New at Reason
Ronald Bailey asks if we need to bundle up for a "demographic winter," or if we should simmer down and let people who don't want kids make their own decisions about family size.
Comments to "New at Reason":
This is a bunch of BS, Ron. Remember that one time that you changed your mind about global warming? Yeah, what about that, huh? What about that?
It's people like those of the Heritage Foundation, more specifically the danger of Heritage people in power, that is preventing me from having kids and will likely drive me to a vasectomy.
Fluffy | February 26, 2008, 12:16pm | #
My only regret is that I probably will not live to see the crash.It is not misanthropic to consider the world too crowded when there are 6 billion of us. 2 billion would cover the entire range of human possibility quite well. Nothing above that figure improves my personal experience one iota.
Urban populations don't breed at renewal rates. They never have, not consistently. This has been true since the days of ancient Rome. Urban populations rise on the basis of migration from rural areas - increases in urban populations are typically actually the result of increases in rural birth rates [or decreases in rural infant mortality]. This is why the birth rates are dropping even in "developing" countries - their populations are urbanizing.
The drop in birthrights associated with urbanization has something to do with "choice" - but that choice is informed by the fact that populations in urban areas are more confronted by the excess of humanity than others are. By focusing on the positive alternative choices of childlessness, you're leaving out the negative factors impacting that choice - and the number one negative factor, I would submit, is that urban populations at some psychological level negatively react to crowding, like rats in a cage.
Michael | February 26, 2008, 12:17pm | #
My two younger brothers, who have bred more than enough to make up for my childless wife and I, always note how much more money I seem to have with the comment: "well, why not? He doesn't have to spend any of it on kids."My question is why childless couples seem to have to defend their decisions not to have children when people who have too many children for their personal resources don't seem to have to defend their reckless decisions at all -- in fact, they're called "blessed."
One of my very best movie-going experiences occured in a near-empty theater while viewing Das Boot in the original German. No idiots. No cell phones. Down with people! The Collapse is scheduled for mid-century? Excellent! I'll be long gone.
dhex | February 26, 2008, 12:19pm | #
alternate explanation: city life is expensive, which is why you see huge immigrant and subcultural families (i.e. hacidim being the most obvious example) but not so much from what you'd call the middle class.then again, this topic suffers from a tremendous amount of projection anyway. if you're like me, small urban environments are attractive; for fluffy they're obvious unattractive - we then parse this particular data according to those standards.
Fluffy | February 26, 2008, 12:22pm | #
Actually, dhex, I personally consider them attractive - but I acknowledge that most populations of mammals breed less when crowded. We're mammals, remember?Also consider that I find the birthrate-reduction aspects of urbanity to be a feature, not a bug.
Dangerman | February 26, 2008, 12:22pm | #
ed | February 26, 2008, 12:17pm | #One of my very best movie-going experiences occured in a near-empty theater while viewing Das Boot in the original German. No idiots. No cell phones. Down with people! The Collapse is scheduled for mid-century? Excellent! I'll be long gone.
Yeah, but it is worth seeing with a few strangers for their reaction to the ending...
"WTF!"
dhex | February 26, 2008, 12:25pm | #
if mammals breed less when crowded, then really tight immigrant communities (physically and otherwise) would have even fewer children than people living in the outer boroughs with higher incomes.iirc the average hacidic family is six people (mom, dad, four children) - and they're one of the poorest, if not the poorest, ethnic communities in new york city. and they're very insular and forced to live together in shrinking communities in brooklyn.
and yet they march on as they have for the last 150 years or so.
what i meant to add on there (damn this place needs an edit function) is that there's a lot more going on than just "crowding" as an explanation. i think it's an intersection of culture, religion and finance.
Tom | February 26, 2008, 12:32pm | #
Fuck all you childless people.You have all that money to spend on your own toys. Your sex is never interrupted by cries for a diaper change. You can pick up and go away for a weekend without a second thought. You make your own vacation calendar, not having to rely on what the schools say. You don't have to worry about wills, or life insurance, and when your divorces are final you never have to see the bitch again.
Then again, it's really hard to top, "I love you, daddy. I wanna be just like you"
Fuck all you childless people
ed | February 26, 2008, 12:34pm | #
Yeah, but it is worth seeing with a few strangers for their reaction to the ending...Nah, my almost-total isolation served to enhance the shock and bummed-outedness.
kinnath | February 26, 2008, 12:35pm | #
I used to tell people that were thinking about having children that the downside was full of tangibles and the upside was strictly a collection of intangibles. Not a recipe for success.NY Voter | February 26, 2008, 12:42pm | #
Technology has freed all the people who don't like or want children from being stuck with them, and also allows poeple who really do want them and are having problems to have them. Most people believe this is good.I think the technology and population boom of the 50s coincided to make a new urban culture where breederd and non breeders did not have to mix for the past 30 years.
The real crisis will come when the kinderfrei are too old to do their own shopping, and the reduced tax base can't afford to hire each one a personal Haitian woman to take care of them.
I wonder if Rikers Island will be converted to senior living?
Anyone with a bit of self-knowledge | February 26, 2008, 12:45pm | #
it's really hard to top, "I love you, daddy. I wanna be just like you"That would so frighten me.
Not to say kids aren't great, poor judges of character though they may be.
Breeder | February 26, 2008, 12:48pm | #
A upside of kids instead of say, pets, is that they can learn. I taught my cat a few tricks in the 15 years I had her, but my kids could all read and do elementary math within 6 years!Now they're playing chess and world of warcraft with me, and writing/performing their own entertainment for my benefit.
Let's see a lapsa-apsu do that!
And in 10 or 20 years: grandchildren!
Re Das Boot - you didn't see the end coming for the Captain Leutnant? Same as All Quiet on the Western Front and Young Lions - the sympathetic enemy needs to get nailed in the end.
dhex | February 26, 2008, 12:51pm | #
hey this is amusing and sort of on-topic:http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/02/26/how-much-longer-will-our-big-cities-last/
I don't know whether to decry the feminists or rally around the pope. All I know is I've got two so I've (nearly) held up my end of the bargain. The rest of you slackers better but down your Rand, stop with the hand, and get busy.
J sub D | February 26, 2008, 12:55pm | #
It is not misanthropic to consider the world too crowded when there are 6 billion of us. 2 billion would cover the entire range of human possibility quite well.Without doing any research, I place the optimal world population at half that. Barring global catastrophe, I predict that human population will slowly start to decline and then reach a quasi-stability at some level that is small enough to be environmentally sustainable and large enought to support an affluent technological society. Of course there will be shrinking pains, but nothing compared to the population explosion problems in the third world over the last century.
I'm normally less optimistic about the future of the human race, but it is a beautiful snow covered day out.
BTW, I'm childless by happenstance.
No, duh | February 26, 2008, 12:56pm | #
You can't train a cat to go to the fridge & get you a beer while the football game is on.some dude | February 26, 2008, 1:02pm | #
why people are choosing to have fewer children?Feminism:
In particular women find that their time becomes more highly valued in occupations outside the home. There are no iron laws of demography, but one that comes pretty close is that the more educated women are, the fewer children they tend to have. Eberstadt also noted the best predictor of fertility levels is the desired family size as reported by women. And finally, the most profound event of the 20th century may have been the sexual revolution's drive toward gender equality, enabled by modern contraception.It's not rocket science.
Alister von Thengledom | February 26, 2008, 1:03pm | #
If this is true, has anyone ever thought about who will be on earth in 2100?bangledeshis
hasidim
arabs
southern US trailer trash
mexicans
Who will clean the toilets in the country club?
Inclusive bigot | February 26, 2008, 1:11pm | #
What toilets?some dude | February 26, 2008, 1:15pm | #
Ronald Bailey asks if we need to bundle up for a "demographic winter," or if we should simmer down and let people who don't want kids make their own decisions about family size.Can't we do both? It seems like the proactive thing to do.
NAL | February 26, 2008, 1:28pm | #
As someone who has two kids (boys ages 6 and 4) (and had them relatively late in life, 35, so I know what living childless is like), I'll say that if you were to plot a measure of happiness (whatever that might be) with time, the childless people (let's assume only emotionally healthy people) would have a graph that is much more stable and a lot less noisy and the average would be a give value H_bar (kind of like a blue chip stock).The people with kids would have a graph that has huge swings up and down (like a penny stock that's being heavily manipulated by big-money shorts and longs). The ups being time when the kids are behaving and being cute and cuddly, etc., and the downs would be times when they're throwing tantrums, interrupting sex, throwing up in your bed at 2am, etc.. The average would also be somewhere around H_bar.
50something | February 26, 2008, 1:29pm | #
Happiness researchers are always producing results like this, but one sentence demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the issue of raising child, and it is this:"Indeed, looking after the kids appears to be only slightly more pleasant than doing housework"
As as father of four I can tell you this, if anybody thinks that raising children is more pleasant than housework, he (or she) is delusional. Raising kids is tough demanding work for which you receive no pay and less respect.
Although parents will always tell you of the joys of parenting the question asked always demands some silly answer like this: I love my children and they make me very happy. Really! Maybe someday, but if they're small enough to stumble over they require constant attention (and they smell). If they're old enough to drive they are expensive and worry you to death (and if they're male they smell).
There is an interval during which they are sufficiently independent and well behaved to be a delight. But parents are really holding on and waiting for grandchildren. You get to enjoy their company, then they *go* home.
I love my children and if given a do-over I'd have them again. But don't tell me that raising kids is more pleasant than housework. It's a silly result from a silly survey produced (probably) by childless academics (probably grad students) whose research is meaningless.
Ask yourself this: Which is more pleasent:
1. doing housework
2. raising children
3. breathing?
What answer would any sane person give to this stupid question?
It's BS. 'nuff said.
Patriarch | February 26, 2008, 1:43pm | #
The powerful think in terms of families because they know they will die someday and want to maintain control. The Rothschild patriarch made his children and grandchildren marry their cousins to keep his power through his family undiluted. European royalty did the same thing.Evolutionary losers like Ron Bailey sit around writing breathless articles about "liberation biology" and artifical intelligence and then pass into oblivion. And on the way out, they leave behind infrastructure and capital returns for the children of the winners.
Here's the real story: In a world where successful men can have only one wife and illegitimate children can genetically discover their fathers and demand financial support, the only way for successful males to support more babies than their rivals is to prevent other males from having any kids at all. Essentially, have childless Ron Bailey work to support their children.
Mind you, they could accomplish the same thing much more easily using chemtrails and flouridation.
JW | February 26, 2008, 1:53pm | #
Can't we do both? It seems like the proactive thing to do.No. Now go procreate.
Oh, and what Tom said. Still, I can't imagine life without my kids. They have brought pure hell into my life, but also greater amounts of joy.
This seems like a ridiculous discussion. People have fewere kid's now for lot's of reasons. Here is my two cents. One of the reasons people don't have as many kids is because the incremental cost is significantly higher than in the past. Now if you have three kids you need a four bedroom, five bathroom house with a three or four car garage. people think every child needs it's own bedroom and it's own bathroom and on reching 16 it's own car. 40 to fifty years ago you didn't need a bigger house every time you had a child.
Rhywun | February 26, 2008, 1:57pm | #
they're very insular and forced to live together in shrinking communities in brooklynAccording to The Times, they're not shrinking but expanding. In fact, the article I read said they can't build Hasidic-style Fedders' Specials (extra bedrooms, dual kitchens) fast enough.
rhywun, i was thinking of real estate/gentrification fights in boro park and south williamsburg specifically, but you're right. they're out near the rockaways and all over nj as well. but they do have to live together to some degree due to the requirements of their lifestyle/culture.
Ron Bailey | February 26, 2008, 2:00pm | #
Patriarch:Essentially, have childless Ron Bailey work to support their children.
If by "working," you mean "help bring about a freer, more prosperous world enabling human beings to flourish," you're right and I'm happy to do so.
Taktix® | February 26, 2008, 2:01pm | #
Then again, it's really hard to top, "I love you, daddy. I wanna be just like you"Fuck all you childless people
There, there. Does somebody need a nap?
anonymoose | February 26, 2008, 2:01pm | #
I'm the father of 3 teenagers. There is nothing pleasant about childrearing, other than the result. The satisfaction comes not from the rearing, but seeing someone you love grow from a small squalling lump to a person who is intelligent, funny, and interesting. But the core of childrearing is the denial of self to the needs of others, and that is not something that sits well with boomers or generation X, or libertarians for that matter.Rhywun | February 26, 2008, 2:05pm | #
I wonder how much of an effect that gays--no longer expected to pump out kids like everyone else, at least in the West--have had on this.Rhywun | February 26, 2008, 2:06pm | #
but they do have to live together to some degree due to the requirements of their lifestyle/culture.Agreed. Where's the main center? Crown Heights, right?
Fiftysomething | February 26, 2008, 2:08pm | #
Ron,Thank you for your contribution, but I was hoping the Ron Bailey Gravy Train would offer something more direct in the way of assistance.
jimmy smith | February 26, 2008, 2:09pm | #
One year all we got for Christmas was a sister. We were hoping for indoor plumbing.People don't have as many kids because we don't need so many hands to help plow the land and slop the hogs.
Tom | February 26, 2008, 2:13pm | #
No, Taktix, I don't need a nap. Those ended somewhere around 1991.My oldest wants to be a surgeon. In 20 years he may be the one carving on your ass.
As Anonymoose said, it's all about denial of the now for the sake of the future. I've pretty much taken my shot, and I hope my sons (four of them, two of whom are adopted)grow up to be decent men who then give it their best shot, and so on through the generations.
What's the primary lesson that each parent learns? That the sun doesn't revolve around us.
Taktix® | February 26, 2008, 2:18pm | #
Tom,Lighten up, my comment was directed at the angry tone of your post, not the substance.
You don't have to get angered because some of us have the wherewithal to plan when to have children by restraint and being meticulously cautious, and don't expect others to feel sorry for us for choosing to have (or not have) children.
It's this line of thought that lands people in the "for the children" camp of legislation.
NY Voter | February 26, 2008, 2:28pm | #
As as father of four I can tell you this, if anybody thinks that raising children is more pleasant than housework, he (or she) is delusional. Raising kids is tough demanding work for which you receive no pay and less respect.Maybe it's a definition thing, but if you mean you'd rather do 5 loads of laundry over three hours than bring three kids to a playground for 3 hours, then i disagree.
Taktix™--I'll speak for Tom and say that it's not anger, but (snarky) bitter envy. Very, very tired and bitter envy.
hale | February 26, 2008, 2:34pm | #
Taktix®,"For the children" is a complex phenomenon and one I'd like to seriously study, if I had the wherewithal of a hundred or so undergrads sworn to do my will. My current, unscientific suspicion is that "for the children" is more a political maneuvering code-phrase than it is a mentality; what a candidate means when he says that is: "I represent sobriety and those with something 'real' at stake here; my opponent represents irresponsibility, possibly hedonism and certainly those whose interests are more frivolous than yours, dear voter." And people buy it less because parents have some magical monopoly on self-importance, but because people in general are likely to overrate the importance of the thing they themselves are worried about.
Shit, my wife always asks me if I want to clean or do some type of housework or hang out with the kids (one of us has to - ages 7,5,3), I choose kids every time. Why would I do that? Am I just not enlightened enough to see that housework is more pleasant? different folks different strokes I reckon.
Fiftysomething | February 26, 2008, 2:41pm | #
Going to the playground is always pleasant, but much of child rearing is more like 3AM feedings, diaper changing or mid night trips to the emergency ward because your kid was in a car accident. As I said, I love my kids, wouldn't have it any other way, but I think that trying to rank the pleasantness of various activities is a pointless exercise in many cases. The activities are not comparable along some single dimension, they don't constitute a poset in mathematical parlance, they're apples and oranges. I'm just saying we don't have kids because it's fun, although it can be. It is rewarding in ways that can't be subsumed under the rubric of "fun" or "pleasant".Good thing too.
I am guessing that if you surveyed marathon runners at various intervals during the race, they'd complain about how miserable they are. Upon crossing the finish line, they would talk about the overall achievement and how wonderful it was. Same with raising kids.
MikeP | February 26, 2008, 2:52pm | #
It is not misanthropic to consider the world too crowded when there are 6 billion of us. 2 billion would cover the entire range of human possibility quite well. Nothing above that figure improves my personal experience one iota.Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. But it is a tad more important to those 4 billion themselves.
hale | February 26, 2008, 2:56pm | #
MikeP--I don't think he was anywhere near claiming that four billion people should die. Just that maybe it isn't so bad that they're not in line to be replaced.
dhex | February 26, 2008, 2:57pm | #
Agreed. Where's the main center? Crown Heights, right?depends on the subset. the main body of satmar are in boro park, with like another 30 ethnic subsets of orthodox.
the lubavitch are in crown heights, but their numbers are shrinking as the caribbean population grows.
(warning i may have spelled every single word in these posts incorrectly.)
NoStar | February 26, 2008, 2:58pm | #
That was the best Ron Bailey disclosure notice ever!Tom | February 26, 2008, 2:59pm | #
No real anger here, Tak, not even any real envy, JW, bitter or otherwise.I recently dated a woman of 50 who had never had kids. She would go on and on about my "limitations" as a potential partner due to my "encumbrances" and "tethers" at home. I finally shut her up by asking point blank, "Who would care if you died tomorrow?" She thought for a moment and then burst into tears.
In today's America, there are way too many "Hey, look at me!" parents, with the brag stickers all over the back windshield, the moms wearing their sons' jerseys at games, etc. I don't join in, but I can understand those who might over-celebrate a job that basically starts with being handed a lump filled with shit, piss and mucus, and being expected to mold something useful out of it.
Besides, children are the cheapest source of humor around. Nothing beats having your 4-year-old innocently ask you what "motherfucker" means while you're in the grocery store checkout line.
shecky | February 26, 2008, 3:01pm | #
Kids are a lot of work and consume lots of resources. Unlike the past, you can't put them to work or kick them out at 10. Modern technology reduces the number of accidental pregnancies. In today's world, that leaves folks to become parents only when they really want. Reasons that start emotionally, with rarely a thought of practicality or destiny.The result is fewer unwanted kids, happier adults, and a better world.
kinnath | February 26, 2008, 3:04pm | #
Besides, children are the cheapest source of humor around. Nothing beats having your 17-year-old call you at 3 am and say "Don't worry, we're OK . . . . . "My mommy went to the hospital and all I got was this stupid sister.
MikeP | February 26, 2008, 3:04pm | #
I don't think he was anywhere near claiming that four billion people should die. Just that maybe it isn't so bad that they're not in line to be replaced.It is astonishing... Every single time I bring up the fact that the total utility of humanity might be of some interest or importance, I get accused of calling people mass murderers.
I am not in any way suggesting that anyone is or wants to be a mass murderer.
I am simply noting that the suggestion that each individual's personal utility may be 10% higher with 2 billion people than with 6 billion people means that you are preferring a total utility across all people of 2.2 billion to a total utility of 6 billion.
It is not clear to me that that is the right choice, even if I myself might selfishly prefer it.
Standard disclaimer: People should have as many children as they want. Government should not subsidize the having or not having of children.
Tom | February 26, 2008, 3:16pm | #
Kinnath,I just put my oldest on my car insurance over the weekend, and watched the premium price go up $1,077.83 in a blink, the same weekend that gas here went up 15 cents overnight. Even he agreed that the school bus that stops right in front of the house doesn't look so bad now.
jbd | February 26, 2008, 3:19pm | #
I used to think that parents were just saying what they had to say when they talked about how "fulfilling" it was to have kids. They often looked tired and stressed out, and it seemed unconvincing.Then I had a daughter. Yeah, I get a little tired and stressed sometimes. But I can't think about her without smiling, and I find myself thinking about her all the time.
You childless folks--don't miss it.
Mandy Cat | February 26, 2008, 3:22pm | #
For about a gazillion years, children were both a public good (they grew up into soldiers and taxpayers) and a private asset (they worked on the farm or in the family business or they increased clan security by entering into useful marriage alliances.)Children in the industrialized countries are still public assets but pure liabilities to individual familes.
I'm sure Mommy and Daddy love their little Jennifers and Miachels just as much as our great-grandparents loved their Pearls and Ebenezers but Jennifer and Michael, considered purely from a financial aspect, are nothing but a drain on the family resources and huge oportunity cost for Mommy.
The U.S. in particular can't seem to decide if having children is a social good and thus deserving of public support or some sort of indulgent luxury, like buying a Corvette.
R C Dean | February 26, 2008, 3:28pm | #
What's the primary lesson that each parent learns? That the sun doesn't revolve around us.If only that were true. Too many act like just the opposite is true, especially once they figure out they can live vicariously through their kid.
kinnath | February 26, 2008, 3:29pm | #
Total tally:Son: one totalled car (mine) & one defaulted car loan (his)
Daughter: two totalled cars (both hers) & one defaulted car lon (hers)
Zorkmid | February 26, 2008, 3:30pm | #
Evolution doesn't plan ahead. For all of time before the 1960's it was enough, adaptation wise, that people enjoy sex-- children would follow. Now people can have sex (or TV) without the consequence of childbearing. However, while evolution doesn't plan ahead it always works with whatever's available. In a few generations everyone will be descended from people who actually do want children, or who are too stupid to practice contraception. Look for a future human race with a lower average IQ but a higher average interest in childbearing.(The birth dearth does affect our politics in various ways. Consider the Safety Nazis, always imposing more onerous yet pointless seatbelt laws and so-forth. One reason their line: "it's for the children" appeals so much is that children nowadays are costly and rare. When most everyone got married and had 3 or 4 or 5 of those precious bairns society was willing to shrug off the occasional loss.)
kinnath | February 26, 2008, 3:38pm | #
There is a small cemetary within walking distance of my house. It dates back to the settlement days here in the midwest. I remember one set of graves where there were three children under the age of 1 buried side by side. Two of the graves were for infants that did not have given names.Parents did not get attached to their children until they were school-aged and could perform chores, because so many died before reaching that age.
Tom | February 26, 2008, 3:47pm | #
"If only that were true. Too many act like just the opposite is true, especially once they figure out they can live vicariously through their kid."Very true, R.C. The booster club recently tried to sell me a team shirt to "show my support" for my kid and his teammates. I replied that it was my son who was on the team, not me. They really looked puzzled at that.
One mom was upset because her son didn't give her his opposing-color jersey to wear to games; he let his girlfriend wear it. "Mom, you're not in high school any more," he replied.
I expect to see moms wearing their kids' graduation rings soon.
ChildFree | February 26, 2008, 3:52pm | #
Could the parents here rationalize a little harder? I'm still not convinced they are convinced.Managing to do the same thing any bug or rat manages to do everyday doesn't make you special, doesn't make you better than me, and certainly doesn't mean I should have to pick up your fucking slack for the hundredth snow day / dentist / eye doctor / etc. here at work.
All I hear is: Misery loves company; let's all have kids.
economist | February 26, 2008, 3:57pm | #
There's only one problem with our self-satisfied childlessness: the people who probably shouldn't breed are breeding heavily. Eventually, we will be overpowered.economist | February 26, 2008, 3:58pm | #
NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT EVERYONE WHO HAS CHILDREN SHOULDN'T. JUST THAT IT HAPPENS A LOT AMONG PEOPLE WHO SHOULDN'T.Doctor | February 26, 2008, 4:06pm | #
Clevon is lucky to be alive. He attempted to jump a jet ski from a lake into a swimming pool and impaled his crotch on an iron gate. But thanks to advances in stem cell research and the fine work of Doctors Krenske and Mueller, he should regain full reproductive function again.Tom | February 26, 2008, 4:15pm | #
I'm not rationalizing, Childfree. It IS all about ME. I LOVE hearing MY last name called out over the loudspeakers when MY kid scores a goal. I love stranding you childless shits with work so I can take MY kid to the doctor; payback for those weeklong cruises you childless shits take.We are better than you.
Danny | February 26, 2008, 4:15pm | #
Easy, economist.I actually identify a lot with Tom, and believe that I still will when I have kids. I do disagree, however, that children are a "cheap" form of entertainment. From what I understand, they can be quite costly.
Really, I look forward to the challenge of having kids and not actually screwing them up. I believe that it doesn't take that much effort, but rather consistency and honesty. So many people I've seen can't train a dog because they can't understand the concept of consistency. Training a dog seems like it would be harder for me because of communication, and their ability to outrun and outhide a human within a month of birth. Human children take a lot longer to be able to get around, and by then you can adequately communicate with them.
... Though I must say that I'm a little more modest than Tom. lol. At least he gets his point across.
kinnath | February 26, 2008, 4:19pm | #
Really, I look forward to the challenge of having kids and not actually screwing them up. I believe that it doesn't take that much effort, but rather consistency and honesty.Wrong, hardest job on earth.
Most rewarding job on earth is subject to debate.
Danny | February 26, 2008, 4:25pm | #
kinnath,What is the hard part? Their physical safety? Their emotional wellbeing? At which point on Moslov's Hierarchy of Needs does a parent's job become difficult? I really am curious.
Maybe I'm delirious, but it all sounds like a great challenge. Fortunately, I'm a realist and an optimist all rolled up in one.
Daniel Reeves | February 26, 2008, 4:29pm | #
I hate children. Or at least the children most other people raise. And I hate how everybody treats misbehaving children. In our church's social hall during a spaghetti dunner, the kids kept running around. The youth who were running the dinner would duck down and in their cutesy voices, say "could you please stop running? :) :)" Go figure: the kids keep running right when a person says that. I got tired of it and I put on my not quite yelling but loud and assertive voice and said, "stop running." The little demons slowed down, and a parent came over to control the children. It kind of worked.The worst part was that the parents wouldn't get a hold of their children. The parents would watch their children run around the place when the youth are carrying plates of spaghetti, table to table. I don't care if little Jimmy and Hannah are "just kids." Get a goddamn hold of your children.
The only reason I'd ever have kids is to show that I can do it better than other people. I wouldn't take shit from my kids. When other parents ask me how I do it as their child runs around misbehaving, I'd crouch down, pick the parents' child up, and spank the wretched thing.
Danny | February 26, 2008, 4:35pm | #
I'm sure you came across as an old, unhappy prick, huh, Daniel? Perhaps you should join a new church where you actually share more in common with your fellow parishioners?"I wouldn't take shit from my kids."
That's exactly what it takes! I can't ever understand why people take crap from their kids. The supposedly difficult line we stumble over is trying to convince our children that when they screw up and we punish them that it's for their own good.
I (presumably naively) look forward to proving that effective parenting is not. that. hard.
NAL | February 26, 2008, 4:39pm | #
Managing to do the same thing any bug or rat manages to do everyday doesn't make you special, doesn't make you better than me, and certainly doesn't mean I should have to pick up your fucking slack for the hundredth snow day / dentist / eye doctor / etc. here at work.For what it's worth, I miss not being able to stay late at work. I hate having to take my kids to the doctors especially if it involves sticking some other person at work with my job duties. Even snow days with them are fun for only the first hour or so, then they get cold outside and want to come in and cause chaos inside, which makes me wish I was at work.
I think that the most difficult time I will have as a parent will be knowing when to show my hand. Sometimes honest parents may give too much away, but if you are slier than your progeny, you should be able to pick up on when they are trying to trick you.
NAL | February 26, 2008, 4:42pm | #
That's exactly what it takes! I can't ever understand why people take crap from their kids. The supposedly difficult line we stumble over is trying to convince our children that when they screw up and we punish them that it's for their own good.I (presumably naively) look forward to proving that effective parenting is not. that. hard.
I was a much better parent before I had kids too.
kinnath | February 26, 2008, 4:45pm | #
What is the hard part?I really would like to give you a good answer for this question, but I am afraid it would take a novel-length dissertation to do the subject justice.
I (presumably naively) look forward to proving that effective parenting is not. that. hard.
Yes, you are truly naive.
Point well taken, NAL. I have been criticized time and again by people saying I think too ideally. At least coming in aiming this high, I don't think I'll be able to come out being remotely close to being a terrible parent.
Pirate Jo | February 26, 2008, 4:47pm | #
"I was a much better parent before I had kids too."Yeah, Danny! Quit thinking you all dat! Kids are going to act like fuckin' brats no matter what you do, so you'd better just suck it up and accept it if you're going to have kids.
And you, kinnath, sound truly bitter. Perhaps I'll just add your name to the list of people who want me to call them when I've done a good job of being a parent. Of course, that job is never really over, and I could have just gotten lucky with good kids. It could never be due to actually effective parenting.
Dr. Spock's Ghost | February 26, 2008, 4:51pm | #
Danny, you're right, it's not the hardest job on earth. All you need is classical conditioning.They do something not allowed, they get negative reinforcement. They do something good, they get postive reinforcement. All the time.
I have people ask me why my kids are well behaved in certain situations and they always look at me funny when I tell them classical conditioning.
Oh yeah, and not being afraid of them "not loving you".
And allow them to tell you their point of view, but don't let think they get to make the decisions in the family.
If that's true, Pirate Jo, then absolutely nobody should have kids. Let's start the first annual, international "Neuter EVERYONE Day" tomorrow and be done with it.
| February 26, 2008, 4:53pm | #
How can I get a job that I like so much that I would trade time at the job over time with my family? I guess they pay well? Or not?James R | February 26, 2008, 4:53pm | #
News Flash: Raising a familiy is incredibly arduous and time consuming.Other News Flash: Nearly any thing worth doing is incredibly arduous and time consuming.
It's that Rome Wasn't Built In A Day trope...but it's true. Beethoven wrote some of humanity's greates music ever, and he lost sleep and neglected food an hygeine while doing it. The founding fathers formed the greatest democracy in the world, and many of them lost their lives or died in poverty. Would they have changed their minds about it? Was it worth all the sacrifice?
How can we quantify the difference between the extreme discomfort of sacrifice and the excquisite satisfaction that often follows it?
Raising children is probably the greatest sacrifice most people make, and it is undoubtedly very unpleasant in many ways, but how many of them would truly give it up? I mean if they didn't have to fear social judgment, how many of them would dump their kids?
There must be some unquantifiable joy that parents are getting and that they can't properly articulate, so al the childless folk (of which I am a member currently) just think they're rationalizing to fit in.
Andrew | February 26, 2008, 4:55pm | #
I recently dated a woman of 50 who had never had kids. She would go on and on about my "limitations" as a potential partner due to my "encumbrances" and "tethers" at home. I finally shut her up by asking point blank, "Who would care if you died tomorrow?" She thought for a moment and then burst into tears.1) So she had no friends? She seems to have bigger problems than a lack of children.
2) Having children so one has someone to care when he or she dies doesn't really sound like something a person would say after learning "the sun doesn't revolve around us."
kinnath | February 26, 2008, 4:55pm | #
And you, kinnath, sound truly bitter.Two children and four grand children. My kids were kind and well-behaved. People always complemented my wife and I on our children. I fully believe the world is a better place because I had children.
You mistake experience for bitterness. Come back in 30 years or so and brag if you still feel like it.
William Weber | February 26, 2008, 4:57pm | #
"There are no iron laws of demography, but one that comes pretty close is that the more educated women are, the fewer children they tend to have"I recently saw a movie on cable named "Idiocracy". The premise was similar to the above quote. Opening the movie were scenes (from 100(?) years previous) of intelligent upscale and childless couples telling why they were childless. Intermixed were redneck, hillbilly and other low brow characters surrounded by packs of screaming kids.
The movie then returns to the "present" where a man and woman of ordinary intelligence have just been defrosted from cyrosleep where they had been for the last 100 years. Being of normal intelligence, they are geniuses by current standard.
Not a great movie, but one that was funny in places and made one think about who is having kids these days.
Danny | February 26, 2008, 4:57pm | #
I wholeheartedly agree, Spock. Especially on that last note. My parents haven't given a crap what I have to say for, gosh, decades? My mom really tries to act like her making all of the decisions herself is a "family decision", but, somehow, me and my foster brothers never would accept it.Of course there will be tough cases, but that doesn't mean that the method is wrong. Special cases need special consideration.
kinnath | February 26, 2008, 4:57pm | #
There must be some unquantifiable joy that parents are getting and that they can't properly articulate, . . .To repeat myself: I used to tell people that were thinking about having children that the downside was full of tangibles and the upside was strictly a collection of intangibles.
R C Dean | February 26, 2008, 4:58pm | #
They do something not allowed, they get negative reinforcement. They do something good, they get postive reinforcement. All the time.Ah yes, the First Iron Law.
You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish.
It works, people.
Santiago | February 26, 2008, 5:04pm | #
I'm at home with my kids, so I don't have time to read all the comments. (Irony anyone?) Sorry if I just repeat something that's already been said.I don't know if "people" don't like kids any more, or not. IMHO, the reason I don't want any more kids is (1) nanny state regs, and (2) the cost. Kids require a lot more state-mandated "gear" than they used to, and it's virtually impossible to raise any kids on a single income and/or afford day care that a dump.
On a similar topic, DINCs are like atheists, except that atheists can hide their religious philosophy. I don't look down on you/think you're missing out on something for not having kids. You don't have to justify your lifestyle choice.
kinnath | February 26, 2008, 5:05pm | #
My wife was eating in our small-town diner one night while baby-sitting our grandson. He was acting poorly, so she gave him a quick smack on the back of the head.Two strangers then approached her and chastised her using "corporal" punishment. When she told them to get lost, they stated that they worked with DHS and that they had the power to take my grandson that instant if they felt if was necessary.
Fortunately, the other 15 or 20 people in the diner told the two busybodies that they weren't going anywhere with my grandson unless they were willing to call the police in for reinforcement.
Pirate Jo | February 26, 2008, 5:06pm | #
"If that's true, Pirate Jo, then absolutely nobody should have kids. Let's start the first annual, international "Neuter EVERYONE Day" tomorrow and be done with it."Hee hee hee ... now you're talking!
But seriously, look around you - you don't see ALL parents letting their kids act like complete hellions. Why is it unreasonable to think you can't raise well-behaved children when there are already people out there who have proven it can be done? You don't have to be a parent yourself to see that.
That said, I must admit I really don't give the issue much thought. I'm just glad it's other people who have to deal with children and not me.
Danny | February 26, 2008, 5:06pm | #
kinnath,Perhaps you believe that when I said parenting isn't hard, you heard me say that it doesn't take a lot of time and effort? This obviously isn't so. I suppose my point is that it doesn't (or at least shouldn't) take more than average intelligence to do it well.
Besides, what were you doing when you mentioned that your kids have totaled three cars. Bragging?
freedom geek | February 26, 2008, 5:08pm | #
This fall in population growth is a good thing. We are probably going to be able to have immortality soon and this will help against those who try to ban it while screaming about overpopulation.Fluffy | February 26, 2008, 5:08pm | #
Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. But it is a tad more important to those 4 billion themselves.I have no doubt that it is, but that's not really relevant to my statement.
I particularly focused on putative accusations of misanthropy because I always get that when I say I wish the world was less crowded.
And I don't mean misanthropy in the sense of wishing bad things on 4 billion people. I mean being accused of misanthropy because I think 2 billion people is plenty to look at, and 4 more billion don't really add anything.
150 million Americans was plenty. Adding 150 million just made it impossible to point your nose anywhere without being overwhelmed by everyone else and their piles of crap. When I point this out, I am called a misanthrope. And I just don't think it's misanthropy to fully appreciate the delights of being surrounded by 2 billion people and their works, but to think that being surrounded by 6 billon is just overdoing it a tad.
I like lobster, but if you jammed it down my throat with one of those fois gras goose feeder things 24/7 I wouldn't like it anymore. I also like people, but...can't some of you find somewhere else to be once in a while?
Your Good Buddy Johnny Clarke | February 26, 2008, 5:11pm | #
"...burst into tears". Hmm, interesting. First, YOU aren't going to care after you've died, so why do you think it important that your survivors sit around depressed for a while? Second, wake-up call...3 or 4 generations from now nobody in your own family is going to care that you died. Hell, they won't even remember you, short of some cheesy photos of "Great-grandpa whats-his-name".Pirate Jo | February 26, 2008, 5:11pm | #
"I finally shut her up by asking point blank, "Who would care if you died tomorrow?" She thought for a moment and then burst into tears."Maybe she was crying because the date sucked. It does sound like she was being snide and critical about your kids, and I probably wouldn't have liked that either. But assuming that a) No one cares if you die if you don't have kids, or b) Anyone cares if you die just because you have kids, is just plain wrong.
You should have told the DHS that you'd show them some corporal punishment! Honestly, you are lucky that those others stood up for you. DHS and others can be absolutely ruthless in standing up for the wrong thing.
Fluffy | February 26, 2008, 5:12pm | #
Oh, and to contribute to the "misbehaving children" discussion, I think our definition of "misbehaving children" has changed as the birth rate has fallen.If only because children were formerly ubiquitous, a street full of kids running around and screaming used to be just "a street". If you were walking down it, you would think, "Well, here I am walking down a street." Now precisely because there are fewer children, if a single child steps one toe outside for 5 seconds and kicks a ball, ten hypersensitive assholes who live on that street shriek, "Some misbehaving kid is making too much noise and making it impossible for me to concentrate on the shitty novel I'm pretending to write on my shitty Mac notebook. Can't someone medicate that kid or something?"
Your Good Buddy Johnny Clarke | February 26, 2008, 5:16pm | #
Fluffy-Nah, a long, long time ago my parents raised me to be quiet and polite in restaurants. Acting like a hellion in a restaurant was not acceptable.
What's changed is that a lot of parents today seem to think letting their children run wild in public is acceptable.
cranky old man | February 26, 2008, 5:17pm | #
DHS takes kids? Why don't they take the ones who spill stuff in the supermarket and run away?kinnath | February 26, 2008, 5:18pm | #
I suppose my point is that it doesn't (or at least shouldn't) take more than average intelligence to do it well.Define "hard" then.
Hard is watching your infant struggle to breathe in an oxygen tent.
Hard is walking your young child through an amusement park with liquid shit running down both legs because you didn't get to the bathroom soon enough.
Hard is telling your kids you love them even though they just totalled your only car and you don't know how you're going to get to work.
Hard is 20 years times 365 days times 24 hours of trying to do the right thing when you can't know what it is for sure with the knowledge that mistakes can produce catestrophic results.
And by way, everyone and I mean everyone, will be happy to tell you everything you are doing wrong every step of the way.
Daniel Reeves | February 26, 2008, 5:26pm | #
I (presumably naively) look forward to proving that effective parenting is not. that. hard.I don't think that being a parent would be easy, only that the marginal input of being a good parent is relatively little. You just have to suck it up. If you can't spank your "little angel" when he or she does wrong and say no to her or his whims, well, it just shows how much you really care for them in the long run.
I won't presume to say that those times weren't difficult, particularly an infant struggling to breathe. Perhaps bitter was too strong a word. I don't mean to mock you, at all, it's just that some people (I'm presuming myself is included) are predisposed to be a little bit more detached in such a way that it makes those times and decisions easier.
Danny | February 26, 2008, 5:34pm | #
Daniel, I already mentioned that here. You've gotta be able to at least punish your kids, but it's equally imperative to be able to follow through by telling them that it's ultimately for their own good.ChildFree | February 26, 2008, 5:42pm | #
There must be some unquantifiable joy that parents are gettingThat's just Stockholm Syndrome.
R C Dean | February 26, 2008, 5:48pm | #
Oh, and to contribute to the "misbehaving children" discussion, I think our definition of "misbehaving children" has changed as the birth rate has fallen.You're right that its changed, but wrong about the direction of change. I think smaller families are associated with worse behavior, not crankier adults.
In the urban areas where I have lived, families were smaller and further in between, and the kids were generally less civil, courteous and well-behaved.
In the more rural areas, there are more kids, and they are almost without exception civil, courteous, and well-behaved.
How true, R C. Walk into Scottsdale (AZ) and those prissy bitches on daddy's dime won't even understand the words "civil" or "courteous". As was mentioned elsewhere, kids that can socialize with kids learn social norms a lot quicker.
JW | February 26, 2008, 5:53pm | #
Ah yes, the First Iron Law.You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish.
It works, people.
Let me introduce you to my daughter. You'll be burning the Spock books within the first hour.
I don't think ChildFree is a cynic - ChildFree just doesn't see what's to get all excited about re having kids. Frankly, I don't either. I "get" that some other people enjoy it, but the stuff that trips their triggers doesn't seem to be the same stuff that trips mine.
Tom | February 26, 2008, 6:03pm | #
Pirate Jo, the date didn't suck. She just was very snide about how superior her life was to mine, since she could do whatever she wanted when she wanted. I really didn't care if anyone cared about her if she died, I just wanted to shut her up. After her tears subsided, she confessed that her first husband has compelled her to have an abortion because he didn't want kids, and that the procedure screwed her up fertility wise. She had always wanted kids, but couldn't have any of her own.See, there's rationalization on both sides.
JW | February 26, 2008, 6:04pm | #
No real anger here, Tak, not even any real envy, JW, bitter or otherwise.C'mon Tom, what you wrote is bitter, envious and I feel it too, more often than I like.
Hell, I work with almost nothing but single women in their 20's and gay men. Breeders are a rare commodity around here. You should see the disposable income of the gay portion here; all I can do is sigh.
I call my kids my 2 little Beemer payments. I figure that's about right, maybe even underestimating a bit.
Pirate Jo | February 26, 2008, 6:09pm | #
Hi Tom, it is interesting that although your date had always wanted kids, she was very quick to put you down for ... having kids! Maybe she had a bad case of the fox and the grapes. I think her story is kind of sad, but it is tiresome to listen to anyone run down your life choices, whatever those choices are.I don't want kids and won't have them. If you asked me whether anyone would care if I died, my response would be very much like Our Good Buddy Johnny Clarke's above: "YOU aren't going to care after you've died, so why do you think it important that your survivors sit around depressed for a while?" But then again I don't criticize people for having kids, either. I have dated a few guys with kids, and a lot of my friends have them. I just figure they know what they're doing and doing what makes them happy. None of my business!
Tom | February 26, 2008, 6:10pm | #
JW, if you don't spend it on the kids, you spend it somewhere else.Try being a single father and dating in your 40s. The available women with kids want you to love theirs, but they don't want yours (they fear being a "step-mother"). The childless ones fear your children and your commitment to them. You think you're a catch if you're a stand-up guy who stands by the kids you fathered? Guess again.
Danny | February 26, 2008, 6:13pm | #
Pirate JoWell that's not how it's coming across. He/she is saying that people MUST not enjoy children. Go back and read it. I also understand that people may not enjoy having kids. I don't give a shit if people do or don't want to have kids. I just know that I do, but hopefully I'd still be happy if I didn't.
Pirate Jo, well, she did also admit she's been in therapy for 25 years.....
Pirate Jo | February 26, 2008, 6:16pm | #
"The childless ones fear your children and your commitment to them."Huh ... when I dated guys with kids, I thought that was fine, since guys who already have kids aren't going to want any more. And I don't want any, so no worries! Current BF has no kids and feels the same way I do, which is great. But I never had a problem dating guys with kids - it was even easier as their kids got older, and some of their kids were fun to be around. Current BF has an 8-year-old niece who is a blast.
Which brings me to wonder, now that we're on the subject, when all these childfree people die, who will inherit their wealth? I'm thinking they will leave a lot of money to charities and to other people's kids, so how could that be a bad thing? When I die without reproducing, I'll also be freeing up a job for someone else's kid. So who says we aren't contributing anything to the future?
Danny | February 26, 2008, 6:16pm | #
TomThe problem there is that you are still trying to date women. They were crazy when you were young, and (somehow) are still crazy to this day.
kinnath | February 26, 2008, 6:17pm | #
I don't mean to mock you, at all, it's just that some people (I'm presuming myself is included) are predisposed to be a little bit more detached in such a way that it makes those times and decisions easier.I hope you choose to forgo children then.
Danny | February 26, 2008, 6:18pm | #
"So who says we aren't contributing anything to the future?"I didn't say it, Jo. :-)
Why? Because having children must be a horrible and terrible process in order to be worthwhile? Something tells me that you aren't telling the full story. I need more details because what you've given me is not enough proof that I won't be able to handle parenthood. You've survived.
Pirate Jo | February 26, 2008, 6:22pm | #
"I didn't say it, Jo."No, I don't mean you - I'm talking about those Demographic Winter boobs. They act like it's the end of the world if the population declines. Well I think there are ways to make the world a better place besides adding more people to it. A smaller population, but one with a higher standard of living, would still be a population that is better off.
Don't get me started on the demographic effect on Social Security. Can't wait to see that piece of crap die, even though I've lost lots of money on it. Maybe BECAUSE I've lost lots of money on it.
Really, please start giving a more compelling argument or get out. I'm tired of people giving commands without reasoning. Why should I choose to forgo having children if I can remain slightly more detached and make certain correct decisions a little bit easier?
Alexis | February 26, 2008, 6:23pm | #
Brooklyn Hasidim:Williamsburg: Satmar, Pupa, Karlin-Stolin, some other Hungarian style Hasidim. Poorest community by far. Six people would be a very small family.
Borough Park: Bobov, Ger, many many others, some non-Hasidic Orthodox.
Crown Heights: Lubavitch. The community is not shrinking at all (but Crown Heights Lubavitch demographics are unusual because it's relatively transient--couples going on shlichut), but there is pressure.
Midwood (always referred to by Jews as Flatbush, but not to be confused with the neighborhood north of Brooklyn College) also has a large population of non-Hasidic Orthodox Jews with large families. They're moving into Marine Park and Kensington.
All these communities have extraordinary growth rates. Hasidim are forming satellite communities elsewhere, particularly in Rockland County (Monsey and surrounds) and near Monroe (Kiryas Joel has the highest birth rate in the state). Non-Hasidic Orthodox are moving to Monsey, New Jersey (Passaic, Lakewood, Teaneck) and the Five Towns/Far Rockaway.
Herein concludes your lesson in Orthodox demography.
Pirate Jo | February 26, 2008, 6:24pm | #
"They were crazy when you were young, and (somehow) are still crazy to this day."Not only that, but we've had even more years of experience with which to perfect our 'craziness' techniques. I promised the rest of the women in the Secret Sisterhood I wouldn't tell, but ...
I know. I was just backing you up, dawg! (Yes, us breeders can, in fact, stand up for those that have chosen not to bear children.)
Well, I appreciate you divulging that bit of important information. Lesson learned. :-)
Tom | February 26, 2008, 6:29pm | #
Pirate Jo,Do you live urban or in the burbs? I think a lot of hesitation on many burb women's part is that my kids are not safely away at college or in the full custody of their mother. I have full custody of all four. My two little ones start kindergarten this fall. They don't need a new momma, but that seems to be what a lot of women fear (plus we have Disney to thank for the Evil Stepmother paranoia).
Many burb women also need you to help pick up the tab on their McMansions. I own an earlier version, circa 1978, that's paid off, and I have no urge to take on their debt.
Woody Allen | February 26, 2008, 6:35pm | #
I could have just gotten lucky with good kids.A rather crass way of phrasing it, but yes, that can happen too.
I don't like sugar-coating when the simple, slightly harsh, truth will do. (Just ask my girlfriend of 2.25 years.)
Mad Max | February 26, 2008, 7:23pm | #
"You just have to suck it up. If you can't spank your 'little angel' when he or she does wrong and say no to her or his whims, well, it just shows how much you really care for them in the long run."Presuming, of course, you don't spank them in public where the social workers can have you arrested.
". . . she confessed that her first husband has compelled her to have an abortion because he didn't want kids, and that the procedure screwed her up fertility wise. She had always wanted kids, but couldn't have any of her own."
Wait, I thought that stuff about abortion making women infertile was just a myth spread by the Radical Religious Right (TM)!
sam h | February 26, 2008, 7:24pm | #
"150 million Americans was plenty. Adding 150 million just made it impossible to point your nose anywhere without being overwhelmed by everyone else and their piles of crap"I don't believe that. Very large parts of te US have had decades of no growth or rapid decline in population. The old-school big cities on the east coast have lost population. If you don't like people just move were they are not. Here in NW PA you can buy land for $1000 acre.
Fluffy | February 26, 2008, 7:40pm | #
You folks who remember yourselves being polite and quiet in restaurants as children are all wet.You were just as noisy as kids are now. Kids [including you as a kid] don't perceive themselves as loud. But there were so many kids then, the restaurants were louder, and so no one heard you. That's all.
Fewer restaurants were pretending to be upscale, also. A HoJo's full of noisy kids was just a HoJo's. A PF Chang's with one noisy kid in it is an excuse for wretched suburbanites to have anxiety attacks.
Here's how to avoid being annoyed by children: whenever you're home, turn on every TV and radio in your house loud enough so that you can't really talk without raising your voice a little. This will eventually become the new normal for you and you will tune all noise, including kids, out.
JW | February 26, 2008, 7:47pm | #
Try being a single father and dating in your 40s. The available women with kids want you to love theirs, but they don't want yours (they fear being a "step-mother"). The childless ones fear your children and your commitment to them. You think you're a catch if you're a stand-up guy who stands by the kids you fathered? Guess again.This is why god invented hookers and porn.
Thanks for the heads up. Staying married doesn't sound so bad now.
Paul | February 26, 2008, 7:56pm | #
and the number one negative factor, I would submit, is that urban populations at some psychological level negatively react to crowding, like rats in a cage.I can't speak for historical demographic trends (you mention Rome) but I can speak for individual choice vis. birthrates and the urban environment in the modern (current) age.
I don't really think that a lot of urban dwellers are consciously thinking about "overcrowding" when they make the choice of having offspring. In modern times, most urban dwellers are more affluent, educated and have long arcing careers. This does not lend itself well to a large number of offspring. Add into this that urban real estate is most often more expensive than suburban or rural real estate, and the space to have said children becomes limited as well. This last part could be construed as "overcrowding", but it's a very extraneous line of thinking because one can certainly move a few miles to the suburbs and get that extra space by increasing your commute by say, 20 to 50%.
As a modern urban dweller with only one child, these choices (to have only one child) are abundantly clear... because we made them. In addition, since most of my friends are also urban dwellers, I'm familiar with their choices as well.
There are other choices as well, much more difficult to quantify, but again, many modern urban dwellers put up with the so-called inconveniences of city life for just such intangibles: Lifestyle, access to services and entertainments, quality of life etc. Some of these things inform our choices to have (more) children.
Paul | February 26, 2008, 8:03pm | #
when people who have too many children for their personal resources don't seem to have to defend their reckless decisions at all -- in fact, they're called "blessed."Oh but Michael, they do have to defend their decisions, if they find themselves whining (in my presence) about lack of resources while their 9 offspring run around and dad's doing 90 days in county for selling crystal meth and mom's drunk until 10am.
The problem is, criticism of these "decisions" to have more children is seen as... shall we say, "neanderthal" or "mean-spirited".
I remember listening to a story on NPR where a CPS worker was talking about his job, and he mentioned that when he takes away a baby from a family who were dead...broke... and had no job skills and no prospects, yet continued to have yet more children-- he added in that really, they were "doing the best they could".
I nearly drove off the road and started screaming at the radio. No, they're not doing the best they can. When they were dirt-poor, and had their third child, a flag should have gone off. Then when they had the fourth, a bigger flag should have been raised-- then on their fifth and sixth child, someone needs to go smack them so far back their clothes would go back in style. They're not doing the best they can, they're making Bad Life Choices(tm) by having more children.
Keith Wood | February 26, 2008, 9:48pm | #
I have seen this from both sides. I used to have 5 kids, until their mother failed geography (she thinks that "fidelity" is that town in Pennsylvania where they have the Liberty Bell). I was then run out of my kids' lives, where I remain until this day (all anyone cared about was if the child support was paid).I spent the next 10 years on my own. I traveled, set my own schedule (pretty much) and never had to deal with all of the trials of being dad to teenagers. What I "gained" doesn't even pay the interest on what I missed out on. I'll admit that it would have been interesting to be a fly on the wall when my ex-wife gave our girls "the talk" about chastity...no doubt while cradling their illegitimate younger sister in her lap.
Now I am in a relationship with a much better lady (from the Philippines) who has two great kids, so I will have the chance to see teenhood after all!
I am looking forward to this more than any childless person could imagine. Solo stinks.
Pirate Jo | February 26, 2008, 10:12pm | #
Tom, I live in the suburbs, in a condo. That is funny what you said about the McMansions - I've never had the desire to own one of those. Four children is a pretty good-sized brood, though, and the two little ones are awfully young. Most of the women you have dated probably want to get married at some point in the future, so your situation puts them in the position of having to choose between being the evil stepmother or waiting another 18 years to get married. Now me, I'm not really interested in getting married, either - but most women are.Keith Wood tells a very sad story but makes an interesting point in the process. Do men have any incentive to get married and have kids when they can be hosed by the legal system in this manner? Jesus Christ on a donkey. That sucks.
NAL | February 26, 2008, 10:45pm | #
Fewer restaurants were pretending to be upscale, also. A HoJo's full of noisy kids was just a HoJo's. A PF Chang's with one noisy kid in it is an excuse for wretched suburbanites to have anxiety attacks.That said, it would be a good thing if more parents were considerate of others who want to have a nice quiet dinner. Frankly, I'm not sure why any parent would take young kids to a sit-down-and-order restaurant. Dining out should be fun, and dining out with young kids is not, no matter how good the food is. My boys are 6 and 4 and still haven't been to a restaurant that doesn't have a "Play Place".
Keith Wood | February 26, 2008, 10:58pm | #
"Do men have any incentive to get married and have kids when they can be hosed by the legal system in this manner? Jesus Christ on a donkey. That sucks."It does, rather.
However, I miss my kids, and wouldn't trade one minute of the time that I had with them for anything in this world. So yes, there is an incentive.
sam h | February 26, 2008, 11:28pm | #
"That said, it would be a good thing if more parents were considerate of others who want to have a nice quiet dinner. Frankly, I'm not sure why any parent would take young kids to a sit-down-and-order restaurant."I would be happy to not take my kids to any resturant with were they were not welcome by managment. If we go to a non-chain I always ask if it is OK. However, a low-brow sit down place like applebee's or denny's have kids meals and highchairs. If you don't like normaly behaved kids being there take it up with the managment. Same with the airplane- if the airline wants my money they had better take kids, and the people around me are just going to have to live with it. If an airline had kid free flights that would be fine, it's there airplane.