🚀 go-pugleaf

frost <frost7967@popalex1.linknet.net> wrote:


 >   The following contradiction has always perplexed me: Frequently, I hear 
 >people complaining loudly about the burdens and restrictions imposed by 
 >parenthood; when questioned only seconds later, however, they insist that 
 >they definitately would have kids if "they could do it all over again". 
 
I don't complain about the burdens (at least not loudly).  We made a
conscious choice to have our son when we did, so it would seem kind of stupid
to end up complaining about it.  Now if had been an "oops baby", then it
might be different.  Hard to tell, since he wasn't...

 >How do we resolve this apparant contradiction? Possibly:
 >   1) An extremely strong life instinct, pushing for preservation of the 
 >species and genetic self, overrides momentary inconvenience.

Ron and his brother are the last of the Whittle line (this branch of it,
anyway), and his brother will probably not procreate, so we really did want
to have a boy to continue the family name.  We did, however, want a girl
first, followed by a boy.  We also said that if we could only have one child,
that we would want a boy.  I guess somebody knew what S/He was doing... :-) 

 >   2) Children represent possibility, and allow us to rekindle the hope 
 >that previously abandonned dreams may still be fulfilled ,albeit 
 >vicariously, through the child who symbolically is an extension of 
 >ourselves; the lure of the possible (and of narcissistic gratification) is 

Yuck.  I hate that.  I think that is extremely dangerous for the child's
well-being, and Ron and I are actively doing our best to make sure this
doesn't happen in our situation.  I am responsible for my own dreams, not my
child.  I think the only thing we wanted that might be close to that is for
our child to be intelligent, which he is (very!), so we're pretty much done
with that.  What he does with that intelligence is now up to him.  We will
support, but we will not push.

  >    Such hope, such parental enthusiasm, may be based on self-deception; 
 >cold blooded, statistical analysis quickly shows us that, like us, our 
 >offspring probably will be ordinary, frustrated beings whose years of 
 >frantic grasping end in listless resignation.  Nonetheless, such 
 
What a horribly depressing thought!  But we aren't having any "years of
frantic grasping", and I don't foresee any "listless resignation" in our
future, either.

 >   3)Timeless yearnings for immortality (fear of death) are answered 
 >through procreation (and religion); through children, we extend our beings 
 >in space and time.

Hmmm... I think that goes along with "continuing the family line".

 >    4) Having children satisfies the timeless mandate to "go forth and 
 >multiply"; by so doing our duty, we are partly exonerated from feelings of 
 >social guilt.  Until quite recently, procreation was indedd a duty to 
 >community and family; when infant mortality was high, less fertile 
 >families soon died out, and lost their businesses/farms due to a dwindling 
 >workforce.

I didn't feel any "duty", I just knew I always wanted to be a Mommy. :-)


Valerie
rvr@netrail.net