🚀 go-pugleaf

Ralph Mills (Ralph_Mills@calstate.edu) wrote:
: jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) wrote:
: >I just saw on one of those news shows on night TV an interview by Jane Pauly
: >of Ann Landers.  Two of the stats that surprised me was that Ann Landers
: >said when she asked her readers if they could do it all over again:
: >         - Only 55% said they would have married their current spouse.
: >         - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.
: >(Ann Landers said she got 50,000 responses on these questions.)

: There is much said on ROM about winners and losers. The losers in 
: the race to the future are not those who die with the most toys, but
: those who leave the greatest number of progeny behind.  They will
: inherit the civilization some childless folk insist they are fighting
: to preserve.

     Something like this is subtext under some of the social stresses
     in California that it's not PC, or something, to discuss. The
     present population that is presently dominant in voting and paying 
     taxes is balking at paying for their evolutionary replacements. 
     Specifically, the schools are a disaster area. The result may be a 
     population that will have too high a proportion of unskilled labor
     to produce enough to sustain the aforementioned taxpayers in their 
     old age. Of course, that what goes around comes around isn't really
     news...

		On the other hand, with the global population explosion,
: even the winners may well be the losers.

     The population of the US will double in my lifetime and will probably
     double again in the lifetime of a child born here today. It is
     possible that the US will become a net importer of food, although 
     that study sounded rather speculative. With a population that favors
     suburban sprawl over cities, though, it seems possible. But, again,
     it's not discussed much because the population increase is almost
     entirely in the part of the population and it's descendents that 
     immigrated to the US recently. It's always fun to watch "PC's" 
     trying to deal with conflicting imperatives :-) . They often react
     like a robot tripping some of its circuit breakers and going
     around and around and around in circles beeping at everything...

     Hugh ---

Against all logic, John Cooley claimed:

>I just saw on one of those news shows on night TV an interview by Jane Pauly
>of Ann Landers.  Two of the stats that surprised me was that Ann Landers
>said when she asked her readers if they could do it all over again:
>
>         - Only 55% said they would have married their current spouse.
>
>         - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.
>
I've learned my lesson.

Given another chance, I wouldn't admit to them.

---

Steve P.
A place for everything and everything all over the place.

In article <DqDHuH.HHt@bigtop.dr.att.com>,
Bentz Puryear  <bep@drmail.dr.att.com> wrote:
>jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) wrote:
>>I just saw on one of those news shows on night TV an interview by Jane Pauly
>>of Ann Landers.  Two of the stats that surprised me was that Ann Landers
>>said when she asked her readers if they could do it all over again:
>>
>>         - Only 55% said they would have married their current spouse.
>>
>>         - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.
>
>I too saw this and gave it some thought, I love my kids but to do it all
>over again, I don't know. 

Well, *I* know how I would respond.  A most resounding YES, I would
do it all over again, in a heartbeat.  I have NO doubts about that.

Its so much work, its so hard keep your relationship
>going. The pressure of supporting not only yourself but your wife and kids.
>The problems that kids cause and mine are only 6 and 8, I can hardly wait until
>they are teenagers. 

As one of the parents of 3 "young adults", my advice to you is JUST WAIT.
You don't even *know* what trouble is yet.  :-)  Although, as they get
older, *some* of the responsibility drops from YOUR shoulders; though
not all.  Yes, it most definitely IS work to raise, successfully, our
children.  More than most people are aware of when they first decide
to HAVE children.

Like I said I love them and would do anything for them
>but to have to start all over I would have to give it some serious thought.

Precisely!  And this is where I personally believe that a LOT of
people fail themselves (and inevitably their children.) ie. they 
*didn't* give it a lot of thought before they had them.  Of course,
even with a lot of thought there can still be situations that come
up that weren't even thought of or considered (major longterm 
illnesses, physical and mental disabilities, behavioral problems,
financial problems etc.)  SOME responsibilities inherent in child
rearing CAN be considered beforehand, others cannot.  However, it
does behoove one to be as *informed* as possible and then, and only
then make the decision to go ahead and become a parent realizing 
that even though one believes they are prepared, there will still
be situations that they (the parents) are not prepared for and
realistically, can't always be.  Having and raising children is
a *true* commitment for LIFE; that commitment does NOT end, IMO,
at age 18.  (The commitment becomes lessened over time, but it
does not end.)  IF one does not *truly* wish to make such a
commitment, one should not be a parent, IMO.

>Bentz Puryear (303)538-4039      	 (bep@drmail.dr.att.com)
>http://info.dr.att.com/~bep/index.html (From inside Lucent Technologies only)
>Lucent Technologies (formaly AT&T) Bell Labs Denver Co. 
>11900 N. Pecos, Rm. 31Y31 Denver, Co. 80234
>

Marg

-- 
           Member PSEB   Official Sonneteer  JLP SoL  
    	 Member NOWVOYAGER and Goddesses of the Internet 
    petersm@peak.org  http://www.orst.edu/~peterseb/marg.html
	   

In article <DqCMDn.HwD@world.std.com> jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) writes:

> I just saw on one of those news shows on night TV an interview by Jane Pauly
> of Ann Landers.  Two of the stats that surprised me was that Ann Landers
> said when she asked her readers if they could do it all over again:
> 
>          - Only 55% said they would have married their current spouse.
> 
>          - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.

Who would you expect to respond to such a question in a newspaper
column: people who are happy with their choices, or people who are
unhappy?  

Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if the dissatisfaction percentage
really were fairly high: do any of us really make the right choices
all the time?  I just think we ought to use more reliable numbers.
This sort of "survey" is a classic example of how not to do a poll.

jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) wrote:
>I just saw on one of those news shows on night TV an interview by Jane Pauly
>of Ann Landers.  Two of the stats that surprised me was that Ann Landers
>said when she asked her readers if they could do it all over again:
>
>         - Only 55% said they would have married their current spouse.
>
>         - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.
>
>(Ann Landers said she got 50,000 responses on these questions.)
>
>  - John

There is much said on ROM about winners and losers. The losers in 
the race to the future are not those who die with the most toys, but
those who leave the greatest number of progeny behind.  They will
inherit the civilization some childless folk insist they are fighting
to preserve. On the other hand, with the global population explosion,
even the winners may well be the losers.

John Cooley (jcooley@world.std.com) writes:
|   I just saw on one of those news shows on night TV an interview by Jane Pauly
|   of Ann Landers.  Two of the stats that surprised me was that Ann Landers
|   said when she asked her readers if they could do it all over again:
|   
|            - Only 55% said they would have married their current spouse.
|   
|            - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.
|   
|   (Ann Landers said she got 50,000 responses on these questions.)

This would be a classic case of a non-representative sample.  First,
the respondants all came from a subgroup of the group "all Americans":
they read a particular advice column.  (Not everyone reads a
newspaper; not every newspaper carries Ann Landers; not every reader
of those papers which do carry the column chooses to read it.)  And
second, the respondants selected themselves from this group.  Not
every reader responded, only those who chose to do so.

So the response of this self-selected sample tells us nothing about
what "all Americans" or "people in general" think.  It's a lousy way
to run a poll.

As for me?  There are many things i wish i could change in my life,
but i wouldn't change my mind about marrying Steinar, and i wouldn't
change my mind about having my son.

- Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
 cindy@nvg.unit.no                      Trondheim, Norway
 My home page, with link to the Bilingual Families Web page:
        http://www.nvg.unit.no/~cindy/

In <DqCMDn.HwD@world.std.com>, jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) writes:
>I just saw on one of those news shows on night TV an interview by Jane Pauly
>of Ann Landers.  Two of the stats that surprised me was that Ann Landers
>said when she asked her readers if they could do it all over again:
>
>         - Only 55% said they would have married their current spouse.
>
>         - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.

I can relate to that! Dogs, or even cats, are better than kids, any day.

>
>(Ann Landers said she got 50,000 responses on these questions.)

TTYL,

Marjorie
Chief Noid
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/
http://www.netprophet.co.nz/
*coming soon!* http://www.netfreedom.org.au/ *at an ISP near you*

jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) wrote:
>I just saw on one of those news shows on night TV an interview by Jane Pauly
>of Ann Landers.  Two of the stats that surprised me was that Ann Landers
>said when she asked her readers if they could do it all over again:
>
>         - Only 55% said they would have married their current spouse.
>
>         - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.

I too saw this and gave it some thought, I love my kids but to do it all
over again, I don't know. Its so much work, its so hard keep your relationship
going. The pressure of supporting not only yourself but your wife and kids.
The problems that kids cause and mine are only 6 and 8, I can hardly wait until
they are teenagers. Like I said I love them and would do anything for them
but to have to start all over I would have to give it some serious thought.


>
>(Ann Landers said she got 50,000 responses on these questions.)
>
>  - John
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  __))    "Glass ceilings?  Name ANY ex-goat farmer who's made management!"
> /_ oo  
>  (_ \   Holliston Poor Farm                                   - John Cooley
>%//  \"  Holliston, MA 01746-6222           part time Sheep & ex-Goat Farmer
>%%%  $   jcooley@world.std.com       full time contract ASIC & FPGA Designer

-- 
Bentz Puryear (303)538-4039      	 (bep@drmail.dr.att.com)
http://info.dr.att.com/~bep/index.html (From inside Lucent Technologies only)
Lucent Technologies (formaly AT&T) Bell Labs Denver Co. 
11900 N. Pecos, Rm. 31Y31 Denver, Co. 80234

wisby@ibm.net wrote:

> >         - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.
> 
> I can relate to that! Dogs, or even cats, are better than kids, any day.

All the juice (even berry) that my son has spilled on our "sand" colored
carpet doesn't come close to the 3 (yes only 3) times that our cat
pissed in multiple corners of the house shortly after we moved in.
My son at least goes in his diapers. The cat was gone two weeks later.

And the cat was never as funny as my son can be!

============================================================
Mark Frazier          "Train Hard, Eat Healthy, Die Anyway"
Software Engineer/Consultant
mfrazier@rmi.net       Denver, Colorado, USA
============================================================

In article <DqCMDn.HwD@world.std.com>, jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) says:
>
>I just saw on one of those news shows on night TV an interview by Jane Pauly
>of Ann Landers.  Two of the stats that surprised me was that Ann Landers
>said when she asked her readers if they could do it all over again:
>
>         - Only 55% said they would have married their current spouse.

No comment.  (See .sig).

>         - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.

If I knew then what I know now, I probably wouldn't have had a baby.
I hasten to add, however, that Alex (otherwise known as the Amazing
Energy Vortex) is the best thing that ever happened to me.  And those
aren't contradictory statements.

-- Lori

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That which does not kill us makes us stronger.              -- Nietzsche
Nevertheless, my next husband will be normal.               -- me
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Round up the usual disclaimers.      <liversen@physiology.medsch.ucla.edu>

jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) writes:

>I just saw on one of those news shows on night TV an interview by Jane Pauly
>of Ann Landers.  Two of the stats that surprised me was that Ann Landers
>said when she asked her readers if they could do it all over again:

>         - Only 55% said they would have married their current spouse.

>         - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.

>(Ann Landers said she got 50,000 responses on these questions.)

Yeah, so what's the point? Presuming that the poll is accurate [which is a 
big presumption, given the population sampled], it isn't helpful.  You're 
talking about the appeal of a certain lifestyle.  Such is individualistic.  
Moreover, people may enjoy something at a particular time in their lives, but 
not at other times.  I know many people whose kids are grown and if asked 
would they want to start all over *if they could do it again*, would answer 
no.  However, they have no regrets about having the kids when they did.

Also, feelings about a broad experience are often relative and controlled by 
a narrower experience associated with it.  If you were to ask parents the 
survey question, when they were making sacrifices to put kids through 
college, you'd get one answer.  If you were to ask the same parents in their 
dotage, when their kids were caring for them, you'd get another answer.  In 
fact, I'd venture to say that many people, if surveyed, would admit having 
days in their lives when they themselves regretted being born.  That doesn't 
mean life has to be bad for most.

Ciccio

In article <DqF7Gt.918@bigtop.dr.att.com>,
Bentz Puryear  <bep@drmail.dr.att.com> wrote:
>petersm@PEAK.ORG (Marguerite Petersen) wrote:
>>In article <DqDHuH.HHt@bigtop.dr.att.com>,
>>Bentz Puryear  <bep@drmail.dr.att.com> wrote:
>>>
>>Precisely!  And this is where I personally believe that a LOT of
>>people fail themselves (and inevitably their children.) ie. they 
>>*didn't* give it a lot of thought before they had them.  Of course,
>
>My wife and I were no spring chickens when we had our kids. We had been trying
>for some time and were using fertility drugs and had come down to the
>last month that we were going to try when she got pregnant. She was 37 and I
>was 35. We did give it a lot of thought and my wife had already made the
>decision to quit and stay home. We had been putting money away to tide us
>over. We had vacations all over and gotten alot of living out of the way. But
>even with all the forthought you still are supprised at the work and 
>commitment it takes. And then after all the trouble getting pregnant the first
>time we were not as carefull as we should have been and boom she got pregnant
>again this time she's 40 and I am 37 SUPPRISE so what are you going to do.

I DO believe this happens to many young people as well.  :-)  

>Kids having kids we thought we were ready but teenagers and even young 20's
>miss so much of their life when kids enter their life. I find it hard to
>believe
>that they could be ready for what it takes. I know I was not ready for kids
>when I was in my 20's to much to do and see that I would have never been able
>to do with kids.

Well, as long as the responsibility is what the individuals wanted,
then the giving up (and there is a LOT of giving up), of *other*
things can be acceptable.  It was for me.  I have not traveled,
but then I wasn't all that interested in doing so.  And even with
kids, one can still do some things (such as travel), although the
traveling will have to be slightly different.  My husband and I liked
to go camping and that was possible with small children so we were
able to accomplish that goal.  

>>even with a lot of thought there can still be situations that come
>>up that weren't even thought of or considered (major longterm 
>>illnesses, physical and mental disabilities, behavioral problems,
>>financial problems etc.)  SOME responsibilities inherent in child
>>rearing CAN be considered beforehand, others cannot.  However, it
>>does behoove one to be as *informed* as possible and then, and only
>>then make the decision to go ahead and become a parent realizing 
>>that even though one believes they are prepared, there will still
>>be situations that they (the parents) are not prepared for and
>>realistically, can't always be.  Having and raising children is
>>a *true* commitment for LIFE; that commitment does NOT end, IMO,
>>at age 18.  (The commitment becomes lessened over time, but it
>>does not end.)  IF one does not *truly* wish to make such a
>>commitment, one should not be a parent, IMO.
>
>Yes I agree they never go away (I hope). 

My *kids* are now 26, 24 and 18.  They just *won't* go away.  :-)
Two of them have left the home (married) and the youngest will
be attending college next fall.  She will be living at home though
as we live 15 minutes from her college.  They all still congregate
at our home on a weekly basis.  I attribute this to a desire on
their part to still have contact with us and I am happy about that.
BUT, it does put pressures on my husband and myself.  Good ones,
though.

I was very lucky my kids are really
>very good and very healthy. When I look at some of the problems friends of
>mine have had with kids, I really feel lucky. But then mine have not hit there
>teens yet soooo. The scary thing is even if you do every thing right the kids
>can still turn out bad, some times it all seems like luck with a little or alot
>of skill and love thrown in.

Yup, that it does and is, IMO.  There are simply NO guarantees as to
how one's children will turn out.  It DOES behoove any parent, however,
to provide as much intelligence, skill, love and attention to their
children as they can possibly manage.  It can't hurt and it might
actually help.  Course, a little understanding helps as well.

>-- 
>Bentz Puryear (303)538-4039      	 (bep@drmail.dr.att.com)

Marg



-- 
           Member PSEB   Official Sonneteer  JLP SoL  
    	 Member NOWVOYAGER and Goddesses of the Internet 
    petersm@peak.org  http://www.orst.edu/~peterseb/marg.html
	   

liversen@physiology.medsch.ucla.edu (Lori Iversen) wrote:
>In article <DqCMDn.HwD@world.std.com>, jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) says:
>>
>>I just saw on one of those news shows on night TV an interview by Jane Pauly
>>of Ann Landers.  Two of the stats that surprised me was that Ann Landers
>>said when she asked her readers if they could do it all over again:
>>
>>         - Only 55% said they would have married their current spouse.
>
>No comment.  (See .sig).
>
>>         - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.
>

   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". 
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.
   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 
strongest when the child is still very young and experience (nasty, 
callous reality) has not yet shown us his limitations.
    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 
self-deception, such delusions, may be critical in maintaining enthusiasm, 
social-mindedness, useful ambitions and in warding of the paralysis which 
leads to further social decay.
   3)Timeless yearnings for immortality (fear of death) are answered 
through procreation (and religion); through children, we extend our beings 
in space and time.
    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.

Mark Frazier (mfrazier@rmi.net) wrote:
: wisby@ibm.net wrote:
: > I can relate to that! Dogs, or even cats, are better than kids, any day.

yep, yep, yep, I second that :) !

: All the juice (even berry) that my son has spilled on our "sand" colored
: carpet doesn't come close to the 3 (yes only 3) times that our cat
: pissed in multiple corners of the house shortly after we moved in.
: My son at least goes in his diapers. The cat was gone two weeks later.

cats need to be toilet trained, just like little kids do
bet you wouldn't toss your kid out for peeing on his bed

Ok I'm done, carry on people.

Samantha (childfree forever :)

--
Samantha "Duckee" Li          .oo. .oo.              Chris "Pegasus" Ganje
duckee@infolink.net           OOOOoOOOO             ganje@u.washington.edu
The World of Duckee           `OOOOOOO'                    Chris' Homepage
http://www.infolink.net/~duckee  `O'  http://weber.u.washington.edu/~ganje

petersm@PEAK.ORG (Marguerite Petersen) wrote:
>In article <DqDHuH.HHt@bigtop.dr.att.com>,
>Bentz Puryear  <bep@drmail.dr.att.com> wrote:
>>jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) wrote:
>>>I just saw on one of those news shows on night TV an interview by Jane Pauly
>>>of Ann Landers.  Two of the stats that surprised me was that Ann Landers
>>>said when she asked her readers if they could do it all over again:
>>>
>>>         - Only 55% said they would have married their current spouse.
>>>
>>>         - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.
>>
>>I too saw this and gave it some thought, I love my kids but to do it all
>>over again, I don't know. 
>
>Well, *I* know how I would respond.  A most resounding YES, I would
>do it all over again, in a heartbeat.  I have NO doubts about that.
>
>Its so much work, its so hard keep your relationship
>>going. The pressure of supporting not only yourself but your wife and kids.
>>The problems that kids cause and mine are only 6 and 8, I can hardly wait until
>>they are teenagers. 
>
>As one of the parents of 3 "young adults", my advice to you is JUST WAIT.
>You don't even *know* what trouble is yet.  :-)  Although, as they get
>older, *some* of the responsibility drops from YOUR shoulders; though
>not all.  Yes, it most definitely IS work to raise, successfully, our
>children.  More than most people are aware of when they first decide
>to HAVE children.
>
>Like I said I love them and would do anything for them
>>but to have to start all over I would have to give it some serious thought.
>
>Precisely!  And this is where I personally believe that a LOT of
>people fail themselves (and inevitably their children.) ie. they 
>*didn't* give it a lot of thought before they had them.  Of course,

My wife and I were no spring chickens when we had our kids. We had been trying
for some time and were using fertility drugs and had come down to the
last month that we were going to try when she got pregnant. She was 37 and I
was 35. We did give it a lot of thought and my wife had already made the
decision to quit and stay home. We had been putting money away to tide us
over. We had vacations all over and gotten alot of living out of the way. But
even with all the forthought you still are supprised at the work and 
commitment it takes. And then after all the trouble getting pregnant the first
time we were not as carefull as we should have been and boom she got pregnant
again this time she's 40 and I am 37 SUPPRISE so what are you going to do.
Kids having kids we thought we were ready but teenagers and even young 20's
miss so much of their life when kids enter their life. I find it hard to
believe
that they could be ready for what it takes. I know I was not ready for kids
when I was in my 20's to much to do and see that I would have never been able
to do with kids.

>even with a lot of thought there can still be situations that come
>up that weren't even thought of or considered (major longterm 
>illnesses, physical and mental disabilities, behavioral problems,
>financial problems etc.)  SOME responsibilities inherent in child
>rearing CAN be considered beforehand, others cannot.  However, it
>does behoove one to be as *informed* as possible and then, and only
>then make the decision to go ahead and become a parent realizing 
>that even though one believes they are prepared, there will still
>be situations that they (the parents) are not prepared for and
>realistically, can't always be.  Having and raising children is
>a *true* commitment for LIFE; that commitment does NOT end, IMO,
>at age 18.  (The commitment becomes lessened over time, but it
>does not end.)  IF one does not *truly* wish to make such a
>commitment, one should not be a parent, IMO.

Yes I agree they never go away (I hope). I was very lucky my kids are really
very good and very healthy. When I look at some of the problems friends of
mine have had with kids, I really feel lucky. But then mine have not hit there
teens yet soooo. The scary thing is even if you do every thing right the kids
can still turn out bad, some times it all seems like luck with a little or alot
of skill and love thrown in.

>
>>Bentz Puryear (303)538-4039      	 (bep@drmail.dr.att.com)
>>http://info.dr.att.com/~bep/index.html (From inside Lucent Technologies only)
>>Lucent Technologies (formaly AT&T) Bell Labs Denver Co. 
>>11900 N. Pecos, Rm. 31Y31 Denver, Co. 80234
>>
>
>Marg
>
>-- 
>           Member PSEB   Official Sonneteer  JLP SoL  
>    	 Member NOWVOYAGER and Goddesses of the Internet 
>    petersm@peak.org  http://www.orst.edu/~peterseb/marg.html
>	   

-- 
Bentz Puryear (303)538-4039      	 (bep@drmail.dr.att.com)
http://info.dr.att.com/~bep/index.html (From inside Lucent Technologies only)
Lucent Technologies (formaly AT&T) Bell Labs Denver Co. 
11900 N. Pecos, Rm. 31Y31 Denver, Co. 80234

Whereas now, businesses/farms are lost to the government, through a
variety of asset forfeiture scams.

frost (frost7967@popalex1.linknet.net) wrote:
:     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.


--
Edward A. Bertsch (eab8)
Technical Intelligence   - voice 612 225 0954   fax 612 222 2353
PO Box 11145             - sales@twin-cities.com
Saint Paul, MN 55111 USA - http://www.twin-cities.com

jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) writes:
> I just saw on one of those news shows on night TV an interview by Jane Pauly
> of Ann Landers.  Two of the stats that surprised me was that Ann Landers
> said when she asked her readers if they could do it all over again:
> 
>          - Only 55% said they would have married their current spouse.
> 
>          - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.

Matt Austern <austern@mti.sgi.com> wrote:
>Who would you expect to respond to such a question in a newspaper
>column: people who are happy with their choices, or people who are
>unhappy?  

I know it wasn't a scientific poll & all, but I felt it was rather surprizing.
Judging from all the letters I've read in her column over the years, Ann
Landers tends to get more response from middle aged woman more than any
other group.  (You know: hubby's a drunk & needs help, etc.)  And, over
the years, I've more than once got to hear from more than one parent about
how their kids were the best thing that ever happened to them, again, and
again, and again, and again.  That's why I was surprized to see this 70%
figure.  Then I realized that it could be that most parents would never want
to admit publically that they wished they hadn't have had kids.  It sort
of reflects poorly on them and is bound to draw some suspicious looks...

  - John

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  __))    "Glass ceilings?  Name ANY ex-goat farmer who's made management!"
 /_ oo  
  (_ \   Holliston Poor Farm                                   - John Cooley
%//  \"  Holliston, MA 01746-6222           part time Sheep & ex-Goat Farmer
%%%  $   jcooley@world.std.com       full time contract ASIC & FPGA Designer

Bentz Puryear wrote:
> 
> petersm@PEAK.ORG (Marguerite Petersen) wrote:
> >In article <DqDHuH.HHt@bigtop.dr.att.com>,
> >Bentz Puryear  <bep@drmail.dr.att.com> wrote:
> >>jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) wrote:
> >>>I just saw on one of those news shows on night TV an interview by Jane Pauly
> >>>of Ann Landers.  Two of the stats that surprised me was that Ann Landers
> >>>said when she asked her readers if they could do it all over again:
> >>>
> >>>         - Only 55% said they would have married their current spouse.
> >>>
> >>>         - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.
> >>
> >>I too saw this and gave it some thought, I love my kids but to do it all
> >>over again, I don't know.
> >
> >Well, *I* know how I would respond.  A most resounding YES, I would
> >do it all over again, in a heartbeat.  I have NO doubts about that.
> >
> >Its so much work, its so hard keep your relationship
> >>going. The pressure of supporting not only yourself but your wife and kids.
> >>The problems that kids cause and mine are only 6 and 8, I can hardly wait until
> >>they are teenagers.
> >
> >As one of the parents of 3 "young adults", my advice to you is JUST WAIT.
> >You don't even *know* what trouble is yet.  :-)  Although, as they get
> >older, *some* of the responsibility drops from YOUR shoulders; though
> >not all.  Yes, it most definitely IS work to raise, successfully, our
> >children.  More than most people are aware of when they first decide
> >to HAVE children.
> >
> >Like I said I love them and would do anything for them
> >>but to have to start all over I would have to give it some serious thought.
> >
> >Precisely!  And this is where I personally believe that a LOT of
> >people fail themselves (and inevitably their children.) ie. they
> >*didn't* give it a lot of thought before they had them.  Of course,
> 
> My wife and I were no spring chickens when we had our kids. We had been trying
> for some time and were using fertility drugs and had come down to the
> last month that we were going to try when she got pregnant. She was 37 and I
> was 35. We did give it a lot of thought and my wife had already made the
> decision to quit and stay home. We had been putting money away to tide us
> over. We had vacations all over and gotten alot of living out of the way. But
> even with all the forthought you still are supprised at the work and
> commitment it takes. And then after all the trouble getting pregnant the first
> time we were not as carefull as we should have been and boom she got pregnant
> again this time she's 40 and I am 37 SUPPRISE so what are you going to do.
> Kids having kids we thought we were ready but teenagers and even young 20's
> miss so much of their life when kids enter their life. I find it hard to
> believe
> that they could be ready for what it takes. I know I was not ready for kids
> when I was in my 20's to much to do and see that I would have never been able
> to do with kids.
> 
> >even with a lot of thought there can still be situations that come
> >up that weren't even thought of or considered (major longterm
> >illnesses, physical and mental disabilities, behavioral problems,
> >financial problems etc.)  SOME responsibilities inherent in child
> >rearing CAN be considered beforehand, others cannot.  However, it
> >does behoove one to be as *informed* as possible and then, and only
> >then make the decision to go ahead and become a parent realizing
> >that even though one believes they are prepared, there will still
> >be situations that they (the parents) are not prepared for and
> >realistically, can't always be.  Having and raising children is
> >a *true* commitment for LIFE; that commitment does NOT end, IMO,
> >at age 18.  (The commitment becomes lessened over time, but it
> >does not end.)  IF one does not *truly* wish to make such a
> >commitment, one should not be a parent, IMO.
> 
> Yes I agree they never go away (I hope). I was very lucky my kids are really
> very good and very healthy. When I look at some of the problems friends of
> mine have had with kids, I really feel lucky. But then mine have not hit there
> teens yet soooo. The scary thing is even if you do every thing right the kids
> can still turn out bad, some times it all seems like luck with a little or alot
> of skill and love thrown in.
> 
> >
> >>Bentz Puryear (303)538-4039            (bep@drmail.dr.att.com)
> >>http://info.dr.att.com/~bep/index.html (From inside Lucent Technologies only)
> >>Lucent Technologies (formaly AT&T) Bell Labs Denver Co.
> >>11900 N. Pecos, Rm. 31Y31 Denver, Co. 80234
> >>
> >
> >Marg
> >
> >--
> >           Member PSEB   Official Sonneteer  JLP SoL
> >        Member NOWVOYAGER and Goddesses of the Internet
> >    petersm@peak.org  http://www.orst.edu/~peterseb/marg.html
> >
> 
> --
> Bentz Puryear (303)538-4039              (bep@drmail.dr.att.com)
> http://info.dr.att.com/~bep/index.html (From inside Lucent Technologies only)
> Lucent Technologies (formaly AT&T) Bell Labs Denver Co.
> 11900 N. Pecos, Rm. 31Y31 Denver, Co. 80234

My father was Ann Lander's accountant for many years and old Ann always 
wanted his kids (us) to come to her for advice especially during our 
traumatic adolescence -- which mother found insulting.  Anyway, that 
poll was taken way back when I was still a kid and the answers were 
women of my mother's age, now grandmothers. So, keep that in mind, what 
the times were like for women back then.  No legal abortions, primitive 
and often unreliable forms of birth control (after my older brother was 
born, my mother was told a nursing woman could not get pregnant so 3 
months after giving birth, she found herself pregnant again with me!), 
women in general were not raised to be anything but mothers and 
homemakers, etc.  So, naturally, a whole lot of women from that survey 
ended up feeling cheated out of a lot of things by the (false) dream 
society laid upon them, unfulfilled and angry after they'd done their 
bit for procreation.  I think now, hopefully, women no longer feel that 
way because they get to make more life choices.

austern@tristan.mti.sgi.com (Matt Austern) wrote:

>In article <DqCMDn.HwD@world.std.com> jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) writes:

>> I just saw on one of those news shows on night TV an interview by Jane Pauly
>> of Ann Landers.  Two of the stats that surprised me was that Ann Landers
>> said when she asked her readers if they could do it all over again:
>> 
>>          - Only 55% said they would have married their current spouse.
>> 
>>          - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.

>Who would you expect to respond to such a question in a newspaper
>column: people who are happy with their choices, or people who are
>unhappy?  

Exactly.  And this -really- irks me, because Jane Pauley, and her
editors, darn well know better.  They've been to college, and --

-- there's probably not a journalism student in the country, who doesn't
study the failure of Literary Digest's prediction of the 1936 election.
That journal asked its readers to phone in their vote for President.  By
their counting, Alf Landon was going to defeat Franklin D. Roosevelt by a
landslide.

It was, of course, a landslide, but in the other direction.  How did
Literary Digest, a well-respected magazine, make such a mistake?  

If one thinks of who would support Roosevelt and his New Deal, one
usually decides that most supporters would be middle to lower-middle
class, or poor.  Most of those people don't read Literary Digest, and of
those who did, many had no telephone in their home in 1936.  Thus,
Roosevelt supporters were never asked who their candidate was.

Students are taught, by this means, that self-selected surveys are
generally not reliable sources.

Yet, when Seventeen magazine, and the Ms. Foundation for Women, released
a survey a few weeks ago, gathered in the same manner, that once again
found young girls slighted, it was reported on NBC News, during the Today
show.  There was no discussion of how the survey information was gathered
-- by asking Seventeen's readers to send in the survey -- and no
contextual information about the survey's approach or questions was
offered.

>Mind you, I wouldn't be surprised if the dissatisfaction percentage
>really were fairly high: do any of us really make the right choices
>all the time?  I just think we ought to use more reliable numbers.
>This sort of "survey" is a classic example of how not to do a poll.

It's also a classic example of the depths to which reporting has fallen.

...................Tom
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CATCHING FLIES WITH VINEGAR Dep't. --
    Darcie McNeill, 14, leading a Victoria, British Columbia, student
    rally against logging practices urged school principals to permit
    students to attend the rally:  "Any principals who would not let
    kids come today are fascist pigs who can rot in hell."
        -- _Globe & Mail-CP_, October 14, 1993
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <DqFq3z.BDB@world.std.com>,
   jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) wrote:
>> 
>>          - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.
>
>...I've more than once got to hear from more than one parent about
>how their kids were the best thing that ever happened to them, again, and
>again, and again, and again.  That's why I was surprized to see this 70%
>figure.  Then I realized that it could be that most parents would never want
>to admit publically that they wished they hadn't have had kids.  It sort
>of reflects poorly on them and is bound to draw some suspicious looks...
>
 
John,

Since you started this thread, I'll address this to you.  (I also figure that 
ASIC designers can't be all bad :-) ).  There are also some very annoying 
comments in other notes in this thread -- comments that are just as well 
ignored -- from obviously intelligent people who nonetheless no nothing of 
unselfish love, responsibility and commitment.  I've gone through life holding 
tolerance as a prime obligation, but I've reached a point where my tolerance 
for rubbish is quite low.

It's really very simple, in a complicated sort of way :-).  There are all 
sorts of people in this world, living under a multitude of different 
conditions.  Not all of them should have children.  It takes more energy, 
devotion, and selflessness to raise ("raise" not "have") children than I ever 
could have imagined.  I can understand many people resenting that parts of 
their lives are defined by their parenthood, but that's the way it is.  The 
person who originated the Peace Corps slogan must have been a parent:  "It's 
the hardest job you'll ever love".

Parents complain.  I complain.  We're entitled.  But you don't waste a 
lifetime trying to define love; you go out and experience it, if you've got 
the right stuff.

Tony

In <317E6288.E63@rmi.net>, Mark Frazier <mfrazier@rmi.net> writes:
>wisby@ibm.net wrote:
>
>> >         - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.
>> 
>> I can relate to that! Dogs, or even cats, are better than kids, any day.
>
>All the juice (even berry) that my son has spilled on our "sand" colored
>carpet doesn't come close to the 3 (yes only 3) times that our cat
>pissed in multiple corners of the house shortly after we moved in.
>My son at least goes in his diapers. The cat was gone two weeks later.
>
>And the cat was never as funny as my son can be!

You've never had the right cat, then. <g>

TTYL,

Marjorie
Chief Noid
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/
http://www.netprophet.co.nz/
*coming soon!* http://www.netfreedom.org.au/ *at an ISP near you*

> frost <frost7967@popalex1.linknet.net> writes:
> |      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".
> |   How do we resolve this apparant contradiction?

Hindsight is 20/20. At the time, these people _did_ decidee to
have and raise children. The problem with survey's is the
respondent giving a true answer. If upon reflection they still
said they wouldn't have children, think of the guilt feelings.

I'm sure that many respondents feel un-fullfilled in some way due
to the energy and time they spent on children that left them without
a chance to pursue a more self-satisfying role in life. The child can
never return as much love and devotion as parents give. 

Rob

tony-a@ma.ultranet.com (Tony A.) wrote:
>In article <DqFq3z.BDB@world.std.com>,
>   jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) wrote:
>>> 
>>>          - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it again.
>>
>>...I've more than once got to hear from more than one parent about
>>how their kids were the best thing that ever happened to them, again, and
>>again, and again, and again.  That's why I was surprized to see this 70%
>>figure.  Then I realized that it could be that most parents would never want
>>to admit publically that they wished they hadn't have had kids.  It sort
>>of reflects poorly on them and is bound to draw some suspicious looks...
>>
> 
>John,
>
>Since you started this thread, I'll address this to you.  (I also figure that 
>ASIC designers can't be all bad :-) ).  There are also some very annoying 
>comments in other notes in this thread -- comments that are just as well 
>ignored -- from obviously intelligent people who nonetheless no nothing of 
>unselfish love, responsibility and commitment.  I've gone through life holding 
>tolerance as a prime obligation, but I've reached a point where my tolerance 
>for rubbish is quite low.
>
>It's really very simple, in a complicated sort of way :-).  There are all 
>sorts of people in this world, living under a multitude of different 
>conditions.  Not all of them should have children.  It takes more energy, 
>devotion, and selflessness to raise ("raise" not "have") children than I ever 
>could have imagined.  I can understand many people resenting that parts of 
>their lives are defined by their parenthood, but that's the way it is.  The 
>person who originated the Peace Corps slogan must have been a parent:  "It's 
>the hardest job you'll ever love".
>
>Parents complain.  I complain.  We're entitled.  But you don't waste a 
>lifetime trying to define love; you go out and experience it, if you've got 
>the right stuff.
>
>Tony

*loud cheers and applause for Tony!* :)
-Al

frost <frost7967@popalex1.linknet.net> writes:
|      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". 
|   How do we resolve this apparant contradiction?

You forgot one possible explanation: parenthood is a mixture of
burdens and restrictions on the one hand and joys and unique
experiences on the other.  To take a trivial example, in the last two
years i've really missed being able to decide for myself when to get
up on the weekends.  But if my son had never been born, i would have
never known how sweet it was to wake up to the sound of a little boy
singing to the sunbeams.

Many parents really do find that, all in all, the positive aspects of
parenthood more than make up for the negatives.  But it's easier to
talk about the negative aspects, because the positive aspects are so
personal.

- Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
 cindy@nvg.unit.no                      Trondheim, Norway
 My home page, with link to the Bilingual Families Web page:
        http://www.nvg.unit.no/~cindy/

John Cooley (jcooley@world.std.com) writes:
|   Matt Austern <austern@mti.sgi.com> wrote:
|   >Who would you expect to respond to such a question in a newspaper
|   >column: people who are happy with their choices, or people who are
|   >unhappy?  
|   
|   I know it wasn't a scientific poll & all, but I felt it was rather surprizing.

Stop right there - you said something important but apparently didn't
realize it.  This wasn't a scientific poll.  It tells us nothing about
the attitudes of those who didn't respond to the poll.  So it
shouldn't surprise you, really.  70% of people who heard about a
"poll" in an advice column and took the time to respond were unhappy
about their choice to have children.  But who would have bothered to
take the time to write a letter in response to that poll?  It's at
least plausible that people who wanted to complain about their lives
would be more likely to answer, because it gave them the feeling that
someone was "listening".

|   Judging from all the letters I've read in her column over the years, Ann
|   Landers tends to get more response from middle aged woman more than any
|   other group.  (You know: hubby's a drunk & needs help, etc.)  And, over
|   the years, I've more than once got to hear from more than one parent about
|   how their kids were the best thing that ever happened to them, again, and
|   again, and again, and again.  That's why I was surprized to see this 70%
|   figure.  Then I realized that it could be that most parents would never want
|   to admit publically that they wished they hadn't have had kids.  It sort
|   of reflects poorly on them and is bound to draw some suspicious looks...

Or maybe _most_ parents really are happy that they had children.  But
those who are not were much more likely to respond to this "poll".

If parenthood really were so miserable, every child would be an only
child.

- Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
 cindy@nvg.unit.no                      Trondheim, Norway
 My home page, with link to the Bilingual Families Web page:
        http://www.nvg.unit.no/~cindy/

In <4lmga4$bfk@PEAK.ORG> petersm@PEAK.ORG (Marguerite Petersen) writes:

>
>In article <DqDHuH.HHt@bigtop.dr.att.com>,
>Bentz Puryear  <bep@drmail.dr.att.com> wrote:
>>jcooley@world.std.com (John Cooley) wrote:
>>>I just saw on one of those news shows on night TV an interview by
Jane Pauly
>>>of Ann Landers.  Two of the stats that surprised me was that Ann
Landers
>>>said when she asked her readers if they could do it all over again:
>>>
>>>         - Only 55% said they would have married their current
spouse.
>>>
>>>         - 70% said they wouldn't have had kids if they could do it
again.
>>
>>I too saw this and gave it some thought, I love my kids but to do it
all
>>over again, I don't know. 
>

I would do it again but I would surely do it differently.  Knowing what
I now know, I could make changes which would be appropriate.  

Ora

Cindy Kandolf (cindy@nvg.unit.no) wrote:
: frost <frost7967@popalex1.linknet.net> writes:
: |   parenthood; when questioned only seconds later, however, they insist that 
: |   they definitately would have kids if "they could do it all over again". 
: |   How do we resolve this apparant contradiction?

: ...  But if my son had never been born, i would have
: never known how sweet it was to wake up to the sound of a little boy
: singing to the sunbeams.

: Many parents really do find that, all in all, the positive aspects of
: parenthood more than make up for the negatives.  But it's easier to
: talk about the negative aspects, because the positive aspects are so
: personal.

After the kid makes it through being a teenager, we'll see how you
vote.  It's easy being the parent of a baby-through-12 year old.
Teenagers are hell.
-- 
 
T.W. Day               twday@netcom.com

and 99.9% of those people did not say that in front of their kids

Hi,

Just a very personal perspective and no implication that anyone should
agree as we all have different desires.

I just got married (again) last year before my 41st birthday to a woman
with a 4 year old son.  At my age, there are a lot less single women
without children. However, I did not even begin to feel like settling down
until I was 38 years old which is one thing that turned my adventurous
ex-wife off.

Not being a parent had personal advantages for me. I got to live oout many
of my life's dreams in my 20s and 30s, could travel and take on adventures
that led tooreign countries and all over the USA during my healthiest and
most restless years.

In my late 30s I finally started to unwind relax and mellow and really
began to shift from enjoying people for the activities we shared to
enjoying them more for their personality while socializing.  It began to
seem that I remembered people more for their emotional state than what we
did together.  Memories of personalities really seem to stand out more
than experience, so I want to enjoy people now more than experiences.

It is also much easier to be a dad now because I feeel that there aren't
any repressed dreams I regret not living.  However, my wife was a single
mom throughout her experience of being a mom and since her son was
unplanned she does not want anymore.  Though she is the first woman I have
ever knwn that I feel truly has such a good temperment that I would gladly
be the father of any more children.  However, her son is handicapped and
is quite a handful all by himself. She and I still want our own lives and
both as individuals and as a couple.  She and I have agreed mostly by her
desire that we don't want our life to revolve around raising children.  We
play with him and do family things, but having one's own life for our own
growth is very important and even though married we go on dates several
times a month and more than before we were married!

Being a couple alone together gives us the most pleasure.  Being a dad is
ok, but for me I am very glad I did not start in my 20s and am glad not to
be raising a large family, and commend those of you with the perseverance
to really do a good job of that!!

Steve

-- 
sir@srv.net (Steven Reiser)
Home Businesses: USANA and Save Now Enterprise
http://www.srv.net/~sir/reiser.html

Tom Day wrote:
 
> After the kid makes it through being a teenager, we'll see how you
> vote.  It's easy being the parent of a baby-through-12 year old.
> Teenagers are hell.
> --
> 
> T.W. Day               twday@netcom.com

Well, our kid is now 15 and I can truthfully say "baby-through-12 year old" was not 
"easy" by any definition of the word. Taking care of the physical needs of very young 
children, teaching them the preliminaries of how to live in society, teaching them 
values, helping them define who they are, just plain loving them no matter how difficult 
they may be or what they may say in their immature rantings, is hardly "easy". In many 
ways, the younger years were harder and more demanding of all our personal, mental, 
physical resouces. Just when you think you can't give any more, you go on and give the 
child(ren) what they need, not just physical support, but emotionally and 
psychologically.

Now that she's 15, all of our involvement and years of commiment are beginning to show 
fruit. She is indeed becoming an individual, separating herself from us as she moves 
toward adulthood. We gave her a good set of personal values, spent a lot of time working 
with her on personal integrity issues and personal responsibility issues and we continue 
to do so. Because we've "put the time in" over the years, we're very proud of how she is 
choosing to grow and develop now that she is more autonomous. We have to stand back 
more, allow her more room to make her own choices and that is perhaps more difficult in 
the long run. Our "job" is by no means over or even nearly so, but now we become more 
mentors, guides, taking more of a back seat as she grows into adulthood. We have laid a 
good foundation with her, but now has to begin to separate herself into an individual in 
her own right, with her own values, goals and choices.

I guess what I'm saying is that parenthood isn't an "easy" responsiblity, no matter what 
the age of the child. It's a 24-hr. responsibility and commitment, no matter what's 
going on in your life or career; no matter if you're sick or tired or frustrated. Your 
wants and desires must often be put on hold for the benefit and good of the child. 
That's what a mature parent understands and gives to their child. We made this 
commitment when we chose to have a child and the gifts and rewards we received as a 
result have surpassed anything we ever thought we would experience. Parenting can 
challenge us to our depths and fulfill us beyond our wildest dreams.

But none of it has been, or will continue to be, "easy."

Speaking to my own experience,
  Hope

sir@srv.net (Steven Reiser) wrote:

<snipped good story>


 >growth is very important and even though married we go on dates several
 >times a month and more than before we were married!

With each other, I hope.... ;-)

 >Being a couple alone together gives us the most pleasure.  Being a dad is
 >ok, but for me I am very glad I did not start in my 20s and am glad not to
 >be raising a large family, and commend those of you with the perseverance
 >to really do a good job of that!!

I really liked your story, and I'm glad you found someone to share the rest
of your life with.  It is definitely heart-warming.

Ron and I met in college, and we waited 4 1/2 years before we got married.  I
think this was a good thing to do, although now Ron says if he had known that
being married to me would be so nice, he would have encouraged me to marry
him sooner (ain't he sweet??).  We waited 3 years (married 6-86, Ryan born
11-22-89) before we had our son, Ryan.  I am glad that we waited.  We wanted
to have "our time", and we also wanted to wait until it really felt right.
We had planned on having two or three kids, but have decided to stick with
just one.  The desire to have another one may become strong again, so we are
keeping our options open (so to speak), but I think this will be it.  We just
don't want to deal with all the sibling problems that we see in other kids,
and that we had (especially me) growing up.  Then there's the whole
over-population thing.  One is nice.  We also place an emphasis on our life
just as a couple, although we do involve Ryan a lot, also.  It seems to be
working nicely.  He doesn't have to compete for our attention, although we
are trying to teach him that when Ron and I are talking that he needs to not
demand our attention *all* the time.  He's learning. :-)

I would definitely marry Ron again, and I would definitely have Ryan again,
although I could have done without the 36 hour labor, and the 10 1/2 pounds
he weighed at birth!  Owwwww....  He likes to hear about his "birth"day, and
I told him that although it was harder than normal (he had the cord wrapped
around his neck and stuff), I would do it all again, even knowing how hard it
was.  He likes that part. :-)

Valerie
rvr@netrail.net

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

twday@netcom.com (Tom Day) wrote:

 
 >After the kid makes it through being a teenager, we'll see how you
 >vote.  It's easy being the parent of a baby-through-12 year old.
 >Teenagers are hell.
 
But most people (hopefully) realize that before they start.  Right now my son
thinks Ron and I hung the moon.  We don't expect this blind devotion to be
around in 10 years.  My goal is for him to like my presence in 20 years. :-)

Valerie
rvr@netrail.net

cindy@nvg.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) wrote:

 >If parenthood really were so miserable, every child would be an only
 >child.

Being the parent of an only child, I dislike that attitude.  I hear it a lot.
Whenever I tell anyone that we're not going to have another child, I always
feel the need to add that it isn't because we don't like parenting, or that
he was a difficult child.  It's almost the exact opposite.  We love being
parents, and wish to keep it that way!  And Ryan was such a *good* baby!  He
never had colic, he is extremely intelligent, he is polite, beautiful,
healthy, happy... What more could we want?  We would hate to have another
child that might feel s/he had to live up to his/her big brother's standards.
Of course we would try to make sure that didn't happen, by encouraging
whatever strengths the next child might have, but what if s/he wasn't as
bright, or wasn't as popular, etc... We might feel the need to downplay
Ryan's successes for fear of hurting the second child.  Then *his*
self-esteem might suffer.  There are just too many things that might go
wrong.  Granted they might not, but unless I have that "I'm going to die if I
don't have a child" feeling again, I think it best that we stick with just
one.  Someone will send a message if a second child was meant to be. :-)
 


Valerie
rvr@netrail.net

Marguerite Petersen wrote:
> 
> In article <DqF7Gt.918@bigtop.dr.att.com>,
> Bentz Puryear  <bep@drmail.dr.att.com> wrote:
> >petersm@PEAK.ORG (Marguerite Petersen) wrote:
> >>In article <DqDHuH.HHt@bigtop.dr.att.com>,
> >>Bentz Puryear  <bep@drmail.dr.att.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>Precisely!  And this is where I personally believe that a LOT of
> >>people fail themselves (and inevitably their children.) ie. they
> >>*didn't* give it a lot of thought before they had them.  Of course,
> >
> >My wife and I were no spring chickens when we had our kids. We had been trying
> >for some time and were using fertility drugs and had come down to the
> >last month that we were going to try when she got pregnant. She was 37 and I
> >was 35. We did give it a lot of thought and my wife had already made the
> >decision to quit and stay home. We had been putting money away to tide us
> >over. We had vacations all over and gotten alot of living out of the way. But
> >even with all the forthought you still are supprised at the work and
> >commitment it takes. And then after all the trouble getting pregnant the first
> >time we were not as carefull as we should have been and boom she got pregnant
> >again this time she's 40 and I am 37 SUPPRISE so what are you going to do.
> 
> I DO believe this happens to many young people as well.  :-)
> 
> >Kids having kids we thought we were ready but teenagers and even young 20's
> >miss so much of their life when kids enter their life. I find it hard to
> >believe
> >that they could be ready for what it takes. I know I was not ready for kids
> >when I was in my 20's to much to do and see that I would have never been able
> >to do with kids.
> 
> Well, as long as the responsibility is what the individuals wanted,
> then the giving up (and there is a LOT of giving up), of *other*
> things can be acceptable.  It was for me.  I have not traveled,
> but then I wasn't all that interested in doing so.  And even with
> kids, one can still do some things (such as travel), although the
> traveling will have to be slightly different.  My husband and I liked
> to go camping and that was possible with small children so we were
> able to accomplish that goal.
> 
> >>even with a lot of thought there can still be situations that come
> >>up that weren't even thought of or considered (major longterm
> >>illnesses, physical and mental disabilities, behavioral problems,
> >>financial problems etc.)  SOME responsibilities inherent in child
> >>rearing CAN be considered beforehand, others cannot.  However, it
> >>does behoove one to be as *informed* as possible and then, and only
> >>then make the decision to go ahead and become a parent realizing
> >>that even though one believes they are prepared, there will still
> >>be situations that they (the parents) are not prepared for and
> >>realistically, can't always be.  Having and raising children is
> >>a *true* commitment for LIFE; that commitment does NOT end, IMO,
> >>at age 18.  (The commitment becomes lessened over time, but it
> >>does not end.)  IF one does not *truly* wish to make such a
> >>commitment, one should not be a parent, IMO.
> >
> >Yes I agree they never go away (I hope).
> 
> My *kids* are now 26, 24 and 18.  They just *won't* go away.  :-)
> Two of them have left the home (married) and the youngest will
> be attending college next fall.  She will be living at home though
> as we live 15 minutes from her college.  They all still congregate
> at our home on a weekly basis.  I attribute this to a desire on
> their part to still have contact with us and I am happy about that.
> BUT, it does put pressures on my husband and myself.  Good ones,
> though.
> 
> I was very lucky my kids are really
> >very good and very healthy. When I look at some of the problems friends of
> >mine have had with kids, I really feel lucky. But then mine have not hit there
> >teens yet soooo. The scary thing is even if you do every thing right the kids
> >can still turn out bad, some times it all seems like luck with a little or alot
> >of skill and love thrown in.
> 
> Yup, that it does and is, IMO.  There are simply NO guarantees as to
> how one's children will turn out.  It DOES behoove any parent, however,
> to provide as much intelligence, skill, love and attention to their
> children as they can possibly manage.  It can't hurt and it might
> actually help.  Course, a little understanding helps as well.
> 
> >--
> >Bentz Puryear (303)538-4039             (bep@drmail.dr.att.com)
> 
> Marg
> 
> --
>            Member PSEB   Official Sonneteer  JLP SoL
>          Member NOWVOYAGER and Goddesses of the Internet
>     petersm@peak.org  http://www.orst.edu/~peterseb/marg.html
> I agree, lots of people get a REAL SHOCK WHEN THE SHILD IS ACTUALLY BORN 
AND BECOMES THEIR SOLE RESPONSIBILITY.  Personall I think it's OK not to 
have children if you don't want to.  There shouldn't be an onligation to 
reproduce: some people are good at parenting and some aren't.  Like most 
things in life.  Maybe, if we all understood more about ourselves and 
didn't let convention dictate to us then we wouldn't see so many used, 
abused, neglected and destroyed children.

rvr@netrail.net (Valerie) wrote:
-But most people (hopefully) realize that before they start.  Right now my son
-thinks Ron and I hung the moon.

I told you not to say that, people might get the idea we're not from
around here.

-We don't expect this blind devotion to be around in 10 years.

If we continue using the brain washing techniques it should be.

-My goal is for him to like my presence in 20 years. :-)

It's spelled 'presents'.

(Followup set)


--
Ron Whittle
rvr@netrail.net

KAREN BERZIN wrote:
> 
> Marguerite Petersen wrote:
> >
> > In article <DqF7Gt.918@bigtop.dr.att.com>,
> > Bentz Puryear  <bep@drmail.dr.att.com> wrote:
> > >petersm@PEAK.ORG (Marguerite Petersen) wrote:
> > >>In article <DqDHuH.HHt@bigtop.dr.att.com>,
> > >>Bentz Puryear  <bep@drmail.dr.att.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>Precisely!  And this is where I personally believe that a LOT of
> > >>people fail themselves (and inevitably their children.) ie. they
> > >>*didn't* give it a lot of thought before they had them.  Of course,
> > >
> > >My wife and I were no spring chickens when we had our kids. We had been trying
> > >for some time and were using fertility drugs and had come down to the
> > >last month that we were going to try when she got pregnant. She was 37 and I
> > >was 35. We did give it a lot of thought and my wife had already made the
> > >decision to quit and stay home. We had been putting money away to tide us
> > >over. We had vacations all over and gotten alot of living out of the way. But
> > >even with all the forthought you still are supprised at the work and
> > >commitment it takes. And then after all the trouble getting pregnant the first
> > >time we were not as carefull as we should have been and boom she got pregnant
> > >again this time she's 40 and I am 37 SUPPRISE so what are you going to do.
> >
> > I DO believe this happens to many young people as well.  :-)
> >
> > >Kids having kids we thought we were ready but teenagers and even young 20's
> > >miss so much of their life when kids enter their life. I find it hard to
> > >believe
> > >that they could be ready for what it takes. I know I was not ready for kids
> > >when I was in my 20's to much to do and see that I would have never been able
> > >to do with kids.
> >
> > Well, as long as the responsibility is what the individuals wanted,
> > then the giving up (and there is a LOT of giving up), of *other*
> > things can be acceptable.  It was for me.  I have not traveled,
> > but then I wasn't all that interested in doing so.  And even with
> > kids, one can still do some things (such as travel), although the
> > traveling will have to be slightly different.  My husband and I liked
> > to go camping and that was possible with small children so we were
> > able to accomplish that goal.
> >
> > >>even with a lot of thought there can still be situations that come
> > >>up that weren't even thought of or considered (major longterm
> > >>illnesses, physical and mental disabilities, behavioral problems,
> > >>financial problems etc.)  SOME responsibilities inherent in child
> > >>rearing CAN be considered beforehand, others cannot.  However, it
> > >>does behoove one to be as *informed* as possible and then, and only
> > >>then make the decision to go ahead and become a parent realizing
> > >>that even though one believes they are prepared, there will still
> > >>be situations that they (the parents) are not prepared for and
> > >>realistically, can't always be.  Having and raising children is
> > >>a *true* commitment for LIFE; that commitment does NOT end, IMO,
> > >>at age 18.  (The commitment becomes lessened over time, but it
> > >>does not end.)  IF one does not *truly* wish to make such a
> > >>commitment, one should not be a parent, IMO.
> > >
> > >Yes I agree they never go away (I hope).
> >
> > My *kids* are now 26, 24 and 18.  They just *won't* go away.  :-)
> > Two of them have left the home (married) and the youngest will
> > be attending college next fall.  She will be living at home though
> > as we live 15 minutes from her college.  They all still congregate
> > at our home on a weekly basis.  I attribute this to a desire on
> > their part to still have contact with us and I am happy about that.
> > BUT, it does put pressures on my husband and myself.  Good ones,
> > though.
> >
> > I was very lucky my kids are really
> > >very good and very healthy. When I look at some of the problems friends of
> > >mine have had with kids, I really feel lucky. But then mine have not hit there
> > >teens yet soooo. The scary thing is even if you do every thing right the kids
> > >can still turn out bad, some times it all seems like luck with a little or alot
> > >of skill and love thrown in.
> >
> > Yup, that it does and is, IMO.  There are simply NO guarantees as to
> > how one's children will turn out.  It DOES behoove any parent, however,
> > to provide as much intelligence, skill, love and attention to their
> > children as they can possibly manage.  It can't hurt and it might
> > actually help.  Course, a little understanding helps as well.
> >
> > >--
> > >Bentz Puryear (303)538-4039             (bep@drmail.dr.att.com)
> >
> > Marg
> >
> > --
> >            Member PSEB   Official Sonneteer  JLP SoL
> >          Member NOWVOYAGER and Goddesses of the Internet
> >     petersm@peak.org  http://www.orst.edu/~peterseb/marg.html
> > I agree, lots of people get a REAL SHOCK WHEN THE SHILD IS ACTUALLY BORN
> AND BECOMES THEIR SOLE RESPONSIBILITY.  Personall I think it's OK not to
> have children if you don't want to.  There shouldn't be an onligation to
> reproduce: some people are good at parenting and some aren't.  Like most
> things in life.  Maybe, if we all understood more about ourselves and
> didn't let convention dictate to us then we wouldn't see so many used,
> abused, neglected and destroyed children.i do not know

Valerie (rvr@netrail.net) writes:
|   cindy@nvg.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) wrote:
|    >If parenthood really were so miserable, every child would be an only
|    >child.
|   
|   Being the parent of an only child, I dislike that attitude. 

I think you're reading too much into what i said.  I said that if
parenthood were really so miserable that 70% of all parents (and not
just 70% of respondants to a very unscientific survey) would wish it
undone, no one would have a second child.  I did not say, nor did i
mean to imply, that every one-child family is that way because the
parents find parenthood miserable.

I have one child myself, and no immediate plans for more.  I love
motherhood; it's the hyperemesis and postpartum depression that i find
somewhat off-putting.

- Cindy Kandolf, certified language mechanic, mamma flodnak
 cindy@nvg.unit.no                      Trondheim, Norway
 My home page, with link to the Bilingual Families Web page:
        http://www.nvg.unit.no/~cindy/

In article <318A537C.7F39@melvin.silas.unsw.edu.au>,
KAREN BERZIN  <s-berzin@melvin.silas.unsw.edu.au> wrote:
>Marguerite Petersen wrote:
>> 
>> Yup, that it does and is, IMO.  There are simply NO guarantees as to
>> how one's children will turn out.  It DOES behoove any parent, however,
>> to provide as much intelligence, skill, love and attention to their
>> children as they can possibly manage.  It can't hurt and it might
>> actually help.  Course, a little understanding helps as well.
>> 
>> I agree, lots of people get a REAL SHOCK WHEN THE SHILD IS ACTUALLY BORN 
>AND BECOMES THEIR SOLE RESPONSIBILITY.  

Yup.  Most definitely!!!  And even worse if that child just *happens*
to be NOT a "textbook" child.  My first child WAS a textbook child;
he did everything about a week after the *book* said he would. :-)
Our second child, however, was another story entirely.  HE was an
ADD child and we certainly had to make some adjustments.  Boy, did
we ever!  

Personall I think it's OK not to 
>have children if you don't want to.  There shouldn't be an onligation to 
>reproduce: some people are good at parenting and some aren't.  Like most 
>things in life.  Maybe, if we all understood more about ourselves and 
>didn't let convention dictate to us then we wouldn't see so many used, 
>abused, neglected and destroyed children.

I most definitely agree!  Having children *should* be something that
people are prepared to do (at least as much as is possilbe prior to
actual parenthood), as well as desiring to be parents above all else.
And certainly, knowing one's own personal strengths and weaknesses
prior to becoming a parent is immensely helpful when/if one becomes
a parent.  It should NOT be something that is undertaken lightly, nor
without a LOT of prior thought and consideration.  And most definitely
NOT simply because one believes one *ought* to be a parent.  

Marg


-- 
           Member PSEB   Official Sonneteer  JLP SoL  
    	 Member NOWVOYAGER and Goddesses of the Internet 
    petersm@peak.org  http://www.orst.edu/~peterseb/marg.html
	   

Parenting is the most important and difficult job in the world, period,
exclamation point.  Why then are there no required classes for this?
I want an instruction book on life!  Does any one know where I can
find one?

Stephanie (nhdcs1@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Parenting is the most important and difficult job in the world, period,
: exclamation point.  Why then are there no required classes for this?
: I want an instruction book on life!  Does any one know where I can
: find one?

	Life A User's Manual
	[trans. of La Vie Mode d'Emploi]
	by georges perec
	pub. david r. godine, 1987; collins/harvill, 1987.
	[ orig. french pub. hachette, 1978]

					chiwito
					waiting for "getalife for
					dummies"


-- 
part-time longshoreman and full-time dilettente at the game of go
bibliophile, skeptic, oulipian, liberal, romantic
"if you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow"

Stephanie (nhdcs1@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Parenting is the most important and difficult job in the world, period,
: exclamation point.  Why then are there no required classes for this?
: I want an instruction book on life!  Does any one know where I can
: find one?



Good luck!  If you do, please let me know too.  Being a parent is like 
nothing else in the whole world.  It's so many emotions and experiences 
all at once, every single day.  But I wouldn't trade my babies in for 
anything.  Every time they hug me, thank me, ask me a question, smile, 
bring me a bouquet of dandelions, are sick, are troubled, you name it, I 
know that I try my damndest to help them in anyway I can.  They're my life!


Debbie

Debra Ann Simms (dasimms@mailbox.syr.edu) wrote:

: Good luck!  If you do, please let me know too.  Being a parent is like 
: nothing else in the whole world.  It's so many emotions and experiences 
: all at once, every single day.  But I wouldn't trade my babies in for 
: anything.  Every time they hug me, thank me, ask me a question, smile, 
: bring me a bouquet of dandelions, are sick, are troubled, you name it, I 
: know that I try my damndest to help them in anyway I can.  They're my life!

I'ld say that about sums it up.

Debra Ann Simms wrote:
> 
> Stephanie (nhdcs1@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : Parenting is the most important and difficult job in the world, period,
> : exclamation point.  Why then are there no required classes for this?
> : I want an instruction book on life!  Does any one know where I can
> : find one?
> 
> Good luck!  If you do, please let me know too.  Being a parent is like
> nothing else in the whole world.  It's so many emotions and experiences
> all at once, every single day.  But I wouldn't trade my babies in for
> anything.  Every time they hug me, thank me, ask me a question, smile,
> bring me a bouquet of dandelions, are sick, are troubled, you name it, I
> know that I try my damndest to help them in anyway I can.  They're my life!
> 
> Debbie

I'm rather glad there isn't a book on parenting because you know it'd be 
used against all of us.  If you didn't follow chapter 5, it'd mean were 
abusing your child or neglectful or something and they'd take your kid 
away. If you didn't follow chapter 14 to the letter, some political 
cretin would be pointing his finger at you as a fine example of 
corruption in the family.  Not everyone should be raised the same, as 
humans who are suppose to be have a big brain (not always functional but 
they never mention that), we should be able to figure it out (dance on 
the edge often).  And what works for one might not work for another.  I 
was a difficult child because I couldn't be what my parents thought I 
should be, and I was far different from my submission siblings.  I'd 
hate to have had "the book" [on parenting] thrown at me as an excuse for 
some serious mind control or alteration or something.

Reply-To: dasimms@mailbox.syr.edu
Distribution: 

takworld (takworld@sirius.com) wrote:
: Debra Ann Simms wrote:
: > 
: > Stephanie (nhdcs1@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: > : Parenting is the most important and difficult job in the world, period,
: > : exclamation point.  Why then are there no required classes for this?
: > : I want an instruction book on life!  Does any one know where I can
: > : find one?
: > 
: > Good luck!  If you do, please let me know too.  Being a parent is like
: > nothing else in the whole world.  It's so many emotions and experiences
: > all at once, every single day.  But I wouldn't trade my babies in for
: > anything.  Every time they hug me, thank me, ask me a question, smile,
: > bring me a bouquet of dandelions, are sick, are troubled, you name it, I
: > know that I try my damndest to help them in anyway I can.  They're my life!
: > 
: > Debbie

: I'm rather glad there isn't a book on parenting because you know it'd be 
: used against all of us.  If you didn't follow chapter 5, it'd mean were 
: abusing your child or neglectful or something and they'd take your kid 
: away. If you didn't follow chapter 14 to the letter, some political 
: cretin would be pointing his finger at you as a fine example of 
: corruption in the family.  Not everyone should be raised the same, as 
: humans who are suppose to be have a big brain (not always functional but 
: they never mention that), we should be able to figure it out (dance on 
: the edge often).  And what works for one might not work for another.  I 
: was a difficult child because I couldn't be what my parents thought I 
: should be, and I was far different from my submission siblings.  I'd 
: hate to have had "the book" [on parenting] thrown at me as an excuse for 
: some serious mind control or alteration or something.


Oh how very right you are!  I remember when I was pregnant for my first 
child, I read a few books about being a parent.  Actually they amused me 
more than informed me.  Especially the potty training part!  Obviously 
these so-called experts haven't had a real chance to potty train!  

I also like the parts about discipline.  Don't do this, don't do that.  
Do this, do that!  What did they do - pick on child and experiment to see 
if their ideas work and wrote a book!


Debbie

boo

jason mcivor (fizbo@ns.sympatico.ca) wrote:
: boo

AAAAAAGGGGGHHHHH!!!

Don't DO that!!!


GMS
http://www.svs.com/users/gmark