# NY mag article Why Parents Hate Parenting



## Solose (May 10, 2008)

http://nymag.com/news/features/67024...st-viewed-24h5

I don't have time to type my rhoughts right now, but what do you all think? Is parenting a chore for you? If not, why do you think it is for so many parents in our society?


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

I think it all comes down to how you're defining "happiness", which the article gets to in the end. Yeah, raising children is hard work, and life with young children is filled with many moments of drudgery. But children give meaning to life- in the big picture, they're worth it.


----------



## Oriole (May 4, 2007)

Interesting article, and it kind of highlights what I thought all along...

* As a society, I think we "unlearned" to parent somehow. I believe it's in our genes, I believe it's in our instincts, but we stopped listening to our inner voice that guides us in parenting. That's not good. On top of everything, we have to figure out how this parenting fits in with the current demands of the society and what we see as "best" for our children. Why does this parent feel that doing homework is important? Certainly not because she hates her child.

* I think the way the work force is structured drains families. I don't have the answer for these problems, I am not suggesting people should quit their jobs and start spending time together, but I do think that 9 to 5 + overtime and stress takes toll on every member of the family. The providers, the homemakers, the children, everyone. Every person ends up feeling isolated and alone, and THAT's what leads to the feeling of being trapped and lonely and unhappy.

* I don't think women were meant to mother their children in a vacuum system. As it stands, the stress of providing adequate child-care for your baby drains that joy that could be parenthood for many families. It's tough. We are wired to nurture and protect, and yet have to make a choice: exhaust ourselves to fulfill that nurture and protect part, or go off to work and stress over who is nurturing and protecting our babies.

* The author of the article does point out that one of the studies on happiness showed that no one mentioned having children as one of the big life regrets, yet a few participants said they regretted never having a family. That says something, imho.


----------



## Solose (May 10, 2008)

I agree with a lot of what you said, Oriole. I think it really boils down to the fact that a lot of childcare advice and the conditions we live really don't mesh with how human beings have evolved. Babies just haven't gotten he memo that they are supposed to sleep in a crib and eat a certain amount of solids by a certain age







. Then parents get frustrated because they don't understand why babies arent acting like their pediatrician or childcare book said they are supposed to act. I also feel like there is a huge divide in our society between fun activities for kids and for adults. There is only one nice, non chain restaurant in my city that encourages children to come with parents, for example. The expectation is that you are either hanging out at a "kid-friendly" place like Chucky Cheese (sp?) or a playground or you get a baby sitter.


----------



## rightkindofme (Apr 14, 2008)

I feel like most of the things that are talked about as reasons why people are less happy as parents involve societal pressure to conform to specific ideals. I am already getting a lot of pressure to put my two year old into 'structured activities' and I think that is madness. Dude. We go to the playground. We hang out around the house doing chores. We see friends and spend lots of quiet mellow time together. My life is WAY less pressured than it used to be. I'm having a depression spell this pregnancy, but overall I've been much happier since I started parenting. (I do concede that my marriage isn't where I want it to be. I kind of figure that the first year or so of a babies life is just hard and that's why we are only having two kids and they are close together--we are getting this part over with.)

I'm a big fan of logotherapy and my child (soon to be children) add so much meaning to my life. That really can't be beat for me.


----------



## LavenderMae (Sep 20, 2002)

Oriole, I agree with much that you've written. I think much of the unhappiness and hardship of parenting comes from our societal standards for children, for men, for women, for parents, for work, for school...... We imo have got a lot of things backwards and it causes a lot of the problems we face as parents, partners and just people in general. I don't have any idea how we shift our culture but for me I try to live by what I feel is right and not worry so much about what I should be doing or how it should be done. That however does make the isolation worse...
For me being a mother has been so much more than I imagined both in joy and hardship. I had no idea raising children would be so isolating it seems so counter-intuitive but there it is. But being a mother is amazing and the best thing in my life and I can't imagine what could top it. I love my children with fierceness and purity that just isn't possible with anyone else.


----------



## ThisCat (Jun 19, 2010)

I think it was a pretty brilliant article. I could relate to so much of it. I love my kids and find parenting rewarding overall, but I really struggle with the day to day of it sometimes. I think a lot of it is the structure of modern life and societal pressures.


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

I agree with a lot of what Oriole said.

It's the type of article that I really and truly just don't *get*. Do I have down times? Do my kids drive me nuts sometimes? Am I sometimes impatient to get them to bed so I can do my own thing? Yep.

But I don't not like parenting. I can't think of anything I'd rather do.







Now, there are some choices we made as a family that contribute to that contentedness. How we live our life, the kinds of schedule we have, the expectations we have for life and for each other, etc. If I were already stressed, or busy-busy, and came home to a tantruming toddler, and that was a regular thing, I can see where I'd start feeling unhappy. And even when childless I've never yearned for the kind of life (parties, going out on the town, all kinds of fun stuff) that kids supposedly "ruin". So for me their existence is pretty much all gain and no loss.


----------



## Happiestever (May 13, 2007)

I struggle with the day to day too. However I see the greater picture when it comes to my kids. I think about when my kids are older and even further to when my children have children and how I will be able to hold my grandchildren like I hold mine now. There are definitely things I would like to be doing, but I would rather experience it with my loved ones in tow.

It's not so much a chore as it is plain hard work. But the rewards far out weigh the difficulties. I know for sure it would be easier if we lived in a society that paid for both parents to remain at home to raise babies into more able toddlers (at the minimum). I know for sure it would be easier if we all had a way to connect to get the help we so often need but cannot find. I know there is something I am missing in life and for me it is a sense of community- it takes a village- that is what I believe. Where is my village?
Even without all this though I still cherish every moment, even the hard ones because life is so short and I want family to share it with.


----------



## mamadelbosque (Feb 6, 2007)

I loved that article. I often wonder where I'd be *right now* if I hadn't gotten pregnant w/ ds1 4 yrs ago. But do I regret it? Not for a moment. I wouldn't change a darn thing if I could go back in time to just over 4 yrs ago and remind myself "hey stupid! tell your boyfriend to use a f'ing condom!!" I really wouldn't. I love my life - no, I'm not always having a great day - the boys can be quite trying at times, but overall they're good kids and I love them, and just... yeah.









But, acknowleding that parenting *IS* work is good - as much as I love it (most of the time







, it is work. And remembering that is good for everyone - for us moms, for our partners, and our families and the random people on the street who see us both when we're having a *GREAT* day and clearly loving life and our kids, and who see us having a *MISERABLE* day, dragging screaming, cranky kids who for whatever reason refused to nap and have thus been getting on our nerves (and their own!!) all. day. long. Just like maybe their co-worker was driving them crazy or a whole days worth of work just got lost cause' their computer crashed at the wrong moment, or they spilled coffee all over the brand new laptop, or whatever. Cause' crap happens. And we *ALL* have bad days, but its the big picture that matters.


----------



## spughy (Jun 28, 2005)

I thought it was a good article, particularly the part about how the lack of a social safety net causes *individual* stress and unhappiness, even among the middle-class and wealthy folk.

I also see that the people who are the least happy being parents are those who are trying the hardest to ensure that their kids "have every advantage" (ie, are scheduled 24/7 from age 2 or so). I limit my kid's scheduled stuff to no more than two once-a-week programs at any given time. Sure, it means she can't do ballet, music class, soccer, art and swimming all at once, but it also means that most days, there's not a lot of having to be somewhere, which means there's not a lot of "Get your shoes on. GET. YOUR. SHOES. ON. NOOOOWWWWWWWWW" stress either. If we go somewhere, it's to the playground across the street, where I can yak with a really good friend, who happens to be the mom of my dd's bff, and it's somewhere we both want to go.

The other thing I see that makes for unhappy parents is a lack of supportive extended family nearby. My DH's parents live in town and we spend a lot of time with them. They are always happy to have DD come and hang out with them, so if I have errands to run, DD can usually have a choice of whether to tag along or not. I also have a reciprocal child care arrangement with a neighbour, so that both of us can, once or twice a week, take a class, teach a class, or just get some stuff done that's more pleasurable or easier to complete without little hands to help. So, we've got our village.

And, DH and I planned for parenthood from the minute we got married. Before, actually. We knew we always wanted one of us to be able to stay home with any children, so we never got used to two incomes. Even when we had two, we just stashed the extra and continued to live like students. We'd seen so many of our friends both working and hating it, wanting to have a stay-at-home parent, but unable to do so and afford the mortgage. So, we had the kid first, and the mortgage came when we could afford it AND still have me stay home.

Also, I babysat a LOT as a teen, nannied, and taught school-age kids during university; I had a pretty good grasp on the range of child behaviour, and more or less knew what I was in for in terms of daily work. (The breastfeeding issues were a bit of a shocker though.) When our daughter turned out to be on the easy end of the spectrum for just about everything, I had enough perspective to know it, and not stress that she is stubborn as hell, occasionally repeats naughty things I say in front of grandma, and is prone to hysterical fits if woken from a nap. A lot of my friends had no exposure to children before having them, which frankly ought to be illegal. (kidding. sort of.)

And we are CONTENT. Not happy 100% of the time - every family has conflicts, bad days, chores nobody wants to do - but we feel like we're doing it right, for the most part. Some of that is our choices, some of it's just good fortune. And I wish every parent - especially the unhappy ones - could have as good a life as we do, imperfect as it is.


----------



## madskye (Feb 20, 2006)

It's an interesting article...for me, the "take away" was the line about parenting not creating minute by minute happiness but instead creating a larger, more conceptual happiness when you look at your life.

I completely agree with that. Minute by minute, I do get overwhelmed and stressed at being responsible feeding and clothing and transporting and physically and emotionally nurturing someone else.

But, I do actually think about building a family and creating memories and the fact that our family is BIGGER than just me--I love my DD tremendously, and I love the family we've created and that does give me happiness.

For me, if I focus on the grind and the stress--that's what it becomes all about. I need to focus on the good stuff in everything, not just parenting...but I am a glass half full kind of preson and always have been.


----------



## ThisCat (Jun 19, 2010)

I was just thinking it would have been interesting if they expanded on the issue of comparing ourselves to others and needing reference books to raise our kids the "right" way. Personally, I think the explosion of the parenting books market and the advent of the internet have done more harm than good in some ways. I mean it's nice to get the info you need about a particular issue or a little feedback from other parents sometimes, but the opportunity to compare your life to others has increased a billion times over not to mention the fact that what people are comparing themselves to may not even be real or at least it's only a tiny perfectly framed snapshot of an otherwise normal less than perfect life.


----------



## mamazee (Jan 5, 2003)

I agree with those who say that the problem, or at least it was for me when I was having problems being happy with parenthood, is having an exectation of perfection. Perfect diet, perfect toy choices, perfect sleep, perfect everything. At first I was very stressed. When I relaxed, things got a lot better for me.


----------



## tanyam926 (May 25, 2005)

This article really spoke to me and I thought it was well written in an honest but positive way.

I agree w/all of you so far; parenting is hard work. It's the most difficult thing I have ever done bc it's incredibley important to me and it requires more thought, patience, and presence on my part than anything I have ever done before. It is exhausting to be present (and of course I think I need improvement in this area), and to balance the needs and wants of everyone in the family.

We, as parents but especially mothers, have to fulfill so many roles on a daily basis that it's impossible for it to be fun all of the time. It takes so much thinking outside of ourselves, and not on our own schedule, and there is little control over the day to day things.

It's also exhausting to worry so much about being perfect and about what everyone else thinks. As I have grown older I have learned to let of unnattainable perfection so that I can enjoy my life more. However, it's much easier to throw caution to the wind w/my own life but more worrisome to think that I may be screwing up my kids and not even know it (I don't think that but the thought has crossed my mind a few times over the yrs...).

And I do enjoy my children on a daily basis. Bottom line, parents need more social support and less judgement, more blending of all areas of life, the ability to nurture oneself and the partner relationship w/out feeling guilty, and a shift in cultural thinking that values intuition and parenting instinctually.


----------



## One_Girl (Feb 8, 2008)

I enjoyed the article. Parenting is a lot of work and worry, especially if you have an idealized vision of the parent you want to be and are constantly comparing yourself to that. I agree that the worry about getting kids prepared for college does add a lot of stress, especially when you have to worry about how you are going to pay for health insurance and daycare on top of the enriching activities. I also like the end where it talks about glossing over the little horrible details and overemphasizing the peaceful ones.


----------



## Quinalla (May 23, 2005)

I think the article was pretty much spot on. I have seen a lot of parents who get so caught up in all the day to day things and making sure they've prepared their child as best they can that they are just so stressed and whatnot. And we definitely do spend more time with our children now than past generations, both mom and dad despite the fact that we also work more too! But we still feel that parental guilt that you can never spend enough time with them.

I am trying to do my best not to get caught in what I think of as the parenting comparison trap. You look around and see that your friend's baby or the babies at daycare are doing X, gee I better train my child to do that too, they are falling behind, ahhhh! You all know the drill. And it only gets worse once they are in school (I imagine anyway) when they are being graded on how well they learn things. I hope I can stick to my Mom's motto of "Did you try your best and did you learn something? Then the grade isn't that important."

I also am trying very hard to not fall into the guilt trap that I'm not spending enough time with my baby or that the time isn't of high enough quality and just enjoying it and making sure to give enough time to myself and my DH.


----------



## jeteaa (Jan 23, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Happiestever* 
I struggle with the day to day too. However I see the greater picture when it comes to my kids. I think about when my kids are older and even further to when my children have children and how I will be able to hold my grandchildren like I hold mine now. There are definitely things I would like to be doing, but I would rather experience it with my loved ones in tow.

I would think that most of the psychologists in this article would advise you to NOT set yourself up for disappointment. What if your dc DON'T want to have kids. What if they do, but live thousands of miles away from you and only see you once a year? What if the things that YOU want to experience, aren't what your loves ones want to experience?


----------



## hildare (Jul 6, 2009)

hmm..
on page 3, the article discusses that parents who have children later in life tend to know what they're giving up, etc. and i really disagree with that bit. i had dd when i was 36. while i cannot imagine what a strain it would have been to become a parent as a younger person, i feel as though waiting so long has made me a more grateful parent.
however, i do think i might not enjoy parenthood if i didn't have such an involved partner. sometimes it DOES drive me crazy to be unable to simply clean the house... i just think it's written for and from a perspective that isn't mine. i see parents out and about in stores, etc. who are CLEARLY not enjoying their children. it's not really news that some people aren't happy as parents. but, i tend to agree with oriele and others, that the reasons for unhappiness are because many people lack support and the expectations of mainstream society just don't fit with the reality of raising a child. the actual product differs from what you see on tv.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hildare* 
hmm..
on page 3, the article discusses that parents who have children later in life tend to know what they're giving up, etc. and i really disagree with that bit. i had dd when i was 36. while i cannot imagine what a strain it would have been to become a parent as a younger person, i feel as though waiting so long has made me a more grateful parent.

I was/am very grateful for my last three living children. I was actively trying to have a second child for a long, long time. That said...parenting was a whole lot easier when I was 24-25 than when I was 34-35. I have more money now (not financially "secure" in the on track for retirement sense...but at least able to pay the rent, buy food, do some extra and put away _some_ savings). I have a far more supportive partner. I'm also really, really tired, and it really is just a lot harder. I don't have any feeling of "knowing what I'm giving up"...but I do have a feeling of "I wish I'd been able to do this when I was younger and more energetic".

I haven't read the article, but I'm going to do that in a bit. It sounds interesting.


----------



## flower01 (Aug 1, 2007)

Interesting read. I have to say it sort of struck a chord on a couple points. First, since I got married and had kids I have had the most difficult struggles. I realize that I struggle with depression...and have for many years. I think the difference is that I had easy outlets before...the most difficult time dealing with my emotions was in college (when I was over-scheduled, exhausted, and poor) and now the same three things are in play. The easiest time of my life was when I was out of college, had a FT job, and had lots of free time to play and sleep! So, if I just look at that it's not that parenting makes me unhappy, it's that I have to figure out other ways to handle my sadness because sleep and free-time is harder to come by...but the same was true for me in college when I didn't have kids. The only thing different is now my mood affects other people, which is an added burden.

I guess the thing that's a little hard for me to get is how miserable they make parents sound. When my emotions are good, I am really happy...i love my husband, my kids and I love our life and the challenges are easy for me to take on. I always thought those were the "real" me. When I'm depressed feeling the same challenges are much more difficult...l guess what I'm getting at is are so many people depressed.

I think parenting is challenging, but I think my depression makes it especially hard.


----------



## ladymeag (Aug 11, 2005)

Nine hours a week alone together (according to the article, this is "average")? How many of you actually get that?

My husband and I get *ahem* "alone" time for about twenty minutes about once every three weeks, if we're lucky and work really, really hard for it. Regular alone time with just talking to each other? Doesn't happen. Ever.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ladymeag* 
Nine hours a week alone together (according to the article, this is "average")? How many of you actually get that?

My husband and I get *ahem* "alone" time for about twenty minutes about once every three weeks, if we're lucky and work really, really hard for it. Regular alone time with just talking to each other? Doesn't happen. Ever.

Our kids go to bed at 8 and we don't usually go to bed until 10, so we get a couple of hours together most nights. ETA: I just read your siggy and saw that you still have a bitty baby in the bed -- yes, it's very hard during that first year especially to get alone time with your partner.


----------



## CatsCradle (May 7, 2007)

Quote:

Nine hours a week alone together (according to the article, this is "average")? How many of you actually get that?
Come to think of it, DH and I have the timeslot of 10:30 pm to midnight to ourselves every evening, so it averages about 9 hours a week. The problem with this is that we must sacrifice sleep in order to do this, since we both get up at 5:30 am to start the day all over!

This is a timely article for me, although I think that the actual title on the cover of the magazine describes it better for me: "I love my children. I hate my life." While it is an exaggeration to say that I hate my life, parenthood has definitely magnified my inadequacies and that makes me really depressed sometimes. Pre-child, I coasted along beautifully even when I wasn't trying, and I was only responsible for myself. Now there is this other human being to consider. DH and I love DD with all our being but there are days when I feel really inadequate, and that takes its toll. Plus, there is so much information available to us right now concerning the "right" way to raise a child, and it is tough to look past that information and do what you, personally, feel is right.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ladymeag* 
Nine hours a week alone together (according to the article, this is "average")? How many of you actually get that?

My husband and I get *ahem* "alone" time for about twenty minutes about once every three weeks, if we're lucky and work really, really hard for it. Regular alone time with just talking to each other? Doesn't happen. Ever.

Our kids go to bed at 7 pm and wake up at 6 am so we get about...four hours a night alone together not counting sleep time. I get sick of him though and hang on the computer once in awhile.







So for us it's more like 28 hours of alone time per week. Of course much less when we have a nursling but I do not currently have one. hehe.


----------



## lovingmommyhood (Jul 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CatsCradle* 

This is a timely article for me, although I think that the actual title on the cover of the magazine describes it better for me: "I love my children. I hate my life." While it is an exaggeration to say that I hate my life, parenthood has definitely magnified my inadequacies and that makes me really depressed sometimes. Pre-child, I coasted along beautifully even when I wasn't trying, and I was only responsible for myself. Now there is this other human being to consider. DH and I love DD with all our being but there are days when I feel really inadequate, and that takes its toll. Plus, there is so much information available to us right now concerning the "right" way to raise a child, and it is tough to look past that information and do what you, personally, feel is right.

THIS. Yes yes yes!


----------



## ThisCat (Jun 19, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ladymeag* 
Nine hours a week alone together (according to the article, this is "average")? How many of you actually get that?

We do plus some. Our kids are usually asleep by 7PM, so we get a few hours each night to ourselves. Plus we don't co-sleep anymore unless my daughter has a bad dream or one of them is sick or something.

There have been times when they were tiny that it was more like zero hours alone together. And I guess when they get older and are staying up later, our alone time will decrease once again, that is until they reach adolescence and don't want to have anything to do with us.


----------



## newbymom05 (Aug 13, 2005)

I thought it was an interesting article, although a little depressing. I'm a big fan of the writer/psychologist William Doherty and in one of his books he discusses how the US used to have an institutional family model, meaning the family came first and was the center of public and private life. Everyone got married, everyone had a family, that's what you did, and the family was the most important thing. He used the example of the spinster daughter, intentionally not marrying so she could care for her parents. Can you imagine that today?!?

Anyway, in the 60's the family started to evolve into what he calls the psychological family, in which the individual came first. This was of course a radical change, and it impacted everything to attitudes towards marriage and divorce to attitudes towards grandchildren and helping out. So many posters (myself included) have parents who are interested in their g'children, but only as long as it doesn't interfere w/ their own personal happiness.

So IMO, this NYT article is just more of the same. People are happy or unhappy based on their own individual experience, rather than the family's success and/or happiness. A PP wrote, she's "content"--to me, that's representational of the institutional family model. The person who is unhappy or discontent b/c she would rather be out w/ friends or not stuck doing laundry every day, that person is following the psychological family model. Sure, the family is healthy and running smoothly, but at a personal cost (parental labor) that is unacceptable to the individual.

It's harder to be a parent today for all the reasons others have mentioned--lack of support, 2 income families, longer work hours, more hands on parenting, etc--but I think the psychological family model plays a role as well. If you expect yourself to be "happy" by society's definition, the labor of parenthood is going to seem overly onerous.


----------



## ladymeag (Aug 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *limabean* 
Our kids go to bed at 8 and we don't usually go to bed until 10, so we get a couple of hours together most nights. ETA: I just read your siggy and saw that you still have a bitty baby in the bed -- yes, it's very hard during that first year especially to get alone time with your partner.

Okay, so I'm not completely out of my mind that it would be near impossible to manage nine hours a week at this stage? *phew* I read that and thought "What? Who gets more than an hour a day?! Who gets an hour a day?!" I know things will change some when he's a little older. We know a couple that has a co-sleeping three year old and she wakes up at 5 am every morning, naps mid-day for a few hours (wife is a WAHM, works during this time; husband at work) and goes to bed around 11 to midnight - so they don't get any time, either. I guess I assumed we'd be waiting a long, long time before things would change.


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newbymom05* 
I thought it was an interesting article, although a little depressing. I'm a big fan of the writer/psychologist William Doherty and in one of his books he discusses how the US used to have an institutional family model, meaning the family came first and was the center of public and private life. Everyone got married, everyone had a family, that's what you did, and the family was the most important thing. He used the example of the spinster daughter, intentionally not marrying so she could care for her parents. Can you imagine that today?!?

Except...that is *simply not true*. Everyone did NOT get married. Everyone did NOT have a family. And MOST people could NOT put the "family first" in the sense that we think of today--they had to put survival first. If that meant treating the children with what most today would consider neglect in order to tend the field or go to outside employment (par for the course and always has been for the lower classes in the US), so be it. If children had to wait until their late 20s in order to get their inheritance and then be eligible for marriage, so be it. If people lived together in common law "marriage" so be it.

It's harder to imagine the "spinster daughter" of those days because women thankfully have other options available to them even if they do not marry. They may hold property, start a business, ect. Marriage is also not the business deal that once it was, so people can marry for other reasons than to increase property/wealth holdings or protect them.

But this does speak to part of the angst in the article though. I think for all our protestations of how "the family" isn't valued "like it was in those days", we tend to have more problems with overromanticization and accepting cultural mythology as fact. People apply the practices of the upper class Victorians to all families (when they comprised a VERY small minority). Or people apply the (heavily edited by her daughter) "memoirs" of someone as total factual representations. People glorify noble savage type of views. People think that advertising and TV shows from the 1950s were accurate representation and not carefully commerically cultivated bills of goods. Ect.

Newbymom, believe it or not, divorce skyrocketed in the 1950s and increased more then than it did in the 1960s. There are a variety of reasons for that. It was the 1950s where the cultural consumerist revolution took place. While one can't say definitively there's a causal relationship there, I do think that an increase in "Buy buy buy you need this to be happy" and "Look at this model of what happiness is, if you don't have it, then you suck and your family is a failure" had a huge impact.

I don't think there has ever been a period of American life (and I'll bet none in Canada or Europe or anywhere else) where family life has been easy. I think people today have a greater expectation that it should be fun, easy, and/or effortless though--a combination of overromanticization with a *heavy* dose of commercialism IMO.


----------



## Happiestever (May 13, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jeteaa* 
I would think that most of the psychologists in this article would advise you to NOT set yourself up for disappointment. What if your dc DON'T want to have kids. What if they do, but live thousands of miles away from you and only see you once a year? What if the things that YOU want to experience, aren't what your loves ones want to experience?

My ideas are obviously not set in stone. If they don't want kids, fine, that's their choice. And being someone that lives far away from family with a husband that does have his family thousands of miles away I can say with absolute certainty that what we may want now may change. Again- the bigger picture idea. My kids may have other ideas when they are older but for now I will love taking my kids to the beach, camping, on vacations to Africa and there is no way I would change that. EVER. I may only have a few years with them, who knows right? Why should I let what other people say I should feel/do dictate how I live? I love having a family, and I know my life is fuller.


----------



## mamadelbosque (Feb 6, 2007)

We probably get 1-3 hours a night to ourselves - ds1 goes to bed ~8:30-9 most nights and ds2 is generally 'out' enough that I can go lay him down by 9-10pm too. We're generally up till 11 or even 12 so we usually get at least one hour a night to oursleves... though this only started a couple months ago when ds2 stated being OK w/ being layed down by his lonesome


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Oriole* 
* The author of the article does point out that one of the studies on happiness showed that no one mentioned having children as one of the big life regrets, yet a few participants said they regretted never having a family. That says something, imho.









Yes, it says that it is still taboo in our society to admit regretting having children.


----------



## Ornery (May 21, 2007)

Hmm. A lot to think about. I've never not had kids (had my oldest boy at 16) so I may feel very differently than others. I've never had the ability to just pick up and do what I want to do as an adult so maybe I missed all that angst? It just seems normal to me. I had my son before my marriage so I can't even imagine it just being myself and my DH.

I know that parenting felt like hard drudgery for me when I was a single WOHM trying to get my career going and going to college. There were times that I enjoyed parenting, but overall I would say that I really didn't. I loved my son but everything was just so hard. My life was full of things that I had to do and there was very little time for things I wanted to do.

Now that I am home (going to college again after 6 years as a SAHM), there are times where parenting is hard but overall I really enjoy it. Life flows at a much slower pace. I've really pared down the list of things that I feel I "have" to do.

I also surround myself with people who enjoy children and enjoy their children. My friends are invaluable. When I didn't have them, I was totally lost.


----------



## Jugs (Mar 18, 2009)

I like the article. Sure, its a little depressing... but I think we do a disservice when we're not honest with ourselves and each other about the realities of parenting. Its *okay* to not always be deliriously happy as a mom. Its *okay* to want/need/expect a little breathing room. I'm not a bad mom when, on a really bad day, I think to myself "Why did I have children??" The moment I finally accepted this was quite freeing for me, and actually helped me realize that its my own fault that I never pictured parenting beyond the cuddly newborn stage; I smugly believed that all of those "out-of-control" kids in the store were the product of lazy, indulgent parents. Man, have I ever eaten my fair share of humble pie!

Quote:

"They're a huge source of joy, but they turn every other source of joy to shit."
I totally feel this way sometimes.

Quote:

Loving one's children and loving the act of parenting are not the same thing.


----------



## Jugs (Mar 18, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newbymom05* 
So IMO, this NYT article is just more of the same. People are happy or unhappy based on their own individual experience, rather than the family's success and/or happiness. A PP wrote, she's "content"--to me, that's representational of the institutional family model. The person who is unhappy or discontent b/c she would rather be out w/ friends or not stuck doing laundry every day, that person is following the psychological family model. Sure, the family is healthy and running smoothly, but at a personal cost (parental labor) that is unacceptable to the individual.

I think that only becomes a problem when the family forgets that _individuals_ have needs, too; respecting those needs is what ultimately helps the _family_ to thrive. Personally, I'm at my worst when I feel like my family has forgotten that I'm not just some Mom Blob; I'm a person with individual needs and interests, who needs nurturing just as much as my husband and children do.


----------



## CatsCradle (May 7, 2007)

Quote:

I think that only becomes a problem when the family forgets that individuals have needs, too; respecting those needs is what ultimately helps the family to thrive. Personally, I'm at my worst when I feel like my family has forgotten *that I'm not just some Mom Blob*; I'm a person with individual needs and interests, who needs nurturing just as much as my husband and children do.
I love this...especially the bolded part!

I think that there has to be a balance between care of family and care of self. I think that I find myself the most unhappy when this balance is out of whack.


----------



## newbymom05 (Aug 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tigerchild* 
Except...that is *simply not true*. Everyone did NOT get married. Everyone did NOT have a family. And MOST people could NOT put the "family first" in the sense that we think of today--they had to put survival first. If that meant treating the children with what most today would consider neglect in order to tend the field or go to outside employment (par for the course and always has been for the lower classes in the US), so be it. If children had to wait until their late 20s in order to get their inheritance and then be eligible for marriage, so be it. If people lived together in common law "marriage" so be it.

It's harder to imagine the "spinster daughter" of those days because women thankfully have other options available to them even if they do not marry. They may hold property, start a business, ect. Marriage is also not the business deal that once it was, so people can marry for other reasons than to increase property/wealth holdings or protect them.

But this does speak to part of the angst in the article though. I think for all our protestations of how "the family" isn't valued "like it was in those days", we tend to have more problems with overromanticization and accepting cultural mythology as fact. People apply the practices of the upper class Victorians to all families (when they comprised a VERY small minority). Or people apply the (heavily edited by her daughter) "memoirs" of someone as total factual representations. People glorify noble savage type of views. People think that advertising and TV shows from the 1950s were accurate representation and not carefully commerically cultivated bills of goods. Ect.

Newbymom, believe it or not, divorce skyrocketed in the 1950s and increased more then than it did in the 1960s. There are a variety of reasons for that. It was the 1950s where the cultural consumerist revolution took place. While one can't say definitively there's a causal relationship there, I do think that an increase in "Buy buy buy you need this to be happy" and "Look at this model of what happiness is, if you don't have it, then you suck and your family is a failure" had a huge impact.

I don't think there has ever been a period of American life (and I'll bet none in Canada or Europe or anywhere else) where family life has been easy. I think people today have a greater expectation that it should be fun, easy, and/or effortless though--a combination of overromanticization with a *heavy* dose of commercialism IMO.

I did a poor job explaining the model. I wasn't romanticizing either. Neither model is superior to the other, they're just radically different. The institutional model had many flaws, which is why the psychological family model emerged. It emerged in the 50's+, hence the rise in divorce rates. Commercialism and the psychological family are intrinsically linked.

I mentioned the spinster daughter not b/c that was anything to emulate, but b/c of the difference in societal expectations. That women have choices now wasn't my point. My point was that the family was paramount, even to the point of its members sacrificing their personal happiness. A woman who deserted her parents would be looked at negatively, but now the opposite is true and a woman who ignores her own personal needs for the collective is pitied.

I'm not saying one is better than the other, and certainly as a woman I'm glad I"m not expected to be my parents' nurse. But IMO, a society that values the family over the person makes it easier to be part of a family with all the struggles collective living entails. If you're in an abusive or restrictive personal relationship, the psychological family model makes it easier to dissolve your family and that may be a good thing in itself. But for people in healthy relationships, there's a definite lack of societal support outside of "everyone's needs must be met."

In a collective, that's difficult if not impossible, and I think a lot of parents are stressed by these competing ideas: I must work to create a peaceful home and ideal family vs I must be personally fulfilled, and of course the idea that everyone be fulfilled, including children, adds to the demands on parents.

Again, I"m not romanticizing any particular time period or family model, just trying to point out that the current model puts demands on parents that add to the stress of being part of a family and being a parent.


----------



## newbymom05 (Aug 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jugs* 
I think that only becomes a problem when the family forgets that _individuals_ have needs, too; respecting those needs is what ultimately helps the _family_ to thrive. Personally, I'm at my worst when I feel like my family has forgotten that I'm not just some Mom Blob; I'm a person with individual needs and interests, who needs nurturing just as much as my husband and children do.

Yes, and that's what I'm talking about, how the new model has added to our stress. It's bad enough to now be focused on your *own* happiness. It wasn't really an issue before psychoanalysis, y/k? Physical needs like food, shelter, health, yes, but mental, emotional and social needs are a new addition. A good one, but a recent one, relatively speaking. So it's bad enough that you have to worry that *you* are personally fulfilled via images in media, friends, etc., but you--especially women IMO--have to worry about the rest of the family's mental health and personal fulfillment as well, and many times, esp where children are concerned, their needs are going to directly conflict w/ the caregiver's needs. This is an extra burden that people just didn't have a century ago because it wasn't on anyone's radar.

I hope I"m explaining myself, my needs for quiet time are conflicting with my kids' need for attention, lol. Just want to clarify that I think the individual's personal physical/social/emotional needs should be met, balanced, etc, just feel that it's difficult to do in reality.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThisCat* 
We do plus some. Our kids are usually asleep by 7PM, so we get a few hours each night to ourselves. Plus we don't co-sleep anymore unless my daughter has a bad dream or one of them is sick or something.

There have been times when they were tiny that it was more like zero hours alone together. And I guess when they get older and are staying up later, our alone time will decrease once again, that is until they reach adolescence and don't want to have anything to do with us.









My oldest is 17. When he's home, dh and I get _very_ little alone time, because he hangs out in the living room, not his room, most of the time. I love having him around, but the mix of ages of our kids, and their slightly later bedtime (8:30/9:00) doesn't leave a lot of alone time. That will probably get better when dd2 is a little older, though.


----------



## texmati (Oct 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Oriole* 

* I don't think women were meant to mother their children in a vacuum system. As it stands, the stress of providing adequate child-care for your baby drains that joy that could be parenthood for many families. It's tough. We are wired to nurture and protect, and yet have to make a choice: exhaust ourselves to fulfill that nurture and protect part, or go off to work and stress over who is nurturing and protecting our babies.

It's a hard, hard road for women in this country. I look at how children were raised in joint families and such in India, and it was easier. literally easier, less draining ect. I think in general, as a country, we raise our children the hard way.


----------



## Surfacing (Jul 19, 2005)

subbing to come back later and read


----------



## Smokering (Sep 5, 2007)

I think this is one of the most brilliant pieces of journalism I've ever read. Really.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tigerchild* 
Except...that is *simply not true*. Everyone did NOT get married. Everyone did NOT have a family. And MOST people could NOT put the "family first" in the sense that we think of today--they had to put survival first. If that meant treating the children with what most today would consider neglect in order to tend the field or go to outside employment (par for the course and always has been for the lower classes in the US), so be it. If children had to wait until their late 20s in order to get their inheritance and then be eligible for marriage, so be it. If people lived together in common law "marriage" so be it.

It's harder to imagine the "spinster daughter" of those days because women thankfully have other options available to them even if they do not marry. They may hold property, start a business, ect. Marriage is also not the business deal that once it was, so people can marry for other reasons than to increase property/wealth holdings or protect them.

But this does speak to part of the angst in the article though. I think for all our protestations of how "the family" isn't valued "like it was in those days", we tend to have more problems with overromanticization and accepting cultural mythology as fact. People apply the practices of the upper class Victorians to all families (when they comprised a VERY small minority). Or people apply the (heavily edited by her daughter) "memoirs" of someone as total factual representations. People glorify noble savage type of views. People think that advertising and TV shows from the 1950s were accurate representation and not carefully commerically cultivated bills of goods. Ect.

Newbymom, believe it or not, divorce skyrocketed in the 1950s and increased more then than it did in the 1960s. There are a variety of reasons for that. It was the 1950s where the cultural consumerist revolution took place. While one can't say definitively there's a causal relationship there, I do think that an increase in "Buy buy buy you need this to be happy" and "Look at this model of what happiness is, if you don't have it, then you suck and your family is a failure" had a huge impact.

I don't think there has ever been a period of American life (and I'll bet none in Canada or Europe or anywhere else) where family life has been easy. I think people today have a greater expectation that it should be fun, easy, and/or effortless though--a combination of overromanticization with a *heavy* dose of commercialism IMO.

Well said. (I especially like the jab at the certain author).

And don't forget that the spinster daughter's role was important because there were no pensions, so social security, no medical insurance, no nursing homes. I think that most of us will be more than willing to help our parents out when they need it, but equally happy that we will not be required to completely support their every need once they are no longer able to support themselves.

As to the instinctual parenting that was discussed earlier in this thread, I think there's a good amount of research that there is no parenting instinct in higher primates and humans. It's purely learned, from communal living. Part one of the problems with this is that many people in our generation have absolutely no experience with babies and young children. And starting in the 1930s, child rearing became heavily medicalized and a lot of really, really bad advice was given to about two generations of mothers. How many of us here have mothers and grandmothers telling us to start solids at 3 weeks or to put baby on a strict 2 hour schedule at birth?

I feel like most people in our generation of mothers are completely relearning how to parent and feel completely lost because we get so much conflicting advice: we're primed to listen to advice from the older females in our pack, but there's so much other information telling us to do the opposite. I think that a lot of unhappiness comes from this: we all want to do parenting the right way, but I feel that, as a culture, we're trying to re-learn what the right way is. And it's sometimes like being the proverbial blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat.


----------



## MamatoA (Oct 28, 2009)

The NY Magazine article was crap. I thought this writer really hit the nail on the head with her short, pithy response. http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet...ing/index.html


----------



## MamatoA (Oct 28, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *newbymom05* 
I thought it was an interesting article, although a little depressing. I'm a big fan of the writer/psychologist William Doherty .

Funny you should mention that. I attend the same church as Bill Doherty and emailed the article to him when I saw it yesterday. His response was less than glowing. I don't have his permission to repeat what he wrote but it suffice to say that he was not wowed by its argument.


----------



## mamadelbosque (Feb 6, 2007)

Well, I loved the article, but I also have to smile and largely agree w/ the response in Salon. I really do think that the vast majority of moms & dads over annyalize every little thing that their kid(s) do ro don't do... and drive themselves batty over it - if its not 100% organic, its awful. If they're getting anything less than straight A's they must need tutoring. If they are anywhere but the 40-60th percentiles they must be borderline anorexic or fat. If they don't talk by 18 months, they must be delayed. Etc. It just gets riduculous - some of the threads around here and on other parenting boards are just freaking nuts.


----------



## lach (Apr 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamatoA* 
The NY Magazine article was crap. I thought this writer really hit the nail on the head with her short, pithy response. http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet...ing/index.html

I liked the Salon article too.

I thought it was interesting how several commenters attacked the author for having a lactation consultant. I'd bet money that most of them don't actually know what a lactation consultant is or why anyone could possible need one, and assume it's to get your child in the 99th percentile of breastfeeding. But I know I would have been completely lost without the lactation consultants at my hospital, and "get a good lactation consultant" is a default suggestion here and even on more mainstream parenting boards. Why? Because there is nothing "instinctual" for the mother about breastfeeding. Yes, it's a reflex for the infant to suck anything it can get its mouth near, but there is no coded knowledge in our genes that the baby should be sucking on the areola or what do to about chapped nipples or in case of a bad latch, inverted nipples, thrush, mastitis, or any of the other hundred things both minor and big that can cause problems with breastfeeding. Those things have to be taught, and many of us are completely lost when presented with a newborn. Though I don't know anyone who didn't breastfeed (at least originally), I was the first of my friends to have a baby and I had never even seen a baby breastfeed before my daughter was born. My mother did it 30 years ago, but it's not like I remember.

This is just using breastfeeding as an example, but I think that it is a perfect one of the different forces pushing and pulling parents. All of the literature says breast is best, and most mothers in the US intend to breastfeed. But most probably know very little about breastfeeding: and ignorance about how to provide basic sustenance for your child doesn't exactly make you feel good about yourself. Grandma is saying "breastfeeding is for poor people!" and Mom is saying "Oh just supplement. It never did you any harm." Your friends are saying "hire a lactation consultant!" (don't diapers already cost enough without hiring the baby an entourage?) parts of the internet are saying "you're an awful mother if you don't breastfeed! Try harder, even if you don't know what you're doing!" and then other parts are saying that lactation consultants are apparently something that only rich Brooklynites need to get their kids into fancy New York pre-schools. Meanwhile, the baby's crying and you haven't slept a full night in months.

What's there to be happy about in the above situation?


----------



## txbikegrrl (Jul 20, 2006)

Good example above. Also I'd like to add that I identify with much in the article and I don't overschedule or stress about being the best. DS was not speaking at 18 months so ped suggested ECI but I waited knowing DS understood us but just seemed not ready to speak. He wasn't frustrated so I decided to wait a few more months. He had a language explosion 2 months later. Nothing wrong with early services though honestly why not get the eval? Because I was in the first tri and busiest time at work which also influenced my decision to wait. It's a balancing act and when both parents work FT and have no family within 1000 miles. On a related note DH and I really need just a little couple time but can't afford a sitter for date night which is what is always recommended here and elsewhere... Staying at home does not work for us we want/need to get out but it's just not possible now...


----------



## Lady Mayapple (Apr 26, 2010)

The day to day is hard work, but I am lucky to have different perspectives that make me grateful to be a parent. Many of my colleagues and co workers are younger than me or much older with no children. The young people seem dissatisfied and disorganized, and some of the older folks also seem dissatisfied or rather immature considering their age. I had a professor once who randomly spilled her heart out to me about not finding the right person, getting married too late, spending too much time on her career. and now it's too late to have children. I was shocked because she was the type who, when asked if she has children or is planning on having them, replies with a disgusted "Ohhh no no I would never have children", and still does. But as I found out, it's a front for how she really feels about it. I told her she shouldn't feel badly, after all she has dedicated her life to teaching young people and passing on her gifts and sharing them with a new generation. To me, that is what's important, and having children is not the best or only way to accomplish that.

I made a conscious choice to have children when I was young, and I am glad I didn't wait. I think waiting and spending all of my 20's just partying and doing whatever it is all my 20-something friends do would have made becoming a parent that much harder. When my kids go off to college, I'll be just shy of 40 and have the rest of my life to enjoy.

I will say this: Being a parent turned me into the person I wanted to be. There is sense, not just of accomplishment but of completion. I often must remind myself that when I am feeling like I hate being a parent, that those emotions are being fed by artificial, outside sources. Our society degrades what was once the respected position of Parent, particularly Mother. Young women are expected to spend a decade or more in university, working their way up the corporate ladder, or transforming into fabulous entrepreneurs like Oprah or Suze Orman. If women make the decision to have children instead, society turns its back and treats them like second class citizens. Perhaps this is a regional thing, but where I live people seem to think that all parents are single moms on welfare and Section 8 who pop out babies like gumballs to collect another paycheck, or irresponsible teenagers who are "playing house". Normal, hardworking families like mine seem to be lost in the fray and lumped into these categories. In other words, only the "lower class" people have children. Upper class people just "don't do that". It could be funny if the statistics didn't reflect it. More middle and upper middle class people are deciding NOT to have children, which is a tragedy in my eyes. Well-to-do, highly educated people are PRECISELY the kinds of people our country needs to be rearing children. But that's a whole 'nother ball of wax for another day.


----------



## spedteacher30 (Nov 20, 2005)

Basically, I don't think happiness comes from situational factors. If you are a happy, self-actualized person, you will be happy with kids, happy without kids, happy with a great job, happy with a cruddy job, happy married, happy single.

if you are unhappy and not fulfilled internally, you will be unhappy with kids, unhappy without kids, unhappy with a great job, unhappy with a cruddy job, unhappy married, unhappy single.

Having a baby/getting married/getting a college degree, etc will not change your fundamental outlook.


----------



## spughy (Jun 28, 2005)

Another thing worth pointing out is that happy, contented families are typically those who focus more on actual interactions with their kids, family dinners at home, cutting back work hours or having one parent stay home. These parents are probably less likely to spend money on kids' extracurricular programs, gadgetry, etc... in short, happy contented families are, I suspect, not really good for an economy based on consumer spending.


----------



## ThisCat (Jun 19, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lady Mayapple* 
When my kids go off to college, I'll be just shy of 40 and have the rest of my life to enjoy.

I'm just shy of 40 and have a four year old and a one year old, and I have the rest of my life to enjoy too.







I don't feel waiting till I was in my 30s to have kids made parenting harder on an emotional level. Even on a physical level, I don't think it mattered with my first. I do feel a bit more tired now with my second, but I'm not sure that's due to age or just having two kids and being a bit worn out from two pregnancies, nearly five years of breastfeeding, and sort of unconsciously putting my physical well being on the back burner since becoming a mother.

Anyway, while I liked the article overall, I strongly disagreed with the psychologist that theorized that delaying becoming a parent leads to more dissatisfaction. I can see advantages and disadvantages to having kids on the younger side and the older side and everywhere in between. I don't think there is a one size fits all answer and think people should just have them when they're ready. I know lots of parents of young children who are in their 30s and even 40s and a few in their 20s, and no group seems any more or less satisfied with parenthood than any other.


----------



## staceychev (Mar 5, 2005)

I love MDC! Some really great, thoughtful responses.

I agree with the PP who said about being "content" rather than happy. Having battled depression in my earlier life, I'm not looking for a specific happiness that seems untenable to maintain in the long run. I'm quite pleased with general contentment coupled with random intervals of feeling blessed.

And, I agree with the PP who talked about having children later. DH and I were just talking about this. I don't know what it's like to be a younger mom, so I don't miss the energy, but I do know what it's like to go to grad school, and move to NYC, and go to lots of restaurants and bars and hear live music several nights a week. I had a good, extended youth, and I don't feel any regrets.

OK. Gotta finish the article!


----------



## mambera (Sep 29, 2009)

Am I bizarre because I find motherhood *more* fulfilling and enjoyable than I expected it to be?










And yeah, I'm on the older side (lived in NYC from ages 17-29, had DD at 31) so it's not like I don't know what it's like to go to a bar. I would 1000x rather have a ticklefest with DH and DD than go to a bar.


----------



## NellieKatz (Jun 19, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *spughy* 
Another thing worth pointing out is that happy, contented families are typically those who focus more on actual interactions with their kids, family dinners at home, cutting back work hours or having one parent stay home. These parents are probably less likely to spend money on kids' extracurricular programs, gadgetry, etc... in short, happy contented families are, I suspect, not really good for an economy based on consumer spending.

Wow, you said a mouthful there, and very succinctly! And that's our family. I dropped out of the workforce to be a SAHM/WAHM/HSing Mom. We therefore have next to no money. But we're suspicious of overcommercialism and the school system anyway....so we are bad "consumers" of all that's being peddled. (unless you count yard sales, art supply stores and farmers' markets...then look out!) 

But we don't miss most of the consuming because for the most part we don't want it.

But we ARE loving watching this little new human of ours grow up. I think that a common mistake people make is thinking that they're racing toward some kind of parenting GOAL that is "out there" in the future. Like "success in a great college" or something, or some kinds of test scores or trophies or programs and then they race through hoops and all kinds of stress and put all kinds of pressures on themselves to HAVE and to DO and to BE something that someone's telling them to have/do/be, and they trash their present-day to achieve this thing that is to happen "later." The old phrase "be here now" is a good one.

And I thought the mom in the article sounded like a psycho, with the confrontational, violent and unwise way in which she dealt with her son on the video game. That approach looked like a sure-fire recipe for round-the-clock strife; who wouldn't be unhappy in that sort of environment!?

Oh well I better get back to work. Hope I was coherent after all my editing and re-editing.


----------



## CatsCradle (May 7, 2007)

Quote:

Wow, you said a mouthful there, and very succinctly! And that's our family. I dropped out of the workforce to be a SAHM/WAHM/HSing Mom. We therefore have next to no money. But we're suspicious of overcommercialism and the school system anyway....so we are bad "consumers" of all that's being peddled. (unless you count yard sales, art supply stores and farmers' markets...then look out!) 

But we don't miss most of the consuming because for the most part we don't want it.
I agree with the premise that consumerism is part of the western problem. But as a WOHM, the real problem for me lies in the work culture itself. The inflexibility of corporate culture leads to the never ending black hole of trying to achieve balance (for both moms and dads of all economic stations). As much as I think that things have gotten better over the years, the concept of family life is still very undervalued. That is my primary area of discontent. It was easy to meet my own needs. It was pretty easy to meet our respective needs when we got married. Meeting the needs of children, however, who are entirely dependant on you for EVERYTHING, that is a different story. It is a huge shock to the system.

Regarding the issue of "older parents." I didn't have DD until I was 42 and frankly, it has reinvigorated me as well as made me overwhelmingly exhausted...if that makes sense. Frankly, I don't see how anyone, no matter what age, can be better prepared for parenting. Raising a human being is hard work no matter how wise or experienced you think you are. Nothing can prepare you for that task.

Maybe the real issue here is over-analyzation. We have more information available to us than in any other age, and conflicting information to boot. I think that when we reach the ability to put survival issues aside (like foraging for food and shelter and warmth), humans tend to turn to philosophical issues. Those pesky brains of ours!


----------

