spend the next umpteen years being miserable and
dumping the product of a miserable mother onto society.

On my better days, I look at it as a challenge. Some people don't like
challenges. Or not in this area of their lives. Yes, having kids creates a
lot of hard work, and tough situations. But the thing that makes hard work +
tough situations = misery has nothing to do with the externals of the
situation, and everything to do with attitude.

So does training for and running a marathon. Running a good marathon is a
tremendous accomplishment, but it doesn't make you better than a
nonmarathoner. Mahatma Ghandi never ran a marathon, but he's still a great
man. P. Diddy ran a marathon, but he's no Mahatma Ghandi. Just about anyone
is physically capable of running a marathon--and even enjoying the process!
But you have to put in the time into a long, slow training program building
up to it if you want to run the marathon and enjoy it. If you just want to
"show up" on race day, you may be able to get to the end of 26.2 miles, but
it won't have been any fun. Most people will never get the urge to run a
marathon. And that's fine.

People who have never run a marathon probably look at those folks in the
middle of the pack, grimacing and plodding along at mile 24, and can't
comprehend that they are actually enjoying the marathon experience, at some
fundamental level. They assume they're miserable. Why would anyone force
themselves to go through all that? It's worth it, for the marathoner. For
the nonmarathoner, it's not. C'est la vie.

"Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message
news:Hrwsb.702$Ob3.730598@monger.newsread.com... Anyway, I ramble since I think any number of kids or no kids at all can be great for a family. I, personally, cannot imagine having only one kid. Who would s/heplay with while I read? ;) I come from a family of 7, and I am close with my sibs. I cannot imagine my children not having sibs.

Having more than one child helps you realize that not everything little
aspect of your child's personality, temprament, or behavior are your fault
or responsibility. You have to do the best to work with the personalities
and tempraments you're dealt, of course, but sometimes they just are the way
they are, and it has nothing to do with you.

"DrLith" <drlith@hotmail.com> writes:
"Stephanie and Tim" <stowevtcannedmeatproduct@sover.net> wrote in message news:Hrwsb.702$Ob3.730598@monger.newsread.com... Anyway, I ramble since I think any number of kids or no kids at all can be great for a family. I, personally, cannot imagine having only one kid. Who would s/heplay with while I read? ;) I come from a family of 7, and I am close with my sibs. I cannot imagine my children not having sibs. Having more than one child helps you realize that not everything little aspect of your child's personality, temprament, or behavior are your fault or responsibility. You have to do the best to work with the personalities and tempraments you're dealt, of course, but sometimes they just are the way they are, and it has nothing to do with you.

I agree with this. It was a very valuable lesson to me, and it is
sort of liberating.

[alt.childfree.bridgebuilding added since it seems appropriate]
(acb is not to be confused with alt.support.childfree which does not wish
for posts from parents. They are quite welcome on acb)

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0311141957.55af1338@posting.google.c om...

[] I've said before that I think that relationships are the whole meaning of life. It occurred to me tonight, while soothing my kids over the loss of their beloved hamster, that that's precisely why I value having my kids in my life. It's not about raising little carbon copies of myself, or having someone to care for me when I'm older, or inherit my worldly goods when I die; it's about the challenges the relationship I have with my children presents in my life. Challenges that make me grow as a person. No, it's not easy, and yes, I do make sacrifices that at times I've resented. It is not the same as a romantic relationship, nor is it the same as a friendship, nor a nephew you can give up at the end of the evening, nor is it the same as the relationship you might have with a pet, no matter how dear. The parent-child relationship is completely unique and unlike anything else one can experience short of having your own child. Schnarch's differentiation theories take on a whole new, richer meaning, when you apply them to the concept of parent-child relationship. Your child is half you, and yet not you. As they grow, they are driven to differentiate from you, naturally. Yet you cannot walk away. There is no "crucible" moment. Instead, it's a series of moments that grind away at you both until you become polished like a diamond. I am a better person because I have children. It's not about the pleasure they give me, which they do; but that is too much of a short-sighted way of looking at things. It's about how they help me to grow. Growth is not always fun and carefree, sometimes it hurts, but always the outcome is good.

Jen, I would agree with everything you've said here. It is all true in my
experience. This raises a question that I have wondered about.

I have seen childfree people react negatively to these sorts of statements
and I can understand why. It is not a big step from "I am a better person
because I have children" to "You are a worse person because you do not have
children." I do not think that the latter necessarily follows from the
former, but I can see that people might take it that way and be offended.
Is there another way to talk about this aspect of parenthood that is not a
putdown (or potential putdown) of the childfree?

Jayne

It's one of those things that, no matter how well you try to explain
it, it's simplistic compared the whole experience. Maybe it's a lot
like getting to know someone else and how over time, so many doors
open up to your thinking and you life that wouldn't have otherwise.

We relive a lot of our own childhood thru that of our children.
Watching them, being with them, helps to clarify what we experienced,
as if we are watching home movies of ourselves as children.

I know that my life opened up 400 percent because of my son, the kids
he met and their parents. Today we never go to little league baseball
game because we don't have to, but I'm glad we went when we did. As
much as I wasn't that crazy about it at the time. And all the cold,
(in PA) rainy soccer games, driving hours to and from in the dark.

We waited for 8 years before deciding to have a child, so we had that
much time to ourselves. And there's no way rationally that you can
explain the total goodness of it all to a parent who doesn't want
kids, period. This morning, Saturday morning, I happened to remember
when he was little and watching the awful cartoons on TV, barefeet,
wrapped up to a sleeping bag or afghan. Treasureable memories. He's at
college now, plus US Army National Guard, so he's anything but a
little boy.

Oran


On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 05:07:17 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes: I've said before that I think that relationships are the whole meaning of life.(maybe that and statistics.) It occurred to me tonight, while soothing my kids over the loss of their beloved hamster, that that's precisely why I value having my kids in my life. It's not about raising little carbon copies of myself, or having someone to care for me when I'm older, or inherit my worldly goods when I die; it's about the challenges the relationship I have with my children presents in my life. Challenges that make me grow as a person.That plus. Plus loving someone the way one loves one's children feelsgood. Plus they're really interesting. Plus they're cute. Plus theymake you experience things you wouldn't otherwise (and some of themare even good)! No, it's not easy, and yes, I do make sacrifices that at times I've resented. It is not the same as a romantic relationship, nor is it the same as a friendship, nor a nephew you can give up at the end of the evening, nor is it the same as the relationship you might have with a pet, no matter how dear. The parent-child relationship is completely unique and unlike anything else one can experience short of having your own child. Schnarch's differentiation theories take on a whole new, richer meaning, when you apply them to the concept of parent-child relationship. Your child is half you, and yet not you.A really specific example that has taught me a lot. My daughter is a_lot_ like me. The things that are the most painful for me aredealing with things she does which are like things _I_ do that I don'tlike. It is an intense growth experience which is quite unlike theexperiences I have with my wife. (And also unlike my son - he israther unlike me, sometimes that makes him hard for me to deal with butnot usually in the painful way my daughter can be hard to deal with.) As they grow, they are driven to differentiate from you, naturally. Yet you cannot walk away. There is no "crucible" moment. Instead, it's a series of moments that grind away at you both until you become polished like a diamond. I am a better person because I have children. It's not about the pleasure they give me, which they do; but that is too much of a short-sighted way of looking at things. It's about how they help me to grow. Growth is not always fun and carefree, sometimes it hurts, but always the outcome is good. jen

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: [alt.childfree.bridgebuilding added since it seems appropriate] (acb is not to be confused with alt.support.childfree which does not wish for posts from parents. They are quite welcome on acb) "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c8cb5319.0311141957.55af1338@posting.google.c om...I am a better person because I have children. It's not about thepleasure they give me, which they do; but that is too much of ashort-sighted way of looking at things. It's about how they help me togrow. Growth is not always fun and carefree, sometimes it hurts, butalways the outcome is good.

I'll acknowledge that some people are "better people" because they have
children. Some people, however, are "worse people", which is to say,
they become mean and ugly and resentful of any interruption in what
remains of their personal lives, especially from their children.
Perhaps those who become "better people" are "better people" to begin
with, no matter what the stimulus for change.
I have seen childfree people react negatively to these sorts of statements and I can understand why. It is not a big step from "I am a better person because I have children" to "You are a worse person because you do not have children." I do not think that the latter necessarily follows from the former, but I can see that people might take it that way and be offended. Is there another way to talk about this aspect of parenthood that is not a putdown (or potential putdown) of the childfree?

On the other hand, perhaps the childfree should become more semantically
aware of the difference between "I am better than what I was" and "I am
better than you".

--
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"It seemed an unlikely spot for a sensitive songwriter from Greenwich
Village... She ordered the 20-ounce steak."
-- Lin Brehmer, Chicago DJ, describing his meeting in a steakhouse
with Suzanne Vega.

"Scott Eiler" <seiler@eilertech.com> wrote in message
news:jfydnYvWO4VRUyuiRVn-vw@comcast.com... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: [alt.childfree.bridgebuilding added since it seems appropriate] (acb is not to be confused with alt.support.childfree which does not
wish for posts from parents. They are quite welcome on acb) "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c8cb5319.0311141957.55af1338@posting.google.c om...I am a better person because I have children. It's not about thepleasure they give me, which they do; but that is too much of ashort-sighted way of looking at things. It's about how they help me togrow. Growth is not always fun and carefree, sometimes it hurts, butalways the outcome is good. I'll acknowledge that some people are "better people" because they have children. Some people, however, are "worse people", which is to say, they become mean and ugly and resentful of any interruption in what remains of their personal lives, especially from their children. Perhaps those who become "better people" are "better people" to begin with, no matter what the stimulus for change. I have seen childfree people react negatively to these sorts of
statements and I can understand why. It is not a big step from "I am a better
person because I have children" to "You are a worse person because you do not
have children." I do not think that the latter necessarily follows from the former, but I can see that people might take it that way and be
offended. Is there another way to talk about this aspect of parenthood that is not
a putdown (or potential putdown) of the childfree? On the other hand, perhaps the childfree should become more semantically aware of the difference between "I am better than what I was" and "I am better than you".

No. To describe parenthood by saying kids made you a better person is to
imply that kids make people better.

How about "kids gave me new experiences".

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:11:25 -0600, Scott Eiler <seiler@eilertech.com>
wrote:
I'll acknowledge that some people are "better people" because they havechildren. Some people, however, are "worse people", which is to say,they become mean and ugly and resentful of any interruption in whatremains of their personal lives, especially from their children.Perhaps those who become "better people" are "better people" to beginwith, no matter what the stimulus for change.

Do you believe that they "become" mean and ugly? It seems to me that
most people who do horrific (and not-so-horrific, but not admirable)
things to their children were pretty ****ty to begin with.

NotTheDroidYou'reLookingFor wrote: On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:11:25 -0600, Scott Eiler <seiler@eilertech.com> wrote:I'll acknowledge that some people are "better people" because they havechildren. Some people, however, are "worse people", which is to say,they become mean and ugly and resentful of any interruption in whatremains of their personal lives, especially from their children.Perhaps those who become "better people" are "better people" to beginwith, no matter what the stimulus for change. Do you believe that they "become" mean and ugly? It seems to me that most people who do horrific (and not-so-horrific, but not admirable) things to their children were pretty ****ty to begin with.

Well, yeah, that's the other side of what I was saying. Perhaps those
who become "worse people" are "worse people" to begin with, no matter
what the stimulus for change. But then, what does that make of us who
*know* we will become mean and ugly under certain conditions, and who
therefore avoid these conditions? I'd say that makes us heroes.

For instance, I sometimes become mean and ugly when driving, so I try to
avoid driving. If that's still being a "worse person", the roads around
here *need* more "worse people" like me.


--
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"It seemed an unlikely spot for a sensitive songwriter from Greenwich
Village... She ordered the 20-ounce steak."
-- Lin Brehmer, Chicago DJ, describing his meeting in a steakhouse
with Suzanne Vega.

JWB wrote:
"Scott Eiler" <seiler@eilertech.com> wrote in message news:jfydnYvWO4VRUyuiRVn-vw@comcast.com...Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:Is there another way to talk about this aspect of parenthood that is nota putdown (or potential putdown) of the childfree?On the other hand, perhaps the childfree should become more semanticallyaware of the difference between "I am better than what I was" and "I ambetter than you". No. To describe parenthood by saying kids made you a better person is to imply that kids make people better.

I suppose, but it's still a semantic jump from there to the statement,
"All kids make all people better."
How about "kids gave me new experiences".

I'll agree with that one, but I'll still skip the experience, thanks.

--
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"It seemed an unlikely spot for a sensitive songwriter from Greenwich
Village... She ordered the 20-ounce steak."
-- Lin Brehmer, Chicago DJ, describing his meeting in a steakhouse
with Suzanne Vega.

"Scott Eiler" <seiler@eilertech.com> wrote in message
news:GIidnScvq5KLFCqiRVn-hg@comcast.com... JWB wrote: "Scott Eiler" <seiler@eilertech.com> wrote in message news:jfydnYvWO4VRUyuiRVn-vw@comcast.com...Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:>Is there another way to talk about this aspect of parenthood that is
not>a putdown (or potential putdown) of the childfree?On the other hand, perhaps the childfree should become more semanticallyaware of the difference between "I am better than what I was" and "I ambetter than you". No. To describe parenthood by saying kids made you a better person is to imply that kids make people better. I suppose, but it's still a semantic jump from there to the statement, "All kids make all people better." How about "kids gave me new experiences". I'll agree with that one, but I'll still skip the experience, thanks.

me too.

Scott Eiler <seiler@eilertech.com> wrote in message news:<jfydnYvWO4VRUyuiRVn-vw@comcast.com>... Jayne Kulikauskas wrote: [alt.childfree.bridgebuilding added since it seems appropriate] (acb is not to be confused with alt.support.childfree which does not wish for posts from parents. They are quite welcome on acb) "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c8cb5319.0311141957.55af1338@posting.google.c om...I am a better person because I have children. It's not about thepleasure they give me, which they do; but that is too much of ashort-sighted way of looking at things. It's about how they help me togrow. Growth is not always fun and carefree, sometimes it hurts, butalways the outcome is good. I'll acknowledge that some people are "better people" because they have children. Some people, however, are "worse people", which is to say, they become mean and ugly and resentful of any interruption in what remains of their personal lives, especially from their children.

Perhaps you are only seeing them at one stage, and if you checked in
again two, five years later, they will have reached a peace and
regained happiness.

For example, lots of marriages seem to hit such a stage, and you
wonder why they go on and on in such unhappiness. Yet, eventually
things work themselves out and the marriage mutates and then moves on,
happier and stronger than before.

Relationships go through cycles. Growth can be painful. The more
committed the relationship, the more painful it tends to be. What you
may be viewing is that pain that occurs right before the growth spurt.
Perhaps those who become "better people" are "better people" to begin with, no matter what the stimulus for change.

I'm not about to say that having kids makes you become like Mother
Theresa or anything like that. But I will say that having kids can't
help but improve a person. Someone with lots of room for improvement
may not seem to you "better," but it is all relative. And becoming
better happens over a long period of time. If you are looking
primarily at parents with young children or teens, you're judging them
at some of the hardest and most painful stages of the game.
I have seen childfree people react negatively to these sorts of statements and I can understand why. It is not a big step from "I am a better person because I have children" to "You are a worse person because you do not have children." I do not think that the latter necessarily follows from the former, but I can see that people might take it that way and be offended. Is there another way to talk about this aspect of parenthood that is not a putdown (or potential putdown) of the childfree? On the other hand, perhaps the childfree should become more semantically aware of the difference between "I am better than what I was" and "I am better than you".

Yes. Perhaps I should have written, "I am better than what I was."


jen

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<GWCtb.178692$pT1.75360@twister.nyc.rr.com>... No. To describe parenthood by saying kids made you a better person is to imply that kids make people better.

That is what I'm implying. Kids do make people better. That's not to
say they make people perfect. And that's not to say they make them
better than someone like you.
How about "kids gave me new experiences".

No, that's not the same thing. It is a unique experience that is
incomparable to any other relationship.

That's not to say you can't have different relationships that grow you
in the same way, but I suspect you'd have to seek out such situations.
If it's the pain and discomfort that you want to avoid, you may not be
as apt to do this.

I liked Dr Lith's analogy to the marathon. While you may not want to
run a marathon, you might choose instead to train to bike or swim a
leg on a triathalon. That's great. You will probably relate quite well
to the experience a marathoner goes through. Even the casual jogger
will understand somewhat. But if you choose to participate in no sport
whatosever, it's going to be more difficult to understand what we're
talking about, how the pain, commitment, and struggle are worth it,
and how these sports train and improve our bodies in a way that
sitting on the couch can never do.

I respect that people know what's best for them, and I wouldn't begin
to try to talk someone into having children if they don't want to.
People have their reasons, and I respect that. But I have to admit I
have less respect when the only reason a person wants to be child-free
is because they can't be bothered with the inconvenience, the trouble,
the pain. To me that's sadly short-sighted, and it's like sitting on
the couch and refusing to move your body at all.

jen

shinypenny wrote: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<GWCtb.178692$pT1.75360@twister.nyc.rr.com>... No. To describe parenthood by saying kids made you a better person is to imply that kids make people better. That is what I'm implying. Kids do make people better. That's not to say they make people perfect. And that's not to say they make them better than someone like you. How about "kids gave me new experiences". No, that's not the same thing. It is a unique experience that is incomparable to any other relationship. That's not to say you can't have different relationships that grow you in the same way, but I suspect you'd have to seek out such situations. If it's the pain and discomfort that you want to avoid, you may not be as apt to do this. I liked Dr Lith's analogy to the marathon. While you may not want to run a marathon, you might choose instead to train to bike or swim a leg on a triathalon. That's great. You will probably relate quite well to the experience a marathoner goes through. Even the casual jogger will understand somewhat. But if you choose to participate in no sport whatosever, it's going to be more difficult to understand what we're talking about, how the pain, commitment, and struggle are worth it, and how these sports train and improve our bodies in a way that sitting on the couch can never do. I respect that people know what's best for them, and I wouldn't begin to try to talk someone into having children if they don't want to. People have their reasons, and I respect that. But I have to admit I have less respect when the only reason a person wants to be child-free is because they can't be bothered with the inconvenience, the trouble, the pain. To me that's sadly short-sighted, and it's like sitting on the couch and refusing to move your body at all. jen

And it's more self centered. When you have children, you cannot (normally) be
as self centered, obviously, because you are now a family.

shinypenny wrote:

I agreed with your first post about how you feel you have become a better person because of kids, as
I feel the same way. But this one I can't agree with!
I'm not about to say that having kids makes you become like Mother Theresa or anything like that. But I will say that having kids can't help but improve a person.

Not necessarily. I can't imagine having kids would improve Mother Theresa, for example. Her
greatness was in the fact that she was free from personal attachments and responsibility, and could
dedicate herself to the children of the world. I see the same thing at lower levels too. There are
people who are very service oriented and dedicate a lot of their time and energy to humanitarian
causes, who probably wouldn't do if they had kids, because they would become much more focused on
themselves and their children.
Someone with lots of room for improvement may not seem to you "better," but it is all relative. And becoming better happens over a long period of time.

Yes, it happens some time. But I still don't think that having children has an improving effect on
everyone. Sometimes children can make a person much more selfish. Beware of the dedicated parents
who are focused on getting the "best" for their children, you may be run over without any compassion
if you stand in their way!

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0311161013.292b6b07@posting.google.c om... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message
news:<GWCtb.178692$pT1.75360@twister.nyc.rr.com>... No. To describe parenthood by saying kids made you a better person is to imply that kids make people better. That is what I'm implying. Kids do make people better. That's not to say they make people perfect. And that's not to say they make them better than someone like you.


By saying "kids make people better" is to imply that people without kids are
not as good they can be.

Can you justify your claim? How do kids make one "better"?

This is part of the reason parents and the CF have this rift. I know we each
feel our _lifestyle_ is "better", and that's fine, but parents go one step
further and think they are "better people" because they are parents. It's
nauseating.

*snip*


But I have to admit I have less respect when the only reason a person wants to be child-free is because they can't be bothered with the inconvenience, the trouble, the pain. To me that's sadly short-sighted, and it's like sitting on the couch and refusing to move your body at all.

Well, since those are the very reasons most of us are CF, it's fair to say
you don't respect most CF's. Very few people are "naturally" CF. Maybe
childless, but not childfree.

To be honest Jen, I feel almost exactly the opposite. I feel most people
with kids are horribly self centered and do it for selfish reasons only.
There are obviously enough people on the planet. To bring even MORE people
in, in this day and age where we can prevent it, is to satisfy your own
selfish parental urges, damn the rest of the world.

And you call the CF short-sighted? You *really* need to look in the mirror.

JWB

"Bill in Co." <ornery@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:GWPtb.2395$sb4.1998@newsread2.news.pas.earthl ink.net... shinypenny wrote: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<GWCtb.178692$pT1.75360@twister.nyc.rr.com>... No. To describe parenthood by saying kids made you a better person is
to imply that kids make people better. That is what I'm implying. Kids do make people better. That's not to say they make people perfect. And that's not to say they make them better than someone like you. How about "kids gave me new experiences". No, that's not the same thing. It is a unique experience that is incomparable to any other relationship. That's not to say you can't have different relationships that grow you in the same way, but I suspect you'd have to seek out such situations. If it's the pain and discomfort that you want to avoid, you may not be as apt to do this. I liked Dr Lith's analogy to the marathon. While you may not want to run a marathon, you might choose instead to train to bike or swim a leg on a triathalon. That's great. You will probably relate quite well to the experience a marathoner goes through. Even the casual jogger will understand somewhat. But if you choose to participate in no sport whatosever, it's going to be more difficult to understand what we're talking about, how the pain, commitment, and struggle are worth it, and how these sports train and improve our bodies in a way that sitting on the couch can never do. I respect that people know what's best for them, and I wouldn't begin to try to talk someone into having children if they don't want to. People have their reasons, and I respect that. But I have to admit I have less respect when the only reason a person wants to be child-free is because they can't be bothered with the inconvenience, the trouble, the pain. To me that's sadly short-sighted, and it's like sitting on the couch and refusing to move your body at all. jen And it's more self centered. When you have children, you cannot
(normally) be as self centered, obviously, because you are now a family.

True, but you become MORE self-centered in a family sense. Like "screw the
rest of the world's billions, I'm having my *own* kids".

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FB7CF4C.9656E55D@hotmail.com... shinypenny wrote: I agreed with your first post about how you feel you have become a better
person because of kids, as I feel the same way. But this one I can't agree with! I'm not about to say that having kids makes you become like Mother Theresa or anything like that. But I will say that having kids can't help but improve a person. Not necessarily. I can't imagine having kids would improve Mother Theresa,
for example. Her greatness was in the fact that she was free from personal attachments and
responsibility, and could dedicate herself to the children of the world. I see the same thing at
lower levels too. There are people who are very service oriented and dedicate a lot of their time and
energy to humanitarian causes, who probably wouldn't do if they had kids, because they would
become much more focused on themselves and their children. Someone with lots of room for improvement may not seem to you "better," but it is all relative. And becoming better happens over a long period of time. Yes, it happens some time. But I still don't think that having children
has an improving effect on everyone. Sometimes children can make a person much more selfish. Beware
of the dedicated parents who are focused on getting the "best" for their children, you may be run
over without any compassion if you stand in their way!

Or you may be run over by the "safe" SUV they bought. ;)

Well said.

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3FB7D2F2.8070800@aol.com...but parents go one step further and think they are"better people" because they are parents. Some parents, please. I am fully behind the 'Having children made ME a better person' line of thought.\


Yes, you are correct. I did not mean each and every parent.
But Jen *was* implying this to all people.

I was heading down the road to alcoholism and, consider- ing my family history in that area, it would have been a smooth downhill fast ride to it. Having a child de- toured me off that path and kept me off it. But, for someone else, it might just have made the trip faster.

Glad you staved it off. My sister-in-law mirrored your situation, with
similar results.

>but parents go one step further and think they are"better people" because they are parents.

Some parents, please. I am fully behind the 'Having
children made ME a better person' line of thought.
I was heading down the road to alcoholism and, consider-
ing my family history in that area, it would have been
a smooth downhill fast ride to it. Having a child de-
toured me off that path and kept me off it. But, for
someone else, it might just have made the trip faster.

Tracey

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes:
This is part of the reason parents and the CF have this rift. I know we each feel our _lifestyle_ is "better", and that's fine, but parents go one step further and think they are "better people" because they are parents. It's nauseating.

I don't think my lifestyle is "better." Though it is better for me.
I'm very happy that people who don't want kids don't have them.

So don't speak for "parents" please.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:scRtb.164888$mZ5.1131277@attbi_s54... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: This is part of the reason parents and the CF have this rift. I know we
each feel our _lifestyle_ is "better", and that's fine, but parents go one
step further and think they are "better people" because they are parents.
It's nauseating. I don't think my lifestyle is "better." Though it is better for me. I'm very happy that people who don't want kids don't have them. So don't speak for "parents" please.

I was replying to someone who was. But yes, I should have put the word
"most" in, as not to confuse anyone.

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message
news:3qRtb.98796$ri.15562046@twister.nyc.rr.com... "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:scRtb.164888$mZ5.1131277@attbi_s54... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: This is part of the reason parents and the CF have this rift. I know
we each feel our _lifestyle_ is "better", and that's fine, but parents go one step further and think they are "better people" because they are parents. It's nauseating. I don't think my lifestyle is "better." Though it is better for me. I'm very happy that people who don't want kids don't have them. So don't speak for "parents" please. I was replying to someone who was. But yes, I should have put the word "most" in, as not to confuse anyone.

Or even "many"

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes:
"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:scRtb.164888$mZ5.1131277@attbi_s54... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: This is part of the reason parents and the CF have this rift. I know we each feel our _lifestyle_ is "better", and that's fine, but parents go one step further and think they are "better people" because they are parents. It's nauseating. I don't think my lifestyle is "better." Though it is better for me. I'm very happy that people who don't want kids don't have them. So don't speak for "parents" please. I was replying to someone who was. But yes, I should have put the word "most" in, as not to confuse anyone.

No. You should have put the word "some" in so as not to confuse anyone.

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:EyRtb.169913$ao4.549439@attbi_s51... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:scRtb.164888$mZ5.1131277@attbi_s54... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> writes: > This is part of the reason parents and the CF have this rift. I know
we each > feel our _lifestyle_ is "better", and that's fine, but parents go
one step > further and think they are "better people" because they are parents. It's > nauseating. I don't think my lifestyle is "better." Though it is better for me. I'm very happy that people who don't want kids don't have them. So don't speak for "parents" please. I was replying to someone who was. But yes, I should have put the word "most" in, as not to confuse anyone. No. You should have put the word "some" in so as not to confuse anyone.

your news server must be slow. I already corrected it.

shinypenny wrote:
But I have to admit I have less respect when the only reason a person wants to be child-free is because they can't be bothered with the inconvenience, the trouble, the pain. To me that's sadly short-sighted, and it's like sitting on the couch and refusing to move your body at all.

Have you ever considered opening up a day care center in your home, so
as to enable all the neighborhood mothers to go outside the home to help
support their families? Or would it be too much inconvenience, trouble,
pain? Or maybe it just wouldn't fit your own plans for your life,
because I know your own life probably keeps you busy enough as it is.

In any case, if you *don't* provide shelter for *all* the neighborhood
kids, I'll understand your lack of desire - as long as you understand, I
have a similar lack of desire for all *my* neighborhood kids *plus* my
own hypothetical children. It just doesn't fit my own plans for my
life, because my life keeps me busy enough as it is.

--
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"It seemed an unlikely spot for a sensitive songwriter from Greenwich
Village... She ordered the 20-ounce steak."
-- Lin Brehmer, Chicago DJ, describing his meeting in a steakhouse
with Suzanne Vega.

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes:
I respect that people know what's best for them, and I wouldn't begin to try to talk someone into having children if they don't want to. People have their reasons, and I respect that. But I have to admit I have less respect when the only reason a person wants to be child-free is because they can't be bothered with the inconvenience, the trouble, the pain. To me that's sadly short-sighted, and it's like sitting on the couch and refusing to move your body at all.

I feel the opposite about this. I think one should only have children
if one actually _wants_ to have children. The default ought not to be
"have children unless you have a reason not to." So if someone
doesn't want kids, it doesn't matter why to me; they just shouldn't
have them.

It's true that _I_ think they're missing something great by not having
kids. but _they_ might not think it is great. And the chance that
they _will_ end up thinking it is great is not high enough to be worth
the risk that having kids when they don't want them will make both
them, and their kids, miserable.

(Of course I feel the same way about marriage. One should only get
married if one really wants to marry the person, and there shouldn't
be a default expectation of marriage.)

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 08:23:33 -0600, Scott Eiler <seiler@eilertech.com>
wrote:
NotTheDroidYou'reLookingFor wrote: Do you believe that they "become" mean and ugly? It seems to me that most people who do horrific (and not-so-horrific, but not admirable) things to their children were pretty ****ty to begin with.Well, yeah, that's the other side of what I was saying. Perhaps thosewho become "worse people" are "worse people" to begin with, no matterwhat the stimulus for change. But then, what does that make of us who*know* we will become mean and ugly under certain conditions, and whotherefore avoid these conditions? I'd say that makes us heroes.

Oh, absolutely. I just object when some CF point to stories of severe
parental abuse and neglect and say "See? This is what being a parent
does to a person," as if the perpetrators were shining examples of the
best humanity has to offer to begin with.

I've said this before, but I'd love to see some sort of license to
parent. I happen to be one of the people who doesn't think it should
be an inalienable right.

"Bill in Co." <ornery@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<GWPtb.2395$sb4.1998@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.n et>...

And it's more self centered. When you have children, you cannot (normally) be as self centered, obviously, because you are now a family.

Actually, one of the more suprising lessons I've learned as a parent
is that it is okay to be selfish sometimes. The right amount of
selfishness can be healthy. I would hope my girls grow up to learn
from my example, so they don't end up selfless martyrs.

jen

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<bgQtb.112659$Gq.15186914@twister.nyc.rr.com>... "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c8cb5319.0311161013.292b6b07@posting.google.c om... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<GWCtb.178692$pT1.75360@twister.nyc.rr.com>... No. To describe parenthood by saying kids made you a better person is to imply that kids make people better. That is what I'm implying. Kids do make people better. That's not to say they make people perfect. And that's not to say they make them better than someone like you. By saying "kids make people better" is to imply that people without kids are not as good they can be.

I very specifically stated above that being a parent may make you
better, but not necessarily better than someone who is not a parent.
Please re-read above.
Can you justify your claim? How do kids make one "better"?

I believe I already expained this.
This is part of the reason parents and the CF have this rift. I know we each feel our _lifestyle_ is "better", and that's fine, but parents go one step further and think they are "better people" because they are parents. It's nauseating.

I'm sorry you find me nauseating.
*snip* But I have to admit I have less respect when the only reason a person wants to be child-free is because they can't be bothered with the inconvenience, the trouble, the pain. To me that's sadly short-sighted, and it's like sitting on the couch and refusing to move your body at all. Well, since those are the very reasons most of us are CF, it's fair to say you don't respect most CF's.

Having "less" respect is not the same as having "no" respect. And it's
not like I said I found such CF people "nauseating"!

I did realize after sending my posts this afternoon that I should have
clarified myself and stated that while *I* may value relationships as
the whole meaning of life, I am fully aware that not everyone does.
Perhaps if you could consider my words based on what I value most, you
might understand where I'm coming from a bit better. Likewise, if you
can share what you value most, then that would help me understand you
better.

Very few people are "naturally" CF. Maybe childless, but not childfree. To be honest Jen, I feel almost exactly the opposite. I feel most people with kids are horribly self centered and do it for selfish reasons only.


Perhaps my having children was a selfish act; I dunno. But it very
quickly became the most selfless act I ever did. Ouch! The interesting
lesson was learning how to strike a nice healthy balance between being
selfless and selfish. If I didn't learn that fast, I'd probably have
killed myself. I mean that literally.
There are obviously enough people on the planet. To bring even MORE people in, in this day and age where we can prevent it, is to satisfy your own selfish parental urges, damn the rest of the world.

I had no urges to be a parent. I just did it because that was what I
thought I was supposed to do. I was pretty young and didn't give it
much thought.

JWB, if you are deliberately CF because you have an issue with
overpopulation, I can understand that, and even admire that. (There
was a time that I was consumed with a bleak depression because I
thought I had done a stupid act by bringing children into such an
awful world). What I'm talking about are the CF people who only *****
and moan about how children would ruin their wonderful (too selfish)
life.

So we are no different, if you think about it. You don't like overly
selfish parents, I don't like overly selfish CF people. Even if I
don't like overly selfish people, I still wish them well and hope that
they can grow and learn. I wish we'd all just learn how to strike a
healthy balance between selfless, and selfish. Whether we have
children or not! And I think that it is through relationships that we
tend to learn that the most efficiently. I do think that the
parent-child relationship is inherently unique in its ability to grow
people that way, but as I said, it's not necessarily the *only*
relationship that can do this. If you're CF, you just have to try
harder to seek out such relationships. And if you do seek them out,
honestly, I'd have enormous respect.
And you call the CF short-sighted? You *really* need to look in the mirror.

Not ALL CF people. Please re-read and think about what I said. I said,
very specifically, those people who are only CF because they can't be
bothered with the inconvenience, the pain, and the struggle that it
would cause in their lives. That's what I really admire: people who
don't avoid the pain of growing.

jen

Scott Eiler <seiler@eilertech.com> wrote in message news:<FYidnUbeV5sxbyqi4p2dnA@comcast.com>... shinypenny wrote: But I have to admit I have less respect when the only reason a person wants to be child-free is because they can't be bothered with the inconvenience, the trouble, the pain. To me that's sadly short-sighted, and it's like sitting on the couch and refusing to move your body at all. Have you ever considered opening up a day care center in your home, so as to enable all the neighborhood mothers to go outside the home to help support their families? Or would it be too much inconvenience, trouble, pain? Or maybe it just wouldn't fit your own plans for your life, because I know your own life probably keeps you busy enough as it is. In any case, if you *don't* provide shelter for *all* the neighborhood kids, I'll understand your lack of desire - as long as you understand, I have a similar lack of desire for all *my* neighborhood kids *plus* my own hypothetical children. It just doesn't fit my own plans for my life, because my life keeps me busy enough as it is.


Huh?

Relationships are what's important to me. Even if I did choose to run
a daycare, while I might have wonderful relationships with those
children, relationships that might enrich both our lives, it would
never replace the relationship they have with their parents. It's
quite a different thing altogether.

What you are saying above is analogous to me telling you that you
should go out and form a daytime group of all the wives in the
neighborhoods, to help their husbands support their marital
relationships. Can you see how that would be detrimental to the
individual marriages of your neighbors? And how your relationship with
all these women would not supplant the relationship they have with
their husbands?

Continuing the analogy to the absurd, you are saying that your life is
*too busy* to have relationships with all *your* neighborhood's women,
*plus* your own hypothetical wife. While I would understand not having
time for numerous relationships with your neighbors' wives, I would
feel sorry that you couldn't find time to have one significant
relationship with *your own* wife, should you choose to have one.

A busy life cannot replace significant relationships.

jen

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
So we are no different, if you think about it. You don't like overly selfish parents, I don't like overly selfish CF people. Even if I don't like overly selfish people, I still wish them well and hope that they can grow and learn. I wish we'd all just learn how to strike a healthy balance between selfless, and selfish. Whether we have children or not! And I think that it is through relationships that we tend to learn that the most efficiently. I do think that the parent-child relationship is inherently unique in its ability to grow people that way, but as I said, it's not necessarily the *only* relationship that can do this. If you're CF, you just have to try harder to seek out such relationships. And if you do seek them out, honestly, I'd have enormous respect.


and how would I do that? Isn't it a parent mantra that if you don't have
kids, you just don't understand (which I'd agree with, btw).

I think I understand what you are trying to get across. But don't you see
where your words could offend? (for the record, I was deliberately rude
because I find your position very condescending, although now I don't think
you realize it).

What I mean is, here you are saying that a parent/child relationship has
this special benefit that makes people grow, and the CF are just going to
have to try harder to get that very same benefit. I'm sorry, but reading
that, I get the feeling that not only do you think *you* are "better"
because you are a parent (which I can understand), but you think there is
some magic "benefit" that all parents get, and the CF must try harder to
find it. That's where you're wrong.

Being a parent helped YOU grow. That's it. I found the healthy balance
between selfless and selfish without kids, and without having to "try
harder".

JWB

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<itStb.217918$Fm2.212088@attbi_s04>... shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes: I respect that people know what's best for them, and I wouldn't begin to try to talk someone into having children if they don't want to. People have their reasons, and I respect that. But I have to admit I have less respect when the only reason a person wants to be child-free is because they can't be bothered with the inconvenience, the trouble, the pain. To me that's sadly short-sighted, and it's like sitting on the couch and refusing to move your body at all. I feel the opposite about this. I think one should only have children if one actually _wants_ to have children. The default ought not to be "have children unless you have a reason not to." So if someone doesn't want kids, it doesn't matter why to me; they just shouldn't have them. It's true that _I_ think they're missing something great by not having kids. but _they_ might not think it is great. And the chance that they _will_ end up thinking it is great is not high enough to be worth the risk that having kids when they don't want them will make both them, and their kids, miserable. (Of course I feel the same way about marriage. One should only get married if one really wants to marry the person, and there shouldn't be a default expectation of marriage.)

True.

The difference is that one can still experiment around with love
relationships and not necessarily get married. Each such relationship
is a learning experience in and of itself. Lots of people tend to
evolve to a place where they are ready to get married for the right
reasons. And for some of us, it's after being divorced! <grin>

One cannot sort of have a child.

jen

Scott Eiler <seiler@eilertech.com> wrote in message news:<GIidnSQvq5L0FSqiRVn-hg@comcast.com>... Well, yeah, that's the other side of what I was saying. Perhaps those who become "worse people" are "worse people" to begin with, no matter what the stimulus for change. But then, what does that make of us who *know* we will become mean and ugly under certain conditions, and who therefore avoid these conditions? I'd say that makes us heroes. For instance, I sometimes become mean and ugly when driving, so I try to avoid driving. If that's still being a "worse person", the roads around here *need* more "worse people" like me.

Well, I don't know about mean and ugly, but I do have a dear CF friend
who knows he will never decide to have children. He freely admits that
he already has his hands full trying to have a relationship with his
self, much less a wife, much less a child. He has too many demons from
his own childhood that he's still working through. He's wonderful
around my own kids, but doesn't ever want his own. He is sad about
that sometimes. But for him, he feels it will be a major
accomplishment just to have a significant long-term relationship in
his life someday.

I admire him immensely for his own self-insight.

jen

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FB7CF4C.9656E55D@hotmail.com>... shinypenny wrote: I agreed with your first post about how you feel you have become a better person because of kids, as I feel the same way. But this one I can't agree with! I'm not about to say that having kids makes you become like Mother Theresa or anything like that. But I will say that having kids can't help but improve a person. Not necessarily. I can't imagine having kids would improve Mother Theresa, for example. Her greatness was in the fact that she was free from personal attachments and responsibility, and could dedicate herself to the children of the world. I see the same thing at lower levels too. There are people who are very service oriented and dedicate a lot of their time and energy to humanitarian causes, who probably wouldn't do if they had kids, because they would become much more focused on themselves and their children.

Good point. And there's a lot of priests... OOPS! Bad example. <eg>
Someone with lots of room for improvement may not seem to you "better," but it is all relative. And becoming better happens over a long period of time. Yes, it happens some time. But I still don't think that having children has an improving effect on everyone.

I never said "everyone." I just questioned the observation that
someone who seemed miserable at one stage would ALWAYS remain
miserable.
Sometimes children can make a person much more selfish. Beware of the dedicated parents who are focused on getting the "best" for their children, you may be run over without any compassion if you stand in their way!

True.

jen

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<pjQtb.112676$Gq.15189225@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
Or you may be run over by the "safe" SUV they bought. ;)

For the record, I think SUVs are completely evil.

jen

Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FB7CF4C.9656E55D@hotmail.com>... Not necessarily. I can't imagine having kids would improve Mother Theresa, for example. Her greatness was in the fact that she was free from personal attachments and responsibility, and could dedicate herself to the children of the world. I see the same thing at lower levels too.

Was just about to log off and had this thought about Mother Theresa.
She may not have had her own child, but she did have a unique
significant relationship in her life: with God! And that was
apparently one heck of a relationship.

While I have a lot of faith in God, I have to admit I don't have the
courage to have the kind of relationship Mother Theresa had with God.
But I am not striving for some ideal of perfection; I only wish to be
better than I am. For me personally, having children helps me to that
goal in a way no other relationship in my life can compare. YMMV.

jen

P.s. -- Jayne, please don't cross-post this to
alt.godfree.bridgebuilding, okay? :-)

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0311162021.742fcc5d@posting.google.c om... Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FB7CF4C.9656E55D@hotmail.com>... Not necessarily. I can't imagine having kids would improve Mother
Theresa, for example. Her greatness was in the fact that she was free from personal attachments
and responsibility, and could dedicate herself to the children of the world. I see the same thing at
lower levels too. Was just about to log off and had this thought about Mother Theresa. She may not have had her own child, but she did have a unique significant relationship in her life: with God! And that was apparently one heck of a relationship. While I have a lot of faith in God, I have to admit I don't have the courage to have the kind of relationship Mother Theresa had with God. But I am not striving for some ideal of perfection; I only wish to be better than I am. For me personally, having children helps me to that goal in a way no other relationship in my life can compare. YMMV.

but you *don't* really think that YMMV (at least by what you post). That's
where you cross yourself up. You stated before that having kids makes people
(not just you) better. Then you kinda backed off. The you stated later that
kids help in finding the balance between selfless and selfish, and that the
CF just have to try harder to get those kinds of relationships (because
obviously, we're lacking in the kid dept). So it appears you DO believe that
having kids makes *people* better in some way, not just you.


JWB

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes:
Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FB7CF4C.9656E55D@hotmail.com>... Not necessarily. I can't imagine having kids would improve Mother Theresa, for example. Her greatness was in the fact that she was free from personal attachments and responsibility, and could dedicate herself to the children of the world. I see the same thing at lower levels too. Was just about to log off and had this thought about Mother Theresa. She may not have had her own child, but she did have a unique significant relationship in her life: with God! And that was apparently one heck of a relationship. While I have a lot of faith in God, I have to admit I don't have the courage to have the kind of relationship Mother Theresa had with God. But I am not striving for some ideal of perfection; I only wish to be better than I am. For me personally, having children helps me to that goal in a way no other relationship in my life can compare. YMMV.

I've been thinking about your original post off-and-on today since
there is _something_ I think is right there, but I'm having trouble
articulating it. I think I have it.

Raising children presents _opportunities_ for making oneself a better
person. Not all parents take advantage of these opportunities of
course. _And_ there are _many_ opportunities in life to make oneself
a better person. (Including having a "marriage;" by which I mean a
long-term committed relationship, not a piece of paper. And probably
even having a divorce presents such opportunities.)

All of these things in life that can turn into major long-term growth
situations are different from each other, and all have things in
common. There are plenty of other such opportunities besides having
children for those who wish for them.

_One_ of the things about having children though, is you really can't
back out once you start (well, you can, but it is hard and rare). So
you are really forced to learn some lessons (or to be a bad parent,
and plenty of people take that route). In a marriage, by contrast, if
things get to the point where you have to learn or change for your
marriage to survive, you always have the (often taken advantage of)
option of divorce. As a parent most of us would rather do the work
required to preserve our parenthood than give up our children for
adoption.


As far as Mother Teresa goes; I don't know much about what she was
like as a person. But in terms of the sort of personal growth that
can make one a _better_ person; I know people who give their life to
good works precisely because that enables them to _avoid_ doing the
personal growth they would need to become better people.

So yeah, Mother Teresa's life was remarkable, but she appears _not_ to
have taken advantage of the opportunities for growth offered by
marriage (to a real person) or by motherhood. Which is fine, but then
maybe she spend her whole life being exactly whatever good person she
was at 25.
jen P.s. -- Jayne, please don't cross-post this to alt.godfree.bridgebuilding, okay? :-)

heh!

"Doug Anderson" <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3TYtb.171222$9E1.880176@attbi_s52... shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes: Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<3FB7CF4C.9656E55D@hotmail.com>... Not necessarily. I can't imagine having kids would improve Mother
Theresa, for example. Her greatness was in the fact that she was free from personal attachments
and responsibility, and could dedicate herself to the children of the world. I see the same thing at
lower levels too. Was just about to log off and had this thought about Mother Theresa. She may not have had her own child, but she did have a unique significant relationship in her life: with God! And that was apparently one heck of a relationship. While I have a lot of faith in God, I have to admit I don't have the courage to have the kind of relationship Mother Theresa had with God. But I am not striving for some ideal of perfection; I only wish to be better than I am. For me personally, having children helps me to that goal in a way no other relationship in my life can compare. YMMV. I've been thinking about your original post off-and-on today since there is _something_ I think is right there, but I'm having trouble articulating it. I think I have it. Raising children presents _opportunities_ for making oneself a better person. Not all parents take advantage of these opportunities of course. _And_ there are _many_ opportunities in life to make oneself a better person. (Including having a "marriage;" by which I mean a long-term committed relationship, not a piece of paper. And probably even having a divorce presents such opportunities.) All of these things in life that can turn into major long-term growth situations are different from each other, and all have things in common. There are plenty of other such opportunities besides having children for those who wish for them.

This I completely agree with. My problem with what Jen was writing was her
alluding that children allowed parents to grow into better people and reach
a certain level of understanding, and the CF just had to work harder to get
the same level.

I agree nothing I can experience can quite equal having a child. But then
again, nothing you (not you personally, Doug) can experience will put you in
my exact shoes either (being 37 without kids). But I don't feel either
experience automatically makes one a better person.

You stated such very well

In alt.support.marriage shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: And you call the CF short-sighted? You *really* need to look in the mirror. Not ALL CF people. Please re-read and think about what I said. I said, very specifically, those people who are only CF because they can't be bothered with the inconvenience, the pain, and the struggle that it would cause in their lives. That's what I really admire: people who don't avoid the pain of growing.

It sounds like you assume with that "only" that they'll achieve some benefit
or potential growth through having children... and that's assuming facts not
in evidence. It will be true for some, untrue for others, but in any
particular case it's unlikely they'll know until they try or not.

If they look at it as inconvenience, pain and struggle, that's probably a
sign it WON'T be a positive experience, although again it's not a given.

I don't really care if anyone else has kids -- if they want to, more power
to them, and if they don't, hopefully they won't. But I do take umbrage at
the idea that people _should_ have kids, or that people need to have a
reason not to.

In alt.support.marriage shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: *plus* your own hypothetical wife. While I would understand not having time for numerous relationships with your neighbors' wives, I would feel sorry that you couldn't find time to have one significant relationship with *your own* wife, should you choose to have one.

And yet some people choose not to get married because they don't have time
for a single _primary_ relationship with a wife... and depending on their
reasons for being busy, I might well feel sorry for them, or might be
frankly envious of them.
A busy life cannot replace significant relationships.

There are a lot of types of relationships, and all of them can make your
life busy in certain ways. Different people put different values on them --
and to assume that one set of them that works for you -- marriage, children,
whatever -- should be what someone else values is simply silly.

If anything, I think FAR too many people put value on the "marriage, kids,
nuclear family" model of things without thinking about it "because that's
what everyone does..." rather than taking the time and maturity to examine
what they really want and value. I think we'd have a lot fewer unhappy
families if they did... although I don't know if we'd have the same number
of families total.

In alt.support.marriage shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: The difference is that one can still experiment around with love relationships and not necessarily get married.

Yes.
Each such relationship is a learning experience in and of itself.

....although that's not WHY most people choose to have them, just a side
effect.
Lots of people tend to evolve to a place where they are ready to get married for the right reasons. And for some of us, it's after being divorced! <grin>

....and some people never do, but get married anyway -- and some people
realize that marriage is not for them, hopefully not while they're married
to someone.
One cannot sort of have a child.

Which is why one should be careful about not having them unintentionally,
and carefully examine why one might or might not want to have them before
making a concious choice to have them.

For that matter, while being an aunt/uncle and/or a godparent (either in the
formal religious sense or the "fictive kin" non-religious sense) isn't
something you can actively choose, either of these is the closest you'll get
to "sort of" having a child.

In alt.support.marriage shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote: Or you may be run over by the "safe" SUV they bought. ;) For the record, I think SUVs are completely evil.

<tangent>
That's silly. They're inanimate objects, with no moral value whatsoever.

I think they're largely unnecessary in the majority of cases, and an
extravagance in many of them, but the the answer isn't to demonize the
vehicle or even the people who purchase them -- the answer is to encourage
technical innovation and legislation which will provide better vehicles that
don't have their down sides.

The closest thing to evil about SUVs is the bifurcated CAFE legislation (and
in the past, the bifurcated safety standards although I believe that was
fixed a while ago) ... these bits of legislation encourage the automakers to
push SUVs instead of making them economically comparable to "cars" with
comparable capabilities.

"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<bp6409$1l8bqv$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>... [alt.childfree.bridgebuilding added since it seems appropriate] (acb is not to be confused with alt.support.childfree which does not wish for posts from parents. They are quite welcome on acb)

snip I have seen childfree people react negatively to these sorts of statements and I can understand why. It is not a big step from "I am a better person because I have children" to "You are a worse person because you do not have children." I do not think that the latter necessarily follows from the former, but I can see that people might take it that way and be offended. Is there another way to talk about this aspect of parenthood that is not a putdown (or potential putdown) of the childfree? Jayne

There are any number of endeavers that can "make you a better person"
than you were before the endeaver. Take mastering another language
for example. On the surface, you have the obvious benefit of being
able to speak two languages, but I would guess that many U.S. citizens
who master another language become better people. I say that because
in order to really learn another language, one probably has to spend a
significant amount of time immersed in another culture, and one learns
far more than just a language in that kind of situation.

Of course, just because you spend a lot of time immersed in another
culture doesn't guarantee that you'll change in any significant way,
so I wouldn't say that becoming a better person is automatic.

It's also important to note that the likelyhood of becoming a better
person through a certain activity drops significantly and could
disappear altogether if you have no interest in that activity.

I do believe that I'm a better person for having kids if for no other
reason than I want my kids to be better than I am. If I want my kids
to behave a certain way then I need to set a good example. But the
mere fact that I've become better at certain things doesn't mean that
there aren't plenty of CF people who are and will continue to be much
better at whatever those things are than I am.

jinglebells5555@yahoo.com (Jingle Bells) writes:
"Jayne Kulikauskas" <momkulio@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:<bp6409$1l8bqv$1@ID-141597.news.uni-berlin.de>... [alt.childfree.bridgebuilding added since it seems appropriate] (acb is not to be confused with alt.support.childfree which does not wish for posts from parents. They are quite welcome on acb) snip I have seen childfree people react negatively to these sorts of statements and I can understand why. It is not a big step from "I am a better person because I have children" to "You are a worse person because you do not have children." I do not think that the latter necessarily follows from the former, but I can see that people might take it that way and be offended. Is there another way to talk about this aspect of parenthood that is not a putdown (or potential putdown) of the childfree? Jayne There are any number of endeavers that can "make you a better person" than you were before the endeaver. Take mastering another language for example. On the surface, you have the obvious benefit of being able to speak two languages, but I would guess that many U.S. citizens who master another language become better people. I say that because in order to really learn another language, one probably has to spend a significant amount of time immersed in another culture, and one learns far more than just a language in that kind of situation. Of course, just because you spend a lot of time immersed in another culture doesn't guarantee that you'll change in any significant way, so I wouldn't say that becoming a better person is automatic. It's also important to note that the likelyhood of becoming a better person through a certain activity drops significantly and could disappear altogether if you have no interest in that activity. I do believe that I'm a better person for having kids if for no other reason than I want my kids to be better than I am. If I want my kids to behave a certain way then I need to set a good example. But the mere fact that I've become better at certain things doesn't mean that there aren't plenty of CF people who are and will continue to be much better at whatever those things are than I am.

I'm not sure what jen meant by "becoming a better person." I suspect
what she meant (and I know what I mean) doesn't have to do with "getting
better at things" but rather "getting better at being who you are."

shinypenny wrote: I think that it is through relationships that we tend to learn that the most efficiently. I do think that the parent-child relationship is inherently unique in its ability to grow people that way, but as I said, it's not necessarily the *only* relationship that can do this. If you're CF, you just have to try harder to seek out such relationships. And if you do seek them out, honestly, I'd have enormous respect.

The day may yet come when I sit in a cabin in the north woods and shun
all human relationship. But until then, finding other humans is one of
the easiest things in life, so "try harder" is hardly a factor here,
thanks.

And one person's "inherently unique to grow people" relationship is
another one's timewaster that gets in the way of a broad-based
interaction with numerous representatives of the species.


--
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"It seemed an unlikely spot for a sensitive songwriter from Greenwich
Village... She ordered the 20-ounce steak."
-- Lin Brehmer, Chicago DJ, describing his meeting in a steakhouse
with Suzanne Vega.

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<hfYtb.113290$Gq.15482304@twister.nyc.rr.com>... "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c8cb5319.0311162021.742fcc5d@posting.google.c om... Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FB7CF4C.9656E55D@hotmail.com>... Not necessarily. I can't imagine having kids would improve Mother Theresa, for example. Her greatness was in the fact that she was free from personal attachments and responsibility, and could dedicate herself to the children of the world. I see the same thing at lower levels too. Was just about to log off and had this thought about Mother Theresa. She may not have had her own child, but she did have a unique significant relationship in her life: with God! And that was apparently one heck of a relationship. While I have a lot of faith in God, I have to admit I don't have the courage to have the kind of relationship Mother Theresa had with God. But I am not striving for some ideal of perfection; I only wish to be better than I am. For me personally, having children helps me to that goal in a way no other relationship in my life can compare. YMMV. but you *don't* really think that YMMV (at least by what you post). That's where you cross yourself up. You stated before that having kids makes people (not just you) better. Then you kinda backed off. The you stated later that kids help in finding the balance between selfless and selfish, and that the CF just have to try harder to get those kinds of relationships (because obviously, we're lacking in the kid dept). So it appears you DO believe that having kids makes *people* better in some way, not just you. JWB

Okay, I'll concede your point there. Perhaps it's similar to how you
appear to me: as someone who really does believe that people with kids
must all be miserable and feel trapped!


jen

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3TYtb.171222$9E1.880176@attbi_s52>... shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes: Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FB7CF4C.9656E55D@hotmail.com>... Not necessarily. I can't imagine having kids would improve Mother Theresa, for example. Her greatness was in the fact that she was free from personal attachments and responsibility, and could dedicate herself to the children of the world. I see the same thing at lower levels too. Was just about to log off and had this thought about Mother Theresa. She may not have had her own child, but she did have a unique significant relationship in her life: with God! And that was apparently one heck of a relationship. While I have a lot of faith in God, I have to admit I don't have the courage to have the kind of relationship Mother Theresa had with God. But I am not striving for some ideal of perfection; I only wish to be better than I am. For me personally, having children helps me to that goal in a way no other relationship in my life can compare. YMMV. I've been thinking about your original post off-and-on today since there is _something_ I think is right there, but I'm having trouble articulating it. I think I have it. Raising children presents _opportunities_ for making oneself a better person. Not all parents take advantage of these opportunities of course. _And_ there are _many_ opportunities in life to make oneself a better person. (Including having a "marriage;" by which I mean a long-term committed relationship, not a piece of paper. And probably even having a divorce presents such opportunities.) All of these things in life that can turn into major long-term growth situations are different from each other, and all have things in common. There are plenty of other such opportunities besides having children for those who wish for them. _One_ of the things about having children though, is you really can't back out once you start (well, you can, but it is hard and rare). So you are really forced to learn some lessons (or to be a bad parent, and plenty of people take that route). In a marriage, by contrast, if things get to the point where you have to learn or change for your marriage to survive, you always have the (often taken advantage of) option of divorce. As a parent most of us would rather do the work required to preserve our parenthood than give up our children for adoption. As far as Mother Teresa goes; I don't know much about what she was like as a person. But in terms of the sort of personal growth that can make one a _better_ person; I know people who give their life to good works precisely because that enables them to _avoid_ doing the personal growth they would need to become better people. So yeah, Mother Teresa's life was remarkable, but she appears _not_ to have taken advantage of the opportunities for growth offered by marriage (to a real person) or by motherhood. Which is fine, but then maybe she spend her whole life being exactly whatever good person she was at 25.


Very well said. Thanks Doug!

jen

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0311162021.742fcc5d@posting.google.c om...

[] P.s. -- Jayne, please don't cross-post this to alt.godfree.bridgebuilding, okay? :-)

LOL.

Jayne

trajan@sfchat.org (Marcus Ulpius Traianus) wrote in message news:<60am81-rct.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>... In alt.support.marriage shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote: Or you may be run over by the "safe" SUV they bought. ;) For the record, I think SUVs are completely evil. <tangent> That's silly. They're inanimate objects, with no moral value whatsoever.

No, I really think they're evil!

I suspect that they are the first stage of an alien masterplot to take
over the Earth. Probably an alien race of machines, like in
Terminator. The plot is really rather brilliant when you think about
it.

First, take over the rational thinking part of millions of humans
living in the world's strongest country. Then systematically suck up
this world's most critical resource, and create political unrest among
the countries. When the Earth has been weakened, all the SUVs turn on
their owners, and take over.

My mind's not made up yet about those cute little VW bugs. Don't they
look mysteriously like space pods??? I suspect that owners of VW bugs
aren't really human, but rather alien machines in disguise, who will
launch their space pods for a massive air attack when the war starts.

:-)

jen

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:
As far as Mother Teresa goes; I don't know much about what she was like as a person. But in terms of the sort of personal growth that can make one a _better_ person; I know people who give their life to good works precisely because that enables them to _avoid_ doing the personal growth they would need to become better people.

It very much depends on what is your definition of "better person". If
becoming better is primarily defined as "personal growth" (whatever
that is, and however you can measure it), then perhaps you are right,
but only in a particular direction (I presume that grown can happen in
different directions). I can't imagine how you can say that someone
like Mother Teresa has or hasn't gone through personal growth in
general. Of course I am only using her as an example because Jen
mentioned her, not because I think she is the epitome of a "better
person". However; I have always considered people who are service
oriented, and dedicate their lives to service to humanity, "better"
than those who don't. It never occurred to me to question their
personal growth index, because that was not what I was measuring (even
if I could). So it all comes down to what are your criteria for being
better.

When it comes to myself, I certainly believe that being a mother has
made me better (more caring, sympathetic, understanding of others'
shortcoming, etc. which *to me* mean becoming a better person). But
that may have been because I was pretty self-centered before. So I
agree with you that having children gives some people opportunities to
better themselves. For others it may distract them from being the best
they can.
So yeah, Mother Teresa's life was remarkable, but she appears _not_ to have taken advantage of the opportunities for growth offered by marriage (to a real person) or by motherhood. Which is fine, but then maybe she spend her whole life being exactly whatever good person she was at 25.

I doubt that she didn't change through all the work she did. Growth
doesn't only come through marriage and children. It is quite possible
(even likely) that she would have stopped growing (in the "better"
direction) had she married and had children.

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:29:42 -0800, trajan@sfchat.org (Marcus Ulpius
Traianus) wrote:
In alt.support.marriage shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote: Or you may be run over by the "safe" SUV they bought. ;) For the record, I think SUVs are completely evil.<tangent>That's silly. They're inanimate objects, with no moral value whatsoever.

Wrong. They are evil objects, which are very animate when in motion
and with an evil human at the wheel.

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 05:18:55 GMT, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
As far as Mother Teresa goes; I don't know much about what she waslike as a person. But in terms of the sort of personal growth thatcan make one a _better_ person; I know people who give their life togood works precisely because that enables them to _avoid_ doing thepersonal growth they would need to become better people.So yeah, Mother Teresa's life was remarkable, but she appears _not_ tohave taken advantage of the opportunities for growth offered bymarriage (to a real person) or by motherhood. Which is fine, but thenmaybe she spend her whole life being exactly whatever good person shewas at 25.

This is one of the dumbest things ever written to this board. Some of
the biggest idiots I know are married with children. Your "personal
growth" fantasies are crap.

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes:
trajan@sfchat.org (Marcus Ulpius Traianus) wrote in message news:<60am81-rct.ln1@mail.sfchat.org>... In alt.support.marriage shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote: > Or you may be run over by the "safe" SUV they bought. ;) For the record, I think SUVs are completely evil. <tangent> That's silly. They're inanimate objects, with no moral value whatsoever. No, I really think they're evil! I suspect that they are the first stage of an alien masterplot to take over the Earth. Probably an alien race of machines, like in Terminator. The plot is really rather brilliant when you think about it.

I think they were the last stage. Look at the White House.

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0311170543.2e1c382e@posting.google.c om... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message
news:<hfYtb.113290$Gq.15482304@twister.nyc.rr.com>... "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c8cb5319.0311162021.742fcc5d@posting.google.c om... Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FB7CF4C.9656E55D@hotmail.com>... > Not necessarily. I can't imagine having kids would improve Mother Theresa, for example. Her > greatness was in the fact that she was free from personal
attachments and responsibility, and could > dedicate herself to the children of the world. I see the same thing
at lower levels too. Was just about to log off and had this thought about Mother Theresa. She may not have had her own child, but she did have a unique significant relationship in her life: with God! And that was apparently one heck of a relationship. While I have a lot of faith in God, I have to admit I don't have the courage to have the kind of relationship Mother Theresa had with God. But I am not striving for some ideal of perfection; I only wish to be better than I am. For me personally, having children helps me to that goal in a way no other relationship in my life can compare. YMMV. but you *don't* really think that YMMV (at least by what you post).
That's where you cross yourself up. You stated before that having kids makes
people (not just you) better. Then you kinda backed off. The you stated later
that kids help in finding the balance between selfless and selfish, and that
the CF just have to try harder to get those kinds of relationships (because obviously, we're lacking in the kid dept). So it appears you DO believe
that having kids makes *people* better in some way, not just you. JWB Okay, I'll concede your point there. Perhaps it's similar to how you appear to me: as someone who really does believe that people with kids must all be miserable and feel trapped!

Never once said "all". And if I did imply that, I most certainly was called
on it by Doug and corrected it.

I did (and do) feel "many" are miserable and trapped.

ellie_first@hotmail.com (Ellie) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news: As far as Mother Teresa goes; I don't know much about what she was like as a person. But in terms of the sort of personal growth that can make one a _better_ person; I know people who give their life to good works precisely because that enables them to _avoid_ doing the personal growth they would need to become better people. It very much depends on what is your definition of "better person". If becoming better is primarily defined as "personal growth" (whatever that is, and however you can measure it), then perhaps you are right, but only in a particular direction (I presume that grown can happen in different directions). I can't imagine how you can say that someone like Mother Teresa has or hasn't gone through personal growth in general.

I can't. That's my point. She spent a life doing good works, but I
have no way to know if that helped her become a better person.
Of course I am only using her as an example because Jen mentioned her, not because I think she is the epitome of a "better person". However; I have always considered people who are service oriented, and dedicate their lives to service to humanity, "better" than those who don't. It never occurred to me to question their personal growth index, because that was not what I was measuring (even if I could). So it all comes down to what are your criteria for being better.

I'm not talking about whether she is better than me. I'm talking
about whether she led a life such that she became a better person
during her life.
I doubt that she didn't change through all the work she did.

I don't know why we would believe that she did or didn't change.
Growth doesn't only come through marriage and children.

Not only, I grant that.
It is quite possible (even likely) that she would have stopped growing (in the "better" direction) had she married and had children.

Yeah, it's possible. It isn't really possible that she'd be a good
parent and stop growing though.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Ea%tb.220218$Tr4.657542@attbi_s03>...

snip I'm not sure what jen meant by "becoming a better person." I suspect what she meant (and I know what I mean) doesn't have to do with "getting better at things" but rather "getting better at being who you are."

I wasn't trying to imply that getting better at an arbitrary list of
skills makes you a better person. I'll give some examples of ways that
I think I'm better since becomming a parent:

1. I'm more assertive
2. I limit work to reasonable hours
3. I'm more honest
4. I work harder at doing the things I say I'm going to do
5. I'm more social
6. I manage time better
7. Small stuff that used to bother me doesn't anymore
8. I care less about "things"
9. I'm more appreciative of my own parents
10. I think about spirtuality more
11. I have a renewed sense of curiosity about the world
12. I'm more concerned about people who grow up in poverty

The point I was trying to make is that just because I manage time
better now or that I'm more assertive doesn't mean that I'm
automatically better at those things than somebody who doesn't have
kids.

I also think there are other things you can do (like mastering another
language) that can alter the way you look at the world and your role
in it.

Doug Anderson wrote: ellie_first@hotmail.com (Ellie) writes: Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news: As far as Mother Teresa goes; I don't know much about what she was like as a person. But in terms of the sort of personal growth that can make one a _better_ person; I know people who give their life to good works precisely because that enables them to _avoid_ doing the personal growth they would need to become better people. It very much depends on what is your definition of "better person". If becoming better is primarily defined as "personal growth" (whatever that is, and however you can measure it), then perhaps you are right, but only in a particular direction (I presume that grown can happen in different directions). I can't imagine how you can say that someone like Mother Teresa has or hasn't gone through personal growth in general. I can't. That's my point. She spent a life doing good works, but I have no way to know if that helped her become a better person.

Why wouldn't it? How could it not do so? Just the act of doing those good
works makes her a better person, by definition.

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3TYtb.171222$9E1.880176@attbi_s52>...
All of these things in life that can turn into major long-term growth situations are different from each other, and all have things in common. There are plenty of other such opportunities besides having children for those who wish for them.

Such as what?

Please understand that I'm not asking that question as a challenge,
nor with skepticism. I have been thinking lately that life is only so
long. I would hate to reach the end of it only to discover I'd
overlooked an opportunity I never even considered!

Starting a new thread -- interested in hearing what everyone else
would have on their life lists. For example, I've already identified
that I would personally regret never attempting to run a marathon, or
having the chance to travel all over the world.

What is on your life list?


jen

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0311170918.5eb72965@posting.google.c om... Starting a new thread -- interested in hearing what everyone else would have on their life lists. For example, I've already identified that I would personally regret never attempting to run a marathon, or having the chance to travel all over the world. What is on your life list? jen

(removing irrelevant cross posted group)

Travel is a major one for me. I want to go places that few ever make it
to, like climbing Mt. Everest, or seeing Antarctica. I'd also like to
come up with an idea that would accect a lot of people, maybe invent
something incredible.

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0311170918.5eb72965@posting.google.c om... Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<3TYtb.171222$9E1.880176@attbi_s52>... All of these things in life that can turn into major long-term growth situations are different from each other, and all have things in common. There are plenty of other such opportunities besides having children for those who wish for them. Such as what? Please understand that I'm not asking that question as a challenge, nor with skepticism. I have been thinking lately that life is only so long. I would hate to reach the end of it only to discover I'd overlooked an opportunity I never even considered! Starting a new thread -- interested in hearing what everyone else would have on their life lists. For example, I've already identified that I would personally regret never attempting to run a marathon, or having the chance to travel all over the world. What is on your life list?

These are things I am actively working on:

Travel the US - working on it. Been to 39 states so far.

Travel the world... maybe. After I do the US. I don't think I'd like much
past Europe, though. I may never get to this one.

Recent goal - get my degree (doing nicely towards this one)

Run a successful, profitable business from home - doing it now

Write a bestseller - working on it.

Write and speak for a living - working on it

Even with the above, have plenty of time to play, goof off, nap, etc - doing
it now.

and the biggie: fully enjoy my life - doing it everyday.

JWB

Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:
It is quite possible (even likely) that she would have stopped growing (in the "better" direction) had she married and had children. Yeah, it's possible. It isn't really possible that she'd be a good parent and stop growing though.

Again, it depends on your definition of "better" (than oneself, not
others). I am saying that for some people the "growth" that comes from
being a parent may make them not better (or less better!), compared to
the "growth" that comes from other things.

To me, the kind of growth that enables a person to use their resources
for the larger humanitarian causes makes them better more! And for
such a person (not everyone) becoming a parent may prevent them from
that growth. So even if they grow in a different way as a parent, the
net result is that they would have been better if remained childless -
based on my standard of what becoming better means.

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:
I did (and do) feel "many" are miserable and trapped.

Is this your observation or their assessment of their own lives? I
remember when our kids were little the most common theme of
conversation between parents' was to complain about how trapped we
felt and how we would give anything for a day of "adult company only",
etc. etc. It was almost like we wouldn't belong to the club of parents
if we didn't somehow show our tiredness or lack of freedom! But have
you ever asked them (in the peak of their misery!) if they would've
opted to be childless if they could do it all over again?

I mean, if someone has taken a path in life which makes them feel
trapped and miserable, it seems logical that they would say they
regret that path and wouldn't have done it if they knew, right?

In alt.support.marriage shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: trajan@sfchat.org (Marcus Ulpius Traianus) wrote: That's silly. They're inanimate objects, with no moral value whatsoever. I suspect that they are the first stage of an alien masterplot to take <...> :-)

*lol*

Point taken.

I'm happy to get into a cars discussion, but this is probably not the place
for it.

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:27f68249.0311171052.3bb9e460@posting.google.c om... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news: I did (and do) feel "many" are miserable and trapped. Is this your observation or their assessment of their own lives?


My observations, based on knowing some people both "then" and "now", and
certain truths about their lives (like not liking their career).


I remember when our kids were little the most common theme of conversation between parents' was to complain about how trapped we felt and how we would give anything for a day of "adult company only", etc. etc. It was almost like we wouldn't belong to the club of parents if we didn't somehow show our tiredness or lack of freedom! But have you ever asked them (in the peak of their misery!) if they would've opted to be childless if they could do it all over again? I mean, if someone has taken a path in life which makes them feel trapped and miserable, it seems logical that they would say they regret that path and wouldn't have done it if they knew, right?

Not necessarily. To say such when you have young children is to admit you
aren't all that happy with them, something I believe almost any parent
wouldn't admit. Maybe later on in life people might wistfully think about
what could have been.

> So yeah, Mother Teresa's life was remarkable, but she appears _not_ to have taken advantage of the opportunities for growth offered by marriage (to a real person) or by motherhood. Which is fine, but then maybe she spend her whole life being exactly whatever good person she was at 25.

To assume that a person's personal and emotional development stops simply
because they do not marry and reproduce is ridiculous. A person continues
to grow throughout their life because of the personal experiences they have
regardless of where or how those personal experiences come from. There are
people who, at 25 have encountered more personal growth due to their life
experiences than people who are 50. Surely, you cannot argue that a 25 year
old who has been to 30 different countries has more valuable life experience
than a 50 year old geezer (no offense to the geezers out there), who has
never ventured more than 10 miles from his Lazy-boy.

While marriage and parenting do offer, perhaps a different TYPE of growth
than say, climbing Mt. Everest or taking a boat trip down the Amazon or
simply performing CATS in your local little theatre, you cannot mix apples
with oranges and say that one type of "growth" is preferential or better
than any other. Each offers its own unique benefit to the individual
involved.

Therefore to say that Mother Theresa did not experience any growth because
she never married is to say that NONE of the other experiences that she had
were in any way valuable. A statement that I believe is patently incorrect.

SD

JWB wrote:
Not necessarily. To say such when you have young children is to admit you aren't all that happy with them, something I believe almost any parent wouldn't admit.

So you don't take their words for it and *think* that they really feel that
way. I think you give too much credit to your observation! It is true that
parents may at times feel much less free than non-parents but for MOST people,
the rewards of parenting offsets the temporary loss of freedom by far.
Exceptions don't change the rule.
Maybe later on in life people might wistfully think about what could have been.

Some may. But I have heard more (older) childless people say they regret not
having children than (older) parents say they regret having them...

shinypenny wrote:
What is on your life list?

More travel, definitely, both here and overseas. I'd especially like to live
in several different countries for a season but that will have to wait until
retirement or a major lottery win.

Another thing I'd quite like to do in a few years is run a bed-and-breakfast
somewhere along the coast but not too far from the city.

Once my youngest child is in school I'll either go back to uni and do a
gloriously impractical arts degree majoring in history or I'll go back to my
IT career. Which is probably more likely since I'll enjoy that *and* get
paid.

Tai

JWB wrote: "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<snip>
Okay, I'll concede your point there. Perhaps it's similar to how you appear to me: as someone who really does believe that people with kids must all be miserable and feel trapped! Never once said "all". And if I did imply that, I most certainly was called on it by Doug and corrected it. I did (and do) feel "many" are miserable and trapped.

I believe you (or anyone) could know some "miserable and trapped" parents
but many is unlikely since most of us can't know "many" people well enough
to make that kind of judgement of their feelings. You're pushing your point
too far here, imo.

Tai

"Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bpbjbj$1mgu8s$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... JWB wrote: "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message <snip> Okay, I'll concede your point there. Perhaps it's similar to how you appear to me: as someone who really does believe that people with kids must all be miserable and feel trapped! Never once said "all". And if I did imply that, I most certainly was called on it by Doug and corrected it. I did (and do) feel "many" are miserable and trapped. I believe you (or anyone) could know some "miserable and trapped" parents but many is unlikely since most of us can't know "many" people well enough to make that kind of judgement of their feelings. You're pushing your
point too far here, imo.

since "many" is subjective, especially when talking about millions, it's not
really pushing anything.

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FB94BF7.27BDA5E8@hotmail.com... JWB wrote: Not necessarily. To say such when you have young children is to admit
you aren't all that happy with them, something I believe almost any parent wouldn't admit. So you don't take their words for it and *think* that they really feel
that way. I think you give too much credit to your observation!


I never asked. I said in the first part of the post how I arrived at my
conclusion.


It is true that parents may at times feel much less free than non-parents but for MOST
people, the rewards of parenting offsets the temporary loss of freedom by far. Exceptions don't change the rule. Maybe later on in life people might wistfully think about what could have been. Some may. But I have heard more (older) childless people say they regret
not having children than (older) parents say they regret having them...

Perhaps. But what does that have to do with anything?

Ellie wrote: JWB wrote: Not necessarily. To say such when you have young children is to admit you aren't all that happy with them, something I believe almost any parent wouldn't admit. So you don't take their words for it and *think* that they really feel that way. I think you give too much credit to your observation! It is true that parents may at times feel much less free than non-parents but for MOST
people, the rewards of parenting offsets the temporary loss of freedom by far. Exceptions don't change the rule. Maybe later on in life people might wistfully think about what could have been.

"....what they could have been..."? I think being a good parent means
more - has more depth and significance - than any position in a company, for
example.

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FB95CE4.C671961D@hotmail.com... JWB wrote: Some may. But I have heard more (older) childless people say they
regret not having children than (older) parents say they regret having them... Perhaps. But what does that have to do with anything? Nothing really! It was just a reactionary response (though true!) to the suggestion that many parents regret having children - which I think you
greatly exaggerate, or live in an environment which is way different from mine! Mind you, I don't doubt your observation that some of the parents you know
in your social circle appear trapped and miserable, but your conclusion that
this means they are *generally* unhappy about having the kids and just don't
admit it.

I didn't draw that conclusion. I just said they seemed unhappy with their
lives. YOU or someone else) started talking about regretting having the
kids. Obviously, they are ok with being miserable.

JWB wrote:
Some may. But I have heard more (older) childless people say they regret not having children than (older) parents say they regret having them... Perhaps. But what does that have to do with anything?

Nothing really! It was just a reactionary response (though true!) to the
suggestion that many parents regret having children - which I think you greatly
exaggerate, or live in an environment which is way different from mine!

Mind you, I don't doubt your observation that some of the parents you know in
your social circle appear trapped and miserable, but your conclusion that this
means they are *generally* unhappy about having the kids and just don't admit
it.

In article <c8cb5319.0311161946.260388b8@posting.google.com>,
shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:
The difference is that one can still experiment around with love relationships and not necessarily get married. Each such relationship is a learning experience in and of itself. Lots of people tend to evolve to a place where they are ready to get married for the right reasons. And for some of us, it's after being divorced! <grin> One cannot sort of have a child.

This seems to imply one can "sort of" have a marriage. But can one?
If the option of bailing out is there from the start, have you ever
actually entered into it? "Survivor" is a game -- the participants
always know there's a helicopter not far away. Columbus's trip to the
New World wasn't. Is marriage a game or a true voyage of discovery?

Ted

JWB wrote:
Mind you, I don't doubt your observation that some of the parents you know in your social circle appear trapped and miserable, but your conclusion that this means they are *generally* unhappy about having the kids and just don't admit it. I didn't draw that conclusion. I just said they seemed unhappy with their lives. YOU or someone else) started talking about regretting having the kids. Obviously, they are ok with being miserable.

When I asked if they you thought they regretted the path they had taken in life
you answered:
Not necessarily. To say such when you have young children is to admit youaren't all that happy with them, something I believe almost any parentwouldn't admit. Maybe later on in life people might wistfully think aboutwhat could have been.

I admit that it's possible that I misunderstood you, but even if I did I don't
feel too negligent in my efforts to understand you. Your words above are pretty
persuasive!!

JWB wrote: "Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bpbjbj$1mgu8s$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... JWB wrote: "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message <snip>> Okay, I'll concede your point there. Perhaps it's similar to how> you appear to me: as someone who really does believe that people> with> kids must all be miserable and feel trapped! Never once said "all". And if I did imply that, I most certainly was called on it by Doug and corrected it. I did (and do) feel "many" are miserable and trapped. I believe you (or anyone) could know some "miserable and trapped" parents but many is unlikely since most of us can't know "many" people well enough to make that kind of judgement of their feelings. You're pushing your point too far here, imo. since "many" is subjective, especially when talking about millions, it's not really pushing anything.


Ah, I see. You're using "many" in a quantitative rather than a proportional
sense. As in "3 out of the 1000 people I know like eating raw fish so in a
population of 1,000,000,000 many people (and 3,000,000 counts as a lot of
people) are likely to enjoy it too.

However, I do have trouble finding that a meaningful way of using even a
subjective term.

Tai

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FB9624D.5AEF02F1@hotmail.com... JWB wrote: Mind you, I don't doubt your observation that some of the parents you
know in your social circle appear trapped and miserable, but your conclusion
that this means they are *generally* unhappy about having the kids and just
don't admit it. I didn't draw that conclusion. I just said they seemed unhappy with
their lives. YOU or someone else) started talking about regretting having the kids. Obviously, they are ok with being miserable. When I asked if they you thought they regretted the path they had taken in
life you answered:Not necessarily. To say such when you have young children is to admit youaren't all that happy with them, something I believe almost any parentwouldn't admit. Maybe later on in life people might wistfully think aboutwhat could have been. I admit that it's possible that I misunderstood you, but even if I did I
don't feel too negligent in my efforts to understand you. Your words above are
pretty persuasive!!

The above phrase is speculating why parents wouldn't say they regret having
kids. I honestly don't think that even miserable parents "regret" actually
having the kids. By all indications, even my "miserable in their lives"
friends love their kids, and I think that's true with most parents. I think
the people I am talking about (and plenty others) are miserable with their
lives, but they are oddly ok with being miserable (if that makes any sense -
because if it were really *that* unbearable, they'd change things). Maybe
because they know things will be different when the kids get older? I don't
know.

"Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bpbofr$1n35r2$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... JWB wrote: "Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bpbjbj$1mgu8s$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... JWB wrote:> "shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message <snip>>> Okay, I'll concede your point there. Perhaps it's similar to how>> you appear to me: as someone who really does believe that people>> with>> kids must all be miserable and feel trapped!>> Never once said "all". And if I did imply that, I most certainly was> called on it by Doug and corrected it.>> I did (and do) feel "many" are miserable and trapped. I believe you (or anyone) could know some "miserable and trapped" parents but many is unlikely since most of us can't know "many" people well enough to make that kind of judgement of their feelings. You're pushing your point too far here, imo. since "many" is subjective, especially when talking about millions, it's not really pushing anything. Ah, I see. You're using "many" in a quantitative rather than a
proportional sense. As in "3 out of the 1000 people I know like eating raw fish so in
a population of 1,000,000,000 many people (and 3,000,000 counts as a lot of people) are likely to enjoy it too.


Yes. Although I'll bet more than 3 out of 1000 families are less than happy
with their work / life circumstances and feel 'trapped' by them.

However, I do have trouble finding that a meaningful way of using even a subjective term.

why?

JWB wrote: "Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message

<snip>
Ah, I see. You're using "many" in a quantitative rather than a proportional sense. As in "3 out of the 1000 people I know like eating raw fish so in a population of 1,000,000,000 many people (and 3,000,000 counts as a lot of people) are likely to enjoy it too. Yes. Although I'll bet more than 3 out of 1000 families are less than happy with their work / life circumstances and feel 'trapped' by them.

What proportion of them *do* you think feel trapped?
However, I do have trouble finding that a meaningful way of using even a subjective term. why?

It must be the mathematician in me, JWB. Or what's left of it! Numbers
within classes aren't all that interesting on their own unless they're
compared to the whole population.

Tai

"Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bpbqne$1mbk2i$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... JWB wrote: "Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message <snip> Ah, I see. You're using "many" in a quantitative rather than a proportional sense. As in "3 out of the 1000 people I know like eating raw fish so in a population of 1,000,000,000 many people (and 3,000,000 counts as a lot of people) are likely to enjoy it too. Yes. Although I'll bet more than 3 out of 1000 families are less than happy with their work / life circumstances and feel 'trapped' by them. What proportion of them *do* you think feel trapped?

hmmm... haven't really thought about it.... rough guess.... 25-40% (40 might
be kinda high) My criteria: Someone in the family has been at a job they
really don't like for over a year, and can't / won't leave because of
kid-friendly hours / kid benefits / can't afford a pay cut because of kids /
proximity to schools / etc. Some kid reason, that of the kid wasn't around,
they'd likely take another job.

Or, they live in an area they would rather not live, but don't move because
of the kids.

However, I do have trouble finding that a meaningful way of using even a subjective term. why? It must be the mathematician in me, JWB. Or what's left of it! Numbers within classes aren't all that interesting on their own unless they're compared to the whole population.

I agree. But hard math prettymuch makes "many" meaningless :)

"Shashay Doofray" <Shashay@email.com> writes:
So yeah, Mother Teresa's life was remarkable, but she appears _not_ to have taken advantage of the opportunities for growth offered by marriage (to a real person) or by motherhood. Which is fine, but then maybe she spend her whole life being exactly whatever good person she was at 25. To assume that a person's personal and emotional development stops simply because they do not marry and reproduce is ridiculous.

It would be ridiculous indeed.

You'll notice that neither I, nor anyone else here, has made
such an assumption.

JWB wrote:
The above phrase is speculating why parents wouldn't say they regret having kids. I honestly don't think that even miserable parents "regret" actually having the kids. By all indications, even my "miserable in their lives" friends love their kids, and I think that's true with most parents. I think the people I am talking about (and plenty others) are miserable with their lives, but they are oddly ok with being miserable (if that makes any sense -

Sure it makes sense! Misery is in the eye of beholder. YOU may think that not
being able to change a job at a drop of a hat makes one miserable, perhaps your
friends don't see it that way. Perhaps the fulfillment and joy that they get
from their kids greatly offsets the lousy job that they are supposedly stuck
with.
because if it were really *that* unbearable, they'd change things). Maybe because they know things will be different when the kids get older? I don't know.

That's one possibility, but I think a more likely answer (based on my and many
other parents' experience) is that you evaluate their lives and the misery index
with your own standards. Since flexibility and mobility are very high on your
priority list, and you can't quite grasp the level of satisfaction that they get
from parenting, it appears to you that their lives are miserable.

Doug Anderson wrote: "Shashay Doofray" <Shashay@email.com> writes:To assume that a person's personal and emotional development stops simplybecause they do not marry and reproduce is ridiculous. It would be ridiculous indeed. You'll notice that neither I, nor anyone else here, has made such an assumption.

Okay, but only on a technicality.

In this thread I *do* notice a lot of value judgments regarding marrying
and reproduction, including (for instance) that they are capable of
promoting growth more than Mother Teresa's lifestyle does. It seems to
me, that (1) capability does not equal probability, and (2) the only
people who are qualified to make that value judgment will have tried
*both* lifestyles. As I have not tried either one, I'm sitting that
issue out, but I'm also not convinced either way.

And that pretty much says all I have to say about this thread.

--
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"It seemed an unlikely spot for a sensitive songwriter from Greenwich
Village... She ordered the 20-ounce steak."
-- Lin Brehmer, Chicago DJ, describing his meeting in a steakhouse
with Suzanne Vega.

shinypenny wrote:
Starting a new thread -- interested in hearing what everyone else would have on their life lists. For example, I've already identified that I would personally regret never attempting to run a marathon, or having the chance to travel all over the world. What is on your life list?

I'd second the "travel" goal, though there are some parts of the world
I'd be just as happy never to see.

I guess it's my life goal to have the amount of leisure time necessary
to make a more serious decision about my life goals, independent of
money. If I ever get to that point, and I haven't committed myself to
any particular life script, then who knows, maybe something wonderful
might come up.

--
-------- Scott Eiler B{D> -------- http://www.eilertech.com/ --------

"It seemed an unlikely spot for a sensitive songwriter from Greenwich
Village... She ordered the 20-ounce steak."
-- Lin Brehmer, Chicago DJ, describing his meeting in a steakhouse
with Suzanne Vega.

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FB97FCD.3B303FB2@hotmail.com... JWB wrote: The above phrase is speculating why parents wouldn't say they regret
having kids. I honestly don't think that even miserable parents "regret"
actually having the kids. By all indications, even my "miserable in their lives" friends love their kids, and I think that's true with most parents. I
think the people I am talking about (and plenty others) are miserable with
their lives, but they are oddly ok with being miserable (if that makes any
sense - Sure it makes sense! Misery is in the eye of beholder. YOU may think that
not being able to change a job at a drop of a hat makes one miserable, perhaps
your friends don't see it that way. Perhaps the fulfillment and joy that they
get from their kids greatly offsets the lousy job that they are supposedly
stuck with.


I certainly hope so. It must royally suck spending 50+ hrs a week doing
something you don't like.

because if it were really *that* unbearable, they'd change things).
Maybe because they know things will be different when the kids get older? I
don't know. That's one possibility, but I think a more likely answer (based on my and
many other parents' experience) is that you evaluate their lives and the misery
index with your own standards. Since flexibility and mobility are very high on
your priority list, and you can't quite grasp the level of satisfaction that
they get from parenting, it appears to you that their lives are miserable.

That is correct. It is nothing more than my belief that being "trapped" at a
****ty job sucks.

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 19:54:36 -0800, shinypenny wrote:
Ellie <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FB7CF4C.9656E55D@hotmail.com>... shinypenny wrote: I agreed with your first post about how you feel you have become a better person because of kids, as I feel the same way. But this one I can't agree with! I'm not about to say that having kids makes you become like Mother Theresa or anything like that. But I will say that having kids can't help but improve a person. Not necessarily. I can't imagine having kids would improve Mother Theresa, for example. Her greatness was in the fact that she was free from personal attachments and responsibility, and could dedicate herself to the children of the world. I see the same thing at lower levels too. There are people who are very service oriented and dedicate a lot of their time and energy to humanitarian causes, who probably wouldn't do if they had kids, because they would become much more focused on themselves and their children. Good point. And there's a lot of priests... OOPS! Bad example. <eg>

No, it was a good example. Your saying it was a bad example is patently
offensive.

-Tony

"Scott Eiler" <seiler@eilertech.com> wrote in message
news:UKednVOUep-NFCSiRVn-tA@comcast.com... shinypenny wrote: Starting a new thread -- interested in hearing what everyone else would have on their life lists. For example, I've already identified that I would personally regret never attempting to run a marathon, or having the chance to travel all over the world. What is on your life list? I'd second the "travel" goal, though there are some parts of the world I'd be just as happy never to see. I guess it's my life goal to have the amount of leisure time necessary to make a more serious decision about my life goals, independent of money. If I ever get to that point, and I haven't committed myself to any particular life script, then who knows, maybe something wonderful might come up.

you have a nice website. Your rates are a little low, though.

In alt.support.marriage JWB <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote: "Scott Eiler" <seiler@eilertech.com> wrote in message I guess it's my life goal to have the amount of leisure time necessary to make a more serious decision about my life goals, independent of money. If I ever get to that point, and I haven't committed myself to any particular life script, then who knows, maybe something wonderful might come up. you have a nice website. Your rates are a little low, though.

Such things are highly variable regionally, but they look quite low compared
to the market rates around here as well... even with the post-crash IT labor
surplus.

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:57:21 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com>
wrote:
"Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:bpbqne$1mbk2i$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... What proportion of them *do* you think feel trapped?hmmm... haven't really thought about it.... rough guess.... 25-40% (40 mightbe kinda high) My criteria: Someone in the family has been at a job theyreally don't like for over a year, and can't / won't leave because ofkid-friendly hours / kid benefits / can't afford a pay cut because of kids /proximity to schools / etc. Some kid reason, that of the kid wasn't around,they'd likely take another job.Or, they live in an area they would rather not live, but don't move becauseof the kids.

It's disingenuous to suggest that the CF are appreciably more likely
to make drastic changes in career/location/circumstances than parents
are. There are just as many CF as parents who kvetch about the
minutiae of their lives.

"NotTheDroidYou'reLookingFor" <fakeaddy@fakedomain.com> wrote in message
news:i07jrvk58arq6vvlc5eemchin67k1m6hvi@4ax.com... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:57:21 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote:"Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:bpbqne$1mbk2i$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... What proportion of them *do* you think feel trapped?hmmm... haven't really thought about it.... rough guess.... 25-40% (40
mightbe kinda high) My criteria: Someone in the family has been at a job theyreally don't like for over a year, and can't / won't leave because ofkid-friendly hours / kid benefits / can't afford a pay cut because of
kids /proximity to schools / etc. Some kid reason, that of the kid wasn't
around,they'd likely take another job.Or, they live in an area they would rather not live, but don't move
becauseof the kids. It's disingenuous to suggest that the CF are appreciably more likely to make drastic changes in career/location/circumstances than parents are. There are just as many CF as parents who kvetch about the minutiae of their lives.

I don't know if there are just as many (all other things being equal, just
the sheer expenditures difference would dictate more parents "have" to
accept less than desirable positions), but yes, I'm sure there are some.

I remember once posting over at ASCF remarking how so many of them seemed to
***** about layoffs and money issues..... I even commented something like
"you have no kids... no strings. The world is your oyster", to which I
heard "well, nobody's hiring, Bush sucks, the economy, etc etc".

So you are correct, they certainly do exist.

JWB wrote: "Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bpbqne$1mbk2i$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... JWB wrote: "Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message <snip>>> Ah, I see. You're using "many" in a quantitative rather than a> proportional sense. As in "3 out of the 1000 people I know like> eating raw fish so in a population of 1,000,000,000 many people> (and 3,000,000 counts as a lot of people) are likely to enjoy it> too. Yes. Although I'll bet more than 3 out of 1000 families are less than happy with their work / life circumstances and feel 'trapped' by them. What proportion of them *do* you think feel trapped? hmmm... haven't really thought about it.... rough guess.... 25-40% (40 might be kinda high)

But 30% would also fit my subjective definition of "many", too. (Many
being more than some and usually less than most.)

Wow! That's a lot of dissatisfied people you see around you. And trapped
rather than mildly inconvenienced people at that.
My criteria: Someone in the family has been at a job they really don't like for over a year, and can't / won't leave because of kid-friendly hours / kid benefits / can't afford a pay cut because of kids / proximity to schools / etc. Some kid reason, that of the kid wasn't around, they'd likely take another job. Or, they live in an area they would rather not live, but don't move because of the kids.

I guess I see a lot of those reasons as won'ts rather than can'ts and they
could equally be applied to spouses rather than children (except for lower
than tertiary education, of course). New jobs are usually easier to find
than new careers, for both parents and non-parents. But it's sounding to me
as though there's something specific about the area in which you live and
more people than usual are unhappy there. How's the local economy?

Tai

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 04:39:17 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com>
wrote:
I remember once posting over at ASCF remarking how so many of them seemed to***** about layoffs and money issues..... I even commented something like"you have no kids... no strings. The world is your oyster", to which Iheard "well, nobody's hiring, Bush sucks, the economy, etc etc".

Most of the people over at ASCF are anal assholes. They really need
to pull the baseball bats out of their asses and loosen up.

A lot of them are gay, too. Like, it doesn't take much effort to be
childfree when you are a dude who only uses his tool on other dudes'
rectums.

JWB wrote: "NotTheDroidYou'reLookingFor" <fakeaddy@fakedomain.com> wrote in message news:i07jrvk58arq6vvlc5eemchin67k1m6hvi@4ax.com... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:57:21 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote: "Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bpbqne$1mbk2i$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de...> What proportion of them *do* you think feel trapped? hmmm... haven't really thought about it.... rough guess.... 25-40% (40 might be kinda high) My criteria: Someone in the family has been at a job they really don't like for over a year, and can't / won't leave because of kid-friendly hours / kid benefits / can't afford a pay cut because of kids / proximity to schools / etc. Some kid reason, that of the kid wasn't around, they'd likely take another job. Or, they live in an area they would rather not live, but don't move because of the kids. It's disingenuous to suggest that the CF are appreciably more likely to make drastic changes in career/location/circumstances than parents are. There are just as many CF as parents who kvetch about the minutiae of their lives. I don't know if there are just as many (all other things being equal, just the sheer expenditures difference would dictate more parents "have" to accept less than desirable positions), but yes, I'm sure there are some. I remember once posting over at ASCF remarking how so many of them seemed to ***** about layoffs and money issues..... I even commented something like "you have no kids... no strings. The world is your oyster", to which I heard "well, nobody's hiring, Bush sucks, the economy, etc etc". So you are correct, they certainly do exist.

I gather from past threads that the health insurance aspect of job benefits
are enormously important in the U.S.A. and I can imagine feeling trapped in
a job I disliked with good benefits if there were no other job prospects
around. And, yes, having children would make keeping that benefit *and* that
job more important.

Tai

"Marcus Ulpius Traianus" <trajan@sfchat.org> wrote in message
news:opio81-80n.ln1@mail.sfchat.org... In alt.support.marriage JWB <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote: "Scott Eiler" <seiler@eilertech.com> wrote in message I guess it's my life goal to have the amount of leisure time necessary to make a more serious decision about my life goals, independent of money. If I ever get to that point, and I haven't committed myself to any particular life script, then who knows, maybe something wonderful might come up. you have a nice website. Your rates are a little low, though. Such things are highly variable regionally, but they look quite low
compared to the market rates around here as well... even with the post-crash IT
labor surplus.

I know in my consulting work, I charge $75.00 per hr offsite (I will
negotiate down to $60.00 if there's enough work... like 40+ hrs), and I'm
considered cheap (and am fairly busy, although my annual holiday lull is
approaching). I was told by one IT manager that he won't even look at
consultants who charge less than that, as that delves into the realm of "guy
who sells cars but also thinks he knows a lot about computers and does this
part time". Which is great if you're a local auto parts store wanting a
simple website. Not so good if you need your ERP system tweaked to handle
the new shipping procedures.

Not that Scott is like that. He obviously knows his stuff. That's why I said
the rates were low :)

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3TYtb.171222$9E1.880176@attbi_s52>... All of these things in life that can turn into major long-term growth situations are different from each other, and all have things in common. There are plenty of other such opportunities besides having children for those who wish for them. Such as what? Please understand that I'm not asking that question as a challenge, nor with skepticism. I have been thinking lately that life is only so long. I would hate to reach the end of it only to discover I'd overlooked an opportunity I never even considered!

Well, there are lots of things I'd like to do. But I agree with your
original post that relationships with other people seem to hold the
key to the most interesting personal growth.

But working _really_ hard to learn any skill, so that you come up
against your own limitations, is another thing I think leads to
growth. At least for me.


As far as things I'd _like_ to do, travel is high on my list too.
I've done quite a bit, and would like to do quite a bit more.

ellie_first@hotmail.com (Ellie) writes:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news: It is quite possible (even likely) that she would have stopped growing (in the "better" direction) had she married and had children. Yeah, it's possible. It isn't really possible that she'd be a good parent and stop growing though. Again, it depends on your definition of "better" (than oneself, not others). I am saying that for some people the "growth" that comes from being a parent may make them not better (or less better!), compared to the "growth" that comes from other things. To me, the kind of growth that enables a person to use their resources for the larger humanitarian causes makes them better more!

But again, the Mother Teresa example. So she became the sort of
person willing to give her life to the poor. So in whatever sense
that means something, she _was_ a good person.

But did doing that lead to growth on her part that made her a _better_
person? That was what I was talking about. Not whether she was
better than me, but whether she led a life that enabled her to become
progressively better than she was.

Maybe she did. I have no way to tell.

It is certainly possible to give your entire life to good works, and
not to improve from it.

"Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bpc7vs$1mth09$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... JWB wrote: "Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bpbqne$1mbk2i$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... JWB wrote:> "Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message <snip>>>>> Ah, I see. You're using "many" in a quantitative rather than a>> proportional sense. As in "3 out of the 1000 people I know like>> eating raw fish so in a population of 1,000,000,000 many people>> (and 3,000,000 counts as a lot of people) are likely to enjoy it>> too.>>> Yes. Although I'll bet more than 3 out of 1000 families are less> than happy with their work / life circumstances and feel 'trapped'> by them. What proportion of them *do* you think feel trapped? hmmm... haven't really thought about it.... rough guess.... 25-40% (40 might be kinda high) But 30% would also fit my subjective definition of "many", too. (Many being more than some and usually less than most.) Wow! That's a lot of dissatisfied people you see around you. And trapped rather than mildly inconvenienced people at that. My criteria: Someone in the family has been at a job they really don't like for over a year, and can't / won't leave because of kid-friendly hours / kid benefits / can't afford a pay cut because of kids / proximity to schools / etc. Some kid reason, that of the kid wasn't around, they'd likely take another job. Or, they live in an area they would rather not live, but don't move because of the kids. I guess I see a lot of those reasons as won'ts rather than can'ts and they could equally be applied to spouses rather than children (except for lower than tertiary education, of course).


In my way of looking at this issue, "can't" and "won't" mean the same thing.
Also, in regards to spouses, I kinda disagree. I'm sure there are some
instances where I might stay at a **** job because it makes my wife's life
easier (maybe she's ill at home... maybe she can't drive... etc), but the
other reasons are prettymuch geared towards kids.


New jobs are usually easier to find than new careers, for both parents and non-parents. But it's sounding to
me as though there's something specific about the area in which you live and more people than usual are unhappy there. How's the local economy?

I honestly don't know. I never pay attention to things like that. I would
suppose there aren't too many of those "middle class manufacturing" jobs
every community desires, but I don't see a lot of empty stores, either.. I
know I've always been able to make money when I wanted to, regardless of
who's hiring or what the economy is.

"Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bpc89i$1ks55h$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... JWB wrote: "NotTheDroidYou'reLookingFor" <fakeaddy@fakedomain.com> wrote in message news:i07jrvk58arq6vvlc5eemchin67k1m6hvi@4ax.com... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:57:21 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote:> "Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message> news:bpbqne$1mbk2i$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de...>>> What proportion of them *do* you think feel trapped?>> hmmm... haven't really thought about it.... rough guess.... 25-40%> (40 might be kinda high) My criteria: Someone in the family has> been at a job they really don't like for over a year, and can't /> won't leave because of kid-friendly hours / kid benefits / can't> afford a pay cut because of kids / proximity to schools / etc. Some> kid reason, that of the kid wasn't around, they'd likely take> another job.>> Or, they live in an area they would rather not live, but don't move> because of the kids. It's disingenuous to suggest that the CF are appreciably more likely to make drastic changes in career/location/circumstances than parents are. There are just as many CF as parents who kvetch about the minutiae of their lives. I don't know if there are just as many (all other things being equal, just the sheer expenditures difference would dictate more parents "have" to accept less than desirable positions), but yes, I'm sure there are some. I remember once posting over at ASCF remarking how so many of them seemed to ***** about layoffs and money issues..... I even commented something like "you have no kids... no strings. The world is your oyster", to which I heard "well, nobody's hiring, Bush sucks, the economy, etc etc". So you are correct, they certainly do exist. I gather from past threads that the health insurance aspect of job
benefits are enormously important in the U.S.A. and I can imagine feeling trapped
in a job I disliked with good benefits if there were no other job prospects around. And, yes, having children would make keeping that benefit *and*
that job more important.

Yes, health benefits here are a *big* deal. I base much of my belief on
being "trapped" on the health benefit issue.

"JFK" <jdk00@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3fb9a3e0.1601492@news.cis.dfn.de... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 04:39:17 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote:I remember once posting over at ASCF remarking how so many of them seemed
to***** about layoffs and money issues..... I even commented something like"you have no kids... no strings. The world is your oyster", to which Iheard "well, nobody's hiring, Bush sucks, the economy, etc etc". Most of the people over at ASCF are anal assholes. They really need to pull the baseball bats out of their asses and loosen up.

I agree. I used to laugh when someone posted about growing a spine. Like
they waited 35 years before they had enough guts to tell some lady to quiet
her kid. They should've just asked... WWKD?
A lot of them are gay, too. Like, it doesn't take much effort to be childfree when you are a dude who only uses his tool on other dudes' rectums.

ROFL!!!

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:
I certainly hope so. It must royally suck spending 50+ hrs a week doing something you don't like.

Yes, it does. But this is not at all a parents' problem. I have been
very fortunate (as you, it seems) to have a job that I love, but for
most people a job is something they do to make a living, not for
pleasure. Of course the level of dislike varies, but in general, the
majority of people would prefer not spending their days at their jobs
if they could. Have you asked your childless acquaintances if they all
love their jobs?
That is correct. It is nothing more than my belief that being "trapped" at a ****ty job sucks.

Any price that we pay, or sacrifice that we make, can only be
evaluated in relation to what we get in return. You can't judge it in
abstract. Few of my coworkers have bought houses about 1.5 hours away
from work because they wanted a much bigger house than they could
afford nearby. To me it sucks royally to have to commute 3 hours a day
for a job, but to them it's a price they happily pay because they
value that big house much more than I do. So the pain of spending so
much time in traffic is much less for them than it would for me -
though they still consider it a pain in somewhere!

I'll give you another example that I mentioned before: having a dog.
To me there is no lower existence than walking behind a dog in cold
rainy weather, day after day, waiting for it to do its business, and
picking up the poop! My sister sees it differently. Not that she likes
this particular activity, she doesn't (she doesn't walk in the woods
picking up dog poop for sports!). But to her the misery of doing it is
not the same as it seems to me. While I see owning the beast as
nothing but poop picking, hair cleaning, vet bills and such, she sees
all of this as insignificant nuisance - a VERY small price to pay for
what she gets in return, which I am unable to comprehend.

"Ellie" <ellie_first@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:27f68249.0311180647.56c0e5fb@posting.google.c om... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news: I certainly hope so. It must royally suck spending 50+ hrs a week doing something you don't like. Yes, it does. But this is not at all a parents' problem. I have been very fortunate (as you, it seems) to have a job that I love, but for most people a job is something they do to make a living, not for pleasure. Of course the level of dislike varies, but in general, the majority of people would prefer not spending their days at their jobs if they could. Have you asked your childless acquaintances if they all love their jobs?

3 out of 4 (that I know fairly well) seem pleased with their workday.

I'm not saying we have to *love* our jobs. We all work for a living. If I
were wealthy enough not to work... ****, I'd still do my consulting, because
I like it, and I'd still attend school for the History degree.

Ok, so I'm lucky ;)

That is correct. It is nothing more than my belief that being "trapped"
at a ****ty job sucks. Any price that we pay, or sacrifice that we make, can only be evaluated in relation to what we get in return. You can't judge it in abstract. Few of my coworkers have bought houses about 1.5 hours away from work because they wanted a much bigger house than they could afford nearby. To me it sucks royally to have to commute 3 hours a day for a job, but to them it's a price they happily pay because they value that big house much more than I do. So the pain of spending so much time in traffic is much less for them than it would for me - though they still consider it a pain in somewhere! I'll give you another example that I mentioned before: having a dog. To me there is no lower existence than walking behind a dog in cold rainy weather, day after day, waiting for it to do its business, and picking up the poop! My sister sees it differently. Not that she likes this particular activity, she doesn't (she doesn't walk in the woods picking up dog poop for sports!). But to her the misery of doing it is not the same as it seems to me. While I see owning the beast as nothing but poop picking, hair cleaning, vet bills and such, she sees all of this as insignificant nuisance - a VERY small price to pay for what she gets in return, which I am unable to comprehend.

well said.

I have a fenced-in backyard, so they go there. I'll clean up every other day
or so.

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<Vnhub.104759$ri.16347671@twister.nyc.rr.com>... "NotTheDroidYou'reLookingFor" <fakeaddy@fakedomain.com> wrote in message news:i07jrvk58arq6vvlc5eemchin67k1m6hvi@4ax.com... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:57:21 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote:"Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:bpbqne$1mbk2i$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de...> What proportion of them *do* you think feel trapped?hmmm... haven't really thought about it.... rough guess.... 25-40% (40 mightbe kinda high) My criteria: Someone in the family has been at a job theyreally don't like for over a year, and can't / won't leave because ofkid-friendly hours / kid benefits / can't afford a pay cut because of kids /proximity to schools / etc. Some kid reason, that of the kid wasn't around,they'd likely take another job.Or, they live in an area they would rather not live, but don't move becauseof the kids. It's disingenuous to suggest that the CF are appreciably more likely to make drastic changes in career/location/circumstances than parents are. There are just as many CF as parents who kvetch about the minutiae of their lives. I don't know if there are just as many (all other things being equal, just the sheer expenditures difference would dictate more parents "have" to accept less than desirable positions), but yes, I'm sure there are some. I remember once posting over at ASCF remarking how so many of them seemed to ***** about layoffs and money issues..... I even commented something like "you have no kids... no strings. The world is your oyster", to which I heard "well, nobody's hiring, Bush sucks, the economy, etc etc". So you are correct, they certainly do exist.


Before I had kids, I had all the time and money in the world and would
make all these plans, but then never actually carry any of them out! I
think it's because I had all the time and money to do them...
eventually...

For me, having kids made me appreciate my free time a lot more. When
the kids are at their dad's, I do not waste one moment of that free
time!

Similiarly, when I got laid off, I couldn't afford to coast for months
on unemployment while wallowing in self-pity. Having those people rely
on me was my incentive to get off my butt and push myself to find a
new avenue of income. Which turned out to be consulting, something I
would not have had the courage to try, if it weren't for the pressing
circumstances of the situation.

jen

(ASM only)

shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote:
What is on your life list?

I guess right now I am just cruising. I know you are always supposed to
have five year goals and ten year goals, and so on, but I can't say that
I do really. I have been quite driven and ambitious in the past, and I
wouldn't be surprised if I get in that mode again at some point.

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<R7eub.115058$Gq.15827974@twister.nyc.rr.com>...
hmmm... haven't really thought about it.... rough guess.... 25-40% (40 might be kinda high) My criteria: Someone in the family has been at a job they really don't like for over a year, and can't / won't leave because of kid-friendly hours / kid benefits / can't afford a pay cut because of kids / proximity to schools / etc. Some kid reason, that of the kid wasn't around, they'd likely take another job.

To me, this sort of excuse is similar to a person saying they can't do
XYZ because their "spouse won't let them." It's a cop out.

It may also be the past-time, "I'd love to, BUT." In this game, a
person dangles a problem in front of you, enticing you to offer
solutions. You keep offering possible creative solutions, and the
person just keeps finding reasons that each solution couldn't possibly
work for their situation. After awhile, it may dawn on you that the
person really doesn't want a solution. They just want to play the
game, "I'd love to, BUT." They get some thrill out of presenting you
with a problem you can't solve.

You tend to see this a lot on Usenet support groups! Those of us who
like the challenge of problem-solving tend to get sucked in pretty
easily.


jen

Scott Eiler <seiler@eilertech.com> writes:
Doug Anderson wrote: "Shashay Doofray" <Shashay@email.com> writes:To assume that a person's personal and emotional development stops simply because they do not marry and reproduce is ridiculous. It would be ridiculous indeed. You'll notice that neither I, nor anyone else here, has made such an assumption. Okay, but only on a technicality.

I don't think so. I've been very careful to say that I think there
are many ways to continue developing personally, and that raising
children is just one.

"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1g4m82g.1e3qghvcxpmqpN%mbjq@earthlink.net... (ASM only) shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: What is on your life list? I guess right now I am just cruising. I know you are always supposed to have five year goals and ten year goals, and so on, but I can't say that I do really. I have been quite driven and ambitious in the past, and I wouldn't be surprised if I get in that mode again at some point.

I have always found the whole point of long-term "timed" goals silly. I have
no 5-year plan. Too many things can change. 5 years ago, I hadn't even met
my wife, and my life was *vastly* different.

If I look at the future, I only really have one goal - to enjoy my life.

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It may also be the past-time, "I'd love to, BUT." In this game, a person dangles a problem in front of you, enticing you to offer solutions. You keep offering possible creative solutions, and the person just keeps finding reasons that each solution couldn't possibly work for their situation. After awhile, it may dawn on you that the person really doesn't want a solution. They just want to play the game, "I'd love to, BUT." They get some thrill out of presenting you with a problem you can't solve. You tend to see this a lot on Usenet support groups! Those of us who like the challenge of problem-solving tend to get sucked in pretty easily.

I once had a sales manager who had all sorts of motivational phrases and the
like. I always thought that stuff was silly fluff for idiots who couldn't
get things done. One thing he said did ring true, however: Most of the time,
everything after "but" is bull****.

To me, this sort of excuse is similar to a personsaying they can't do XYZ because their "spouse won'tlet them." It's a cop out.

I remember a conversation with my dad like it was
yesterday because it was one of the only times I've
ever been able to stop him cold in the middle of one
of his lectures/diatribes on how I was living my life
wrong. I was 18 or 19, living at home, and I had just
quit a job that I thoroughly despised. He was rightly
pissed because now I was living in his house and not
working, not attending school. And he was yelling at
me about how irresponsible I was and how 'you work
because you *have* to. I have worked in that factory
for 30 f***ing years and hated every f***ing minute of
it, but I've worked there because I *had* to.' And I
looked at him and I said 'And is that what you want
for me? For me, 30 years from now, to be telling my
kid that I've worked in that place for 30 years and
hated every minute of it?'

He stopped cold. And two weeks later I joined the Navy
and found a job that I *loved*.

Tracey

"Tracey" <rbrancher2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3FBA7B0B.1080401@aol.com...To me, this sort of excuse is similar to a personsaying they can't do XYZ because their "spouse won'tlet them." It's a cop out. I remember a conversation with my dad like it was yesterday because it was one of the only times I've ever been able to stop him cold in the middle of one of his lectures/diatribes on how I was living my life wrong. I was 18 or 19, living at home, and I had just quit a job that I thoroughly despised. He was rightly pissed because now I was living in his house and not working, not attending school. And he was yelling at me about how irresponsible I was and how 'you work because you *have* to. I have worked in that factory for 30 f***ing years and hated every f***ing minute of it, but I've worked there because I *had* to.' And I looked at him and I said 'And is that what you want for me? For me, 30 years from now, to be telling my kid that I've worked in that place for 30 years and hated every minute of it?' He stopped cold. And two weeks later I joined the Navy and found a job that I *loved*.

Good for you. Life is too short to hate your work.

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<R7eub.115058$Gq.15827974@twister.nyc.rr.com>... "Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bpbqne$1mbk2i$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... JWB wrote: "Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message <snip>>> Ah, I see. You're using "many" in a quantitative rather than a> proportional sense. As in "3 out of the 1000 people I know like> eating raw fish so in a population of 1,000,000,000 many people> (and 3,000,000 counts as a lot of people) are likely to enjoy it too. Yes. Although I'll bet more than 3 out of 1000 families are less than happy with their work / life circumstances and feel 'trapped' by them. What proportion of them *do* you think feel trapped? hmmm... haven't really thought about it.... rough guess.... 25-40% (40 might be kinda high) My criteria: Someone in the family has been at a job they really don't like for over a year, and can't / won't leave because of kid-friendly hours / kid benefits / can't afford a pay cut because of kids / proximity to schools / etc. Some kid reason, that of the kid wasn't around, they'd likely take another job. Or, they live in an area they would rather not live, but don't move because of the kids.
While I can see many of those reasons for a parent choosing to keep a
job, some of those same reasons might be used as an excuse for a
childfree person to keep a job as well. Lots of people live paycheck
to paycheck whether they have kids or not. These folks are not likely
to take a pay cut. What do you consider kid-friendly hours?

kids can also be an incentive for people to get a better job or
improve their work situation. After we had our first child, my wife
took a pay cut and works only a couple of days a week. She hated her
old job. She likes this one. I was able to negotiate a pay raise to
compensate for her lost wages.

It was also the knowledge that I would be soon having kids that was
partially responsible for my leaving a job where long hours were part
of the culture. It was not the only reason I left, and I might have
left eventually anyway, but it was a factor. I *much* prefer my
current job.

People make choices. There are not too many choices that don't have a
downside, but the fact that there are downsides doesn't necessarily
make the choice a bad one.

>> However, I do have trouble finding that a meaningful way of using> even a subjective term. why? It must be the mathematician in me, JWB. Or what's left of it! Numbers within classes aren't all that interesting on their own unless they're compared to the whole population. I agree. But hard math prettymuch makes "many" meaningless :)

shinypenny wrote:
Starting a new thread -- interested in hearing what everyone else would have on their life lists. For example, I've already identified that I would personally regret never attempting to run a marathon, or having the chance to travel all over the world. What is on your life list?

Life list? I'm supposed to have a life list?

Tara

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:44:49 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com>
wrote:
If I look at the future, I only really have one goal - to enjoy my life.

That's all I could come up with for mine, but I'm already doing that.

Tara

"JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<BMtub.219887$pT1.116962@twister.nyc.rr.com>... If I look at the future, I only really have one goal - to enjoy my life.

So what do you do when bad things happen to you? For example what if
your wife became seriously ill, or you became seriously ill. Something
you had no control over happening, and no control over healing. How do
you think you'd handle such a situation?

jen

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:44:49 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com>
wrote:
"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:1g4m82g.1e3qghvcxpmqpN%mbjq@earthlink. net... (ASM only) shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: What is on your life list? I guess right now I am just cruising. I know you are always supposed to have five year goals and ten year goals, and so on, but I can't say that I do really. I have been quite driven and ambitious in the past, and I wouldn't be surprised if I get in that mode again at some point.I have always found the whole point of long-term "timed" goals silly. I haveno 5-year plan. Too many things can change. 5 years ago, I hadn't even metmy wife, and my life was *vastly* different.If I look at the future, I only really have one goal - to enjoy my life.

Didn't you finish grade school?...in a certain amount of time.

Didn't you finish high school?...and maybe college?...in a certain
amount of time.

Goals and time limits and proofs for reward are ingrained in us from
an early age.


Have a nice week...

Gus

Certified breast self-exam subcontractor.

On 17 Nov 2003 09:18:22 -0800, shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny)
wrote:
Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3TYtb.171222$9E1.880176@attbi_s52>... All of these things in life that can turn into major long-term growth situations are different from each other, and all have things in common. There are plenty of other such opportunities besides having children for those who wish for them.Such as what?Please understand that I'm not asking that question as a challenge,nor with skepticism. I have been thinking lately that life is only solong. I would hate to reach the end of it only to discover I'doverlooked an opportunity I never even considered!

Define 'overlooked', Jen. I'm not sure I would have the same
definition as you.


Have a nice week...

Gus

Certified breast self-exam subcontractor.

"shinypenny" <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c8cb5319.0311181741.2ba76412@posting.google.c om... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message
news:<BMtub.219887$pT1.116962@twister.nyc.rr.com>... If I look at the future, I only really have one goal - to enjoy my life. So what do you do when bad things happen to you? For example what if your wife became seriously ill, or you became seriously ill. Something you had no control over happening, and no control over healing. How do you think you'd handle such a situation?

I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. But, I am a resilient person, so
I'd like to think I'd overcome any adverse situation.

"Gus" <gusaufdenkinder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:heilrv837g91sjjus3oi8mi759l4hr3s6a@4ax.com... On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:44:49 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote:"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:1g4m82g.1e3qghvcxpmqpN%mbjq@earthlink. net... (ASM only) shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: > What is on your life list? I guess right now I am just cruising. I know you are always supposed
to have five year goals and ten year goals, and so on, but I can't say
that I do really. I have been quite driven and ambitious in the past, and I wouldn't be surprised if I get in that mode again at some point.I have always found the whole point of long-term "timed" goals silly. I
haveno 5-year plan. Too many things can change. 5 years ago, I hadn't even
metmy wife, and my life was *vastly* different.If I look at the future, I only really have one goal - to enjoy my life. Didn't you finish grade school?...in a certain amount of time. Didn't you finish high school?...and maybe college?...in a certain amount of time.


I'm going to college now. At 37

Goals and time limits and proofs for reward are ingrained in us from an early age.

for children.

jinglebells5555@yahoo.com (Jingle Bells) wrote in message news:<f804e152.0311181351.67360a4f@posting.google.com>... "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote in message news:<R7eub.115058$Gq.15827974@twister.nyc.rr.com>... "Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bpbqne$1mbk2i$1@ID-123442.news.uni-berlin.de... JWB wrote: > "Tai" <taitrytwo_remove_blah@yahoo.com> wrote in message <snip> >> >> Ah, I see. You're using "many" in a quantitative rather than a >> proportional sense. As in "3 out of the 1000 people I know like >> eating raw fish so in a population of 1,000,000,000 many people >> (and 3,000,000 counts as a lot of people) are likely to enjoy it too. > > > Yes. Although I'll bet more than 3 out of 1000 families are less than > happy with their work / life circumstances and feel 'trapped' by them. What proportion of them *do* you think feel trapped? hmmm... haven't really thought about it.... rough guess.... 25-40% (40 might be kinda high) My criteria: Someone in the family has been at a job they really don't like for over a year, and can't / won't leave because of kid-friendly hours / kid benefits / can't afford a pay cut because of kids / proximity to schools / etc. Some kid reason, that of the kid wasn't around, they'd likely take another job. Or, they live in an area they would rather not live, but don't move because of the kids. While I can see many of those reasons for a parent choosing to keep a job, some of those same reasons might be used as an excuse for a childfree person to keep a job as well. Lots of people live paycheck to paycheck whether they have kids or not. These folks are not likely to take a pay cut. What do you consider kid-friendly hours? kids can also be an incentive for people to get a better job or improve their work situation.

I know for sure that being a parent has made me a much more effective
manager. I apply many of the same techniques with my team at work, as
I do at home with my kids.

Work aside, kids also have a way of shining light on other things,
too, and incenting you to improve yourself.

Like Doug said, seeing your own faults reflected back at you (big one
in our house).

Realizing (acutely!) that your parents did their best (yep, you were a
handful) and weren't completely responsible for how your life turned
out.

Kids can have a way of reminding you to stop and "smell the roses."
This was driven home to me when my kids were young and I'd take them
on walks. I'd get really impatient, until I realized the way the light
hit that blade of grass really *was* fascinating!!

Yep, patience is one lesson I learned from my kids. I am so much more
patient nowadays.

I've learned how to get along with my ex, for the sake of my kids.
That was a biggie. Sure, if we hadn't any kids, I could have just
walked away.

What else have I missed?

jen

shinypenny wrote:
Yep, patience is one lesson I learned from my kids. I am so much more patient nowadays.

This is a big one for me too! Patience was not a part of my design, and I had to learn it kicking and screaming :-)
What else have I missed?

Not sure about you, but for me another biggi was the painful realization that I could not control everything! Learning
to accept the world around me as it is, instead of trying to change it to how I think it should be.

I remember with my first son who was very colicky and difficult as a baby, I, being exhausted and totally sleep
deprived, used to tell my husband that "this is not the model I ordered from the catalog"! It took a while, but at one
point (don't remember how old he was) my husband asked me if I still thought I had ordered a different model. I
remember it so clearly! I said yes, I still think I had ordered a different model, but can't even imagine wanting
anything other than the one I was sent. I hadn't been able to change him into a quiet calm baby, but he had changed me
to an accepting person!

shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: If I look at the future, I only really have one goal - to enjoy my life. So what do you do when bad things happen to you? For example what if your wife became seriously ill, or you became seriously ill. Something you had no control over happening, and no control over healing. How do you think you'd handle such a situation?

Well, having done the seriously ill thing (although it was luckily treatable
and non-permanent) I can say without doubt that I am one ornery git when in
pain or even serious discomfort.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 02:52:04 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com>
wrote:

Goals and time limits and proofs for reward are ingrained in us from an early age.for children.

You don't have to get so many credit hours in?

And their not gonna give you some piece of paper to prove what you
did?

lol


Have a nice week...

Gus

Certified breast self-exam subcontractor.

"Gus" <gusaufdenkinder@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cl0nrv4lj0edq3f9vrv2c6ho2fududdqur@4ax.com... On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 02:52:04 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote: Goals and time limits and proofs for reward are ingrained in us from an early age.for children. You don't have to get so many credit hours in? And their not gonna give you some piece of paper to prove what you did? lol

Yea, but it's not timed. That's my point.

shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny) wrote in message news:<c8cb5319.0311170918.5eb72965@posting.google.com>... Doug Anderson <ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3TYtb.171222$9E1.880176@attbi_s52>... All of these things in life that can turn into major long-term growth situations are different from each other, and all have things in common. There are plenty of other such opportunities besides having children for those who wish for them. Such as what? Please understand that I'm not asking that question as a challenge, nor with skepticism. I have been thinking lately that life is only so long. I would hate to reach the end of it only to discover I'd overlooked an opportunity I never even considered! Starting a new thread -- interested in hearing what everyone else would have on their life lists. For example, I've already identified that I would personally regret never attempting to run a marathon, or having the chance to travel all over the world. What is on your life list?

Ooh, fun thread.

Travel's a biggie on mine, too. We finally got to Europe
3 years ago (from the US) and plan to go back next year.
When the kids are truly independent (soon), I'd like to have
a lifestyle where we can take advantage of the off-season
rates and bop over for long weekends.

But in addition, I hope someday to travel to:
- Japan (preferably knowing the language first)
- Greece (preferably knowing the language first)
- Mexico (a search for family roots; I want to be
truly *fluent* first)
- China
- India
- Antarctica

I have language goals all mixed up with my travel goals.
I'd also like to learn Arabic, and that predates all
the recent terrorist stuff. You'd think that with all
this interest in language, I'd be fluent in something.
I'm not, and that really bugs me. I can barely survive
in Spanish, and that's it.

Other goals:
- start a magazine-writing career
- do speech-recognition research at home
- get good enough in piano to enter an amateur competition
- learn classical guitar
- get my black belt in Aikido

That ought to keep me busy till I drop.

- Randy

On 18 Nov 2003 19:01:50 -0800, shinypenny0001@yahoo.com (shinypenny)
wrote:
I know for sure that being a parent has made me a much more effectivemanager. I apply many of the same techniques with my team at work, asI do at home with my kids.

Glad it helped you. My manager is getting seriously tired of me
pointing out that I am NOT a 3 year old. Luckily, others in my group
are growing enough spine to state the same thing.
Kids can have a way of reminding you to stop and "smell the roses."This was driven home to me when my kids were young and I'd take themon walks. I'd get really impatient, until I realized the way the lighthit that blade of grass really *was* fascinating!!

Some of us see life that way without the aid of a children's view.

Tara

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:44:49 GMT, "JWB" <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com>
wrote:
"Emma Anne" <mbjq@earthlink.net> wrote in messagenews:1g4m82g.1e3qghvcxpmqpN%mbjq@earthlink. net... (ASM only) shinypenny <shinypenny0001@yahoo.com> wrote: What is on your life list? I guess right now I am just cruising. I know you are always supposed to have five year goals and ten year goals, and so on, but I can't say that I do really. I have been quite driven and ambitious in the past, and I wouldn't be surprised if I get in that mode again at some point.I have always found the whole point of long-term "timed" goals silly. I haveno 5-year plan. Too many things can change. 5 years ago, I hadn't even metmy wife, and my life was *vastly* different.If I look at the future, I only really have one goal - to enjoy my life.

Ever do the "writing your obituary" test? Or ask yourself, if you
found you were dying tomorrow, would you be content looking back on
your life?

I find there are holes in my obituary, things I'd want to be there.
Hence I have a list.

- Randy

In article <c1jub.228952$HS4.2003141@attbi_s01>, Doug Anderson
<ethelthelog@yahoo.com> wrote:
I also believe that the level of intimacy between spouses in arranged marriages is often very low. The men have their world, and the women have their's and the common ground is often very little.

You sure you haven't been reading my postings? <g>
Yup, that does seem to be how it is.
Time to do something about it...

Ted

"Randy Poe" <rpoePA@removethis.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ntborvs5n7aok8djumrvke9do7ofq1gdhg@4ax.com...
Ever do the "writing your obituary" test? Or ask yourself, if you found you were dying tomorrow, would you be content looking back on your life?

I would be happy with what I've done.

JWB <jwbSPAMBEGONE3333@excite.com> wrote:
I once had a sales manager who had all sorts of motivational phrases and the like. I always thought that stuff was silly fluff for idiots who couldn't get things done. One thing he said did ring true, however: Most of the time, everything after "but" is bull****.

I read once (don't remember where) that you should always try replacing
"but" with "and" and see if it makes more sense. So instead of saying
"I want to go to a movie, but I have to clean my house" you say " I want
to go to a movie, and I have to clean my house." This allows you to see
other options - like clean your house at a different time, maybe.

I like this idea. Another idea I like is to not say "I have to" nearly
as often. Do I really *have* to stay late at work, or do I just not
want to do what it would take *not* to stay late at work?