2blowhards.com: Parental Frankness

In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

CultureBlogs
• Sasha Castel
• AC Douglas
• Out of Lascaux
• The Ambler
• PhilosoBlog
• Modern Art Notes
• Cranky Professor
• Mike Snider on Poetry
• Silliman on Poetry
• Felix Salmon
• Gregdotorg
• BookSlut
• Polly Frost
• Polly and Ray's Forum
• Cronaca
• Plep
• Stumbling Tongue
• Brian's Culture Blog
• Banana Oil
• Scourge of Modernism
• Visible Darkness
• Seablogger
• Thomas Hobbs
• Blog Lodge
• Leibman Theory
• Goliard Dream
• Third Level Digression
• Here Inside
• My Stupid Dog
• W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
• Andrew Sullivan
• The Corner at National Review
• Steve Sailer
• Samizdata
• Junius
• Joanne Jacobs
• CalPundit
• Natalie Solent
• A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
• Rational Parenting
• Public Interest.co.uk
• Colby Cosh
• View from the Right
• Pejman Pundit
• Spleenville
• God of the Machine
• One Good Turn
• CinderellaBloggerfella
• Liberty Log
• Daily Pundit
• InstaPundit
• MindFloss
• Catallaxy Files
• Greatest Jeneration
• Glenn Frazier
• Jane Galt
• Jim Miller
• Limbic Nutrition
• Innocents Abroad
• Chicago Boyz
• James Lileks
• Cybrarian at Large
• Hello Bloggy!
• Setting the World to Rights
• Travelling Shoes

Miscellaneous
• Redwood Dragon
• IMAO
• The Invisible Hand
• ScrappleFace
• Daze Reader
• Lynn Sislo
• The Fat Guy
• Jon Walz

Links

Our Last 50 Referrers

« Read and Discuss | Main | Malehood in Trouble? »

August 06, 2008

Parental Frankness

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

I have less than zero interest in kids. I find them to be uninteresting not-yet-people that do nothing but absorb time, money, attention, and energy. 15 minutes of smiling benignly at friends' brats and I've had my fill of children for at least six months.

(A word for the tender of heart: I'm not making a general case here, I'm just talking about my own reactions to children.)

Despite my kid-aversion, I rather enjoy checking in on friends' experiences as parents, at least when they're being frank and forthright. You hear funny stories, for one thing. For another, it's fascinating how treacly the popular-culture image of parenthood and kid-raising seems to be by comparison to the reality of actually birthin' and raisin' kids. And it's fascinating too the way that most parents know damn well that raising kids is often an exhausting, life-devouring business.

An example. One new mom told me that when she gave birth to her son she felt no instant bond with him at all. Her friends (and books and magazines) had rhapsodized about transformative gushes of mommy emotion. But in her case, she pushed the kid out, waited for the emotions to slam her ... And nothing. There he was, there she was, and it looked like they were going to be spending a number of years together. Oh well.

Another example: When one of those crazy mothers in Texas or the South killed four or five of her children, the press was full of outraged talking heads -- the professionally sanctimonious -- going on about how inconceivable the act was. Who could imagine a mother doing such a thing? But one daddy-friend of mine laughed and said that as far as he was concerned, the bizarre thing wasn't that a mother would kill her kids, the bizarre thing was that such murders didn't happen every day. "Kids," he said. "They run you ragged, they test your limits, they eat your life up. And then they do it again the following day."

(Not to worry: Over time the mom I've told about grew fond of her son, and my daddy-friend strikes me as a very good father.)

A standout in this parents-being-frank line comes from Sister Wolf, who confesses that she has always been fascinated by mothers who kill. One of many powerful, harsh-'n'-juicy passages:

I was a new mother once again, with a baby boy who arrived two months early. He was tiny and precious and when I was finally allowed to bring him home from the hospital, he cried continuously. He cried for forty days and forty nights, and then he cried some more. Sometimes, at dawn, I would turn to his weary dad and sob, “What’s the point of him?” I honestly couldn’t remember.

How lovely to put the usual Family Circle uckiness aside for a few minutes, no? But how much of such honesty can we realistically stand? If more people were more forthright more often and more publicly about how rough it can be to spawn, would we manage to perpetuate the species at all?

Best,

Michael

posted by Michael at August 6, 2008

Comments

Some people (like me) love kids--many don't. I think a dose of harsh forthright honesty is needed to dissuade those who would otherwise become bad parents.

But funny how kids are now viewed as optional in first-world cultures, isn't it? Not that long ago folks had 'em because they needed someone to take care of them in their old age. Generational compact and all that. There's still that compact incidentally, though many won't acknowledge it. On a societal level, no youngsters, no retirement for oldsters counting on pensions/social security/401Ks, etc. So in a very real sense I'm subsidizing your retirement Michael, you ungrateful bastard .

Posted by: Steve on August 6, 2008 7:55 PM

My daughters, now both professional women in their 30s, always fascinated and thrilled me. They didn't consume my life... they made me expand myself in ways I didn't think possible. I became stronger because they needed me.

I speak with my girls almost every day. One of my girls lives nearby, and we have dinner once a week at least. Usually she comes over for brunch on Sunday, too.

Each of my girls was an individual from birth. I liked most of their friends, too. They were tremendous fun. I miss the days when the house was full of their friends and I was pressed to the limit to work, play music and attend to their needs and their school functions.

All good things are exhausting and life consuming. Our lives must be exhausted and consumed with something. I prefer that mine be exhausted and consumed with the great spiritual struggle to make something out of a child.

I seem to be almost exactly your opposite, Michael. The world of the hip individual, always focused on his own needs, always spending his money on himself alone, always free to do as he pleases... it bores and depresses me. I don't care for the sexual life that accompanies that existence. Believe me, I tried that life. It struck me as absolutely, tragically empty.

The brutal beating that Myrna suffered as a child made it impossible for her to have children. She suffered endless grief over this. I related this to one of my friends after she died. His reply:

"You're lucky you didn't have children with her. You'd be stuck raising them by yourself. How would you ever afford that?"

I wasn't exactly stunned by this reply. My friend had expressed these views quite often.

"You don't afford children," I replied. "God gives you the strength to do what you have to do to care for them."

Children are the ultimate gift from God. I wish that I had had four more. In particular, I regret that I did not have a son.

Everybody's different, I guess... but I don't understand this kind of talk, Michael. You could say the same thing about a really great woman. She is going to exhaust and consume everything that you have. That to me is the whole point of loving a woman.

I'm perplexed. I don't understand your view, nor do I understand what is to be gained by bluntly stating that childrearing is a form of torture. I see it quite the opposite. For those who do not understand the beauty of the experience, we need to have mercy... and maybe we need to pray to God for them to be enlightened.

The world needs all kinds. God made us that way. I stand on the other side of the divide and I cannot understand the constant focus on self. To me, it is utterly empty and boring.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 6, 2008 9:17 PM

Wow. Some harsh statements here.

Full disclosure: I'm currently raising an infant and two pre-school girls full time, no day care.

I find it easy. I have never understood the woe-is-me stories of parenthood. Surely, there are individual points of time where any parent needs a break. But as far as day to day life? I never got more reading done than the first 18 months of my first child. They sleep 12-14 hours out of 24. You're the adult, dictator in charge, and have complete control of their environment and schedule. You can choose to make your life easy or hard. I choose easy!

I can only imagine people who see getting the extreme privledge of caring for their own children as "rough" have an impossible standard of what is hard or easy. Sure, compared to going to college, parenting three girls is hard. There's less freedom and more busy work.

But compare it to working like I did as a traveling consultant or on a film crew for 60 hr+ weeks and I find it much easier to take. I mean sure, if you didn't love your kids and get some intense pleasure out of something you did with them every day, it could be more of a slog.

But, I'd think the film crew experience might be more relevant. You're working on an 'art' project that you love, but damn the hours are long and the moments of 'art' feeling are fewer in a day than you ever dreamed. Yet, kids don't take over your whole life the way movie making does (remember the fact that they sleep alot), and you building something of lasting value to you and to them.

It's a good gig!

The Holzbachian

Posted by: the Holzbachian on August 6, 2008 9:19 PM

There are mothers who never do love their children. It just doesn't happen. I'm thinking not of mothers who don't love any of their children, but mothers who simply feel no love or affection for, say, one of her children, maybe a difficult one. I knew a guy whose mother clearly just didn't care about him. There were others, not uncommonly in larger families, where I suspect there are more often than not kids who just drop beneath the cracks, and just aren't that important to their folks. Oh well. Life's tough.

I must confess the propaganda in the US about parental must-love for kids is really bizarre in its intensity and pervasiveness. Makes me wonder if it's trying to compensate for something...

Posted by: PatrickH on August 6, 2008 9:45 PM

While I can understand that some people don't want children, I do find it difficult to understand anyone who finds them dull or unpleasant to be around even in small doses. They are so beautiful to look at, so full of life, and so full of intellectual curiosity too. Not all of them are individually likeable, of course; children are people and some people are unpleasant or worse. But to dislike them specifically as children seems very odd to me.

The next generation isn't important merely for providing us with pensions and social security. Its existence is what makes existence in the present possible. That's not hyperbole: just think what would happen to life as we live it now if we knew that all the people who are alive today would be the last generation ever to walk the face of the earth. We might manage to amuse ourselves for a little while, but bit by bit, the work, the projects, the plans, the investments - it would all stop, because no one would see any point to it any more, especially the people who do the dull or unpleasant work that makes our comfortable lives possible.

Clio

p.s. Margaret Drabble wrote a book in which the opening lines said something about the narrator's complete absence of feeling when her son was first placed in her arms. Drabble admitted that this was based on her personal experience, but added that it was purely temporary and she was desperate to make it up to him once the lack-of-feeling passed.

Posted by: alias clio on August 6, 2008 10:40 PM

I hope it isn't necessary but allow me to make this clear: My children mean everything to me. They have taught me everything about love and compassion and I am very close to both of them.

When friends tell me that they may not want to become mothers, I urge them to reconsider. I can't imagine an existence without the blessing of children.

Posted by: Sister Wolf on August 6, 2008 11:07 PM

I think you'd like Jeff Vogel's writings on this: http://www.ironycentral.com/babymain.html.

Here's how it starts:

"On the evening of January 18th, at around 8 PM, my first child, Cordelia Krizsan Vogel, entered the world. She came out of Mariann, my wife. She got her mother’s facial shape, her father’s irritability, and her mother’s genitalia. The event was the joyous conclusion to 15 hours of labor. This is not as horrible as it sounds, because, as it turns out, epidurals RULE.

"(For the uninitiated, when you get an epidural, what happens is that a nice person enters the room, sticks a needle into your spine, starts a steady flow of anaesthetic into it, and leaves it there. For hours and hours. It is a good measure of how horrifying childbirth is that, when it is taking place, leaving needles in your spine sounds like a great option.)

"Please do not pick a fight with me over the joys of natural childbirth. Unless, of course, you want me to explain at great length how I plan to have my wisdom teeth taken out without anesthesia, so that the intrusive evils of western medicine don’t get between me and the purity and joy of my dental care.

"On the bright side, once the drugs arrived, the labor was, while tiring, surprisingly pleasant. We chatted with the nurses, hung out, and occasionally napped. On the down side, at the end of it, well ... While the mother doesn’t want me to go into too much detail, let’s just say that her private area looked like the first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan."

Posted by: Bill Tucker on August 7, 2008 12:03 AM

Happiness scientists have found that parental happiness starts to decline once kids are born, hits a nadir when they're bratty adolescents, and is restored to the pre-kids level once they leave the house. Dan Gilbert reviews this in *Stumbling On Happiness*.

Personally, I can't wait until I'm the parent of teenagers -- it will open up whole new villages of humanity that I can carpet-bomb with my argumentativeness! My kids themselves, their friends, their teachers, their friends' parents and teachers, the worry-warts especially... it's gonna be fuckin' sweet.

At my tutoring center, I worked with elementary school and sometimes younger children. They weren't unpleasant, though I didn't look forward to it either. Except the precocious bad boys, who are hilarious when young, and of course the girly girls.

My favorite student I ever worked with was a 4-foot tall Audrey Hepburn girl, who was 9 to 11 when I saw her. The most adorable, inquisitive, and bubbly thing I've ever seen, and it felt like she was my daughter. Even if the week had been going bad, working with her cheered me right up -- how could it not have?

There was another girl who was somewhat like that, but overall if I couldn't imagine them being my own (i.e., partly like me and partly like the woman I'd have kids with), I couldn't get attached to any of the children.

Posted by: agnostic on August 7, 2008 12:07 AM

Steve -- I sure hope you aren't raising any of those damn "let's cut Social Security" brats I've seen so much of recently.

ST -- "The world needs all kinds." Agreed! "I stand on the other side of the divide and I cannot understand the constant focus on self." So anyone who isn't raising kids is automatically "focusing on the self"? And raising kids automatically gets people's minds off their own egos? Come on. You know Manhattan as well as I do -- it's brimming with parents who see their kids as extensions of themselves.

A. Clio -- That seems like a version of the "imagine if everyone were like you!" argument. But everyone's not like me, so what's the worry?

Bill T. -- That *is* funny, tks.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 7, 2008 12:26 AM

Michael, I was addressing the person who defended having children, jocularly, on the grounds that they were necessary for the previous generation's social security. That's all. I wasn't pointing my finger at you.

But I do find it curious that anyone can fail to respond to children either as children (their cuteness and curiosity) or as people. Some who can't manage the first have no trouble with the second - elderly bachelors, for example, who quiver with embarrassment at the sight of children and then decide the only way out is to treat them as if they were grown up. This approach can work surprisingly well with children over six or so.

Clio

Posted by: alias clio on August 7, 2008 1:08 AM

One of the sweet, sweet joys of being a veteran parent is scaring the living crap out of parents-to-be with your horror stories, each of them 100% true.

But, yes I love them, they're the light of my life. I can certainly understand someone not wanting kids, that's cool. But, it's a simple fact that those people have sacrificed ever knowing about one of the most fundamental of human experiences. It's a trade they're free to make, but it was the thought of missing it all that made me decide to have them.

I haven't regretted it, well except that one time when...

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on August 7, 2008 1:39 AM

Michael,

Thanks for another interesting, thought-provoking post.

I’m 43, a man in his second marriage, and childless by choice. Unlike most of mankind throughout history (thanks to modern birth control methods and barring unforeseen accidents), I have the opportunity to choose whether I will father a child as a result of having sex.

I freely admit that I am not terribly comfortable around small children (say, under the age of six). A big part of that has to do with their unreasonableness and lack of self-control when so small. For example, I don’t find anything appealing about infants – they cry a lot, piss, poop, drool and puke at inconvenient times and places, smell as a result, and are usually not nice to look at, be around, or hold. But I am moderately comfortable with children over the age of six, as they have developed some ability to reason, as well as the ability to communicate their needs or desires much more clearly. For example, I enjoy playing board games or even tag with children who are old enough to do that. I like to say, “I love other people’s children”. Perhaps I’m a married, younger version of those elderly bachelors Alias Clio referred to above.

Anyway, I have never had any desire to have children of my own, although I can grasp intellectually the reasons why people want to have children. Those reasons have simply never been convincing for me.

I also realize that conceiving children is easy, but raising them to be proper adults is very hard work.

Also, the idea of being a father scares me. I am afraid that I would not be as good of a father as I would like to be, as I am not as good of a person as I think I would need to be. I am also afraid that I would have a child that would be a disappointment to me in spite of my efforts.

Contrary to Shouting Thomas’s assertions, I don’t need someone to pray that their god will enlighten me about fatherhood. I understand perfectly well that there are joys as well as burdens that come with being a parent. But the charge that someone who chooses not to be a parent is selfish is nonsense. For example, I am not making nearly enough money to raise children and to give them the opportunities that I think they would deserve. In addition, Western society as a whole is well on the way to self-destruction (an assertion that I believe Shouting Thomas himself has made before as well). To bring a child into this world regardless of these considerations simply because I desired a child might be, well, selfish.

Posted by: Laikastes on August 7, 2008 5:36 AM

My wife and I are raising twin girls, aged 7. We are no strangers to brutal honesty; it's a kind of gallows humor that is actually common among parents (though maybe we hide it from those without kids?)

Kids are draining of time and energy and every other resource, but they are also energizing and motivating. The real question for every parent is: Do they represent a net gain or a net loss?

Every parent's answer will differ, and the differences depend on their own unique circumstances of genetics and upbringing and probably economic standing.

On balance, my wife and I enjoy a net benefit from our children. We hope they would say the same. I look forward to asking them about it someday, once they are interested in anything other than Hannah Montana.

Posted by: Matt Mullenix on August 7, 2008 8:43 AM

"Contrary to Shouting Thomas’s assertions, I don’t need someone to pray that their god will enlighten me about fatherhood. I understand perfectly well that there are joys as well as burdens that come with being a parent. But the charge that someone who chooses not to be a parent is selfish is nonsense. For example, I am not nearly enough money to raise children and to give them the opportunities that I think they would deserve. In addition, Western society as a whole is well on the way to self-destruction (an assertion that I believe Shouting Thomas himself has made before as well). To bring a child into this world regardless of these considerations simply because I desired a child might be, well, selfish."

Laikastes' comments deserve more attention than I can give them in a blog comment.

Yes, I do believe that the West will lose the battle with Islam. This battle over children and child-bearing is a central reason for my pessimism.

My little visit to the Philippines was quite illuminating. Poverty and hard work provide a better basis for child rearing that the affluence and leisure of America. Despite the poverty and hard life of the Philippines, every family strives to rear their children to be religious, respectful, hard-working and ambitious. Deference to authority and age is assumed. Filipinos succeed in incredible numbers when they are given the opportunity, despite the poverty into which most of them were born.

Poverty and hard work improve the moral nature of people. Affluence and leisure does the opposite.

Yes, I do believe that you are being selfish... because you are opting out of the moral battle in order to secure your own personal peace. Have children, and take up the challenge to rear them in the traditional ways. That, to me, is the better response to a society gone mad with affluence and selfishness.

And, the larger issue is one I haven't even mentioned. Have children to fulfill your responsibility to your mother and father and to God. I guarantee you that, no matter what they say, your mother and father are praying for grandchildren. They want their line to live on into the future. They want a stake in the future.

It is selfish, if understandable, to opt out of the great and daunting moral battle that faces us. Certainly, many will choose just to satisfy their hedonist desires. I will not condemn them because I've committed every sin they could imagine... and more.

Don't even think about the financial "cost" of children. God will provide. You will find the strength to rear them. The world will be a better place if you honor your obligation to your mother and father.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 7, 2008 11:01 AM

"I find it easy. I have never understood the woe-is-me stories of parenthood. Surely, there are individual points of time where any parent needs a break. But as far as day to day life? I never got more reading done than the first 18 months of my first child. They sleep 12-14 hours out of 24. You're the adult, dictator in charge, and have complete control of their environment and schedule. You can choose to make your life easy or hard. I choose easy!"

Okay, how many parents laughed at the 12-14 hours a day line? I think the Holtzbachian has been blessed with easy children.

I split the difference between Michael and Clio. I love our friend's daughter. She smart and sweet and it's fascinating to watch her personality and skill set develop. But I have always found interaction with children to become tedious very quickly. I babysat before VCRs and cable TV became commonplace, and I feel like I really had to earn my money back then.

Posted by: CyndiF on August 7, 2008 11:10 AM

I gotta say, I agree with ST here:

"The world of the hip individual, always focused on his own needs, always spending his money on himself alone, always free to do as he pleases... it bores and depresses me."

I find the childless incredibly boring, most of the time, and some of them are my oldest and closest friends. When they tell me about their latest scuba diving trip to Aruba, I nod politely in a patronizing manner. It just seems too easy.

Part of it is a tinge of jealousy at their unencumbered life, but mostly it strikes me as just empty. I know, it's awful, but there it is, that's how I feel.

Parenthood to me is akin to being a combat veteran in that you really can't relate to those who haven't been there. Or rather, you just can't explain it if weren't there.

That said, I know some parent who are incredibly self-absorbed, so you're right, Michael. Parenthood does not inherently cure one of that malady, not be a long-shot.

One interesting thing that happened to me after my first kid was born was that I suddenly (by necessity, but still) was no longer terrified of infants, and could relate to children. And this led to me being a much more open person. I didn't need a commonality of interests in order to communicate and relate to people.

As always, though, to each his/her own. Just don't give me a dirty look when I bring my kids to a restaurant. :)

Posted by: JV on August 7, 2008 4:19 PM

To the son who we never had
I would like to say
Aren't you glad we never made you?
Knowing our genetics as we do
Depression schizophrenia suicide on one side
Strokes confusion Alzheimer's on the other
To build another life out of that would be
Weaving a membrane so finely tuned to suffering
It would unravel in the violence of its vibrations or,
If strong enough, wait and wait for the next better day
Until disappointment faded to forgetfulness.

What is it like to feel happiness?
No son of ours could ever tell us,
Though I would like to ask him, also this:
To come into the land of the free
With a full centile citizens imprisoned
The populace following a monkey into war,
Greed and speculation coming round to
Eat its own tail, Ouroboros has robbed us
So there's nothing left for you so
Aren't you glad
You're missing this? I wish I were.

I suppose it would be fair to give a chance
To our proclivities re-mixed, and by some fluke
Create the laughing and ingenious laurel
Of our lines. It's lonely, else. With barren sheets
There's no one to hear you complain, when you're old.
Such a prize could redeem our parents, I suppose,
And what was in them strong enough to make it
This far.

But the cost of such a lottery: so high, for such a
Little chance! Silence may cost, too,
But another life spent screaming into the void
Is more than we could ever compensate,
Or tolerate.

Posted by: Nate on August 7, 2008 9:38 PM

When one of those crazy mothers in Texas or the South killed four or five of her children...

Sheesh, you could'vesaid Indiana, or Montana, but nooooo.

Why do people always lump Texas with the South?

Better yet, why does everyone think we Texans are one gene away from being declared the Missing Link in evolution?

I choose to believe those crazies that occasionally show up on Jerry Springer are transplanted Texans, not of the native species.

;-)

Posted by: Cowtown Pattie on August 7, 2008 11:52 PM

Uh-oh, it's antinatalism again. Been there and done that.

Posted by: Sister Wolf on August 8, 2008 12:09 AM

ST: “Poverty and hard work improve the moral nature of people. Affluence and leisure does the opposite.”

Me: That is nonsense on stilts.

ST: “Yes, I do believe that you are being selfish…because you are opting out of the moral battle in order to secure your own personal peace. Have children, and take up the challenge to rear them in the traditional ways. That, to me, is the better response to a society gone mad with affluence and selfishness.”

Me: Believe what you want. I have no interest in convincing you otherwise.

ST: “And the larger issue is one I haven’t even mentioned. Have children to fulfill your responsibility to your mother and father… I guarantee you that, no matter what they say, your mother and father are praying for grandchildren. They want their line to live on into the future. They want a stake in the future….The world will be a better place if you honor your obligation to your mother and father.”

Me: Of course, my parents would like me to have children. So what? I have no responsibility or obligation to satisfy their (dare I say, selfish?) desire to “live on” through grandchildren. If it makes you rest easier, I have siblings with children; so what you call my parents’ “stake in the future” is secure.

ST: “Have children to fulfill your responsibility to…God. God will provide.”

Me: Since I am an agnostic/atheist, I am not obligated or responsible to whatever god you follow (be it Baal, Buddha, Jahweh, Jesus, Mohammed [may curses be upon him], Odin, Osiris, or Zeus) to produce children.

Posted by: Laikastes on August 8, 2008 4:12 AM

Laikastes, I am resting quite easily.

"Of course, my parents would like me to have children. So what?"

This is a statement of supreme aesthetic ugliness.

I guess it's fine that you feel that way. Forgive me for saying that I'm glad you're not in my life. I have no idea what makes a person so spiritually barren... and I don't want to know either. I will rest easier for not knowing.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 8, 2008 9:54 AM

Micheal, As someone who has buddies on both sides of the child thang, I fully understand your views. I don't share them, being a dad, but I get them.

I did little exercise before having kids - knowing they were eminent - that helped me a lot on the issue.

I went around to everyone I knew at the time and asked if having kids fulfilled you. I chose "fulfilled" very purposely.

The best answer I got, that was echoed (but not as clearly) in the statements of others, was:
"No, having children does not fulfill you - you are responsible for that. But they do certainly make you experience love in ways you'd never expected. And you get to have a second childhood through them."

Being on the other side for a while, I can attest that all of that's true.

So, you are missing something, but not personal fulfillment or the opportunity thereof.

Posted by: yahmdallah on August 8, 2008 10:28 AM

Question for S. Thomas. My wife of 31 years and I have produced, by choice, one child (who, incidentally, shows no sign of settling down and producing children of his own). We could not have produced in time to benefit my own father (d.1962), although we could have had a child for my father-in-law's sake (d.1984).

Are we square with you and God?

Narr

Posted by: Narr on August 8, 2008 4:37 PM

Parenthood used to be both much more obligatory and largely unavoidable. Some people now have children who in the past would have been too poor to marry; some have children thanks to recent medical improvements. But these factors are dwarfed by the effects of choice, both in marriage and conception. In recent years, we in the West have become very picky about life choices - much more reluctant to marry or to procreate, in part because we fear bad outcomes.

As to why the experience of parenthood varies - children vary. so do parents. Some babies cry continuously for months. No one knows why, or what to do about it. Some mothers instinctively bond with their children; others don't (it happens with animals, too).

Some people respond to the demands of parenthood by getting their act together; others remain clueless and useless, neglecting or abusing their children. Some people succeed in family life and parenthood; some are overwhelmed by disasters they cannot avoid.

I applaud people who devote their energy to raising children. But what use is a "baby daddy" who fathers bastards?

The demographic suicide of the developed world is scary. But it is the culmination of a very long term trend. The fertility of white America was in decline from the start of the 1800s.

The same macro-trend also affects much of the developing world. Algeria (1.92) and Iran (1.78) have lower fertility than the U.S. (2.08). Indonesia is down to 2.44, Brazil to 1.93, Mexico to 2.45, all still declining. Several other big Islamic countries - Egypt (2.72), Bangladesh (3.13), Turkey (1.94) - have come down a lot. I don't expect a demographic triumph for Islam.

Except maybe in Europe, where Italy (1.28), Germany (1.42), and Spain (1.28) are going out of business. So is eastern Europe - Ukraine (1.23), Poland (1.24), Russia (1.38) - and east Asia - Korea (1.26), Japan (1.42), Taiwan (1.59).

What scares me is where fertility remains high: places like Congo (6.54), Burkina Faso (6.54), Yemen (6.67), Afghanistan (6.75), Uganda (6.92), Niger (7.55).

Posted by: Rich Rostrom on August 8, 2008 6:38 PM

The problems of fertility decline will be offset by the development of effective anti-aging therapies such as SENS in the next 2-3 decades. Concerns of a "demographic winter" are as relevant today as concerns about the accumulation of horse dung in the major cities was in 1900.

Political Islam will fail for the same reason Soviet Communism failed. Both are examples of static mono-memes that lack the capacity to compete with the dynamic multi-meme that makes up Western and, increasingly, East Asian civilizations.

Concerns about Islam today remind me much of the concerns of communism during the 1970's, when much of the same rhetoric was bandied about (they're not a afraid to die, sacrifice their kids in war, blah, blah, blah). Eventual world domination by Soviet Communism was seen as inevitable in the 1970's as that of Islam is today. Both are wrong as a static system cannot out-compete a more dynamic system. Communism failed because it could not compete with the West and East Asia. The same will be true with political Islam.

Consider the following:

Not a single product is manufactured to international standards in the muslim world.

More books are translated from English into Japanese EACH YEAR than have been translated into Arabic in the past 500 years.

Today, Soviet Communism is no more. The same will be true for political Islam by 2050.

The East Asian and Western civilizations will continue to progress. Dynamism rules.

Posted by: kurt9 on August 9, 2008 3:20 PM

Narr,

I don't run anybody's life, as you well know. So, what's with that shit you're giving me?

Your comments suggest that you feel guilty.

I'm not going to cease talking about my viewpoint... my belief in God and my belief in familial responsibility... because it makes you feel guilty.

If it makes you feel guilty... then, maybe you ought to start thinking about why you feel guilty. God endowed man with guilt for a reason.

The aggressive atheism that has become commonplace in the West is tiresome and stupid. I find it just as repellent and odious as you find belief. It leads to people like Laikastes proudly stating that they don't give a damn about their responsibility to give their parents grandchildren.

The political moral of the 20th century was the man is cast adrift into insanity and self-destruction without belief in God to guide him. This was the central theme of Alexandr Solzhenitzyn's work. Solzhenitzyn's death was notably ignored in this blog last week.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 9, 2008 5:53 PM

Shouting Thomas, it may surprise you to hear that I also find the new, aggressive atheism to be generally stupid and repellant, much more so than I find belief in traditional Christianity to be. So you should really stop projecting things onto me. You know nothing about me, and you are totally wrong in your assumptions about what has led me to say and think what I do.

Also, what I stated earlier was that I do not suscribe to your belief that I am responsible to my parents to produce offspring simply because they desire it, or because your religion says your god wants me to do so. That is all. There was no gleeful rubbing of hands and a smirk for being the bad little boy who gets to disobey the grownups.

You accuse me of being selfish for not having children. That 'selfishness' makes me bad in your eyes. And yet, when I observed that my parents' desire to have grandchildren is also a 'selfish' one, you convenienty failed to address that. So please answer (or at least consider) this question: Why is my 'selfishness' bad, but my parents' good?

Again, it may shock you to hear that I think it is perfectly fine and wonderful that you are a fervent believer in your god. But I am not and will never be. And that's OK. Really.

Posted by: Laikastes on August 9, 2008 7:36 PM

"Poverty and hard work provide a better basis for child rearing that the affluence and leisure of America. Despite the poverty and hard life of the Philippines, every family strives to rear their children to be religious, respectful, hard-working and ambitious."

I have been to the Philippines once, so I am not so qualified to talk about it. However, I have spent much time in Malaysia and have the experience of running a business there. I can tell you that the Chinese have a far greater work ethic than the "Malay" people. Since the Philippine people are largely the same race as the Malay, one would assume that their work ethic would be comparable, an assumption my visit to the Philippines largely confirmed.

I enjoyed my visit to the Philippines and generally like the Philippine people. However, the kind of work ethic that is currently transforming China is not one of their best virtues. Also, Manila has one of the highest crime rates of any Asian city.

"Deference to authority and age is assumed."

This is overrated as a virtue. Japan has this in spades and is considered one of the reasons for their lack of entrepreneurship.

Also, I had many friends who were "rebellious" in high school. Yet many of them have gone on to be successful professionals or business people. There are 4 self-made multi-millionaires who came out of my high school class.

When I was in high school, we respected the teachers who were actually good. We made fun of the ones who weren't. We respected adults who had actually accomplished something noteworthy or had some special knowledge. We saw no reason to respect an adult simply because they were an adult.

A lack of deference to authority does not necessarily equate to self-destructive or anti-social behavior. Authority has to be earned. It is not something that is assumed by force or threat of force.

"Filipinos succeed in incredible numbers when they are given the opportunity, despite the poverty into which most of them were born."

This is true for some Filipinos who have immigrated to the U.S. However, the Philippines itself remains mired in poverty and, based on my personal experiences there, the people there are not too dissimilar from the Malays in Malaysia or Indonesia.

"Poverty and hard work improve the moral nature of people. Affluence and leisure does the opposite."

It is true that poverty can make one very "hungry" for the opportunity to overcome it. However, by and large, I think this is not true. If this was true, every developing country would be undergoing a China-like economic transformation. This is clearly not the case. Also. most successful entrepreneurs in the U.S. come from the middle-class, not from the poor.

Granted, there are a large number of slackers in the U.S. However, I would argue that the U.S. probably generates more young entrepreneur types, per capita of population, than almost any other country in the world. Perhaps China creates more these days.

I managed a small technology manufacturing company about 4-5 years ago. We hired engineering students from the local university to work as test engineers. To their credit, everyone one of them was not only competent, but was eager to work and worked well with minimal supervision. I was more than happy to give them good recommendations to prospective employers. If these kids' work ethic is representative of the society at large, I think America's future is fine. Of course, this could be observation bias as I was dealing with "technical" types rather than general run of the mill kids. Your mileage may vary.

Posted by: kurt9 on August 9, 2008 9:34 PM

kurt9,

There's a lot of truth to what you say. However, I'm working from a different set of assumptions. If I were king of the world and the Josef Stalin of the universe, I'd have different goals than you do.

It's certainly true that the best and most ambitious Filipinos leave home. The work ethic of the average Filipino does not match that of the Chinese. If you live on the coast of the Philippines in good farming country, you can feed and house yourself with minimal effort and many people choose this route.

There is a substantial middle class in the Philippines, although it is quite a bit poorer than the middle class in the U.S. However, that middle class does live decently. What we think of as middle class in the U.S. is actually quite rich.

I'm not that interested in a world in which the U.S. concept of middle class is achieved everywhere. That so-so middle class status of the Philippines is actually quite adequate.

I have other values that I'd prefer to see endure. Deference to authority and age is one of them. I don't care whether this impedes development. Religious belief, even if it leads to a lesser emphasis on wealth, creates a better society to live in. Old fashioned moral beliefs and the demand that everyone perform their familial responsibility trumps entrepreneurship in my book.

So, I wasn't citing the Philippines as an example of one of the new go-go societies of the earth. I'd rather see moral values instilled in children than see every one of them carrying in iPod.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on August 10, 2008 9:40 AM

"However, I'm working from a different set of assumptions...I'd have different goals than you do."

This is certainly true. It also suggests that values are goal dependent. I have believed this since I was 17 years old.

"If you live on the coast of the Philippines in good farming country, you can feed and house yourself with minimal effort and many people choose this route."

There is a lot to be said for this. I have done the lonely planet travel thing and know what you are talking about. Working 60 hours a week just to buy fancy stuff is definitely not what its cracked up to be.

"Deference to authority and age is one of them."

I stand by my point on this issue. Authority must be earned by virtue of knowledge and ability, by something you have accomplished that others have not. Authority not based on knowledge and ability is meaningless. I think blind obedience to authority is a vice, not a virtue.

My concept of an ideal society is the Chironian "adhocracy" depicted in "Voyage From Yesteryear" by James P. Hogan. This novel inspired me when I first read it in 1986. I would feel right at home in such a society. Based on my value system, "Voyage From Yesteryear" is the most spiritual novel I have ever read.

Posted by: kurt9 on August 10, 2008 4:47 PM

S.T.,

No, I don't think you're trying to run my life. I was exploring the limits of your view--if having a kid for God's and Granny's benefit is good, is more better? Is contraception a good or bad thing?

Nor do I find religious belief odious and repellent. Some of my best friends are religious (no, really), some of them -very- religious. Some have been so all along, others have become so after many years, children, deaths of loved ones, divorces, etc. Others, like myself, have had some of the same experiences and are no more religious today than we were in 1978. So please don't put words in my mouth, and for that matter don't ascribe guilt
to me on this score. (Anyone who has been around for 55 years has things to feel guilty about, but disappointing my mother and mother-in-law are not on my list.)

I'd be happy to talk about Solzhenitzyn, but I may be away for a few days. I'll open with this:
he was right on most of the big things, and I don't think his critique of modern liberal society should be dismissed out of hand.

Narr

Posted by: Narr on August 10, 2008 5:17 PM

You know, a good rockin' out full-on discussion about Solzhenytsin's Harvard Address would be a really good way to tease out and get a good look at the rather odd melange of boho arty progressive coastal city hipster vibes and traditionalist even reactionary positions (reactionary in a good way!) that bubbles through this, my favourite blog of all. I'll second ST's suggestion, but would follow up with a specification that the Harvard speech be the focus. The discussion could even focus on gut reactions to AS's points, not simply intellectual debate on where he was "right" or "wrong". I like it. How about it, Michael? Donald? Friedrich?

Posted by: PatrickH on August 10, 2008 9:53 PM

What? Oh, sorry, I was just noshing on some Slow Food certified pork chops ...

It's not that I'm not interested in Solzhenitsyn, it's that I can't stay awake for more than a few sentences when I try to read him. Something about all that portentous Russian moralizing ...

Not that he wasn't great and important, of course. But where heavythink goes I have to excuse myself from talks about him and go with guys whose lectures I can stay awake through: Wilhelm Ropke, for example.

Hmm, you'll never catch me doing this again but you've managed to get me thinking in general terms, so ...

* I like to deal in specific cases as much as possible -- which is a preference that comes partly out of a wariness of theory and abstraction.
* I like to avoid partisan political fistfights mainly out of an aversion to politics generally, but also to make the point that it doesn't hurt to keep politics in perspective.
* My preferred society would be one that crosses a humane and sensibly conservative mainstream with an appreciative and entertaining bohemia. Why shouldn't both exist? Why shouldn't each appreciate the other?
* I promote the sexual stuff I feature partly out of pure mischief but also to promote the idea that eroticism is a part of pleasure and culture, in much the same way that food and art are -- there to be enjoyed and cultivated.

OK, now I'm scooting back to specifics.

Curious to hear how y'all react to Solzhenistyn, of course.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on August 10, 2008 11:24 PM