The Mighty Favog read the Atlantic roundtable talking about Baby Boomers aging, and about selfish Boomers not having children ... and it ripped him to pieces. He and his wife are Boomers who wanted children, but could not have them. Excerpt:
On Christmas morning, our little house bustles with the ghosts of children who never were.They play tug of war with the ghosts of long-dead dogs and listen to stories of "way back there then" from grandparents who live only in memory. Then we all open presents never bought, tearing through brightly colored wrapping paper that never left its cardboard tube.
And someone always plasters someone's non-existent hair with non-existent bows.
This Christmas, the missus and I sit down for a late supper -- the two of us -- at a table built for six as the old radio on the bookcase plays carols about a holy infant, a mother and child, on some far-away station.
Through nearly 25 years of marriage, we have come to love one another more and more deeply, and we have learned to be thankful for the blessings that are ours. But after years of infertility, then cancer surgery that took a question mark and turned it into a period, we are haunted by the ghosts of our beloved children who never were.
My wife loves babies. She has an infant-seeking radar that will guide her to every small child in a room and have it in her arms as soon as Mama or Daddy will unhand the child. Most people don't realize what a remarkable thing it is to take such grief over what never was and turn it into such love of what is.
Even if "what is" belongs to someone else.
Read the whole thing. Really, just do. It's the other side of the Boomer childlessness story.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"Cleveland: Well then you explained yourself in simultaneously contradictory and condescending terms? Care to restate?" Larry
No, I don't want to restate. You are asking me to prove a negative.
Moreover, the burden is on the accuser. So prove to me that I said "only people with diagnosed mental illnesses can be pro-choice."
You won't be able to because you can't prove a negative, either.
You also accuse me of condescension: voluntary descent from one's rank or dignity in relations with an inferior.
Larry, you certainly are not lower in rank or dignity; nor are you my inferior just because you are a religious and political liberal. If that were my arrogant opinion, why would I bother to debate you? It is, however, understandable that you confuse my sometimes barbed, bluntly and confidently stated remarks in defense of Catholicism and its natural ally, American Conservatism, with condescension. That's how we met here, remember?
Cleveland:
We both know what you said.
Take the Tom Cruise act to a Scientology convention, where they might actually want to hear it.
Mrs. Pringle, But do you think it's so implausible that women would start marrying each other? If so, why?
Certain chimps (Bonobos) do exactly what you are proposing. The females all gang together to protect the young from the males (while the regular, non-Bonobo chimp alpha male simply kill any young he thinks aren't his).
But the reason it won't happen with humans: our large brained infants take a long time to grow up, and this requires a massive male investment in children that he's not willing to provide unless he's got a steady spouse (interesting point: children from racial stock with larger craniums and thus higher IQs take longer to crawl, walk, etc. - there is a price to pay for big brains in that the babies are helpless longer and need more care). So male supported families will always crank out both more (and better) product and quickly overwhelm all the spawners. This is why harems are so rare. Heck, it was millions of years ago that humans began to become less dimorphic (males got smaller) and harems became less common, and male/females generally partnered up. It's superior.
But you don't need theory to know why women aren't going to marry each other in the future. Tomorrow's families are being created today; just look at the reality on the ground. Everyone in this culture rejecting traditional family bonds is not doing well genetically. All sorts of interesting living arrangements are indeed popping up as the old culture dies (and they sure look real fun!) but they are vanishing as we speak. Remember, Jose is the #1 kid name in Texas...
M_David's understanding of primate behavior is . . . well, let's say it's inadequate.
the regular, non-Bonobo chimp alpha male simply kill any young he thinks aren't his
This isn't true. A quick counter-example, from an article by Natalie Angier in the New York Times:
But other male mating strategies beyond autocracy work. Half the infants at Gombe were sired by low- or mid-level males, who may try to befriend females rather than bat them around alpha-style. Nor are females necessarily impressed by male swagger. The most successful mother in Gombe, the legendary Fifi, who has given birth to eight offspring and seen all but one survive to adulthood, is a queen with scant taste for kings. Of her four offspring sampled in the new study, only one was sired by an alpha male.
Yes, dominant chimpanzee males kill infants under some circumstances. But "any young [that] aren't his"? Certainly not.
He is also oversimplifying and misrepresenting the history of human sexual dimorphism. Try this article, by David Frayer and Milford Wolpoff, if you want to actually learn something about the subject.
https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/dspace/bitstream/1808/124/3/annurev.an.14.100185.pdf
And as for this: male supported families will always crank out both more (and better) product
What can I say? Again, SO attractive!
Boy: "Marry me, baby, and we'll crank out more (and better) product, you betcha!"
Girl: "Yes, yes, my darling!" (Swoons from happiness.)
Strangely, some of us manage to get along and reproduce somehow or other without benefit of such blandishments.
Heh heh heh, you are brilliant. :)
Perhaps the female homo sapien has evolved to perish without the patriarchy nearby
Heh heh heh. M_David's statement is an interesting one, as it appears to be a textbook case of what Mary Daly would call a "patriarchal reversal"--that is, an attempt to turn facts on their heads to better support a shaky mythology.
In fact, women don't need no steenkin' patriarchy. All we really need is a little of your genetic material from time to time, and we can reproduce and survive quite nicely on our own--especially in this era of frozen sperm banks and incipient cloning technology. It is, in fact, men who cannot reproduce without women. This is why some men are panicking and trying to convince women that we cannot get along without them. They fear being made obsolete.
Most women, of course--myself included--would prefer to enjoy the company of men. But if the price is to be ruled over by them and watch them trading off my 13-year old daughters for breeding purposes, I just might find I could get along without that pleasure. Rather than posture and threaten, men would do better to seek our favor by demonstrating their reliability in contributing to a peaceful, happy family life.
Perhaps the male homo sapien has evolved to perish without the matriarchy nearby . . . .
Posted by: sigaliris | January 15, 2008 6:27 PM
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.