On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Melanie Dunstan wrote:
> Nicole Youngman wrote:
> >
> > How about sociologist-in-training? <g> Actually, yes, better-off people *do*
> > tend to have fewer children. We're not sure yet why that is. <snip>
>
> >From another sociologist-in-training: What Nicole said is very valid and
> I would like to add my $0.02 worth (I'm new to this list so gidday to
> y'all)
>
> One of the biggest reasons - and you're not necessarily going to like
> this but I've got enough empirical evidence to convince me - is
> SELFISHNESS.
> Melanie Dunstan (mother of 4)
> in Perth, Australia
> Encaustic Art: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~cbooth/melanie.htm
> Allcrafts specialises in Unusual Crafts
As a former TINK (or DINK - double income, no kids) myself, who then
became a pregnant SINK (single income no kids) when Mr DINK "dinked" once
too often with the wrong bimbo, and is now a SIOK...(single income, one
kid)
Marxist theory, powerful though it is (and I hope it continues to be
taught in Australian Universities despite the current sociological
climate sweeping across our lovely nation), doesn't explain the existence of
extremely expensive sperm-donor programmes, or adoption programmes. Even
the rich still yearn for kids.
I often wonder if we've just forgotten how to communicate a love of life
for what it is: even I'm using a corny phrase to describe a powerful
sensation. For example, I am stumped as to why I love my son... - no
economic theory in the world could explain how I feel about my son.
Although Rosanne the t.v. character says that her kids are the only things
in our life that she's ***paid*** upfront for - so maybe that's the
reason.
If I had time, I'd tie this to feminist sci-fiction....!
Brigid.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:30 PDT