- Given usual animalistic urge excuse to produce children is neither universal or absolute.
- Figures suggest that the more affluent the citizens of a culture are the lower the birth rates.
- There are countless examples of happy couples that are choosing not to have children.
- that we can't go on breeding ourselves into extinction like the Anasazi, several Mayan city states, the original settlers to Greenland etc.

So why do YOU have or want children eventually (if you do)...really?

Now in my seventies I have never regretted not having kids in spite of being told all my life that I would. I am not anti children although I think it significant that many grandparents now cherish the fact that they can enjoy their offspring without any hassle and responsibility. I have always felt that children give an enormous amount of pleasure and satisfaction, but also an equal amount of worry and strife which hardly cease to exist when they become adults ! I am also a strong believer that there are already too any people on this planet and adoption of unwanted children would be more pragmatic.
From a purely selfish point of view, I would never have been able to experience some of the things I have been able to do over my life and a contented happy person is also important I think.

No matter how I say this I can see that I am going to cop sh/t from the religious, feminists,or even atheists for that matter
But here goes

The instinctive behaviour of man, to search for HIS "immortality" is the progression of his genetic line
That which will live on after he is gone not this everlasting life after death in a spirit world

In primitive times this meant males having as many children as possible to as many "perfect" mates(Females) because of the high mortality rate and short life span of the adult

Then as we progressed to cultivators the more children the better to work the fields and many cultures still practice this hence why male offspring were/are preferred

As we "progessed?" through the ages to the Now, the religious orders governments legal professions etc polluted and defiled that instinct until we have what we have today

"CONFUSION"

And yes with child abuse defined to the extent that it is it makes me wonder is it child abuse itself to bring a child into this Stuffed world?

Thanks
From Dave

I am very pleased to have not had rugrats, although I guess there is still the possibility if I was to meet just the right person and she particularly wanted it.

I compare myself to my brother who has three fantastic kids, of just about the best sort that you could imagine, all now in their teens. I think that if I’d had kids like them, it could all have been pretty good. However, the probability of that would have to have been small.

Even though his kids are great, he hasn’t been short of frustrations relating to them, and has been very tied down in his freedom to travel or indulge in his major interests….not to mention being half-strangled by the cost of raising them.

He’s envious of my freedom. I’m pleased to be able to get out on the weekends and go bush and indulge in my botanical, geological and ornithological passions and to spend a fair portion of each year travelling.

It seems to me that kids can bring enormous joy, but also enormous frustration, worry, stress, etc, when compared to indulging in whatever other pursuit you are interested in. I reckon having kids doesn’t compete very well and certainly doesn’t come out clearly ahead….unless you are the sort of person who doesn’t have much passion for any particular pursuit in life other than raising a family!!

Of course lots of people indulge in their passions AND have kids, apparently successfully. But how successful is it really for many of them? How fully are they into their interests or into raising their kids? How evenly distributed are the parental duties? How often is it a case of one partner being right into their own thing while the other partner effectively raises the sproglets?

Everyone needs a purpose in life and children can organise a person's life. You need to get up in the morning. You need to provide decent meals. You need to provide exercise. You need to be sober most of the time. You have to go to work everyday to feed the little bludgers.

Without children you need another passion in life that gives back to humanity.

So we can choose but simply not having children may lead to a lot of people sleeping in, living in a tent on the beach, having bottle friends instead of human ones and generally dropping out.

Children allow the wage slaves a reason for putting up with the mundane, the ordinary, the daily traffic, the early mornings etc etc. staying in jobs they hate etc etc.

So really only those that have another passion, talent or really good self discipline should not have children.

I fully respect people's decision, chosen or otherwise, not to have children. Each of them does the planet a great service.

Having had two of my own, however, I am eternally thankful for the way in which I changed as a result. I'll never forget the rush of maternalism that swept over me on the birth of my first child. No longer was I the centre of the universe. I had someone who was entirely dependent on me and it changed me permanently and for the better. It had never happened before, but from then on I could be moved to tears when I saw a child being mistreated. My powers of empathy for another's suffering were considerably heightened as a direct result of motherhood.

I've sacrificed a lot for my children, but wouldn't have it any other way. The joy they've brought to my life far outweighs the lost opportunity to forge a brilliant career. Some of the best years of my life were the ones I devoted solely to their care and nurturing, but it hasn't stopped me from eventually going on to expand my interests in other areas. I mightn't have travelled the world or lived the high life, but my world is rich and enriched always through the lives of my children.

I do however, when I look at the current state of the world, wonder if I'd have children today if I was just making that decision now. Unfortunately, I think the future for today's babies might be a bleak one. I'm certainly not pushing for grandchildren, even though of course I would love them.

I do think the days of large families are well and truly over. All governments should be encouraging family planning and moving towards small families or none at all, and contraception and abortion should be easily accessible to all, especially in third world countries.

examinator,
We do not need more examinators in the Earth, so it is OK to stop breding them. We could stop the human race in one generation if no one had children. Think about it! No maternity hospitals and schools, no child welfare and sports. What happens to the last man standing when there is no one to bury him.

However we as a species are on an evolutionary progress to produce higher intelligence, and a better world and society, so human drop outs on the way are a part of the mutations of evolution. Like gays and lesbians they have no future, just a self centered existence of pleasurable indulgence, and no young ones to care for them as they weaken.

I'm with those who believe in new life, a better and happier future; through suffering and sacrifice.

Bronwyn as usual you echo my thoughts.

It is difficult to describe in words the maternalistic feelings that sweep over when you have chidren, from babies until they are grown up. Maybe it is nature's way of ensuring the young are protected and loved during childhood to survive into adulthood. When I hit my late 20s I felt a strong urge to have kids and I had my first child at 28.

Some friends and work colleages chose not to have children for one reason or another and they are generally happy too - having children is not for everyone. Many of these friends are absolutely gaga about their animals - dogs or cats - and I think that is testament to a very human need to nuture and love, and to be nutured and loved.

It is not always easy raising children but we were lucky and our kids are well balanced and contributing individuals with one still at school. I am glad we had children and would do it again (although I would not fancy going through childbirth again).

I had children to produce future tax payers for the country.

Totally selfless.

So obviously everyone else should be willing to pay for my kids.

Bronwyn,

Go get some Prozac man.

'Each of them does the planet a great service.'
What if their child would have found an alternative energy that really helped the 'planet'. I'm so sick of Earth Worshippers that hate people and would only be truly happy if Human Kind became extinct. Where this pre-disposition for self loathing and Goth-like need to opt-out because everything is so bleak comes from I don't know.

' The joy they've brought to my life far outweighs the lost opportunity to forge a brilliant career. Some of the best years of my life were the ones I devoted solely to their care and nurturing...'

The feminists would hate you with that attitude. They're always sayin' the gender wage gap is because of discrimination, not because women choose not to be a wage slave.

TheMissus,

Children as a prevention from being a bum. Nice one. Then again one could still model one's life on Hank Moody from Californication.

'Children allow the wage slaves a reason for putting up with the mundane, the ordinary, the daily traffic, the early mornings etc etc. staying in jobs they hate etc etc.'

I like your reasoning. I always like it when people say they are working so hard for their kids to go to private schools or something. I always wonder if their kids are going to private schools so they can justify to themselves the fact that they want to concentrate on their career.

all,

I think a lot of you here suffer from over-analytical disease. I made it up. It's when people cant stop analysing everything, and the nature of analysis leads to finding problems. You find so many problems and you think everything is bad. Switch off your mind, and you may just be able to feel more, leading to a happier existence. Maybe you wouldn't be able to deal with it though.

Houellebecq,
Yes I forgot about those. I married one for a few years. His marriage to job was for my benefit apparently. Never saw him, nor his money lol, so I toddled off. His ilk then enslave the masses for thier own greed. Family is nice for annual holidays though I guess.

Over analyse? I do that all the time, surely it should pay. Does anyone employ over analytical people? I guess not, not really worth it, best to know how to extract teeth I guess.

Why do I have children? Well, my eldest was an accident. The next, with my second wife, was mostly because she desperately wanted a child. My youngest, also with her, was another accident who came along in the dying stages of my second marriage - I'm sure she was a case of immaculate conception, because I can't recall having sex with her mother in the preceding year. OMG - maybe she's not mine after all!

Seriously, they're all wonderful and my life - not to mention the world - would be the poorer without them. Now I've got a grandson as well (who was also an accident) with another grandchild on the way. Not to mention step-kids and grandkids.

I've been quite lucky with my kids, in that they're all healthy, gorgeous, well-adjusted and have never been in any serious trouble. They do, however, continue to cost me an arm and a leg - but I don't really mind.

Having said that, my partner and I had a bit of a scare a couple of years back when she thought she was pregnant. Fortunately it was a false alarm... although we'd have undoubtedly coped. Not sure that I could have handled another decade or so of P&Cs, parent interviews and kids' sport, however :0

TheMissus, you wrote;

“You have to go to work everyday to feed the little bludgers.”

Hmmm, how true. The little scoundrels enslave you into a life of endless work (unless you are lucky enough to have a high-paying job for doing bugger-all!). You have to have a job, a reasonable house, lots of money for their education, health and to keep them occupied and off the streets!!

Yuck!

“So we can choose but simply not having children may lead to a lot of people sleeping in, living in a tent on the beach, having bottle friends instead of human ones and generally dropping out.”

Heeeeey, you’re so right! Now why haven’t I ever done that? Well, I suppose I have gone part way towards a tent on the beach – I do camp out a lot, and part way towards dropping out – I am a bit of an antisocial dropkick, and part way towards having bottles for friends, of the sort that contain rum, bourbon or scotch!

“Children allow the wage slaves a reason for putting up with the mundane, the ordinary, the daily traffic, the early mornings etc etc. staying in jobs they hate etc etc.”

Boy oh boy, having kids really does sound awful! I’m soooooo glad that I’m a… er… um… antisocial dropkick who never found the right partner ( :>|

“So really only those that have another passion, talent or really good self discipline should not have children”

Those sorts of people should definitely not have “little bludgers”. But there are all sorts of other people that shouldn’t have em either, not least those who are just not good parents, not good citizens, not faithful to their partners and the like….which would account for about 98% of the population!!

Missus,

'Does anyone employ over analytical people?'

Definitely. Ever wonder why IT people have the most cynical and jaded humour? Of course it could be because they're stuck inside all day and got into computers because they lacked people skills.

And oh yes, one of them. They. They're always doin' it for the kids too. I fear for the kids of parents who do things 'for the children', or make a fuss about what they have 'sacrificed'. Way to make your kids feel like an imposition and a burden. 'I'm doin it because I love you and want nice things for you.' Or. Are you doin' it because you'd rather be at work than at home, enjoy your job, and like the nice things, and your wants (for the kids of-course) are more important than theirs. He he.

pelican,

I had zero urge to have kids until I met my current partner. She's very maternal and amazing with her nieces and nephews, and we were in love, and we had both lived a pretty wild life to that point and were struggling to keep up with the 20yos and it would have been a crime for her not to be a mother.

She sealed the deal when she accepted I would only change nappies under exceptional circumstances. I always was a good negotiator. At the time though I was already getting misty eyed whenever I saw one of these gorgeous little toddlers at the supermarket.

I figure I had explored a lot of the world and the joys of mind altering drugs and wanted to explore a more personal intimate journey, with her, being parents. It's no better or worse and I'm no happier or sadder than when I was single. But I think I would have been bored in the end unless I tried out parenthood and all it has to offer.

Well, that and the baby bonus.

BTW: I'm liking all these parents who say they are 'lucky' their kids turned out well. I think there is more luck to it than people normally make out.

Why did I want kids? Because they were/are a wonderful gift from God and my wife. Anyone who has ever held a baby, watched their first steps, prayed for them when they are sick, or seen their trust for their parents knows the joy of parenthood. To get a smile from a child is still one of the greatest experiences in life (and its free).

Examinator

No doubt their are many happy couples choosing not to have kids. God bless them. It is however sad if happiness is your aim in life. It is a varying emotion that comes and goes. Couples who choose not to have children miss out in many blessings in life. If they are happy with that so be it.

Yes, I am glad I had children. They have given me some of the greatest days of my life, and also some of my worst!

While working out in the community and in retirement villages, there is one thing I have noticed among the elderly people. The ones that never had children were the saddest and loneliest people by far.

Yes, there were many parents who no longer saw their children anymore, for whatever reason, and they were sad or angry.
However, the childless ones were somehow worse.

My sister and her husband chose to remain childless, but they simply dote on their two cats, and seem to be married to their jobs!
They seem happy right now.

Such inverted wisdom from H and so insightful.
Perhaps the most important decision one can make and his advice? Don't analyse it. Take some prozac. What could go wrong with that approach? Sadly a whole lot.

Any questions why there are so many loose sproglets without any seeming sense of family or responsibility to others?

After reading about the 12 yo who ran away to join schoolies and the parents didn't care, I wondered why some people have children at all.

Once the thrill of being a new parent has worn off some just, well, lose interest in the real work of raising the child(ren). leaving responsibility to others teachers, social workers, TV, computers etc. You would be amazed how hands off most parents are, just ask a teacher. Students that are so aggressively egocentric,self indulgent, violent etc. I wonder where they learnt that ?

My niece works for Vic social services and spent all her time trying to help dysfunctional parents get their parenting act together at least for the sake of the children.

I dealt with 14/15 yo mums who wanted a baby but beyond that had no clue what so ever. Rather than just shrug my shoulders an say 'that's the way it is' or 'they're just different from me'. I wondered what others thought about having children.

I find it difficult to imagine a more important topic that children and their well being and they aren't like something you can sensibly shove in a corner or ad hoc raising, not if you are going to do them any favours that is.

H sure I have my fun and have a sense of the ridiculous simply read some of my more whimsical recent posts. The key is knowing when to do so.

Philo, at least there one topic we agree on >"We do not need more examinators in (in?) the Earth, so it is OK to stop breding (?) them"<
I agree that I don't think I'd be much good as fertiliser.
It's a good thing I didn't breed cloning people is illegal.

Dear Examinator,

Why did I have or want children?

Because I found a grown man who was capable
of loving fully, with all of his heart.
The most vital, playful, joyful human being,
with an energetic life force born of a strong
family upbringing.

Our children flourished under our nurturing and
unconditional love.
Of course there were many difficult moments -
that's part and parcel of life,
however we've managed to raise two decent human beings
that we love dearly, and I can't wait to be
a grandmother (or "Glam-mom"), one day.

*It is difficult to describe in words the maternalistic feelings that sweep over when you have chidren, from babies until they are grown up.*

Oh thats easy Pelican. As I have stated repeatedly, just call it
"maternal hormones". :)

As they say, bodies are what dna uses, to pass itself on from one
generation to the next.

“…there is one thing I have noticed among the elderly people. The ones that never had children were the saddest and loneliest people by far.”

Suze, I wonder how real this correlation is.

It could be that if you know a person in a retirement doesn’t have kids or visitors, then you as a worker automatically, probably subconsciously, feel sorry for them and hence see them as being sad and lonely compared to others.

Jeepers CJ, you’ve had a few accidents. No wonder you’ve only got one arm and one leg!

Very droll, Ludwig. Boom boom :)

No Ludwig, it wasn't an observation, it was a fact. These people (the ones who could communicate well) told me this, time and time again.

I have been nursing for 30 years.
Do you have any idea how many elderly people I have spoken to and cared for over that time? More than I care to remember.

Unfortunately, elderly, lonely childless people are a fact of life.

So what you are implying Suze, is that people have kids to satisfy
their own self interest. I happen to agree with you, its true.

With CJ we have a different problem. It sounds like the bit of
dna that is associated with understanding contraception and how
it works, is missing :)

Examinator
Parents are encouraged to be hands-off these days. Parenting does not seem to be valued for the pivotal role it plays in regulating society. It has morphed into something people juggle on the periphery of their job.

When the Federal Government rolled out its "Depression Prevention" program for infants, a major source of stress was termed "attachment disruption" which appears to be blamed on everything else but the fact that very young children are offloaded into daycare so early in their development. My theory is that attachment disruption works both ways - parents learn quickly to understand that modern consumer society dictates that they are expected to hand over the rearing of their offspring to outside sources.

If we learn as a society to extol the virtues and value of hands-on parenting, we may see more parents take pride in that role.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

>>Parents are encouraged to be hands-off these days... It has morphed into something people juggle on the periphery of their job.<<

Not so very long ago, the ruling class that managed a global empire conducted themselves in exactly the same manner.

The youngsters were in the nursery under the care of Nanny during the day, and allowed to meet their parents for a formal "goodnight" in the drawing room before bedtime. They were then sent away to boarding school, progressed through Oxford or Cambridge into the Foreign Office, at which point they chose a wife and continued the pattern.

Hands-off parenting, writ large.

But I don't believe this approach was confined to the upper crust.

Reading the literature of those times, it would seem that our society's changed attitude towards children - as illustrated here by Bronwyn, pelican, suzeonline and Foxy, is relatively recently acquired.

Is it a luxury of evolution, perhaps, that because survival is these days largely taken for granted, we are now able to expend some emotion on our offspring?

Interesting question. Thank you examinator.

You give a very good example of hands off parenting in citing the ruling class. They also had a very well defined idea of their route in life, encapsulated as they were within a certain strata of society.
When the whole of society adopts a practice that has throughout history been confined to the chosen few - things begin to go awry.
If we look to times before industrial society we find that most of life's business was conducted within the local community, which was in effect an extended family - and that is what we have lost.
Every thing was conducted on a smaller scale - so that even those who were not kin were included as family because lives and values were entwined.
You're right that we in the west take survival mostly for granted these days. However, as far as the upbringing of our children is concerned we have traded the support of neighbours and brethren for that of institutions and the marketplace.

I cant believe I've been put up as an example as a 'hands off' parent, bringing up 'sproglets'

pontificator:

Calls children 'sproglets', and judges parents for 'ad hoc raising', and endorses an attitude to life that the world is such a terrible place you should think twice about having children. That'll rub off nicely on your kids.

Houellebecq:

Says he loves his children, maintains a low maintenance career to spend more time with them because he thinks it's important, and encourages a positive outlook for the future for his children.

I know what kind of parent I'd rather more kids had. My kids have a great sense of family and responsibility.

'The key is knowing when to do so.'
What, so you decide when I must be 'serious'. You can f8ck right off.

All,

The best and first piece of advice I had on parenting came from an aunt who, in an environment when parents get all these scaremongering judgemental advice from the likes of pontificator was; Do what comes naturally.

And I do. My kids aren't going to be pushed into and shipped off to half a dozen activities ranging from languages, ballet, piano, Karate, and do 4 hours homework every night. They're gonna have fun and be kids, and if they show an interest in something then I'll encourage them.

They're not a 'project' to be taken 'seriously' and smothered like pontificator wants, they're little people to be loved and enjoyed.

There's nothing wrong with relying on your intuition when faced with decisions. It's sometimes a lot more useful than the latest trend the 'experts' are pushing, who don't know you and don't know your child.

Poirot,

'Parents are encouraged to be hands-off these days'
B*llshit! They're encouraged to be fretful little ninnies controlling every second of their kids spare time and following them around with cotton wool and making sure they're giving them the exact recommended daily amount of everything.

Poirot you make some good points. I see the little grey cells are working. (Sorry couldn't resist) :)

It is a puzzle while on one hand we have outsourced the care of our children to strangers and yet we are more fearful of pedophiles, stranger danger and physical activities that may cause injury.

I remember walking to school and back from Grade One - an unusual sight these days. My brother and I would be constantly climbing up trees and swinging from ropes, playing cowboys and Indians, running around in the rain (we didn't have TV).

Houlley

There is an element of luck in raising kids but love provides a strong base or foundation for kids which may hopefully assist them to deal with any adverse peer pressures later on.

But overall I agree, luck plays a part - in the friends they make, where you live, what school you go to, the influence of a good or bad teacher/mentor, and the same plain good luck that might make you a casualty of a run-away car.

There is also the fact of genetic disposition - your kids will be who they are - anyone with kids knows how different they all can be despite springing from the same genetic pool.

Parents will always make mistakes, sometimes erring on the overprotective side or letting go too soon. I have done both, but now when I talk to my oldest daughter, she tells me she is glad she made some mistakes as she learnt much from them and it has helped her become a well balanced young adult.

None of us are perfect, and I look back now with the wisdom of hindsight and wish I did some things differently but generally my husband and I didn't do too bad a job.

Our kids will make mistakes and they will take risks. This is all part of lifes cliche'd rich tapestry.

Yabby

Yes it must be biological. Parental love certainly isn't something you can manufacture no matter how many times one watched The Waltons or Little House on the Prairie. :)

Houellebecq

<< Go get some Prozac man. >>

Stop trying to paint me as some cranky old sad sack. I've just told everyone here how happy I am with my life and my children. Yes, I might have a higher degree of pessimism than you do when it comes to the long-term future of the world, but I'm not in an eternal state of depression over it. And even if I was, the last thing I'd do is take Prozac.

<< I'm so sick of Earth-Worshippers that hate people and would only be truly happy if Human Kind became extinct. >>

Once again, you're completely off beam with this comment. If I hated people, as you claim, why would most of my posts here relate to defending the rights of women, children, asylum-seekers, the poor and any other number of repressed people? Caring for the environment and caring for people are not mutually exclusive. In fact quite the contrary.

<< The feminists would hate you with that attitude. They're always sayin' the gender wage gap is because of discrimination, not because women choose not to be a wage-slave. >>

Again, more nonsense. Feminism is a broad church. Many feminists argue for the right of women to have a real choice. Not all feminists believe that women's main goal in life should be to break through glass ceilings and fight on men's terms for top-dog positions in company boardrooms.

<< I fear for the kids of parents who do things 'for the children', or make a fuss about what they have 'sacrificed'. >>

I wasn't making a 'fuss' when I used the term 'sacrificed', and I would never, as you imply here, attempt to make my kids feel guilty over anything I might've given up to be a hands-on mum. With respect, it's only a woman who's been faced with this choice herself, who would truly understand it. And then I'd suggest, it's more likely to be a woman who's lived a bit, and learnt through cold hard experience that the dream of doing it all is, for most, completely unattainable.

Not quite what I had in mind, Poirot.

>>You give a very good example of hands off parenting in citing the ruling class. They also had a very well defined idea of their route in life, encapsulated as they were within a certain strata of society<<

The general point I was trying to make was that the tendency to fuss over our children, and at the same time to become, in Houellebecq's piquant phrase, "fretful little ninnies controlling every second of their kids spare time", is a very recent phenomenon.

Regardless of class.

I used the upper classes as my first example, but the same applied to the working class.

Dad goes down t'pit every morning, taking with him a wedge of black pudding for his dinner, coming back at six for his tea before going down the pub for a couple of pints. T'missus, having been up at the crack of dawn making black pudding, spends the rest of the day washing (in a copper tub), hanging it out to dry, cleaning all the residue of black pudding out of the oven, banking up the fire so as to heat up the iron to do the ironing, making more black pudding for the old man's tea etc. etc.

Time to take an interest in the kids? Nope.

Anyway, they're out in the street climbing trees and playing tin-can soccer with their mates. Better there than getting under Mam's feet...

Add to that an amount of time for the sheer physical work associated with bringing up the littl'uns, without the modern conveniences of disposable nappies, hi-tech prams, infant formula and Heinz baby food.

Assuming of course they had survived childbirth, and smallpox, and whooping cough, and diptheria, and rickets and... well, you get the picture.

Don't get me wrong. I love my kids. I'm just pointing out that this is, generally speaking, a recently acquired luxury.

Before that, having kids at all was 98% down to the basic urge to procreate.

Bronwyn,

'I'm not in an eternal state of depression over it. And even if I was, the last thing I'd do is take Prozac. '

Good to hear. I figured if you would actually reconsider bringing children into the world and have no great desire for grandchildren you must be in a pretty bad state. What's wrong with Prozac anyway? It can be very effective in conjunction with therapy in helping very depressed people.

'Caring for the environment and caring for people are not mutually exclusive.'
They are when you promote not replacing the current generation.

'Feminism is a broad church.'
So is Catholicism. Many catholics use contraception. Doesn't mean one cant talk of the general tenets the Pope dishes out.

'With respect, it's only a woman who's been faced with this choice herself, who would truly understand it....'

I disagree. How many men do you hear bemoaning the fact they were 'absent' for too much time, working really long hours and comfort themselves with 'but I was doing it for the family'. This message is good for their conscience, bad for the kids who are made to feel like a burden. I was talking about men earlier, that you think only women sacrifice anything for the kids is interesting.

Pericles, et al.

Your point is well made.
My issue isn't with those that think it's with those who don't and don't care or are so preoccupied that they don't get involved....
Sure there are extremes at both ends but 8-9 yo roaming the streets at 2-3 am ?
A recent story where a pensioner was robbed at knife point by a gang of the same children aged from 7-11 at 9.30 at night?

Or a group of 13 yo beat a female pensioner to death in her own home at night with a fire extinguisher?

In all cases the parent didn't know there their children were. Some just said 'they were out with mates'.

No enforced curfews or bed times etc
No set behaviours or standards.
Or parents not knowing or not caring what they watched or did on the computer?
Family time at a minimum. Separate meals when the children were young.

This is what I meant by hands off and ad hoc parenting.

I seriously doubt that there would have been too much of that with most OLO commenters but sadly they tend to be the more committed ones.

If you doubt this talk to a school counsellor, social worker etc.

H,
Ludwig's term sprog(let)s amused me. How come he didn't get a serve? Am I just lucky hey?

sorry Ludwig :-\

pontificator,

Ludwig didn't cast judgemental aspersions on my parenting...

'What could go wrong with that approach? Sadly a whole lot.

Any questions why there are so many loose sproglets without any seeming sense of family or responsibility to others? '

Why do you have children; The idea of women having children in their late thirties and forties, has got to be on the edge of being obsean.
There is nothing surer than this causing gigantic problems in later life. For the kids as well as the parents. And you can guess which one is going to miss out.

Pericles,
You put it so well and I get your point. Certainly it is a more swaddled life for children today.
Houellebecq,
I get where you are coming from and concur with your aunts advice.
My main point was that children had more freedom (while Dad was down the pit or Mum bent over the copper) to play amongst themselves in the relative safety of their local community. This setting became an extension of the family fold, and even if the parent was not watching personally, others connected to the small community were at least able to offer advice or assistance if the child needed it.
By hands off I mean that we are encouraged to outsource the recreation of our children - to teach them things even in what used to be their spare time. This begins in infancy and continues through the school years.
I agree about us being "fretful little ninnies"- the only thing that modern parents have their hands on is the steering wheel as they ferry their children between engagements.
Very good point, Pericles, about the sort of attention we now have the luxury of bestowing on our children.
We are doing them a disservice.

Dr Fitzhugh Dodson, in his bestseller,
"How to Parent," stated that:

" The love of a parent for their child is
more important than all of the scientific
information that they may acquire about
how to raise that child. And the love
of a parent for their child is more
important than all the common sense they
may have about how to raise that child."

"It is not wisdom to be only wise;
And on the inward vision close the eyes.
But it is wisdom to believe the heart."
(Santayana).

"In the final analysis, believe your own heart."

"Science is important in raising your child.
Common sense is important also. But love is the
most important of all."

"Science, common sense, and love ... these three.
But the greatest of these is love."

Suze, you wrote;

“…there is one thing I have noticed among the elderly people. The ones that never had children were the saddest and loneliest people by far.”

I replied;

“Suze, I wonder how real this correlation is.”

You said;

“… Ludwig, it wasn't an observation, it was a fact. These people (the ones who could communicate well) told me this, time and time again.”

I respect your view on this, presented after 30 years of nursing. But I still wonder just how good the correlation is.

No doubt there are many old people without kids that do feel lonely as a result. But there are all sorts of other ‘lonelinesses’ such as people who have had kids that have moved away and don’t come to see them or who live nearby and don’t visit or phone or who have turned out to be criminals or no-hopers or who have corrupted relations with their geriatric parent(s).

It could depend on whether an old person has friends or not. This could be much more important than family. An old person who has lost their partner or long-time close friend could feel very lonely indeed even if they do have regular contact with their children.

It could depend on a person’s personality or gregariousness. Or they could be depressed as a result of deep concern about all the bad things happening in the world around them or in the lives of people they know.

People could just feel sad and regretful about being old and past the good times or having not making enough of their life or whatever, even if they do have frequent family visits.

Or heaps of other possibilities.

Being childless in one’s old age is no doubt a major factor for some people but I can’t see it being a major factor overall.

I do worry about possibly being lonely and depressed in my old age and regretful that I didn’t have kids. But I somehow think that it will be a very minor influence. I hope so anyway.

H

>"Ludwig didn't cast judgemental aspersions on my parenting..."<

Neither did I, I questioned the philosophy. Some what tongue in cheek ...your in your face technique.

However, if you read the whole post in context it should have been clear I was using your statement(s) as the vector (segway) to make the real point.

We've been here before, It would appear that it's okay for you to be insulting 90% of the time (Because that's you.).
However, my multi leveled responses (although that's me) aren't.
It seems to me the key difference is your comprehension....not my problem.

But, it was never my intention to be gratuitously hurtful, for THAT I am sorry .

pontificator,

'However, if you read the whole post in context it should have been clear I was using your statement(s) as the vector (segway) to make the real point.'

As in John Howard's a bastard. Speaking of bastards...

a) How would it be 'hurtful'? You don't know the first thing about me. Why would what you say matter to me? You asked why I commented on your use of 'sproglets' and I told you.

b) I find 90% of your judgemental high and mighty posts insulting, and not only to my intelligence.

You don't get it do you. You spend your whole time judging these 'other' people. Look at your attitude compared to pelican about parents. Pelican realises there are more hurdles for some parents and there are different challenges inherent in the personalities of different children. You on the other hand feel it's your place to judge all these parents, to the level of implying only people with your values and resources should even have kids.

This kind of attitude is through all your posts. It's highly offensive. I may joke around, and I doubt anyone else would say that 90% of what I write is 'offensive'. I'm never offended by your sad cheap shots at me. I'm offended by your very essence. That is, the pontificating judgemental high and mighty self aggrandising persona.

BTW: It's your comprehension that is seriously lacking, and with the added advantage of my using proper sentences and punctuation. 'Don't analyse it. Take some prozac.' was not related at all to the decision to have children.

Not to mention, Houellebecq...

>>...my using proper sentences and punctuation<<

...the proper application of the possessive pronoun with a gerund.

Well not proper in that sense. It's a matter of degree. All I want is for him to try, especially if he's gonna go on about comprehension. I've said before if he's genuinely dyslexic then that's fine. Half the time he's barely more readable than one under god. At least one under god hides some absolute gems in there when you bother to read him.

It's particularly perplexing when he puts himself up so high and mighty. You'd think he'd be a stickler for proppa English as much as he is for etiquette and politeness.

H,

Ok, my grammar is poor.
We've been down this route before. The same explanation still applies
And it is still moot as a cause in our 'conflicted communication'.

In my experience grammar correctness has little to do with cogitative competence.

IMO constantly adhere to “do as I say not as I do.”
Contrary to your demonstrably mistaken view, every time anyone communicates they betray details of their true nature/competences as well.

i.e. you almost always refer to me with the personally pejorative term 'pontificator'(not even original) and lace you comments provocation rather than substance.

BTW Others have commented on this too.
> "Get some Prozac man(?) "<
*Just a guess* but Bronwyn wasn't that happy about your unambiguously 2 dimensional portrayal of her.

When refer to the generalised 'other people' that is what I mean . It is not some arcane code for anyone in particular, just don't think like that.

Judgements aren't necessarily pejorative or elitist in my case they are merely observational. I'll leave such emotional reasoning up to others.
We all judge people and events.

Aren't your criticisms of me and others judgements ? Consider this from your 'prozac' post

>"I think a lot of you here suffer from over-analytical disease". "....It's when people cant stop analysing everything, and the nature of analysis leads to finding problems....(wild [false] assumption). You find so many problems and you think everything is bad. (ditto)" <

Your solution analysing why one has wants children >"Switch off your mind, and you may just be able to feel more, leading to a happier existence. Maybe you wouldn't be able to deal with it though". < What do you think this says about the real you?

I responded to what you said and then went onto explain my extension of that attitude.
Your made the personal criticism of you. I challenged what you SAID.

'grammar correctness has little to do with cogitative competence.'

So you're not dyslexic, you just have no respect for anyone trying to read your posts. How can you demand 'manners', yet not give any respect to people who you wish to address.

How are your comments of more 'substance' than mine? So I jokingly use 'Prozac' (a commonly used symbol for depression) as a shorthand way of saying that someone's view of the world is overly negative. Do you think depression is somehow shameful? Do you think it's offensive to see a glass half full?

Provocation can include substance, and I'm under no obligation to supply substance anyway, especially to your requirements.

'It is not some arcane code for anyone in particular'
That's my point. You think my comments are personally insulting, I think the attitude portrayed in your comments is generally insulting.

'Your solution analysing why one has wants children'
No it wasn't. You're always the one going on about context, and I explained in my last post that was nothing to do with wanting children and everything to do with self-loathing earth worshippers and general human haters.

'What do you think this says about the real you? '
Nothing. As on OLO I am but a persona. I play a part to keep the ball rolling where I would like it to roll. What the statement means is that instinct is under-rated and micro-analysis over-rated in problem solving. Some people find feeling harder or more scary. You should read the book 'Blink'.

In summary, you insult people while hiding behind a cloak of civility and formality, whereas I insult people outwardly and cushion it with humour.

'Your made the personal criticism of you. I challenged what you SAID.'
You lumped me in with your 'other' and threw scorn and disdain at the 'other'. I remained indifferent to the lumping me in, but wanted to point out the ugliness of your disdain for a great many people.

BTW: pontificator is very apt, I originally called you that, and you only bother to use 1 letter to address me,

The egos, they clash, yes?
Yet opinions abound and observation of life pours forth. It is a good thing.
Examinator
It is true that there exists extremes in the way parents attend to their children. Your examples were right on the mark. There are children in our society that do not have the moral guidance that we would wish. As I pointed out, the regulatory mechanisms available in smaller close knit societies are missing.
Houellebecq
I commend your attitude to your own children. I believe they should have autonomy to explore their world without pressure to achieve every step of the way.
I wonder how we arrived at this point. Most of us posting here would have experienced the delicious freedom during our childhoods of messing about beyond the gaze of our parents. Richard Louv wrote a book titled "Last Child In The Woods" on this subject.
We have taken the extra step of homeschooling our son. We do some prescribed book work , but most of his learning is self-directed. We find this works beautifully for him. We find that he is more likely to soak up information and experience if he is interested in the subject. So his life is not full of being rushed here and there, and yet he learns - he moves forward with a bit of guidance from us and a lot of enthusiasm on his part.
I suppose it is difficult for people without children to understand the idea of what they represent in one's life - and this means different things to different parents. To be a parent is a many faceted experience as new emotions are revealed as you move through the years.

From today’s Courier Mail:

‘Million dollar munchkins’.

‘The cost of raising kids has hit the $1 million mark.’

‘Adding the cost of electronics, private tutoring and sports and dance classes and considering the average child now stays home until 24 the real cost to the Australian parent of raising children is $1 028 093.’

Hooweee, am I ever glad that I’m not a parent!!

I love random statistics as much as the next man. Ludwig. but I'm not sure about this one

>>the real cost to the Australian parent of raising children is $1,028,093<<

Average full-time earnings in Australia were $62,270 per annum in 2009 according to the ABS.

Tax on that would be around $13,581, leaving $48,689.

Net earnings over the 24 years would therefore be $1,168,536.

Which leaves you $16 a day to live on.

On second thoughts, that sounds about right...