From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 15:50:53 GMT

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 we aren't willing to "sponsor" our kids for the rest of their life, not
>> >just until they are eighteen, then why the hell did we have them in the
>> >first place?
>> 
>> 	People *did* have kids with the idea of "sponsoring" them in
>> 	many cases.  There are however many parents who, weather it be
>> 	the passage of time or whatever, prefer to have the kids gone
>> 	when they grow up.
>> 
>> 	But that's not the issue.  *You*, a male in the unusual
>> 	position of being a CP, are writing/speaking like a maternal
>> 	CP.
>> 
>> 	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.


I get a *great* deal out of watching my 1-1/2 year old son eat,
try to put his clothes on or take them off, get them dirty playing,
talk to me while I change his diaper, and play with his friends
in daycare.

Every cent comes back to me.  I see nothing wrong with working
to earn money and then wanting (or demanding) to have the joyful 
returns from buying your child a toy.  What else is money for?
What else is life for?


>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.


>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?


>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.


>Kids aren't much of a financial
>investment.

Kids can be the best possible investment, especially if they love
their parents enough to take care of them in old age.  And kids have
very direct returns, if you enjoy their company.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged