From: kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins)
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 05:57:48 GMT
Followup-To: misc.kids
Summary: the concept of irony

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.
> 
> >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.

> >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
From: karlf@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com (Karl Fengler)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 21:51:11 GMT
Subject: Dating Mom with kids, 11 and 14......!!
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise, ID