Melanie wrote:
> Nope, sorry Janice, that's upside down. The meaning of the story is that
> the reason the Tinks don't have kids is BECAUSE they are selfish - they
> would rather enjoy their chosen lifestyle with its material, childless,
> benefits, than give ANY of it up in order to experience the joys a
> family can bring. There was no intention to comment on the selfishness
> or otherwise of the other family - they were merely props to the main
> action.
>
> It is open to speculation whether the same mind-set would apply were the
> Tinks to be of less-than average income....
Speaking as a TINK struggling to combine self-employment with part-time
study and a relationship with my partner I take exception to the above
paragraph. Perhaps you are referring specifically to the story and intend
no general inference to be drawn. But it seems to me you assume too much.
Is choosing to enjoy a comfortable lifestyle any more selfish than choosing
to have children? I don't think so. And to what joys are you referring?
Do every mother & father experience parenting as a joyous experience? I
think not. Perhaps some of us who choose not to have children are not
simply selfish but are self-aware, realising that having children is not
just a lifestyle choice - it is a massive commitment and responsibility and
perhaps one for which we think our personal qualities are less-suited than
for our current roles.
Joan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:30 PDT