Melanie,
I may be wrong, but I think that having children when you are not able to
provide a decent level of living, is the WORST example of selfishness.
I have a cousin who got married at 20, to a girl who was 18. They did not
have money to buy furniture for their, even a kitchen table. Which did not
stop them from having a baby, and then keep coming every day to my parents and
telling heartbreaking stories how they didn't have money to buy milk for
their daughter, until my Mom would give them money, which we did not have
excess of, either. When I tried to talk about what they were thinking when
deciding to have a baby when they could not take care of themselves, my Mom
also told me I was selfish.
If I am -- fine, but i rather be selfish and never have kids, than doom
my children to never have the childhood they deserve.
Besides, just because you _do_ have children, it's not an excuse to have a
miserable life in a dirty house. It's very convenient to blame one's
underachievement on children (I bet Mr. Tink's sister keeps reminding
them on daily basis that "if not them", she would have a much better
life, and how they don't appreciate how much she gave up for them).
And enjoying your life (including vacations in Europe, or simply having a
full-time job for a woman) is not a crime, either. Except when people
want to believe that having children is the only thing that makes a
woman's life meaningful and is mutually exlusive with having a life.
I don't mean to be rude and I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings, but I
would recommend Ms. Tink to ask her children whether _they_ wanted her to
make this kind of sacrifice.
Marina
"Femininity is code for femaleness plus whatever society
happens to be selling at the time."
Naomi Wolf
On Fri, 25 Jul 1997, Melanie Dunstan wrote:
> Janice E. Dawley wrote:
> >
> > At 04:25 PM 7/24/97 +0800, Melanie Dunstan wrote:
> > >Nicole Youngman wrote:
> > >>
>
> > I'd like some clarification. I took this hypothetical situation to mean:
> > the TINKs have money, therefore they are selfish, and therefore they have
> > no children. The other couple are poor, therefore they are not selfish,
> > therefore they have children. I can't see how this makes any sense.
> >
> > -- Janice
> >
> > -----
> 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....
> -- Regards
> Melanie Dunstan
> in Perth, Australia
> Encaustic Art: http://www.ozemail.com.au/~cbooth/melanie.htm
> Allcrafts specialises in Unusual Crafts
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:06:30 PDT