From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Date: 27 Sep 92 13:57:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bv8pF1.zq
Distribution: na

In article <1992Sep27.055748.22337@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins) writes:
>In article <Bv700u.5Jn@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep26.062058.6404@cbnewsc.cb.att.com> kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins) writes:
>> >In article <1992Sep14.155912.8637@ll.mit.edu>, yasu@ll.mit.edu (Alan Yasutovich) writes:
>> >> In article <1992Sep13.232121.6139@pensoft.uucp> jac@pensoft.uucp (James A. Carter) writes:
>> >> >
>> >> 
>> >> 	If I buy a hamburger, I expect to eat it.  If I buy clothes
>> >> 	I expect to wear them.  More specifically if I buy my kid a
>> >> 	toy, I expect to watch them play with it.
>> >> 
>> >> 	But out of sight is out of mind.
>> >
>> >But some of us learned object permanence when we were 0 year olds.
>> >
>> >You know, we spend a lot on our daughter, and I don't see that
>> >I get a lot back from most of it.  I don't get a lot out of watching
>> >her eat or wear her clothes and her diapers  or go to daycare.
>> >So, if I'm not getting anything
>> >out of it, and as far as I can tell, neither is her dad - after all,
>> >she's the one eating the food and wearing the clothes and playing
>> >with the toys and going to daycare - why don't we just stop paying
>> >for all this and spend our money on something we do personally get
>> >something out of, like clothes and food for ourselves?
>> 
>> >It seems to me the answer must be obvious to the first poster and
>> >oblivious to the second, that we do these things for our child, not
>> >for ourselves.
>> 
>> I spend money on my son for him +and+ for me.  I'm sorry you don't
>> get so much out of parenting.
>
>I'm sorry you don't understand the concept of irony.  My point is that
>food is for the person who eats it and clothes are for the person who
>wears them, not their parents or the people around them.  My kids
>don't stop needing food and clothes just because I'm not around to
>witness them eating and wearing them.  If I pack a lunch for my child
>to eat at school, do I somehow get less out of it than if she ate it
>at home, and what does that matter anyway?  Should she go hungry because
>I don't "get something" out of her eating?  Of course not.

Who suggested that she go hungry?  I would suggest that if
you were not permitted to see her because someone else had
"taken the reins," and you had no choice, then that person
ought also to take the responsibilities of meeting her needs.

>> >We love her.  We knew the job was dangerous when we took it.  We
>> >also knew that it was expensive and we signed on for that, too, as
>> >well as the task of putting her needs ahead of ours much of the time.
>> >Out of my sight doesn't mean she doesn't eat or need clothes or shoes
>> >or dental and medical care.
>> 
>> But did you "sign on," accepting that your child might never live with you?
>> Would you have made a different decision if somebody told you there
>> was a 50% chance that your child would live in another state?
>
>I signed on for whatever happened.  I signed on, knowing that she might
>be mentally or physically damaged at birth, and I would just have to take it.
>I signed on, knowing that I was making myself a hostage to whatever life
>would do to her, that she could die in an accident as a child or hate
>me as a teenager and not speak to me as an adult.  Obviously, you hope
>those things never happen to you, but the fact is that you know
>that they do happen to people just like you.  It was thoughts like the
>above that caused me to put off children for several years.  I knew
>people whose hearts were broken by what their children had done, people
>who had tried to be good parents and who loved their kids. 

>Believe
>me, there are worse things in parenthood than having your kids live
>in a different state, like not having them alive anywhere at all.

Of course there are worse things.  But that doesn't mean that
being forced to pay for a child that was forcibly taken from you
and whom you are not allowed to see (or only under difficult and
strained circumstances) is acceptable.

CP's (including parents in unbroken couples) ought to understand 
that part of the price of enjoying one's child is bearing the
responsibility for meeting his/her needs.

If you aren't permitted to enjoy one's child, why should you be
forced to pay?



>
>> >We pay big bucks to be parents, and diapers, school fees, clothes,
>> >food, or whatever you're giving to this person aren't free just
>> >because you all live together.  
>> 
>> No, but when you live together, you reap the benefits (clean, healthy,
>> well-fed, warm children).  When you live in another state, you reap
>> a bill.
>you, you, you.  What about your kids? Does it ever occur to you that
>they are reaping the benefits (being well fed, clean, healthy, warm)
>of your money, or doesn't that matter? Is it all the same to you
>whether they starve or eat, as long as you don't have to see it?
>
>The thing that bothers me about this whole discussion is that it seems
>to be centered on what people need from being parents.  What about
>what kids need from their parents?  I became a parent because I wanted
>a certain experience, but I didn't have the illusion that I could send
>this kid back or get out of it if I didn't get the experience that I
>wanted.
>
>The statement that most closely expresses my attitude about parenting
>is:
>
>1) as a parent, I have obligations to my children to take care of
>their needs
>
>or -
>2) my children have certain obligations to me to take
>care of my needs and desires
>
>I pick #1, what about you?  I love my daughter and I enjoy being her
>mother, but I remember being a child well enough to know that meeting
>my needs is not going to be her largest priority in life, nor should
>it.  Thank God (or whatever expression of relief/thankfulness/satisfaction
>that you prefer) that my parents and many other parents in this world
>do not abandon their children, either emotionally or financially,
>because they don't get what they want out of being a parent.
>
>Kate Perkins


-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: misc.kids