From the Washington Post, a piece expressing the dismay of many that having more than two children is “greedy”:
My husband and I are getting ready to do what many couples in these brink-of-recessionary times would consider unthinkable. No, we're not buying a Martha's Vineyard retreat or planning a month in St. Bart's or eco-decorating our house.
We're planning to have a third child.
What shocks people, when we tell them, isn't the thought of hauling three kids onto a place for a vacation, or even the idea of coming home every night to a houseful of runny noses and homework assignments. What gets them is the sheer financial audacity. Raising kids today costs a fortune. Last month, the Department of Agriculture estimated that each American child costs an average of $204,060 to house, clothe, educate and entertain until the age of 18.
But to me, a family with just two kids seems minimalist, and even a bit sad. Back in the 1970s, when my husband and I were born, sprawling families were more common. My husband had two sisters and, following a Brady-Bunchy set of remarriages in my family, I wound up with seven brothers, real and step. I've always fantasized about creating a "Meet Me in St. Louis"-style household of my own, with children constantly underfoot and enough relatives around to skip to my lou en masse.
And yet nowadays, people seem aghast if a couple wants more than two children. When Elana Sigall, a 43-year-old attorney in Brooklyn, was pregnant with her third, people came up to her constantly, she said, to admonish her: "You've got a boy and a girl already. Why don't you just leave it alone?"
…SNIP…
Since her own pokes at deluxe families last year, Molly Jong-Fast has become a mother of three herself, having recently given birth to twins. "I don't blame people for having more, if they can," she told me. "If we had unlimited resources, I think we'd have more children, too."
As for my husband and me, we hardly have unlimited resources, but we're still planning to go forth and multiply in the big city. The way we figure it, one day our children will be grateful for what we didn't give them -- and what we did for them instead.
Some may call this rationalization or flat-out denial. Perhaps we mere mortals of the upper middle class, preparing to haul out the bassinet and the Exersaucer for a third go-round, should question our sanity. But we're banking on proving the naysayers wrong.
Now the writer of the piece seems – for the most part – to have her head on straight. But the overarching argument is that people who have more than two kids do so not because they love children and want them, but to be financial show-offs willing to drop hundreds of thousands of dollars to raise children “properly” (read: spoil them rotten).
Even that children are referred to as a “luxury good” turns my stomach. Children are *not* possessions and they are *not* durable goods.
Who could think of them as such? Answer: A person raised in a culture so self-centered it says that whatever stands in the way of *your* personal happiness is a bad thing and should be eliminated, or carefully tailored to fit your life perfectly, post-haste.
Back on the subject of spoiling children, the author points out:
Didn't Benjamin Franklin grow up to be a statesman, inventor, printer, author and political theorist without having his vision enhanced by a Stim-Mobile or his sense of spatial relations improved by Baby Einstein Numbers? Somehow young Ben managed to thrive and prosper even though the Teddy bear had yet to be invented.
Too true.
I know many large families who live very simple lives. No iPods, ancient PCs, one or no televisions (and often no cable), no cell phones, no new cars, second hand clothing. But they get by. And they’re *happy* not with their material possessions, but with the love and attention they get from all members of their family.
I’ve seen many well-off families dissolve into nothingness in the wake of financial disaster. It is the families who have relationships based on something other than the almighty dollar that make it through the long haul.
And I guess this hearkens back to a point I’ve argued in the past. We hear that having more than one or two children is an eco-disaster; you’re simply breeding more polluters and – if you really loved the environment – you’d abort that little polluter and get your tubes tied.
But it’s hard to say a family of six who makes the best economical use of every resource, durable good, dollar and dime they have is more responsible for pollution than the family that buys little Timmy and Susie every toy from here to Santa’s workshop, and tosses them when the kids get bored.
Ultimately, the criticism that comes from having more than the acceptable number of children (currently: two) is not based on the economy, but on our culture’s selfish presumption that if children cannot glorify me and my lifestyle, or if I have to sacrifice for them, then they’re not worth it.
|