Dear Prudence

Re: Baby Hungry

MaurinQuina22 — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:10:04 GMT

I definitely have to disagree with Prudie's conclusion as well. As a teacher's aide and as the daughter of a woman with a registered in-home daycare for over 20 years, kids have essentially been my entire life from day one. I work with them, played with them, changed diapers, fed them, clothed them, and even shared my childhood home with them. Many people know what it's like to have kids and to love them, but it's another thing entirely to witness firsthand -over and over again- the effects of parental apathy and rejection on a kid. Ask any failing Middle School student nowadays what his parents will think when he takes his report card home, and you have nearly perfect odds that the kid will say, "They won't care." Have you ever seen a 3-year-old boy punch his mother in the face and refuse to eat, nearly to the point of having an eating disorder, just for the attention of the parents who constantly brush him aside? I have, and in both cases, I firmly believe that both sets of parents should have done some serious soul-searching before they even entertained the notion of having kids. Kids are not stupid. Even the little ones know when they're not genuinely wanted and they will act accordingly. What Prudie seems to have completely missed is that uninterested or resentful parents produce maladjusted kids, who grow into maladjusted teenagers and adults that we will all have to interact with. Teachers will have to try in vain to make up for mom and dad's complete lack of interest in a child's success or failure, more cell doors will swing shut, more drugs and alcohol will ineffectively drown away sorrows, and more psychologists' chairs will fill, and society as a whole will have to shoulder it all somehow. I have seen it. Having a child isn't just a huge responsibility for yourself, but also for society and for the kid. It sounds to me like the woman in this situation genuinely wants kids. It's also obvious that the guy doesn't want more kids, to the point that he has altered his body to avoid it. If he gives in, it's not out of genuine want for a child, but out of a looming, divorce-clouded fear of losing another partner. I'm sorry, but I can't think of a bigger relationship deal-breaker than one party definitely wanting children and one party definitely not. Either the woman relents and grows bitter that he won't give her a baby and possibly resentful of the love the man has for the kids he already has, or he gives in and has kids with her and hates both her and the kids for it. It's absolutely dangerous to cop an assumption that the man will be fine when the kid comes along. What if he isn't? I think the solution here was missed, and it's an obvious one. The relationship needs to end, and both parties need to find new relationships where all of their needs -including their needs to have or not have children- will be met. I think that anything less advice-wise is plain irresponsible to them, to kids, and to all of us.

Re: Baby Hungry

ATHENANIKE — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:21:03 GMT

What I can appreciate is that the man involved did what he needed to do in order to prevent more children. He obviously was quite serious about it to have the surgery. More often the woman is expected to be on some form of birth control, or there is too much dependence on condoms to work 100% of the time, especially in young adults. Men state I don't want kids at all or right now, and the statement is usually a charge directed at the woman he is with to make it doesn't happen because of all the stories we hear of women trapping men. Ideally, as soon as the relationship got intimate that discussion should have occurred so they could decide to continue on. I also believe both of these people should have moved on to people with similar sentiments in that area, but unfortunately they now have an emotional tie to each other that is going to be hard to break and take time to get over if that ends as the ultimate choice. Whatever choice is made it is going to be tough, and the consequences, positive or negative, they'll both have to deal with.

Re: Baby Hungry

anymouse — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 20:03:23 GMT

I think that you are really misjudging the woman in this letter. When something is important to you, you have to have the backbone to come out and say it, Maybe even fight for it. It's her life too. If she always puts her partners wants ahead of her own, she'll end up bitter. If her partner isn't willing to give her the boot, so she can find someone else more compatable, I say that's his problem. He insists he's willing to have more kids, that shouldn't be her fault for taking him at his word. Personally, I think she should've moved on, but I wouldn't judge her for staying, if he's actually making that much of an effort.

Re: Baby Hungry

pokeypati — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:58:18 GMT

I think procreating is a strong use of a personal opinion, some poeple like children and even though they have had their share and may not wish to have more, it's obvious when certain other's views differ to the degree of another viewpoint. I feel the writer is very young and did the right thing, the relationship ended and where it began again was solely the decision of the other party. You can say you don't want more children and still wish you could; if you like children, that is, and his decision suggests that to me. The only concern should be if the procedure he had is reversed ...just how many more children will happen, and then what to do? signed-had plenty, done, but still wish.

Re: Baby Hungry

pokeypati — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:56:06 GMT

eiruduais:

Interesting thread! I think the LW makes clear that procreating is more important to her than her relationship with that specific man. She leaves to try again to meet someone who wants to have children. It's a deal-breaker--fine, that's her perogative. However, if I was her partner, I'd have some reservations about having a child/staying with someone who prioritizes having babies over her partnership (whether I also wanted kids or not). Also, was anyone else creeped out by the statement "He said he will do whatever it takes to keep me in his life." Ugh, talk about an unhealthy and unequal power dynamic--some people think the LW isn't "baby mad" but the fact that she waltzes over that (I believe) proves that she's so interested in having babies, she's blinded to the fact that she'll be bringing one into an emotionally unhealthy relationship--but then again, this makes sense considering how she's prioritized the relationship...

Re: Baby Hungry

eiruduais — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 20:27:01 GMT

Interesting thread! I think the LW makes clear that procreating is more important to her than her relationship with that specific man. She leaves to try again to meet someone who wants to have children. It's a deal-breaker--fine, that's her perogative. However, if I was her partner, I'd have some reservations about having a child/staying with someone who prioritizes having babies over her partnership (whether I also wanted kids or not). Also, was anyone else creeped out by the statement "He said he will do whatever it takes to keep me in his life." Ugh, talk about an unhealthy and unequal power dynamic--some people think the LW isn't "baby mad" but the fact that she waltzes over that (I believe) proves that she's so interested in having babies, she's blinded to the fact that she'll be bringing one into an emotionally unhealthy relationship--but then again, this makes sense considering how she's prioritized the relationship...

Re: Baby Hungry

bzl — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:16:35 GMT

If he didn't change his mind, presumably, she might have continued searching for her 'perfect man' - someone she coud share her desire for children with.

Good point, but I have to reiterate my point now as an open question: What if you break up with someone you love dearly over a disagreement about having children, and decide to search for someone who wants them with you...and you move on and find a "contender"...but you don't "magically" fall in love with that "perfect person" who just happens to only share that one desire.

It's all risks. You could still end up childless, AND alone, if another good relationship "fit" doesn't come alone.

Personally, I'd take the relationship first. But I'm also not the type who easily falls for every guy that comes by, even if I have a lot in common with them. To me, a truly strong desire of love, commitment and desire is harder to come by. It's worth a sacrifice or two in that case, if you ask me.

But like I said, I do know women who've found guys for the sake of having children, and they've got their kids...but can now barely stand looking at each other as spouses.

I guess in the end, it's all a risk, one way or another.

Re: Baby Hungry

PollyEsther — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 03:03:13 GMT

I didn't see anything that implied that she "cajoled him into changing his mind by threatening to leave." She wants very much to have children and they are not married, so she moved out to try to figure out what she really wanted. He obviously wanted her, so he changes his mind about what his priorities are. If he didn't change his mind, presumably, she might have continued searching for her 'perfect man' - someone she coud share her desire for children with.

Re: Baby Hungry

diotima — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 02:07:04 GMT

What I remember about this situation is that Yoffe did not want to have children. She became involved with a man who wanted children, grudgingly agreed to do so, and is now hyper-embedded mom.

She is so hyper-embedded that her family makes fun of her.

As usual, Yoffe is judging the world based on her own experiences, her own wishes, and her own world outlook. The ability to understand that there are other people in the world with different experiences, different desires, and another way of looking at the world never occurs to her.

Anyone who would ask the advice of someone this self-absorbed and unable to think abstractly deserves the rotten advice that s/he gets.

I would like to ask Slate to take a pile of Yoffe's advice and run it by someone with a professional degree in counseling. If this person says--and I think s/he will--that Yoffe is doing genuine harm to others, then Slate should drop her.

But, they won't. Slate only cares about getting people riled up--and if you look at this thread, you can see that she's accomplished that. Maybe the editor should read the article they ran about Machiavellian journalism recently.

If Yoffe had a single gram of ethics, she would run her own columns by a counselor and then quit when she is told that she is harming people.

I have no intention of holding my breath until she does. I like living.

I'm confused

SlateSurfer — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:21:03 GMT

I thought the LW said that she ended the relationship b/c she fell in love but realized that a marriage wouldn't work if he didn't want children. But he came back and said that he'd consider having kids with her, if she would take him back. And I thought her concern was whether he was likely to regret that decision later on.

Seems like a loving father of two has a pretty good sense of the consequences of the decision he has made. And it sounds like she's been pretty honest with herself about her life's desires and was willing to end this relationship b/c she wanted children more than being in it without. So given that the LW has already assessed her wants/desires to decide that she'd rather have kids than her man, Prudie (who I often disagree with) seems pretty spot-on in indicating that she'd regret not having kids if she wants them so bad.

I think that having kids (even your third kid) is way too life-altering of an event to know for sure whether how you'll feel about it after the fact. Maybe he'll regret changing his mind, but maybe he won't. The important thing is that the decision be made in an atmosphere of honesty and frankness. Unless you think she's somehow obligated to stay in the relationship and accept that she wants something he doesn't want to give, then I fail to see how she's coercing him into anything. And I think that it shows a lot of strength to leave a relationship with a person you love b/c you are being honest about what you want.

I think of it as an ethics question.

MessyONE — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:23:36 GMT

It is simply wrong to knowingly go ahead and marry someone that doesn't want children when you do. Period. On both sides of this, no one is likely to change their mind, and I consider lying about it deception and nothing to base a marriage on.

I know a couple of women who got pregnant "by accident" when they knew their husbands didn't want kids. One actually brags about punching holes in her diaphragm.

The other is divorced. Her ex has no problem paying child support, but he didn't want kids, period, and he felt that he had been betrayed by someone he should have been able to trust. I happen to agree with him. She lied, she got pregnant without his consent, and now the financial consequences, at least, are his.

Why oh why don't people have this discussion in detail before they get married? How naive and idiotic is it to just assume that "he'll love the baby when it comes?" He might indeed love the baby. Only an ogre would not. He's still been betrayed, though.

Re: Baby Hungry

monicamole — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:01:54 GMT

I am a 50 year old female, and I would have dumped a man that would not want children ... as is, I married my kids father and he did not want children at 20 ... I was 23 and all I wanted was children, 6 was my number. I ended up with 2 great boys, the 23 year old a Marine and the 21 year old a Dean's list student at Tampa U. Dad left when baby was 3 month old ... I do not regret for a minute my choices! Dad tuned out to be a great dad if an 'iffy' husband and he has gone on to have 2 more kids from 2 more marriages. I never had any more ... now I wait patiently for grandchildren! I am newly married now and even if technically I still 'could' I know I am too old ... my husband feels the same way. If I had only found him 10 years ago!

Re: Baby Hungry

buck-50 — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:34:58 GMT

The thing that bothers me is that He's had a vasectomy. It's not like he sprung this on her after years of dating- it sounds like he was pretty upfront about it. So he entered into the relationship, honest about his decision not to have kids. She cajoles him into changing his mind by threatening to leave. So, having a baby is more important to her than having a healthy relationship.

I can't think that this is the beginning of a healthy relationship.

I gotta think prudie should have defered this one to Dan Savage.

Re: Baby Hungry

bzl — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:12:34 GMT

You make an excellent point, buck-50, one that I've thought in many different versions myself. This society likes to put all the value of the decision for a couple to have a child on the woman, be it wanting them or not wanting them. Yes, I'm sure someone will chime in that it's because she carries the baby for nine months. But quite frankly, the existance of the baby will cause major alterations of BOTH the parents' lives...the REST of their lives at that--long beyond a mere 9 months of physical depency on the mother, and the man's desires should be given higher value in the decision making process, IMO.

Re: Baby Hungry

buck-50 — Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:46:30 GMT

So, using Prudie's advice, it would be OK for me to threaten to leave my wife unless she has another baby, whether she really wants to or not, despite the fact that for her to do so might involve surgery. Because, heck, once she sees that little bundle of joy, all the threats and coersion will be forgotten.

And heck, now that I know that it's OK to threaten to leave if I don't get what I want, why stop at one more kid?