![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
madrobinsIt should come as no surprise to anyone that I am, um, the mother of two. That this is sometimes a challenge. That there are occasional moments when I think of the spa treatments and trips to Europe I could be enjoying, were it not for things like Avocado's makeup-habit and related expenses. That I have occasionally thought of throwing the kids out the window (starting when Sarcasm Girl was only 6 weeks old. I am that hardcore). And that I love my daughters fiercely and would not trade them for a month of chocolate covered diamond Sundays.
So this morning![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jaylake linked to an article in Time: "Kid Crazy: Why We Exaggerate the Joys of Parenthood." I don't think I exaggerate the joys of parenthood. I think I'm pretty realistic about the expense and stress, but I do appreciate the benefits (and yes, there are benefits). And this article, while it appears to be based in a series of psychology studies, seems to me to be veering weirdly all over the place, like a car driven by someone trying to swat a wasp.
"Here's how cognitive-dissonance theory works when applied to parenting: having kids is an economic and emotional drain. It should make those who have kids feel worse. Instead, parents glorify their lives. They believe that the financial and emotional benefits of having children are significantly higher than they really are." Some parents do. Those are very likely the same people who call babies "a precious blessing" and coo about how much more special than every other special snowflake in the world their special snowflakes are. But most of the parents I know had some notion the job was dirty when they took it, and they took it on anyway. I don't believe biological imperative is the only reason people have kids; some of the other reasons may not make much sense to me, but they're reasons. And I am a firm believer that those who don't want to parent should not parent. Period. I don't care if you're the Last Plantagenet, and your family tree will wither and die if your DNA is not given a chance to express itself. Don't want to deal with kids? Your choice, and a good one, and no one should try to argue you out of it.
The place where the article seemed really to go off the rails to me was in talking about parents who idealize parenthood:
One of these things is maybe not like the other. Fixing an old car that just doesn't work could be an investment in nostalgia. Or a metaphor for the fear of death. Or some damned thing. Staying in a rotten romantic relationship may also be about fixing, or refusing to let go of, the past. Or proving something about yourself vs. the object of your love/hate. Pouring money into a money pit of a house: again, nostalgia, or the desire to restore something ill-treated by time and others, or... All these examples seem to me about holding on to something past.
Having kids is about building something new, something that has never been seen before on the planet, a unique human. Having kids means I don't get to go to Europe when I want to, or have a massage every week, but it does mean I get the pleasure (and it's a real pleasure, not a sentimentalized one) of watching the cognitive and moral and emotional development of another human being. It has made life less about me than about them, and even more than that, about the world. It's expensive and stressful and a pain in the ass, but also fun and, in the correct sense of the word, awesome.
Or maybe I'm just rationalizing cause I'm crazy.
So this morning
jaylake linked to an article in Time: "Kid Crazy: Why We Exaggerate the Joys of Parenthood." I don't think I exaggerate the joys of parenthood. I think I'm pretty realistic about the expense and stress, but I do appreciate the benefits (and yes, there are benefits). And this article, while it appears to be based in a series of psychology studies, seems to me to be veering weirdly all over the place, like a car driven by someone trying to swat a wasp."Here's how cognitive-dissonance theory works when applied to parenting: having kids is an economic and emotional drain. It should make those who have kids feel worse. Instead, parents glorify their lives. They believe that the financial and emotional benefits of having children are significantly higher than they really are." Some parents do. Those are very likely the same people who call babies "a precious blessing" and coo about how much more special than every other special snowflake in the world their special snowflakes are. But most of the parents I know had some notion the job was dirty when they took it, and they took it on anyway. I don't believe biological imperative is the only reason people have kids; some of the other reasons may not make much sense to me, but they're reasons. And I am a firm believer that those who don't want to parent should not parent. Period. I don't care if you're the Last Plantagenet, and your family tree will wither and die if your DNA is not given a chance to express itself. Don't want to deal with kids? Your choice, and a good one, and no one should try to argue you out of it.
The place where the article seemed really to go off the rails to me was in talking about parents who idealize parenthood:
Why? For the same reason you keep spending money to fix up an old car when it just doesn't work — or keep investing in the same company when it's failing. Humans throw good money after bad all the time. When we have invested a lot in a choice that turns out to be bad, we're really inept at admitting that it didn't make rational sense. Other research has shown that we romanticize our relationships with spouses and partners significantly more when we believe we have sacrificed for them. We like TVs that we've spent a lot to buy even though our satisfaction is no lower when we watch a cheaper television set.
One of these things is maybe not like the other. Fixing an old car that just doesn't work could be an investment in nostalgia. Or a metaphor for the fear of death. Or some damned thing. Staying in a rotten romantic relationship may also be about fixing, or refusing to let go of, the past. Or proving something about yourself vs. the object of your love/hate. Pouring money into a money pit of a house: again, nostalgia, or the desire to restore something ill-treated by time and others, or... All these examples seem to me about holding on to something past.
Having kids is about building something new, something that has never been seen before on the planet, a unique human. Having kids means I don't get to go to Europe when I want to, or have a massage every week, but it does mean I get the pleasure (and it's a real pleasure, not a sentimentalized one) of watching the cognitive and moral and emotional development of another human being. It has made life less about me than about them, and even more than that, about the world. It's expensive and stressful and a pain in the ass, but also fun and, in the correct sense of the word, awesome.
Or maybe I'm just rationalizing cause I'm crazy.