If you hadn't had kids...
Find a Conversation
If you hadn't had kids...
| Thu, 05-20-2004 - 10:34pm |
And your dh made enough $$ to support both of you comfortably, do you think you would be working?
| Thu, 05-20-2004 - 10:34pm |
Pages
<>
Then why exactly are you posting on a debate board?
PumpkinAngel
I think your insistence that Americans (or so I am inferring) are just plain lazy and selfish is pretty absurd. Do you really feel people who happen to be born in our country are inheritantly lazy and selfish? I'd venture to say this is a phenonemon that takes place everywhere on our planet! I think we are inheritantly human - and not unlike electricity, we *naturally* take the path of least resistance.
Why on earth are you posting those "opinions" on a debate board if not to debate them? Is there some function of this board other than persuasion? Posting your "ideals" without showing why they're right is like saying the moon is made of cheese, of course it's made of cheese, how silly of you to think otherwise.
"No, actually I don't. I simply don't see the point in explaining my position over and over again to no avail. You know exactly what I think and how I feel, you simply don't want to accept my position."
FOR THE FIFTH TIME: you have not yet explained why bm from a breast is better than ebm in a cup. I understand that you have strong opinions, but whenever you've been asked to explain why you hold those opinions, you resort to "how can anyone seriously question what I believe in?" You acknowledge above that you don't support your opinions. Excuse the rest of us, who have done the research and who have a few more kids and a few more years of mothering under our belts, for refusing to jump on your "because I say so" bandwagon.
"Then why should anyone have parenting ideals at all? Why should anyone have an opinion on anything if "kids turn out the same" anyway? What's the point? Again, I happen to think that ideally speaking, some choices are objectively better than others. Yes, I tend to think that *natural* choices are more appropriate than *artificial* ones. Is this type of thinking simply off base? Or are *artificial* choices somehow more appropriate in the long run?"
Natural is not a synonym for good (diseases are natural). Artificial is not a synonym for bad (filtered water is artificial and far better than polluted water). If that's the best you can do it's not very good.
"Honestly, I just don't get it? Do you really see no inherent difference between ffing and bfing, between WOH and SAH, between parental and substitute care, between medicated births and undeicated births? Do you not recognize that some of these choices are more *natural* than others (you know the way nature intended them to be)? Do you not recognize that some of these choices are are objectively/ideally better than others? How can you not comprehend this?"
A friend of mine, a doctor, wanted to bf. After seeing 2 lactation consultants and repeated visits to the pediatrician, she concluded she couldn't. Her baby's pediatrician said something to her that you ought to consider: formula is probably 97% as good. If you want to sweat that 3% difference, be my guest. I'd rather worry about things that matter.
"Why do you instead choose to play the *no major differences between children* card?"
Because there is no appreciable difference between children based on what you consider critical issues. Disagree? Prove me wrong with FACTS, not "it must be so" opinions.
"If what you say is true, that bfing, SAH, parental care, undemicated births etc. makes *absolutely no difference at all*, then why do people *choose* to make these choices?"
Because we want to believe that if we dot every i and cross every parenting t our children will grow up happy, healthy and successful. We want to believe that we are in control of our children's destinies. Nothing could be further from the truth. You can do everything right and have a terrible result. You can do everything wrong and have a wonderful result. Some of it is in our control, but much of it is not, and bf/ff, epidural and other fleeting choices like them don't make a whit of difference in the long run.
"I mean, why make a choice at all, if it isn't going to make a bit of difference in the long run? Why choose to put in the extra effort if there is no underlying reason for it? Do you see how ludicrous that sounds?"
If I were you, that's exactly what I would be asking myself. Then I'd give myself a break and go outside and be silly with my kid.
"Basically, the dilemna here is that *I* think there is in fact a *difference* between parenting choices and ideals, where as *you* think there is *no difference*. So which is it? Are *all* parenting choices/ideals the *same* or aren't they? Does bfing, SAH, parental care, having an unmdeicated birth, etc *make a difference* or not? And if all of this * makes zero difference anyway* why don't we all choose to make the same artificial choices?"
You're the one who claims that there's a difference. Once again, show me, using supported facts, because your unsupported opinion doesn't mean a hill of beans.
"After all, artificial choices are more convenient, easier, less demanding, etc. and there's absolutely no proof that children "are demonstrably worse off in the long run" right?"
Bull. As others have pointed out, bf as a SAHM is far easier, more convenient and less demanding than ff. SAH certainly would be a world easier for me. My epidural 12 hours into back labor certainly didn't seem like any kind of easy way out. My only regret was waiting 12 hours. I was so exhausted by the time my first child was born that I was hardly aware of her birth. With my second child I had the epidural much earlier and I was completely part of the moment, bf'ing within moments after her cord was cut. Yes, there was less pain with an earlier epidural, making it easier for me, but which do you think was the better birth for the baby?
"Unsupportable positions??? You mean like insisting that there are in fact *differences* between parenting choices and ideals, that not *all* choices and ideals are *equal*? You're right, that's just waaaaaay out there isn't it? But not nearly as *out there* as trying to insist that "kids turn out the same" anyway, and that there are *no major differences between children* no matter what you do, regardless of the choices you make."
Prove it. Until you do, all you've got is an unsupported position.
"The amazing complexity huh??? Well why don't you fill me in then. What exactly is so *amazingly complex* about choosing to ff, WOH, use substitute care, have a medicated birth, etc? You want to know what is so amazingly complex here: that we as a society are the *laziest* and *most selfish* people on the face of the planet, and that most people truely believe that *anything goes* because *nothing really matters anyway*."
You don't get to call me lazy until your done something more strenuous and more impressive than coo over a single baby all day. I juggle a demanding job, a household, a genius 9 year old who would like to have a different activity or sport 7 days a week, and a 6 year old with learning delays. Like most women, I do it with only some help from my WOH husband, and that's doing chores, not assuming responsibility. Every Sunday night I do a schedule for the family for the week and I'm the one who remembers the shin guards, the lunches, the money for this or that, the field trip sheet. I have been class mother and co-chaired the kid's spring fairs. I chaperone field trips and go to recitals and class parties. I figure out how to fit in everything the kids have to do and want to do. And I also manage to have fun with and enjoy my family.
When I had one infant or toddler, I thought I knew everything too. Then I learned how very much I didn't know.
As I've said before, put up or shut up. Either support your positions or acknowledge that you can't.
I agree with the entirety of your post.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Excuse me while I stand and applaud.
PumpkinAngel
And to me, the SMALL THINGS such as bfing, SAH, parental care, etc. make up/comprise the BIG PICTURE. I tend to think that having a parenting philosophy is extremely important. How can you have a parenting philosphy without ideals to base it on? In other word, how can you see of the *big picture* if you ignore the *small picture*? How can a lack of ideals and/or poor and innappropriate choices add up to a postive outcome when it comes to the *big picture*? Don't you *reap what you sow*?
"I don't care how much breastmilk a kid has, if their parents don't teach them to care for others/ themselves, a higher "moral" mentality, a work ethic, etc. - then the bigger picture is missed."
Let's take a look at the bigger picure then. IMO, the *bm* is the *small picture*. Sure, it provides a child with optimal nutrition, but on a larger scale it also promotes optimal bonding and attachment. In other words, who is more likely to experience optimal mother/child bonding and attachment: a child who is exclusively bf (meaning from the actual source, no bottles) on demand (without a schedule) on an extended basis (meaning allowing the child to self wean) or a child who is ff, from a bottle, on a schedule, by a substitute at least half the time?
Why? Because bfing is the way nature intended it to be. Exclusive bfing on demand and on an extended basis quite literally increases the amount of one-on-one bonding and attachment time a mother and child experience/have together. Likewise, "exclusive bfing on demand and on an extended basis" in turn promotes SAH (in that the mother is required to be present), which in turn promotes parental care (vs. substitute care), which in turn promotes optimal bonding and attachment, and so on and so on. In other words, the *small picure* is really just *one big picture* when it really comes down to it. OTOH, what's the alternative here? No ideals, no direction, no parenting philosophy, etc. which basically = a *big picture* with no backbone.
So what exactly *is* the *big picture* when it comes to parenting? IMO, the *big pictue* or the *ultimate goal* of parenting is to promote *optimal bonding and attachment*, rather than *detachment*. Bascially, it is my belief that *natural* choices are generally more condusive to promoting optimal bonding and attachment, where as *artificial* choices are more likely to promote *detachment*. In other words, if the *SMALL PICTURE* is based on *DETACHMENT* than the *BIG PICTURE* will most likely be based on *DETACHMENT*. However, if the *SMALL PICTURE* is based on *ATTACHMENT*, than the *BIG PICTURE* will most likely be based on *ATTACHMENT* as well. And while you may think that *ideals* are nothing more than insignificant aspects of the *SMALL PICTURE*, I happen to think that the *ideals* are the very backbone of the *BIG PICTURE*.
"Bascially, it is my belief that *natural* choices are generally more condusive to promoting optimal bonding and attachment, where as *artificial* choices are more likely to promote *detachment*."
Maybe, maybe not.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
"IMO, the *big pictue* or the *ultimate goal* of parenting is to promote *optimal bonding and attachment*, rather than *detachment*. "
There is our huge philosophical difference. Parenting, to me, is to prepare my children to survive in the world emotionally, physically and financially. I have done a good job with my children when they can make good solid decisions on their own, when they question my values and, when they fall, they are able to get up with little assistance by me.
The big picture, to me, is not what my children are doing when they are five or seven or nine. It is the decisions they make when they are seventeen, twenty-five, thirty and seventy. I give them the tools I think they need-a moral background, theological education, discipline when necessary and lots of love. I explain things to them and try to guide them right.
If you can look at a seventy year old human and tell which had stay at home mothers, which had breastmilk and which had attachement parenting, more power to you. To me, those things are so insignificant compared to the big picture-emotional strength of the family, how marriage is modeled, the financial picture of the family and the life events a person has to live through in the course of their lives. It would be easier to believe that your child will always love you and never question you and never hurt if you breastfeed and attachement parent. I can't believe that because, I know, you can do everything right and, in the blink of the eye, your life can change. A death, an addiction, a disease. Then the rest is meaningless and your challenge is to parent in the face of an emotional crisis.
&nbs
Pages