Kids

[Eyreplenh]

A touchy subject this, seeing as discussing it might get you labeled as a nazi/and or worse or something, but it's a topic that's we have been talking about amongst my friends -usually protected by a veil of beer and booze. It's kids!

Now, the discussion probably started with our eternal concern, growing older and older until we're finally adults, here kids being one point at which one would have set the marker. Parent = adult. From here it went to what people we knew had kids, what would be acceptable motivation for setting a new life forth and so on... In my circle, the people who've already had kids are without exception the ones who quit school early. There's sound and unsound reasons for this of course, some quit because they were having kids, some always wanted a job and a family and so it was a deliberate choice... but then again there's the people doing it for the money (if you're on the dole here, you're way better off as a single mom than as simply a single woman), trying to keep the relationship together etc.

In my new job I run tests on people struggling with something or other, most of whom are referred to us from social services, to figure out if they're capable of doing some kind of work. It's all kinds of people, really, there freaks and geeks, jocks and schmocks, thin and fat, old and young, fat and small and... you probably get the drift now.

Here's the clue -these are people who've dropped out of school, never been able to hold down a job and who're having trouble taking care of themselves. Despite all the differences listed above, off all the people twenty years or older that I've tested so far, all but a lonely one is a parent. Of one or more kids. I mean wtf?

In the meantime, with a few healthy exceptions, the well-established and organized people I know within a reasonable child-rearing age are highly doubtful about whether or not to have children at all...

I'm not sure what kind of discussion I'm looking for, but I find it a highly interesting topic, and viewpoints about anything I've mentioned here would be appreciated

[Amos]

Children are a compensation for the lack of happiness that loads of money would otherwise buy. Also, the poor and the melancholy inevitably drink too much, thus giving the moon, whose fertilising powers derive from her suspicious connections with water, much more influence over their bodies.

[Eyreplenh]

Children are a compensation for the lack of happiness that loads of money would otherwise buy

This is a point we spend a lot of time around too, if kids for some people is an act of giving up. Giving up in the quest to give their own life any meaning. When neither education, money, job, travels and adventures or spouse keep you from panicky staring at the walls wondering why, and how -when you get a kid you don't have that much time for staring at walls...

Of course, our discussions always lack a certain perspective, that of a parent

[Mike]

Hmm, I fit the profile. I'm a dumbass fool that quit school and I've never been able to hold a job for very long, and I have serious issues when it comes to taking care of myself. If I was living on my own I probably wouldn't give a shit. Now I spend my days worrying about the twisted stuff I'm teaching my son subconsciously, and occasionally consciously.
From my silly point of view each person is born with a million Smiles, and it's up to the people who raise them to make sure they get to enjoy as many of those as possible. I fuck up so many times, mainly because I am fucked up myself, I destroy so many of my sons smiles, by words or actions and sometimes lack of words or actions, that I wonder if I'll ever be able to help him enjoy more of his Promised Smiles then me, or that I destroy so much of Them that he has run out way before Death comes to harvest the Ultimate Smile. What kind of a life will he have then? I'm already a better dad for him then my dad ever was for me, but that doesn't mean much. It's not about being better, it's about being what you are and I suck at being me. But you know what? Occasionally those Smiles appear, thanks to you or despite of you, and They touch you, grab you, submerge you in a deep glow, and you realize that every one of his Smiles is your Smile and that you're able to let him have not one, but two million Smiles. Enough to fill the universe. If that knowledge would last a lifetime...

Oh, I'm also in the glow of a flue. I blabbermouth erratically, and for once I'll actually post it.

[dark fuschia]

I don't think kids for these people is an act of giving up. I think it's an act of going along with pregnancies which are avoided and/or controlled by the much more stable lives of "sucessful" people. The reason pregnancy is not as strictly controlled is a lack of access to services and lack of understanding of said services (never underestimate the lack of education that goes with poverty) but probably most significantly, it's completely different priorities to those with a more "middle class" upbringing. I honestly think it's jumping to conclusions to suggest that marginalised members of society have children to add meaning to their lives. That is the exact reason that most MIDDLE CLASS successful independant people have children. I actually would go so far as to say cultural attitudes to pregnancy are very different between the two classes (let us call them middle class and dependant class). Women who come from troubled homes and end up in dependant class are always much more inclined to have a child not because it gives them meaning, but because their is far less rationalisation about pregnancy, unlike the pregnancy of a middle class woman, who rationalises that she wants to own a house and build up maternity leave before she has a baby, so is meticulous with contraception and/or terminates her accidental pregnancy.

A dependant class woman has none of these concerns, her immediate society and peers won't judge her (unlike the middle class woman, whose peers turn bloodthirsty at the sniff of any pregnancy, even within stable relationships), so it's harder for her to rationalise termination. My final point is that its actually extremely EASY to get pregnant. Most middle class women spend ALOT of time and money and effort avoiding it, and have access to far more resources and options than dependant class women. Also because middle class women are for the most part successful at avoiding pregnancy gives the illusion that it is EASY but it's just not, it's incredibly hard to avoid pregnancy. Most middle class women will have at least one accidental pregnancy at some time in her life which her peers will never know about. Furthermore middle class people are very hard on women who follow through with an accidental pregnancy (both within the middle class group and dependant class), as it is an outward sign of her foolishness (in regards to choice of mate, contraception and lack of control etc), so there is immense peer pressure to remain barren (lol). Peer pressure doesn't end when we leave school. We are social animals heavily influenced by the society we live in.

I think the dependant class does not have this expectation laid upon them by their peers (for whatever reason) and thus there is little peer pressure to remain barren.

So basically the middle class are under the illusion that they are in control. Accidental pregnancies are an affront to this and are avoided through money, effort and sacrifice of mood, youthful figures and libido and if they occur are terminated at a much higher rate. The Dependant class has no such illusion of control (this comes from an uncertain upbringing involving poverty and possibly abuse and/or neglect). Accidental pregnancy is just another bullet to bite, but with the added bonus of pleasure and affection (Meaning might come into it later but not as part of the rationalisation of the pregnancy)

[night faerie]

OR middle class women are too tired and busy from building up their careers to have much time to engage in "extra curricular activity" which might result in pregnancy while dependent class women have nothing better to do than "play" and/or use pregnancy in an attempt to ensnare a man to support them.

but this thread isn't really about UNwanted pregnancy, is it? It's more about the cause vs. effect of socioeconomic status & reproduction. I have noted that by far, like 98% of the people I know who have had children instead of careers or before they had opportunity to cultivate career, have raised their children in their parents household or with their parents overwhelming financial support. Not sure where this fits in, but the people I know who've done it all on their own have waited until they could. People who have many kids will put their kids' bed in a closet if needed, always finding a way, very resourceful.

[Eyreplenh]

I don't think kids for these people is an act of giving up. I think it's an act of going along with pregnancies which are avoided and/or controlled by the much more stable lives of "sucessful" people. The reason pregnancy is not as strictly controlled is a lack of access to services and lack of understanding of said services (never underestimate the lack of education that goes with poverty) but probably most significantly, it's completely different priorities to those with a more "middle class" upbringing. I honestly think it's jumping to conclusions to suggest that marginalised members of society have children to add meaning to their lives. That is the exact reason that most MIDDLE CLASS successful independant people have children. I actually would go so far as to say cultural attitudes to pregnancy are very different between the two classes (let us call them middle class and dependant class). Women who come from troubled homes and end up in dependant class are always much more inclined to have a child not because it gives them meaning, but because their is far less rationalisation about pregnancy, unlike the pregnancy of a middle class woman, who rationalises that she wants to own a house and build up maternity leave before she has a baby, so is meticulous with contraception and/or terminates her accidental pregnancy.)

I wholeheartedly agree with this, and if it came out any other way I blame... something My observation is what NF so strikingly pointed out, that in the people I see the correlation between poor socioeconomical status and having kids is so big. And it's not so much a matter of money either, just that so many people clearly, well, unfit, are actually having kids by the dozen, whilst other, who're apparently in a perfect situation are reluctant. This reluctance of course stems from a whole mass of reasons, both sound and crazy...

A dependant class woman has none of these concerns, her immediate society and peers won't judge her (unlike the middle class woman, whose peers turn bloodthirsty at the sniff of any pregnancy, even within stable relationships), so it's harder for her to rationalise termination. My final point is that its actually extremely EASY to get pregnant. Most middle class women spend ALOT of time and money and effort avoiding it, and have access to far more resources and options than dependant class women. Also because middle class women are for the most part successful at avoiding pregnancy gives the illusion that it is EASY but it's just not, it's incredibly hard to avoid pregnancy. Most middle class women will have at least one accidental pregnancy at some time in her life which her peers will never know about. Furthermore middle class people are very hard on women who follow through with an accidental pregnancy (both within the middle class group and dependant class), as it is an outward sign of her foolishness (in regards to choice of mate, contraception and lack of control etc), so there is immense peer pressure to remain barren (lol). Peer pressure doesn't end when we leave school. We are social animals heavily influenced by the society we live in.

Easy indeed. Some people even find the preliminary proccess quite fun and enjoyable. However, over here (as in Oz I guess, on the last UN-ranking your sizeable continent was lurking right underneath us in niceness ) avoiding pregnancy/terminating is also remarkably easy, no matter your wealth or position. Condoms are available in every store, and if you have no money yo can visit a hospital/care sentre and grab them by the handful. Morning after/baby-away pills are almost as easy accessible, there's a few questions for the ones requesting them for free.

I think the dependant class does not have this expectation laid upon them by their peers (for whatever reason) and thus there is little peer pressure to remain barren.

So basically the middle class are under the illusion that they are in control. Accidental pregnancies are an affront to this and are avoided through money, effort and sacrifice of mood, youthful figures and libido and if they occur are terminated at a much higher rate. The Dependant class has no such illusion of control (this comes from an uncertain upbringing involving poverty and possibly abuse and/or neglect). Accidental pregnancy is just another bullet to bite, but with the added bonus of pleasure and affection (Meaning might come into it later but not as part of the rationalisation of the pregnancy)

...and the added responsibility, change of lifestyle, etc; that very many seem to neglect.

I don't know, first and foremost is probably the fact that I believe there are too many of us humans already, secondly it pains me to have these kids come in, and then read family histories and know that in nine cases out of ten it will be history repeating itself...

[AquaFizz]

Has there been any actual research sited anywhere in this thread?

I hate to be the bad guy, honest, but I think you guys are being seriously close-minded...and judgemental. Especially considering the lack of physical evidence I've seen made available.

So far, it seems all comments have been based solely on what you've seen in your own social circles. Which, of course, is always a good place to *start* but isn't exactly going to yeild the most accurate result. You're only looking at one small sample of the population. An even smaller sample if you consider the likelihood that the people you know the most about are your friends and, thus, tend to all come from the same class. Less face it-If you're in the middle-class, it's much more likely that most of your friends are as well.

I have of the dozen-ish friends/couples I know who are parents, I can only think of one who didn't go to college. THAT, by the way, being an unwanted pregnancy. And, you know, I can see grouping unwanted pregnancies with lower-class/education. I think that would be a fair assessment.

But it seems like that wasn't exactly what was being said. I don't think it's a fair or accurate assumption to consider anyone who has kids to have been "giving up" on "real" goals or to be less educated than people without children.

It seems to me that if this thread were a research paper it's thesis would be something along the lines of, "People with kids aren't as educated as people without." ...That seems pretty close-minded. And that's really being pretty nice. In reality, this thread has more of a "We hate kids and their parents" sort of tone to it.

Maybe I missed the actual facts. It's possible. To be completely forthcoming, I've thouroughly read half of the stuff in here and merely skimmed the other half. But that's mostly because it's been so off-putting and annoying. None of this is exactly nice, or very welcoming to any new people we could have lurking who may be parents and may or may not be well-educated.

I'm going to bed now, though.

[Eyreplenh]

Has there been any actual research sited anywhere in this thread?

I hate to be the bad guy, honest, but I think you guys are being seriously close-minded...and judgemental. Especially considering the lack of physical evidence I've seen made available.

So far, it seems all comments have been based solely on what you've seen in your own social circles. Which, of course, is always a good place to *start* but isn't exactly going to yeild the most accurate result. You're only looking at one small sample of the population. An even smaller sample if you consider the likelihood that the people you know the most about are your friends and, thus, tend to all come from the same class. Less face it-If you're in the middle-class, it's much more likely that most of your friends are as well.

I have of the dozen-ish friends/couples I know who are parents, I can only think of one who didn't go to college. THAT, by the way, being an unwanted pregnancy. And, you know, I can see grouping unwanted pregnancies with lower-class/education. I think that would be a fair assessment.

But it seems like that wasn't exactly what was being said. I don't think it's a fair or accurate assumption to consider anyone who has kids to have been "giving up" on "real" goals or to be less educated than people without children.

It seems to me that if this thread were a research paper it's thesis would be something along the lines of, "People with kids aren't as educated as people without." ...That seems pretty close-minded. And that's really being pretty nice. In reality, this thread has more of a "We hate kids and their parents" sort of tone to it.

Maybe I missed the actual facts. It's possible. To be completely forthcoming, I've thouroughly read half of the stuff in here and merely skimmed the other half. But that's mostly because it's been so off-putting and annoying. None of this is exactly nice, or very welcoming to any new people we could have lurking who may be parents and may or may not be well-educated.

I'm going to bed now, though.

There hasn't been any research quoted here, and I never really thought to bring any to the table. I'm not trying to find any definite answers, just thoughts from people about this whole having kids business...

So, close minded -definitively, that's what I've asked, that we ply our own heads for thoughts, but judgmental? I can see what you mean, but I assure you, that was not my intention.

These social classes you got in the rest of the world, we don't really have them here, everyone is pretty much well off, with a small percentage falling on the outside being poor, and a small percentage with the energy to become rich, but it's comparable enough to level of education I guess. And that was what I've seen in my circles/through my work, that low ed equals more kids than high ed.

You now bringing information to counter is excactly what I was hoping for. It makes the whole deal a lot less depressing

"In reality, this thread has more of a "We hate kids and their parents" sort of tone to it."

I really hope not! For my part at least, it's more of an "I can't for the life of me understand the specific motivations and reasoning behind having a kid and I would really like to know more because it would be really depressing to think it was always an accident or as a means to a goal" sort of approach. As I said in the intro, this is a weird topic, with a lot of borderline crazy ideas popping up during a conversation... (why we usually douse ours with bountiful helpings of beer)

What made me bring it up here, now, is the fact that I'm starting to see a lot of kids already in therapy/evalutaion, many of whom are there due to their parents -like it or not. I'm looking for perspective and info because I like and care about kids, I just don't understand the phenomenon to the degree I'd like.

So, maybe the reason you read this as an hate thread is because you and people like you that has some more positive experiences hasn't spoke up yet? And yes, thats' an invitation -tell me more!

[dark fuschia]

I also think that many people EP would tell you that there are no classes here either but I think they are wrong, I think it is a myth that class has been abolished in the western world. You have pretty much shown that a class different from your own exists in Norway just by differentiating between the type of people who are unable to support themselves and those who are. I think classes have alot more to them than money.

Although admittedly I don't know enough about the people in Norway, so we could be talking about different kinds of people, but class divisions definately come into play in Australia. (we call them bogans... I know a Scot who told me in Scotland they are neds, and in America they are called white trash)

This is what I assumed you were talking about.

Fizzy interestingly the UNs official stance is that the key element to reducing birth rates is education. Alot of people mistakenly interpret this as education about contraception but that is incorrect, they actually mean that the more educated a person is OVERALL (eg the longer they stay in school) the less children they will have on average. The idea being that this opens up their opportunities and increases their options (it introduces reasons not to have kids... even just as NF says, they are tired! Which I wholeheartedly agree with). It's a correlation that is definately accepted in most academic circles and supported by world wide studies comparing different regions (I think by at least the UN). I have never heard of studies comparing different groups within the same region, and like you say I think it would be interesting. A quick search brought up this link correlating birth rate to wealth or lack thereof which can also be directly correlated to education levels:

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress...per-capita.jpg

Maybe its the other way round. Maybe people study and absorb ourselves in careers BECAUSE we don't have kids... *twighlight zone music*

As always xkcd has the answer... (and don't forget to hold your mouse cursor over it a moment to read the magic text... tooo funny )
http://www.xkcd.com/603/