Traffic for 2005 November 15 (entry 0)

< Overtime
Damn I'm Good >

[Comments] (11) The State of our world: A lot of people I've talked to lately, including a lot of Mormons, have told me that they only want 2 kids. Some already have one and say their reason is that they can barely handle one, but they want one more, hoping it'll be of the other gender.

The others cite cost, difficulty of raising kids, stress, self-fulillment, etc. And a lot of these people share my religious beliefs. I wonder what has happened. When I grew up, everybody had at least four children; many had more. Are kids more expensive? Are parents more selfish? Are kids tougher to raise? Are we not as tough as our parents were? Were they just naive?

I can't figure it all out. I enjoyed having lots of siblings around (and still do--more options to talk to, etc). But I can see the benefits of fewer children, and it's not just financial. I would have felt more special, had more opportunities, had more attention (which I think all kids could use more of, though that's not a given for parents who have less kids).

Or maybe it's just cuz I'm in California now.

In other news, it is my goal to leave work by 6 every day this week, and have succeeded thus far. It's a nice change of pace.


Comments:

Posted by Rachel at Tue Nov 15 2005 20:31

I liked having a brother and a sister. I think I might have 3, but it's not all in my hands.

Posted by Joe Walch at Wed Nov 16 2005 08:39

My Boss has 10 kids, and drives a big fully loaded bus (with a shower, bathroom, TV, and other amenities) to church. Of course it is much cheaper to raise kids here, and they give him less trouble than the 25 horses he has.

I really don't care. The Hollands only had 3 kids, but the Nelsons had 10, and as a CT surgeon I am sure that he worked more than 60 hours a week regularly.

However, putting a parents capacity, means, and ways aside, if people limit the number of children they have because of selfishnes I think the children they have will pick up on that, and they will resent the feeling that the parents are more interested in their golf game then in the act of raising children. Personally I would rather raise children than anything else, but we probably will not have a huge family based on our capacities and what we feel will be optimum for the growth and learning of the children we will have.

Posted by John at Wed Nov 16 2005 09:35

Rachel, but what about Leonard? He only had sisters. Anyway, my motto is still to take it one at a time.

Are you coming to SF with us, Rach?

Posted by Susie at Wed Nov 16 2005 11:19

I think Leonard got a bit gyped, but at least he has cool sisters!

Posted by Kristen at Wed Nov 16 2005 20:24

Speaking for myself, I think it might have something to do with laziness. I personally, having tasted the fruit of children, know I want 4, and maybe 5. However, I have to take it one day at a time too. Plus I am saying this when Lily is in bed. AND Lily is one of the easiest kids to raise. So how knows.

I am in no rush to have kids though. I mean I want them close enough to have similar interests at the same time growing up. But so many people pop them out one right after another, which is fine, but I am in no hurry to have them all and raise them and get them out of the house. I want to enjoy them, and I don't want to be an empty nester at 50 yrs old per se. Again, this is the now Kristen and I have more than once changed my mind, so we’ll see.

This topic interests me, b/c like you John, I have noticed these things as well.

Posted by John at Thu Nov 17 2005 15:58

I am going to assume this post is from Aaron; otherwise, Kristen has decided to refer to herself simultaneously in both alternating third and first person.

Posted by Susie at Fri Nov 18 2005 07:24

see, it says "the now Kristen" I told you.


BTW, I think you mean "Now that I am a Californian", not "in California" ;)

Posted by John at Fri Nov 18 2005 10:16

I think when I first read it I misinterpreted now to say how, and so thought it was someone else.

No, I DO mean now that I am in California. I am neither a Utahn (shudders, perishing the thought) nor a Californian. I'm somewhere in the middle. A loner, a rebel, a misfit.

Not really. I just choose not to make everything black and white (ie Republican or Democrat, Californian or Utahn). I am what I am, a nice shade of gray.

Posted by Susie at Fri Nov 18 2005 12:27

"I'm somewhere in the middle. A loner, a rebel, a misfit." A Nevadan.

Posted by Joe Walch at Mon Nov 21 2005 15:11

I agree with John. I feel that I am a sum of my experiences, and a good deal of my adult life was spent outside of Texas, and even though I identify myself with Texas, I also think that labels are too constricting to the mystical individual.

Just try to pinpoint the individual to a specific label, and all the efforts will invariably fail. That is why I don't automatically hate or love people from specific viewpoints--even people who drive around with "SoCal" written all over their trucks.

Posted by Kristen at Tue Nov 22 2005 09:54

That was me...Kristen


[Main] [Edit]

© 2003-2011 John Chadwick.