It's possible that some of these women regret not having children in the way they regret not taking more time off after college. But for others, this longing for the kids they did not have is a profound, soul-encompassing sadness. ... "

--snip; ... but do read the rest

[ 15 January 2005: Message edited by: James ]

Rather odd, since when I hear the expression "empty nest", it doesn't evoke non-parents, but parents whose children have grown and flown the coop.

There are some positive ideas in the article about a more flexible career path, but they still posit women as the main caregivers for children. Obviously women are the ones who are pregnant, and the ones who can breastfeed, but beyond that the editorialist does have a rather stereotyped assumption about respective male and female roles.

quote:

---

But for others, this longing for the kids they did not have is a profound, soul-encompassing sadness.

---

And second, I'd need to see the Gallup survey. Brooks's way of narrating reminds me a lot of those biographies we're seeing more and more these days, in which authors attribute thoughts and feelings to their subjects for which there is no documentary evidence at all. A great novelist like Colm Toibin can get away with that, in a novel he calls a novel (about Henry James); but David Brooks is no Colm Toibin.

The problem with the column itself is that it moves very quickly away from even the thin data Brooks takes for an excuse to write to old, stereotypical dualisms: women who haven't had children by the time they're forty were most likely consumed by their careers, and either they regret that now, poor things, or they were peculiarly un-nurturing careerists anyway. And then there is always that sneaky extra, pitying thought: maybe they were just never lucky enough to snag a man.

I mean, what is an adult woman supposed to say in answer? What? You're wrong, David? I mean, what???

I am fifty-nine years old, never had a child of my own although I've had a most happy marriage. In a couple of months, we will celebrate the twentieth anniversary of our entanglement and the seventeenth of our marriage.

Children are wonderful, but I never especially felt that I should be having my own. I am the opposite of a career-driven woman: like most people who come from literature, I am not only by nature but also by training heavily inclined to be nurturing, and I've spent my adult life nurturing, as a teacher, an editor, a wife, a step-mother, feeder of millions of cousins and friends, and now a caregiver.

I think I would have been a bad mother, actually. It probably takes an adult -- like one of my authors -- to stand up to the kind of nurturing that I do. As a mother, I would have been overprotective, overwhelming. I was meant to care for adults: it was just my destiny, I think, and some of us are like that.

I also come from a big family and a happy family. My siblings are still among the most interesting people I know, the longest-running drama of my life, and I feel the most intense connections to them.

But I have never, ever wanted to reproduce that dynamic. I've watched so many of my contemporaries in agony over parent/adult-child relationships, sometimes, I've felt, because of the terribly hard time that many parents have in accepting that their children are forever separated from them in a deep way, if also connected in deep ways. That tension is obviously central to our culture, and an important one to watch and understand. I'm interested in it; but I never wanted to live in it.

[ 15 January 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]

login: babblers
password: audrarules

quote:

---

Nearly 23 percent of married women with children said they occasionally regret having children.

---

He appears so solicitous in tone, but it's really beyond annoying, it's actually quite scary. What is this about staying home with the kids for 10 years and then going into a flexible graduate program leading to 30 years of a productive career? Sounds so realistic - applies to everyone!

But it's not as if there's absolutely no truth to what he's putting forth (that's why it gets attention.) When I decided it was time to have kids, it was with the realization that there wasn't going to be a nice convenient moment to do it, and nobody was going to cut me any slack for taking a year off studies and then later even more time off work to have my second...I didn't have any guarantees that I'd get my job back (actually, by then I didn't want it back.)
However, the second time around, I was lucky enough to have the baby at a time when the CSST (worker's health and safety commission) covered my pregnancy (hazardous work conditions) and EI covered my first year at home with the baby. I can't imagine how I would've managed without that help - it's a financial support, but it has the psychological effect of preventing you from feeling like you've done something self-centred and useless like having a baby. And then I had access to excellent and affordable daycare...all of these things made a difference to how I felt about having kids.

quote:

---

For example, it might make more sense to go to college, make a greater effort to marry early and have children.

---

..."greater effort to marry early"...? Oh, that's why I'm not married -- never put in the effort to hunt down a husband. This concept is just creepy.

I think one point he's missing here is that, yes, women are at their most fertile during their younger years, but it's also a time when the mind is ravenous. I couldn't imagine having found child-rearing enticing in my early twenties -- there was simply too much out there in the world to explore and learn.

quote:

---

Then, if she, rather than her spouse, wants to stay home, she could raise children from age 25 to 35. [my emphasis]

---

This is a bit rich; perhaps it's just my experience, but the idea that it's a 50/50 choice between which parent stays home as the primary care-giver - which he seems to be implying is a given - is fanciful.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mush:
I couldn't make the link work, but I hear alarm bells whenever I read/hear talk about women having profound regrets/emptiness/etc about not having kids.
I think it's telling that this kind of crap is only ever directed at women. Nobody has ever expressed a fear that I might regret our childlessness, but my wife gets it all the time.

---

quote:

---

It's possible that some of these women regret not having children in the way they regret not taking more time off after college. But for others, this longing for the kids they did not have is a profound, soul-encompassing sadness.

---

I thought, I'm going to hate this guy when I read his article. At some point today or tomorrow, I will read his article and see if the rest of it is as obnoxious as that clip.

Oh god. I just read the whole article now. I don't even know where to begin.

[ 16 January 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

My mother described the crushing pressure she was under when she had not become pregnant after five years of marriage. She says she didn't regret having children, and I don't doubt her, but mightn't this be the case for others?

[edited...aaahhh..just saw Audra's post above...sorry...redundant]

[ 16 January 2005: Message edited by: Mush ]

It's really disrespectful to the whole importance of being a parent to suggest that everyone should do it, wants to do it, or is up to doing a good job.

There is a lot of pressure.

quote:

---

Such attitudes as you describe were once far more common.
I personally wouldn't worry about anything someone says about their future at 18. Either they'll stay on the same course (in which case all my fretting would be in vain) or they'll go off in another direction entirely (in which case by remaining silent at 18 I'd have the satisfaction of pointing out to them later how far off they were).

---

I don't worry about her decisions around marriage or family. If she waits until she's older and gets married at 25 - how is that my business? I don't want to be responsible for someone's marriage or divorce if they were not ready.

And if she never has a child - well, that's something she has to decide.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mush:
parents who want thair children (daughters, mainly) to "give them grandchildren".

---

quote:

---

And I suspect (but could never prove) that there are an awful lot of women who have had children, when they had little real choice about it, and who might harbour some regrets. Doubt Brooks considers that.

---

Anecdotally, i can attest to a strong paternal drive among men between 28 and 35. How many later regret acting or failing to act on that impulse, i couldn't say.

I do know that an awful lot of parents shouldn't be. (Relax - i won't recount any forensic horror-stories.)

quote:

---

read a study some years ago (can't place it or prove it) where 30-some% of the women surveyed regretted having had children.

---

Incredibly sad.

quote:

---

So, i would assume that the regret was mostly over lost opportunities.
I do know that an awful lot of parents shouldn't be. (Relax - i won't recount any forensic horror-stories.)I never raised a biological offspring, and never regretted it. Did raise two adopted kids, and never regretted that. I was an adaquate mother, but don't consider this a huge achievement or the most important thing in my life.

---

I don't know that opportunities would be lost but they'd be varied or exchanged for different experiences. If they are experiences you don't want then I can understand the sadness.

I hope that this thread hasn't sounded anti-child to anyone. I've really enjoyed reading, eg, brebis noire's reflections on her experience. If I had been in a different situation, I might well also have lived my way into parenthood without making a conscious decision -- since living my way into things without making conscious decisions has pretty much been the way I've lived my life anyway.

I never quite connect with decisions made in the abstract -- to get married, in the abstract, eg. The most important things I've done in my life are things I was often already sort of doing when I finally realized how important they were to me.

I just feel sad that a child will have fewer years with their parent than is ideal - extended family options or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
But Yves Montand, among others, fathered a child at about the same age - and alas died only a few years later

---

Some days even the initial part of fathering a child seems like it would be too much work to me.

quote:

---

I don't know that opportunities would be lost but they'd be varied or exchanged for different experiences.

---

Probably, most of those women would never have become dancers or chartered accountants or photographers, anyway; they imagine what might have been quite differently from what they were actually capable of or willing to work for or ever had a shot at. It's easier to blame the kids than to see oneself objectively.
Then, there is the question of how the kids turned out. People are very often disappointed in their children, for a whole gamut of reasons, not all of which would make sense to an uninvolved observer.

In most cases, the experience they're actually having is neither the dream of fame and fortune nor the dream of happily ever after: it's drudgery, frustration and anxiety.

In a society that pays sentimental lip-service to children in the abstract, but doesn't really care for them, parenthood can be a heavy burden. For many people, it's a burden freely chosen and happily carried, with commensurate rewards. For many others, it happens by accident, miscalculation, poor judgment, outside pressure, force or fraud.

At the same time, the observation that career progression and a woman's biological reproductive capacity often operate in diametric opposition to each other is one often made by feminists, too. So while his proposed solutions seem a bit ludicrous (and who exactly is going to hire the nearly-40 female graduate with a few young mouths to feed when they can hire the 20-something male single graduate without dependants?), I wish I had something better to propose myself. I had wanted kids for years before Mr. Dreaming and I started trying--but it took that long to get the house and good job with benefits together. Now that Frances is here, a lot of the career plans I made before no longer make sense to me--I want different things now. But in some ways my options are reduced because I did what I was supposed to do, made all these big decisions before I had kids, before I had any real idea of what it was going ot be like or how much it would change my priorities.

We need some sort of flexibility built into career tracks, for men and women; and I don't know if it would be such a bad thing to at least make some provisions for people having their babies at younger ages. A lot of women (and, I presume, men) who want to have kids end up waiting much longer than they want to because all the programs out there for helping people raise kids (mat benefits, etc.) are geared to people with good full-time permanent jobs--in other words, mostly for people in their late twenties at least, because it takes that long to get one of those jobs these days.

I know women who never wanted kids, and now in their forties are perfectly happy and content with their decision. I also know women who decided in their late thirties that wait--full stop--they were wrong, they did want kids, hold everything it's time to reproduce--and that's a hard position to be in. Some of them seem to be having relatively little trouble, but some of them are having a terrible time of it. I know women closer to my age who say they don't ever want to have kids--but the fact that hte topic keeps coming up over and over again and there's a tremendous amount of ambivalence and uncertainty in their declarations--I don't know, I think there's a good shot some of these women will regret their decision in a decade or so, or change their minds. Because a lot of their choice has much less to do with not wanting kids, and more to do with feeling that kids would not be compatible with their career path.

Honestly...I can't imagine ever regretting having Frances. I can imagine regretting not having some experiences I might have had if she had not come along, but that's a very different thing. I wonder what question the parents in that study were asked--because honestly, while motherhood is damned hard some days, and some days I miss the ability to just get up and leave the house something fierce, I never ever would exchange a world with Frances in it for one without her--not even for a second.

It's a very difficult question, but I have to think that, in principle, continuing with a career model built on the idea of a male breadwinner with a SAHM backing him up is a bad idea. For men and women. We need to develop something more humane and flexible, for moms, dads adn their kids--and for other people who don't fit into those labels. We all deserve the ability to meander a little bit without taking a million dollar hit for it. (The price Ann Crittenden calculated the average college educated mother lost in economic opportunity per child.) As it is right now we have these prescribed detours that are kind of ok, you won't lose quite as much money but won't get quite as much time as maybe you wanted, but even so they're narrow--only if you have a job that employs you for "x" hours a year, not if you're self-employed, etc. Less than 50% of Canadian women qualify for mat leave and benefits. That says a lot about who our society deems to be "acceptable mothers."

- almost every woman can and should have children

- almost every woman who can have children should do so when they are young, before they start on their career paths (women who aren't choosing a professional career, as opposed to a 'job' aren't mentioned...how interesting)

- that the steep learning curve and enormous responsibility for another human life should be taken on when one is still immature and unsure of what one wants in life, and that the slow progress towards a professional career, or career choices, should take place when one is mature and knows who one is.

- that every woman who can have children must do so within the bounds of a traditional marriage structure

- that programs supporting working parents - like day care centres - are bad because they encourage women to go back to work when their children are young, instead of staying at home with their children for at least ten years.

- that most families can afford to raise children on one income for a decade.

Any one of the above points makes the entire piece irrelevent and infinitely ignorable. Here are some things we do know, things that are lacking in this hacknyed tripe:

- a number of women who have had children, would've chosen childlessness had they not been subjected to familial and societal pressure to procreate

- of those childless women who express some regret, a significant number would probably feel no regret whatsoever if they didn't have people constantly telling them that they should.

- women who are financially stable and wish to have children do not need to be married, and many women who marry young and have children and do not start careers end up as single parents anyway, jobless and struggling to support children.

- many women who wait to have children until their careers are established are glad they did, citing a lack of maturity when in their 20s

- many women who have children while mid-career stream don't want to stay at home with their children.

- long term studies have shown that outcomes - both positive and negative - are roughly the same for children who are put in day care in the early years and children who are at home with Mom until school and have Mom at home after school.

quote:

---

- almost every woman can and should have children

---

Considering so many women do, it is probably not a bad thing to assume that most want to.

quote:

---

- almost every woman who can have children should do so when they are young, before they start on their career paths (women who aren't choosing a professional career, as opposed to a 'job' aren't mentioned...how interesting)

---

Agreed that it's classist, as is much of the debate around child-bearing, since it assumes that the primary qualification for parenting success is income. However, it is physically easier for women to bear children while they're young, and while many women will not choose to do so, I don't see why we should continue to support policy and societal barriers to women who do want to have their babies at a young age. (meaning early twenties) If we want women to be able to control their reproductive destinies and have choice, then why don't we support the choice that many women would make to start a family at a young age? Or are we going to fall back on the right-wing definition and rhetoric surrounding "choice"?

quote:

---

- that the steep learning curve and enormous responsibility for another human life should be taken on when one is still immature and unsure of what one wants in life, and that the slow progress towards a professional career, or career choices, should take place when one is mature and knows who one is.

---

Equating age with maturity is a fallacy. In many places and at many times in history, most women did in fact have children in their early twenties. This did not lead to massive scarring of young psyches from young, "immature" mothers making bad parents. In fact, many of our own mothers were probably in their early twenties when they began having children.

quote:

---

- that every woman who can have children must do so within the bounds of a traditional marriage structure

---

This is a problem in the article, but most women would in fact be more comfortable making this choice. AGain, if we want women to be able to make free choices, then we need to support the full range of choices women might make.

quote:

---

- that programs supporting working parents - like day care centres - are bad because they encourage women to go back to work when their children are young, instead of staying at home with their children for at least ten years.

---

I did not see this assumption in the article. Regardless, many women would choose to stay home with thier children if they could, but financially are not able to make this choice. Again, if we are going to support choice for women, we need to be prepared to support the full range of choices a woman might make. While I personally would not choose to stay home, I would be a much happier person if I could have chosen to work part-time in my field for a while. As it is, women are pressured to make an either/or decision with neither choice being in their own best interests.

quote:

---

- that most families can afford to raise children on one income for a decade.

---

This is indeed a problem. However, many families would in fact like to be able to care for their children themselves, and would not choose to have two parents working if it weren't financially necessary. Solutions could be many and varied, including for government to tackle the high cost of housing and other necessities in many markets. Or financial supports to parents who stay home, of either sex. I imagine many families would choose to have both parents scale back their careers for a while, if they could financially manage it. Instead of positing the message that some parents would rather have their children cared for at home as anti-feminist back-lash, it might be nice to try to imagine a solution that supports the full range of choices a woman might make.

quote:

---

- a number of women who have had children, would've chosen childlessness had they not been subjected to familial and societal pressure to procreate.

---

How many? A significant number? I doubt it.

quote:

---

- of those childless women who express some regret, a significant number would probably feel no regret whatsoever if they didn't have people constantly telling them that they should.

---

How many? A significant number? Again, I doubt it.

I find it interesting that you choose to focus on the societal pressure to have children, instead of the societal pressure to postpone childrearing until some mythical state of financial and career stability is reached. For many people, such pressure effecitvely means they never have children--and you know, a few of them did decide they wanted kids without the benefit of peer pressure. Many women have fewer children than they want, later than they want.

Currently, while a woman will face disapproval for a decision not to have children, she will nto have personal or financial penalties for doing so. A woman who wants to have her babies in her early twenties will. AGain, if we want to support a woman's choice, we have to be prepared to support the full range of choices a woman might want to make.

quote:

---

- women who are financially stable and wish to have children do not need to be married, and many women who marry young and have children and do not start careers end up as single parents anyway, jobless and struggling to support children.

---

I have nothing but admiration and respect for single mothers. Truly, if I had borne Frances without the support of my partner, I don't know how I would have survived the first few months. It is a valid choice that many women make. Many women are not prepared to make this choice.

Also, perhaps the problem is not that they "married young and had children and did not start their careers until later," but that because this choice is not supported or respected in our society, they pay a heavy penalty. I don't believe such a penalty is necessary. It is a result of our assumptions about women and who makes a "good mother," that primarily revolve around class and financial status.

quote:

---

- many women who wait to have children until their careers are established are glad they did, citing a lack of maturity when in their 20s

---

And many are not. Do we sweep them under the rug?

quote:

---

- many women who have children while mid-career stream don't want to stay at home with their children.

---

And many do, or would at least like to be able to work fewer hours without losing their career altogether. Again, do we sweep them under the rug?

quote:

---

- long term studies have shown that outcomes - both positive and negative - are roughly the same for children who are put in day care in the early years and children who are at home with Mom until school and have Mom at home after school.

---

This is true, but I don't see how it's relevant. Many women want to stay home because they ENJOY being with and caring for their children, themselves. I would assume that many men feel the same way. For many families, daycare is a necessary evil, and while they feel better knowing that daycare is not doing their children any active harm, it does little to nothing to erase the pain they feel at not sharing those moments with their children themselves.

I know there is a backlash on, and the right-wing would love nothing better than for women to give up all this silly education and career stuff and head back to the kitchen; I know this means it's hard to have a balanced discussion. But while it's important for the left-wing to acknowledge that women can choose not to have children, choose to have children by themselves, choose to have children later, after going to school adn establishing a career, adn all that other stuff we're so good at validating--it's also important to acknowledge that many women WANT to have their babies younger, stay home for longer, go back to work part-time for a while, not put their children in daycare more than necessary, and I imagine many men want the same thing. We need options and choices for all of these people. We can't just valorize the ones who are doing whta the right-wing doesn't want and ignore the problems faced by those who would choose something different if only they could afford it. Nor can we pretend taht all women who did not have children would freely have chosen this, if the career progression our society assumes is normal did not force their hands at several junctures; nor can we or should we pretend that some of them do not feel consumed by regret at this situation. I know far too many women who started their families late and are going bankrupt in IVF treatments precisely because it is never what they wanted, but they did what everyone said htey were supposed to--went to school, worked, found a partner, bought a house, got a job with benefits--first. Then found out hte biological ship had sailed and they weren't ovulating anymore.

I also know far too many extremely competent and loving young mothers to ever imagine that good mothering is something most people are only capable after some magic age, say 25.

If we want to be pro-choice, if we want to give women full control over their reproductive lives, then that includes the choice to have children. Young, single, married, late, before or after whatever post-secondary education they might want, before or after they begin their working lives. FULL choices. As it is, the left is very good at ensuring women have the right not to have children. To postpone them, to avoid them, to work instead, adn then if you decide to have kids after you've gone to school and gotten a job that gives you enough hours to qualify for mat benefits and pay, you get a bit of time off, and then we'll all pretend that it doesn't bother anyone or hurt any mothers not to see their babies all day.

In some Scandinavian countries, you can have your old job at 80% hours for as long as you have children under the age of 8. THis seems like a good start.

quote:

---

The woman in my office told me that had I been a mother I would have felt the saddness more profoundly. She made me feel as though my reactions to tragedies were somehow less legitimate that hers.

---

That was both cruel and shallow of her. We all have special joys and sorrows that no one else can ever know exactly the way we do. Sometimes it's great to boast a little about our joys, but not, definitely not in order to make someone else feel rotten or deprived or, as you say, illegitimate. Depth of human feeling -- I mean, it's not a competitive game, is it.

You've just come through two exceptionally wrenching experiences, and they've got you wondering about deep values and the meaning of your whole life all at once. That seems to me such an important, if sometimes awfully painful phase to be facing. It happens to many of us at some point(s) or other -- well, maybe not your shallow colleague.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- almost every woman can and should have children
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Considering so many women do, it is probably not a bad thing to assume that most want to.

---

quote:

---

Agreed that it's classist, as is much of the debate around child-bearing, since it assumes that the primary qualification for parenting success is income.

---

quote:

---

I don't see why we should continue to support policy and societal barriers to women who do want to have their babies at a young age. (meaning early twenties)

---

quote:

---

If we want women to be able to control their reproductive destinies and have choice, then why don't we support the choice that many women would make to start a family at a young age? Or are we going to fall back on the right-wing definition and rhetoric surrounding "choice"?

---

quote:

---

Equating age with maturity is a fallacy.

---

quote:

---

I did not see this assumption in the article. Regardless, many women would choose to stay home with thier children if they could, but financially are not able to make this choice.

---

quote:

---

Gilbert, who is a professor of social welfare at Berkeley, points out that right now our social policies are friendly toward this straight-to-work sequence and discourage other options. Programs like day care and flexible leave.

---

quote:

---

I have nothing but admiration and respect for single mothers. Truly, if I had borne Frances without the support of my partner, I don't know how I would have survived the first few months. It is a valid choice that many women make. Many women are not prepared to make this choice.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- many women who wait to have children until their careers are established are glad they did, citing a lack of maturity when in their 20s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And many are not. Do we sweep them under the rug?

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- long term studies have shown that outcomes - both positive and negative - are roughly the same for children who are put in day care in the early years and children who are at home with Mom until school and have Mom at home after school.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is true, but I don't see how it's relevant.

---

quote:

---

Many women want to stay home because they ENJOY being with and caring for their children, themselves. I would assume that many men feel the same way. For many families, daycare is a necessary evil, and while they feel better knowing that daycare is not doing their children any active harm, it does little to nothing to erase the pain they feel at not sharing those moments with their children themselves.

---

I had my first child at age 23, and was nearly 40 when my second child was born. I would never be a cheerleader for either choice, because each has its pros and cons. Each is a valid choice. I would've loved to have been able to stay at home with them until they were two or three, but ten years? No thanks. As it was, I saved up a bunch of vacation time and tacked it on to my maternity leave, giving me the max amount of time home that my economics would allow. And I'm happy to report that both my adult daughter and my preschool daughter are well-adjusted people full of potential. I enjoy a close relationship with both, and do not feeling unduly distressed that I might have missed out on something.

People who fully advocate choice in parenting have to be able to acknowledge that all choices are valid, and not do so as a thinly-veiled argument that is really a defense for one's own choices.

[ 17 January 2005: Message edited by: Rebecca West ]

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:

Considering so many women do, it is probably not a bad thing to assume that most want to.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's probably true, but I'm wondering why you posted that statement under a quote of mine which had nothing to do with wanting. It had to do with being able to conceive and bear a child. Also, just because someone can have a child, doesn't mean they should - some people just shouldn't be parents.

---

Assuming that the left is in general opposed to restrictions on rights, and that the choice to become a parent is (currently, at least) a right, then one's judgement of whether or not someone "should" be a parent is irrelevant. If they want to, they have the right to. And anyway, in the context of your statements, it did not read as a statement on fertility or parenting skills. It read as a statement on the author's perspective that most women do, in fact, want to be mothers. I'm inclined to think that this is what you meant.

quote:

---

I wasn't referring to classism, though it's obviously there in the article. I was suggesting that working class women don't represent any kind of threat to men losing dominance in the professional fields, from a backlash perspective, so they're discounted.

---

True.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see why we should continue to support policy and societal barriers to women who do want to have their babies at a young age. (meaning early twenties)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What policy and societal barriers?

---

What policy and societal barriers?

Mat benefits and leave programs that are applicable only to women in full-time salaried employment, generally not available to young women. And a structuring of welfare so that benefits are never enough to adequately provide for a child, and no provision is made for child-rearing to count as "work" under workfare programs. Guess which mothers get the "good" benefits, and which mothers get the "bad" ones?

Societal perceptions that young mothers are not good mothers. An assumed model for young women today that they will complete highschool, college or university, applicable post-graduate degrees, and obtain a few years of experience in a work environment before embarking on childbearing. The structure of post-secondary education, making it practically impossible for a woman to have a baby before the age of 22 and complete her university or college education, ever.

I don't even know where to start. It would take me all day to respond to that question alone.

quote:

---

Lookit, no one is attacking anyone's right to have children at a young age. The writer of the article is saying people aren't fully mature when they're young, so they should put off their careers until they're much older. From this we should assume that he thinks that these not-yet-mature women would do better to raise their children at that age? His argument is complete crap, of course. People make excellent parents and bad parents at any age.

---

I didn't say you did. Try reading my posts a little less defensively. I'm astonished, but not angry or upset.

Admittedly, his point was a poor one. But it is no better than the point read frequently from many sectors of society -- including the left -- that young parents aren't good parents anyway, and it's better to wait regardless, so it does no harm to structure programs and policies for women who have delayed childbearing. It does harm. It reduces choices.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not see this assumption in the article. Regardless, many women would choose to stay home with thier children if they could, but financially are not able to make this choice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe you should take another look at this:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert, who is a professor of social welfare at Berkeley, points out that right now our social policies are friendly toward this straight-to-work sequence and discourage other options. Programs like day care and flexible leave.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The suggestion is that by making it possible for people to have children and maintain the necessary two incomes, that this somehow discourages people who would otherwise wish to stay at home. It's utter crap. Day care and flexible hours don't discourage people who want to stay at home with their kids from doing so. Economics do. Lots of people would love to stay at home with their kids. Lots wouldn't. For many, the choice is forced by economic need, so it isn't really a choice at all.

---

Our social policies are oriented towards the straight-to-work sequence.

I notice you cut out the last 1 1/2 sentences of your quote from the article. Here's the rest: "...like day care and felxible leave help parents work and raise kids simultaneously. That's fine for some, but others may prefer policies that help them do these things sequentially."

He was not arguing that daycare and flexible leave forces women to work who don't want to. He was saying that these programs enable parents who want to keep working to keep working, but that there are no equivalent programs to help parents who want to stay home to stay home. Programs that might address the financial need you brought up. It doesn't "discourage" it; it makes it impossible.

Anyway, his essential argument--that structuring our work programs around the assumption that all parents should return tow ork full-time when the leave is over essentially encourages or forces parents to make this decision--is a valid one. I doubt you would be arguing the poitn if it was the reverse--if we had no daycare but a hefty baby bonus for any woman who stayed home, you would not be arguing that this discourages women from returning to the workforce.

quote:

---

No kidding. My point is that being married is no guarantee of security, and when a marriage breaks down when the mother is out of the workforce raising children, both she and her children suffer. That's not an argument against staying at home with children. That's reality.

---

My point was that advocating single motherhood as a solution to the real problems facing many women regarding finding a partner or a support system, adequate financial resources, etc., is inadequate. Which is how your point read. As if, for most women, "finding a husband" is just some kind of patriarchal brainwashing and if women would only snap out of it, they could have their babies by themselves whenever they chose.

[/quote]
And many are not. Do we sweep them under the rug?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who is sweeping them under the rug? Have you read the recent plethora of magazine articles extolling the virtues of having children while young, and the articles telling women not to put career before children or it may be too late? Trust me, they're not being swept under the rug. [/quote]

By the right? No, they're not. By the left? Yes, they are. All I read from progressive and feminist sources is that waiting doesn't harm your fertility 'much,' and older parents make better parents, and daycare doesn't harm kids so don't let yourself worry about it, and anyone who talks about the benefits of having kids at a younger age is a reactionary anti-feminist nut so just ignore them.

quote:

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is true, but I don't see how it's relevant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course it's relevent! It means that mothers who work don't need to worry about how their children are going to fare in day care, and mothers who stay at home with their children shouldn't be concerned that their children aren't being stimulated or socialized enough.

---

I still don't see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand. The author does not argue that mothers "should" stay home because daycare is bad for their kids. He says that many women would choose to stay home, but because our policies and programs are currently structured for women who choose to go back to work, they don't. Whether or not it's harmful for their kids is, for many women I know, a tagential consideration. They know that their kids are thriving in daycare. That doesn't help.

quote:

---

No one has stated that these things are not so.

---

The left wing constantly disregards teh actual wishes of women in this regard. The entire debate, from a left-wing perspective, that I have seen is whether or not daycare hurts kids. OK, it doesn't hurt kids, agreed, case closed. But it hurts a lot of mothers. The assumption the argument is built on is that if only we could convince women that their babies are ok in daycare, adn that the daycare is a good quality, women would feel no ambivalence about returning to full-time work. This is not so.

quote:

---

I had my first child at age 23, and was nearly 40 when my second child was born. I would never be a cheerleader for either choice, because each has its pros and cons. Each is a valid choice. I would've loved to have been able to stay at home with them until they were two or three, but ten years? No thanks.

---

I believe the author was assuming that each woman would have two or three children over a span of several years, and would stay home for two or three years per child. Equaling 10 yeras in total. Again, not what every woman would choose to do, but it shoudl be a choice for those who would like it.

quote:

---

People who fully advocate choice in parenting have to be able to acknowledge that all choices are valid, and not do so as a thinly-veiled argument that is really a defense for one's own choices.

---

precisely my point.

By the way, I'm 30 and my child has just turned one. I am currently working full-time and my baby girl is in daycare. My post was not a "thinly veiled argument that is realdly a defence for [my] own choices." They are not choices I made. Then again, I do not feel that I was able to make my choices freely. Women I know who did decide to start their families at a young age took a heavy economic and social penalty for doing so. This should not be the case. AS a society, we should support all of these choices equally. For instance, it makes no sense to me that we are willing to pay a woman who had a full-time job to stay home with her children, but a woman who had no such job is being a leach on society.

As you say, people make their choices because of economics. I know I did. However, those economic situations are actively created through government and business policies that are not supportive of the kinds of life paths women might choose for themselves if they could. Now I find myself struggling with the choices I made, wondering which of two evils (SAHM or not seeing Frances for 50 hours each week?) is the lesser. Wondering why I, as a governmetn employee, can have five years (unpaid) of leave with my job guaranteed on my return to care for my children, but my friends in the private sector do not have this option. Wondering why I got a top-up to 93% of my salary, when other women I know had to struggle on a pittance. Selling my house and moving while doubling the mortgage so I can have another five hours each week with my little girl.

Agreed, the author's central assumptions about men's and women's roles were repugnant and many of his proposed solutions were silly. But his central argument, that women have entered the work world in force and yet the work world has not adapted to their presence, primarily by making the career progression model a more flexible one, is a good one. Let's expand that idea to cover men too, and agree that asking people to go straight from school to school to work and stay there until retirement, with a year or two "off" to raise kids, is a bad idea. Let's agree that it would be better if we all had something more flexible and humane. What would it look like? As it is, we have women and men both caught between two choices that are no real choices for most of them. They either work because they can't afford not to work, or they stay home because they lose less money that way than if they worked and paid for daycare.

I have, among my current acquaintance, five women who all gave birth to their first child last January. All did the "right" thing--school, work, earn EI benefits, then kid. All spent time beforehand talking about how we would be going back to work full-time because not to do so would waste our educations, or drive us crazy, or ruin our careers; all agreed that daycare was fine for babies and we'd have good situations, either through in-laws or parents or private or friends. And now here we all are, our leaves are up, we're back at work. ONe of us put hte decision off for another year; she couldn't face the thought of putting her daughter in daycare yet. No, they're not rich--they're not even making ends meet, they're sinking further into debt every month. One decided to go back part-time--her employer is flexible enough to allow this and she never really was on a career track, so the loss of future opportunity is not really bothering her. One is staying home indefinitely, again because she can't bear to put her baby into daycare. tHe other three of us are back full-time at our old jobs. Nothing in the world prepared us for how difficult it would be to put our children into daycare--not for them, for us. No left-wing or feminist material prepared us for how difficult this would be; the discussion focused on how good it was for babies, and we believed it then and still do. But as it turns out, that's not hte problem with daycare. Or at least, not for the women of my acquaintance.

At least one of the three is desperately wishing she could stay home. Another one just got herself pregnant again, and soon will be, and is thinking about taking more than a year next time because she found it too short. And then there's me. By Friday afternoon I am jittery and anxious after not having seen my little girl enough all week. I don't want to stay home. I am fortuante enough that my husband earns a good salary, adn if I really wanted to, I could. But I know that I would be miserable at home all the time, and that it would not benefit my daughter to have an anxious and dissatisfied mother, and that if I wanted to return to my career later it would work against me. In other words, there is no flexibility in the work sequence, as the article said. What I would really love to do is work, say, 3 or 4 days a week. That would be a great balance. But there is no societal support, no programs or policies for that decision. It is practically impossible to find a part-time daycare spot in the City of Toronto, and I don't have the family support here to make that an option.

I work full-time, or I don't work at all. Both choices are hard, neither are what I want. As far as I can tell, the left wing is silent on this. The goal is to provide adequate daycare so that any woman who wants to can return to work full-time.

Maybe I am missing some huge segment of the debate. Maybe there are huge conversations going on out there about how to increase the flexibility of daycare for women who don't work full-time (or for shiftworkers, another underserved segment). Maybe people have radical solutions for career flexibility that allow people to make real choices. I haven't seen them.

So while I saw the problems discussed in the article above, I also saw someone addressing a problem that I have not seen yet addressed in mainstream left-wing literature. Adn that is, that the working model of a married man with a housewife is obsolete (for both sexes) yet our corporate cultures are clinging to it, forcing us to make choices we don't want to, that are a disservice to us and to our families. Some women are forced not to have kids, and regret that. Some women are forced to wait longer for their kids and have fewer than they would have chosen. Some women are forced to choose between staying home and returnign to work full-time when neither option meets their needs.

I agree that a great deal is broken in how we view child raising. But you know what I hate? That the solution to these problems is always presented as something totally within the mother-to-be's control. If women just made better choices as to when to start a family, then society would work better? If I just listened to the enlightened columnist and sequenced my life differently, then I would eliminate the soul-crushing sadness factor? Please. Gag me.

The idea that dad could support mom and a kid for a decade? Please! Maybe that hits a little too close to home, because that's what I had hoped might happen for me. I'm mid-twenties, engaged to be married, and hope to start a family, and I crunched the numbers: even with my and my htb's decent jobs, there is no f-in way that we could afford a child right now. The health insurance alone on me, him and a baby would eat up his entire paycheck.

I'd need to quit my job immediately after my 6 weeks maternity leave ran out (not compatible with family responsibilities, that's basically written into the job description). I would need another year or two at a new job before qualifying for maternity benefits. So even though I'm his poster child for a woman who should have a kid now to avoid soul-cruching sadness, it ain't happening.

To write an opinion piece criticizing women for the timing of their childbearing, as though it were some abstract metaphysical decision based on a "life-course perspective," is completely offensive and ignorant of the nuts-and-bolts realities we face.

[ 18 January 2005: Message edited by: vmichel ]

[ 18 January 2005: Message edited by: vmichel ]

I, like most here, dont think much of Mr. brooks' writing style or his analysis. Like skddle, I questioned the under-lying research and the analysis that he delared to flow from it.

All of that said, his article did something for mar. I am one who until I joined babble ( and some would say far too long thereafter) "feminism" had flown well below my radar screen. To me, it was a battle fought and won many years ago.

It blatantly re-presented itself to me here. I confessl that hasn't been comfortable. I've been left wondering to myself, "Well, what the heck does North American feminism have yet to gain?" I looked aaround me, and saw if not absolute equality of opportunity, then perhaps a slight preference in favour of women.(And I wouldn't say that is not as it should be, given past injustices - but oh; the number of times that I, as a well-educated, middle clas white male have wished that my gender or ethnicity were otherwise.

So, that was perhaps a digressiion, the point being, I have been wondering, "what's left to gain on behalf of feminism ?" I could think of some things, like better spousal abuse prevention and intervention programs, and a few peripheral other things, but otherwise was left with a "much ado about nothing" reaction.

The "Brooks'" article, however badly slanted, however thin the research behind it gave me cause for thought, cause to say, "yeah, that's quite true, and I had forgotten about that".

His focus on "female parenting" also offended me, as a former "primary care-giver" male parent, but be that as it may; many, many people, many people in positions of influence read that opinion page. It had a positive effect on me, and we can hope that the over-all effect will be likewise.
Edited for typos only

[ 19 January 2005: Message edited by: James ]

while there are obviously cultural and lifestyle considerations for women, there are for men, too:
as a man, I have frequently said about having a first kid at age 33 -- a complete surprise and entirely unwelcome at first, believe me, although less so for my wife -- after floundering around throughout my 20s after school:

as a student in the 1970s and early 1980s, I got the cultural message loud and clear again and again that I should try different things, test different options, travel, freelance, expand my horizons etc., throughout my twenties -- and I did. Much of it I enjoyed, but other parts kept me from growing up and being more responsible in my life.

In this perspective, kids were seen as basically a headache and a burden and obstacle. Quite unthinkable, actually.

But I never recall a single friend or teacher or article or mentor ever saying to me candidly:
You know, kids can be really a blast, you can have a riot with them and they are often more entertaining than any film festival you are currently attending and more satisfying than any exotic trips you are planning or political campaigns you are managing.

You know, that would have been refreshing to hear, and might have changed my life for the better. An unpopular message at the time, but quite true, I found later.

Maybe women have their version of this reflection. Not regrets, really, but just belated second thoughts.

[ 19 January 2005: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vmichel:
To add: sorry, didn't mean that post above to be a "poor me I can't have a baby right now" whine. That op-ed piece just really struck a nerve, being so close to my own concerns and David Brooks being such a flaming idiot.

---

quote:

---

but oh; the number of times that i, as a well-educated, middle clas white male have wished that ny gender or ethnicity were otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Then maybe you could understand how incredibly offensive that statement is to women,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nonesuch:
Honesty is refreshing and hopeful and should't be crushed with disapproval.

---

(I hope I'm not sailing close to the wind in offending people here; it's not my intention.)

Notwithstanding the 67 year old woman who gave birth this week, women have a well-defined time limit on when they can give birth, based on biological imperatives. (BTW, men have health imperatives as well, in terms of the health of their sperm, but not surprisingly that is only beginning to be explored. Far be it for men to actually have to take some responsibility for their reproductive organs!)

I really feel for those women who get busy with work, study, travel, living life to the full, then at age 35+ decide they might be ready/in a position to have a child, then find it's actually not that easy. At 40 with 2 chn under 3 I'm glad my partner is 6 years younger than me.

AND HERE THEY ARE - Grace and Louis!

[ 19 January 2005: Message edited by: Walker ]

quote:

---

I really feel for those women who get busy with work, study, travel, living life to the full, then at age 35+ decide they might be ready/in a position to have a child, then find it's actually not that easy. At 40 with 2 chn under 3 I'm glad my partner is 6 years younger than me.

---

There's the same age difference between myself and the blond guy. It's worked to our advantage. I had my first wild gril at 32, my second at 35 (I'll be 39 in February). I hadn't really intended to start until 35, but fate intervened. I don't think that was a bad thing. I know a lot of women of my cohort who are having fertility problems, as fertility for women starts to decrease after 35. I also see more of my friends who have waited to settle down and start trying for a baby having miscarriages. The rates of pregnancy loss in the first trimester goes up from 1 in 5 to something like 1 in 2 by your late 30s, according to a friend who has lost 3.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that it makes sense to start having babies at 22. Much as I adore my babies, there are certain things that are not going to be possible for me to do for more than a decade, now. I like travelling with my kids, for example, but it's an entirely different experience than travelling as a young, single adult. University? My gawd, I can't imagine putting myself through school, providing for a family and being the kind of parent I want to be. Maybe that's part of it -- wanting not just to be a parent, but a certain kind of parent. It is for me, anyway. I would have felt unable to give enough of myself in any area of my life, and would have felt I was inadequate in all of it. Not a good recipe for a positive role model. 20-something motherhood would not have been for me.

And it is true that economic opportunities are also harder to reach for when you have children young. When you're in your 30s, it's sort of expected that you have kids, but not in your 20s. It can make you look less serious about career goals, rightly or wrongly. Even taking time in your 30s and 40s can have the detrimental effect of some doors closing, or if not all the way, at least wedging slightly more closed. Even my situation, where the blond guy has taken much more of the parenting load (not a burden for either of us, really), it hasn't been easy. I don't regret any of it, except that it would have been nice to qualify for maternity benefits. As it was, I was back to work when Ms T was 2 weeks old -- but only because I work from home, otherwise we would have been seriously financially screwed. I found out that one can type and breastfeed at the same time, but it's a bit of a trick.

quote:

---

I did not have the patience to log onto the NY Times so have not read the article but I am feeling somewhat of a soul-encompassing sadness over not having children. I am over 40 (just)and a miscarriage 18 months ago (my first pregnancy) though not soul-destroying, has left me with a profound sadness

---

I just wanted to tell you how sorry I am about your miscarriage and all of the sadness that you feel around that.

quote:

---

I, though saddened by the loss of life, felt that my day-to-day life had not been affected. The woman in my office told me that had I been a mother I would have felt the saddness more profoundly. She made me feel as though my reactions to tragedies were somehow less legitimate that hers.

---

I have not yet had the opportunity to parent but I would imagine she is referring to the obligation to discuss this issue with these children and explain. That responsibility is an automatic in a parent-child relationship.

quote:

---

I know far too many women who started their families late and are going bankrupt in IVF treatments precisely because it is never what they wanted, but they did what everyone said htey were supposed to--went to school, worked, found a partner, bought a house, got a job with benefits--first. Then found out hte biological ship had sailed and they weren't ovulating anymore.

---

Agreed.

quote:

---

If we want to be pro-choice, if we want to give women full control over their reproductive lives, then that includes the choice to have children. Young, single, married, late, before or after whatever post-secondary education they might want, before or after they begin their working lives. FULL choices. As it is, the left is very good at ensuring women have the right not to have children. To postpone them, to avoid them, to work instead, adn then if you decide to have kids after you've gone to school and gotten a job that gives you enough hours to qualify for mat benefits and pay, you get a bit of time off, and then we'll all pretend that it doesn't bother anyone or hurt any mothers not to see their babies all day.

---

Awesome post.

quote:

---

No kidding. My point is that being married is no guarantee of security, and when a marriage breaks down when the mother is out of the workforce raising children, both she and her children suffer. That's not an argument against staying at home with children. That's reality.

---

You can guard yourself against those things happening.

quote:

---

Societal perceptions that young mothers are not good mothers. An assumed model for young women today that they will complete highschool, college or university, applicable post-graduate degrees, and obtain a few years of experience in a work environment before embarking on childbearing. The structure of post-secondary education, making it practically impossible for a woman to have a baby before the age of 22 and complete her university or college education, ever.

---

I know that it was very hard on persons who had children before they completed their studies.

quote:

---

Nothing in the world prepared us for how difficult it would be to put our children into daycare--not for them, for us. No left-wing or feminist material prepared us for how difficult this would be; the discussion focused on how good it was for babies, and we believed it then and still do. But as it turns out, that's not hte problem with daycare.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoot:
...My gawd, I can't imagine putting myself through school, providing for a family and being the kind of parent I want to be. Maybe that's part of it -- wanting not just to be a parent, but a certain kind of parent...[/QB]

---

I agree; I'll never know, but I think I'm a better parent now in some respects than when I was under 30. Certainly financially we are better parents, having come back from UK with pounds in our pockets, a low mortgage, both having 3 day a wk. jobs, 2 days in day care.
Although I guess I have less patience and energy than 10-15 years ago.

quote:

---

You would think I admitted to kicking puppies in my spare time.

---

It's unfortunate that women with different decisions are made feel that way. Persons shouldn't be forced into any vocation let alone motherhood. That is something you feel led to do or not.

quote:

---

I was told that if I did not have children, who was going to look after me when I get old? I said that just because one has children, doesn't mean the little buggers will stick around to help you out. Oh no! They will be busy with lives of their own only to stick you in an old age home. I couldn't believe the naiveity.

---

Beyond that it assumes that having a child so that your needs can be met is a morally acceptable thought. I find it appalling.

quote:

---

As far as the waiting too long to get pregnant issue, I have always known that once you hit 27 your fertility levels go south. Unfortunately, loads of women are fed this idea that yes you can keep putting it off, go for ivf, get a surrogate etc. You get penalized for wanting to have a life, an identity of your own. Those are the cards that are dealt to women. You pursue a career, you risk not having kids. You take time out to have children, don't expect your job or standing to wait for you. It sucks anyway you look at it.

---

I don't know if women are "fed that" or if women simply don't "feel old" and they assume that their body will not have fertility issues. I think a lot of women ignore the information out there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hailey:

...In terms of being penalized for wanting " a life of your own" or " an identity" I don't see how that cannot include children. A life filled with children still qualifies as a life. I also don't see how having a child diminishes your ability to have an identity.

---

I don't know about losing your identity when you have children but your identity certainly changes. Some of it is good - you get more smiles and casual conversations on the street, providing your child is likeable - but some is not so good.
You lose the thread of conversation at parties - if you're able to be there.
Your friends ring at 10.00 and you're already in bed.
Your house smells like wee - and you don't even notice.
You are treated like a blubbering mess, just because you look like one.

Seriously, I think you evolve to have multiple identities, or at least you hope to. In no particular order:
Parent
Child
Worker
Adult
Friend
Partner/lover
Sibling
etc

But I think that certain people - certainly uncaring bosses - have the preconception thatyou will turn to mush as soon as you have children.

quote:

---

I don't know about losing your identity when you have children but your identity certainly changes.

---

I haven't experienced that myself but I believe that.

quote:

---

Some of it is good - you get more smiles and casual conversations on the street, providing your child is likeable - but some is not so good.

---

*shudder*

That isn't a plus at least not to me.

quote:

---

You lose the thread of conversation at parties - if you're able to be there.
Your friends ring at 10.00 and you're already in bed.
Your house smells like wee - and you don't even notice.
You are treated like a blubbering mess, just because you look like one.

---

I don't understand the first one but the balance of them I can see.

quote:

---

But I think that certain people - certainly uncaring bosses - have the preconception thatyou will turn to mush as soon as you have children.

I don't know what the relevant laws are in Canada - is there paid/unpaid maternity leave?

---

I think that people feel that your priorities shift and your ability to incorporate certain things vary.

Walker, they're adorable.

I would like to clarify something: I didn't mean to say that ALL women SHOULD have babies young--but that for some women it is the best choice, and as a society, we should be prepared to accept and validate that choice as we accept and validate the choices of women who wait. But currently we punish women for having babies young. Maturity issues aside, a lot of the problems heaped on to the shoulders of young mothers are not inevitable. They result from economic policies and social policies that can be changed; and changing them would not only open up the childbearing window but make options more flexible for parents of all ages and backgrounds.

If, for instance, it didn't absolutely require two salaries to have a house within a 30 minutes drive of one's job in the GTA, how many families do you think would have two full time working parents when their kids are under five? Maybe the mom would stay home full-time, maybe the dad, maybe they would each cut back their hours a little bit. Of course this too would require some official policy support for part-time work and childcare, neither of which exist right now, in terms of benefits for part-time employees, flexibility in hours while one's children are young, extended parental leaves (perhaps unpaid), and financial support for daycare spaces for children outside of full-time 9-5 m-f care. I think it would also be important to extend our maternity benefits to more part-time workers, as well as self-employed, and enhance welfare benefits for mothers of very young children--at least reducing workfare hour requirements and enhancing childcare support.

If that were the case, not only would it be feasible for younger people to have babies (since the onus to go to school in order to get a well-paying full-time job that qualifies for mat benefits would not be as severe), but it would be more flexible for all families.

It is best for some families to wait. It is best for other families not to wait. One friend of mind had her first baby at 23 or 24--and a good thing she did, too, because now at 30 she is entering perimenopause (it runs in her family). If she'd waited until she was "supposed" to have kids, she might never have had them. Of course, by starting so early, she never managed to finish her university education. BEcause undergrad (and most post-grads) are structured for people without family responsibilities, she found it impossible--she's paid an economic price for that, too. That was the cost to her of starting her family young.

On the other hand, while I don't anticipate fertility problems, I am a type 1 diabetic and my life expectancy is about 55-60. If I want to see my kids grow up and have a chance of meeting any grandchildren I might have, I can't wait too long.

Hailey, the difficulty with the mothers I know who are currently returning to work is just that they miss their kids way more than they'd expected. They know their kids are happy and having fun, but the torture is that they themselves aren't a part of that for so much of their waking hours.

I think for me the magic number would be around 35 hours a week. From sept-dec I was taking two courses part-time for my master's, and Frances was therefore in daycare for 2 days a week. That felt really great. Now I'm back at work full-time and Frances is in daycare for 50 hours a week, and I hate it. I think 3-4 days a week would be a great balance for us. But, of course, as an official option it doesn't exist.

My mom got married at 17 and had me at 22, my brother at 25. At 30 she went to college, afterwards started working full-time. She is now in upper management and has had a very successful career. It doesn't work for every woman or family, but it sure worked great for her; as it is, though, were anyone to try such a thing today the official response would be "we won't stop you, but we won't help you either."

Walker:

quote:

---

You are treated like a blubbering mess, just because you look like one.

---

That made me laugh. Thanks. How many times in the early days did I get us both dressed only to have her spit up all over me just before we were going out--and I said, screw it, I'm covered in puke but we're going out anyway or I'm going to go crazy!

The relevant laws in Canada are:

Mat benefits: federal law. You must have worked a certain number of hours in teh past 52 weeks (equivalent to a part-time job of about 20 hours/week) to qualify. IT is paid out under the Employment Insurance program, and equals 55% of your average salaried earnings up to a insurable maximum of $38,000/yr, so the most you get is around $19,000. Currently around 30% of Canadian women qualify for maternity benefits--and they tend to be the women with the nicest jobs and paycheques to begin with.

athena_dreaming, for us 2 days a week child care is the ideal. We both work 3 days, 2 overlapping, 1 day each at home with the kids and a 3 day weekend together. Relative to everyone else we know, it's the best of all worlds for all of us, including the kids. I know that we would both struggle to be home fulltime with the kids - financially, emotionally, socially etc - but I also know that fulltime child care would not be great for the kids (and that's a professional opinion-it's my line of work).

People do what they have to do and I knowwe are lucky the cards have fallen in our favour, but in an ideal world I would like to see a situation where people could make the choices that are right for them - 'them' including the children of course.

This is from today's Melbourne paper- Note the second last sentence: "In one case, both parents are working part-time because they could not find a place for their son, she said."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/I-really-wanted-to-go-back-to-work/2005/01/20/1106110875478.html

What is a career, exactly? In most cases, it means you dedicate your life to becoming a big fish in a little pond, making a nice bit of money (or, at least being able to get a nice bunch of loans) for yourself and a lot of money for your employer. Some professions are so demanding of time and effort that they barely leave any for a personal life. This is the BMW set. The late-model Hyundai set have jobs that pay too little to live on, take too many hours and energy, keep you as a little fish at the mercy of big fish forever, and make the bosses even richer.

Either way, a working mother is looking at a 17-hour day and chronic backache, for 15-20 years. Nobody wants this from life. Nobody freely chooses this. People get stuck in it, because they want the baby and the car and this is what it takes to support both.

quote:

---

One big problem is that none of these benefits apply to self-employed workers, and since a lot of mums go into this type of work because of the obvious flexibility, you end up in the situation Zoot described, where you have to get back as early as possible or suffer the consequences...(I admire your fortitude, Zoot - I was barely able to walk at 2 weeks post-birth, and my baby had self-attached himself to my breasts as a permanent state of being until he was about three months old. Ah, the memories...)

---

Don't be too admiring. I did what I had to. Ms T was colicky, and wouldn't be put down. Did not want the papa, the grandma, the godpapa, nobody, just the mama. I put her in the sling, got a cushion for the chair and sucked it up. I also got weepy and hard to get along with.

quote:

---

athena_dreaming, for us 2 days a week child care is the ideal. We both work 3 days, 2 overlapping, 1 day each at home with the kids and a 3 day weekend together. Relative to everyone else we know, it's the best of all worlds for all of us, including the kids.

---

1) I have one--I'm divorced, three children grown & moved significant distances away--I don't feel sad at all! I have a career, good friends, & educational, religious & political activities. When I come home to my 2 cats, I'm usually very glad to kick my shoes off & relax.

2) Of my friends who never had children, I found several of my gay men friends most full of regret that they never had children.

Put all of this in the "for what it's worth" category.

[ 02 February 2005: Message edited by: Privateer ]

The Montreal pussycat and I will come to babysit, Coyote.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Privateer:

After skimming over this thread, I'm surprised this hasn't come up: splitting over the issue of having children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by verbatim:

I have to admit that I have selected out potential partners (i.e. not followed up on obvious interest on their part) because they either had children or were interested in having them. I have never felt comfortable with the idea of having kids, because I have never felt like I had any sense of where I was going in life. Bringing kids along on my journey would be child abuse.

---

I think you're underestimating yourself. I just read your profile ("A smouldering intellect, a creative genius for his generation, wise beyond his years..." I'll leave out the rest.) - sounds like perfect father material.

But seriously, even the best of us mostly don't know what we're doing from day to day. You just muddle along, and before you know it they're off to school and you wonder what happened. And kids don't have to cramp your lifestyle - you can still travel, move home, change careers, whatever.

From my own experience, I'll say the old-timers did not call labor & delivery "travail" for nothing! After that, the rest came fairly easy.

But we are bringing along a total of 5 cats...

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:
Of course skdadl and I will come to sit - I'll teach them to paint.

But we are bringing along a total of 5 cats...

---

Sorry, Coyote! I didn't check your profile. I hope you'll take it as a compliment that you write like a woman.

I trust that with your good sensibilities, you will indeed, find a good feminist, child-wanting "coyotess" [Query: aren't female coyotes also just "coyote"?] When you do, & you have those children, go with a midwife & be present for the birth, if possible. It's an awesome experience!!

My instinct says that you are a good heart, Coyote--let us know when you & Ms Coyote form your own pack!

quote:

---

Originally posted by lagatta:

But we are bringing along a total of 5 cats...

---

I do see a lot of success stories as well as failures. Make sure she checks the type of relationship she wants matches the site she is on. Lavalife tends to be for those seeking short term satisfaction (like sexsearch.com) and there are others that focus solely on long term relationships in general

I've checked out the site and you can indicate whether you want anonymous sex or relationships- but still- i'm skeptical. I once read something in toronto life mag that categorized different sites according to interests, age etc- but it was done mostly tounge in cheek.

She has generated a lot of interest on lava life because she is very attractive and so much seems to depend on the pictures- but that's not particularly meaningful in terms of getting good quality interest.

Try date.com
match.com
yahoo personals

Pictures DO get the most responses, even if the picture is not flattering. Its just a trick of people that they prefer to see a face, and would respond even to a ugly person rather than a profile with no picture. The other secret is to check your profile everyday as searchs usually show the most recent visitors to the site first.

I think it's quite possible that many people are only looking for a fling, but I suspect that trend decreases noticeably once the profiles enter the 30's. The trick is to be honest, and get real as soon as it is possible/comfortable. There can be vast differences between the profile and the reality, and the gaps in information often get filled with imagination if left unanswered for too long.

quote:

---

But I never recall a single friend or teacher or article or mentor ever saying to me candidly:
You know, kids can be really a blast, you can have a riot with them and they are often more entertaining than any film festival you are currently attending and more satisfying than any exotic trips you are planning or political campaigns you are managing.

You know, that would have been refreshing to hear, and might have changed my life for the better. An unpopular message at the time, but quite true, I found later.

---

Absolutely. Bang on. What took me by surprise was how effortless the transition was from not being a dad to being a dad. And satisfying.

quote:

---

Sorry, Coyote! I didn't check your profile. I hope you'll take it as a compliment that you write like a woman

---

quote:

---

Query: aren't female coyotes also just "coyote"

---

quote:

---

When you do, & you have those children, go with a midwife & be present for the birth, if possible. It's an awesome experience!!

---

quote:

---

My instinct says that you are a good heart, Coyote--let us know when you & Ms Coyote form your own pack!

---

Bacchus: Thanx for the invite, but I don't think online dating is my style; not that there's anything wrong with it. Thanx, though!