Have parent always "Loved" their children?? or is it a recent phenomenon?

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Ciber

Originally posted by: CPA
Couple of things:

I view my children as investments (no I'm not asian). They are an investment of my time, energy and money. I would hope that I could get something back, not monetarily, per se, but something viable, if not tangible.

Which leads me to my second point, I do not think I could love my children unconditionally. If my child turned out to be a mass-murderer or serial rapist, even after the investment I made, I do not think I could love him/her. Though I am not religious by nature, I believe some people are born evil, whether it comes biologically or otherwise, and no amount of love, affection, time, energy or money will change that (You can put your whole energies into a business, and it can still fail).

Since every child is different, and there is not one standard in raising every child, you put in what you know, what you can and hope for the best. But, there comes a time when that child ceases being a child and must not start making decision for him/herself. If he decides against the good, and it's egregious enough, it may not be a matter of his upbringing, but something more inherent to the child himself. There could come a time as a parent when it is necessary to say "I did all I could do, it's out of my hands now" and move on with your life. This scenario, of course, only pertains to the point when a child becomes an adult, and sometimes that point is hard to determine.

This is why i dont believe in having kids, there's just too much risk that they will turn out to be crap, specially with how society is today. I just dont like the whole idea of wasting around 18 years of my life for probably nothing. I mean it's not like having kids that like you is a great reward for your efforts.

Save your time, money and energy. Buy yourself a dog and a nice sports car 😛 instead.

If my fiancee ever sees these posts i'm a dead man 😛.

Sometimes, I think the same way, especially after my 6 year old has one of his crazy days. But a dog can't ride a dirtbike or play bball with you or better yet, live your life the way you wanted to 😀😉

for me, the true reward for having children will be when they've grown up and out of their dependence on me and come back as adults. when i can see who and what they've become.

there is of course the risk that they will turn out badly.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ
For many people today, I think they believe love is something that is strictly one way. that you don't expect anything back.

for eg. love by parents for children should be exclusively one way. the purpose of the parent is to protect the child at all cost.

has it always been that way??

i'm reading the thread about the 11 yr old girl that was kidnaped and gotten pregnant and is now returning 4 yrs later with 2 children. and the sentiment by many people seems to be that parents should love their children unconditionally.

Has it always been that way?? another way of asking the same question is it that way in other cultures and societies??

It's my contention that the differences in culture today is more of a progressive difference than an absolute difference.

for eg. Most older S. Koreans are really agrarian. they are agrarian in their culture and their thought processes and not very different than the way it was in the US just 170 yrs ago.

For most people living in agrarian societies, children aren't something to be loved or cherished but are assets. this is typical of agrarian thinking. parents in agrarian societies also view children as their retirement, pension and nursing home rolled into one. hence in china parents want at least one son and many times 2 because they have a better chance (in their thinking) of having their son provide for them than a daughter.

in the modern mechanized society, we no longer view our children as assets for the future (well some still do, tennis parents etc) but have placed upon ourselves values that we claim requires us to love our children unconditionally. this is easier the more money you have obviously.

anyway, that's basic simplified theory of what i'm seeing and i'm wondering if anyone else agrees with the premise that Expecting parents to love their children unconditionally is a recent phenomenon and in the past we have seen our children more as assets.

😕

I don't know about you, but my S. Korean parents always loved me . . . 😀

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: CPA
Couple of things:

I view my children as investments (no I'm not asian). They are an investment of my time, energy and money. I would hope that I could get something back, not monetarily, per se, but something viable, if not tangible.

Which leads me to my second point, I do not think I could love my children unconditionally. If my child turned out to be a mass-murderer or serial rapist, even after the investment I made, I do not think I could love him/her. Though I am not religious by nature, I believe some people are born evil, whether it comes biologically or otherwise, and no amount of love, affection, time, energy or money will change that (You can put your whole energies into a business, and it can still fail).

Since every child is different, and there is not one standard in raising every child, you put in what you know, what you can and hope for the best. But, there comes a time when that child ceases being a child and must not start making decision for him/herself. If he decides against the good, and it's egregious enough, it may not be a matter of his upbringing, but something more inherent to the child himself. There could come a time as a parent when it is necessary to say "I did all I could do, it's out of my hands now" and move on with your life. This scenario, of course, only pertains to the point when a child becomes an adult, and sometimes that point is hard to determine.

how do you feel about the "necessity" vs "indulgence" idea tho??

in the past, children were necessary. the most successful people often had the most children.

now there is no correlation between number of children and success. it could be argued that there is a negative correlation between number of children and financial success.

hmmm, I know this is a cop out, but I would say I did it for both reasons.

Necessity - based on what I previously wrote. Yes, I expect my children to be involved in my care-taking when I am much older. Not so much as a fall-back for money reasons, but if there becomes a point in time that I need some one with a clearer head to make decisions, I expect my children to do that.

Indulgence - Namely, I wanted my name carried on. But, I also wanted to instill others with my core values and see how it turned out. Almost like an experiment.

 

[xirtam]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: xirtam
notfred, it's "believe"

Your statement should have my name capitalized and be followed by a period.

If you edit your name to be capitalized, I'll start capitalizing it.

Until then, no capitalization for you.

And I really think the comma is well-placed. As far as the period... well... I've learned not to talk about that kinda thing. Women get cranky.

Edit: and by the way, not that you care, but it's generally a good idea to use active voice rather than passive. Rather than "... have my name capitalized and be followed by a period", perhaps use "capitalize my name and follow it with a period."

And my original statement about it being "believe" still stands.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Ciber

Originally posted by: CPA
Couple of things:

I view my children as investments (no I'm not asian). They are an investment of my time, energy and money. I would hope that I could get something back, not monetarily, per se, but something viable, if not tangible.

Which leads me to my second point, I do not think I could love my children unconditionally. If my child turned out to be a mass-murderer or serial rapist, even after the investment I made, I do not think I could love him/her. Though I am not religious by nature, I believe some people are born evil, whether it comes biologically or otherwise, and no amount of love, affection, time, energy or money will change that (You can put your whole energies into a business, and it can still fail).

Since every child is different, and there is not one standard in raising every child, you put in what you know, what you can and hope for the best. But, there comes a time when that child ceases being a child and must not start making decision for him/herself. If he decides against the good, and it's egregious enough, it may not be a matter of his upbringing, but something more inherent to the child himself. There could come a time as a parent when it is necessary to say "I did all I could do, it's out of my hands now" and move on with your life. This scenario, of course, only pertains to the point when a child becomes an adult, and sometimes that point is hard to determine.

This is why i dont believe in having kids, there's just too much risk that they will turn out to be crap, specially with how society is today. I just dont like the whole idea of wasting around 18 years of my life for probably nothing. I mean it's not like having kids that like you is a great reward for your efforts.

Save your time, money and energy. Buy yourself a dog and a nice sports car 😛 instead.

If my fiancee ever sees these posts i'm a dead man 😛.

Sometimes, I think the same way, especially after my 6 year old has one of his crazy days. But a dog can't ride a dirtbike or play bball with you or better yet, live your life the way you wanted to 😀😉

for me, the true reward for having children will be when they've grown up and out of their dependence on me and come back as adults. when i can see who and what they've become.

there is of course the risk that they will turn out badly.

That is a very good point, and probably something I should have stated when I responded to Ciber. It's like putting your money into an aggressive growth stock in your 401K plan. You want and hope it to provide a good return over time, but by it's aggressive nature there is high risk. Unlike stocks, though, you can't necessarily always switch your investment strategy overnight with children.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Jehovah
😕

I don't know about you, but my S. Korean parents always loved me . . . 😀

🙂

don't take this as a knock against S. Koreans. this is not so much about ethnicity in my mind but about different time periods.

i stated several times my reasons for feeling that parents in agrarian society's will feel like they can attain a higher level of success with more children.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: Jehovah
😕

I don't know about you, but my S. Korean parents always loved me . . . 😀

🙂

don't take this as a knock against S. Koreans. this is not so much about ethnicity in my mind but about different time periods.

i stated several times my reasons for feeling that parents in agrarian society's will feel like they can attain a higher level of success with more children.

I didn't take it as a knock against S. Koreans - honestly, I always thought that my parents were very open minded and clear thinking (and pretty liberal) compared to the other parents I see either in the US or S. Korea . . .

 

[RobDowneyJr]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: xirtam
notfred, it's "believe"

Your statement should have my name capitalized and be followed by a period.

haha it was bait

 

[glen]

Not exactly.
In western civilizations, as Calvanism prevailed, the idea was clearly shaped that children were born evil, and made good only by the Grace of God. Then as the Unitarian movemnt gained strength, the idea that children are good and immportant came about. This is clearly seen in the Christmas tradition, which although a Christian holiday has a huge imphasis on celebrating children especially through gift giving, Santa Claus etc...

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: xirtam
notfred, it's "his or her"

No, no it's not. Proper English refers to a person of unspecified gender using the masculine pronoun. Using the phrase "his or her" in place of the standard "his" serves only to make the language awkward. The phrase "his or her" (along with the related "he or she", etc) is simply pointless kowtowing to a group of people who have nothing better to do than to invent injustices. Next thing you know we won't have "manholes", we'll have "personholes", and "Late Night with David Letterperson".

ZV

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: glen
Not exactly.
In western civilizations, as Calvanism prevailed, the idea was clearly shaped that children were born evil, and made good only by the Grace of God. Then as the Unitarian movemnt gained strength, the idea that children are good and immportant came about. This is clearly seen in the Christmas tradition, which although a Christian holiday has a huge imphasis on celebrating children especially through gift giving, Santa Claus etc...

i disagree.

i'm not convinced the theology affected how the average person looks at his children.

 

[gopunk]

i don't think people in, as you put it, agrarian societies, don't love their children, it is just that circumstances dictate that they have to take other things into consideration, such as whether the child will provide for them or not.

and i don't think love should be one way at all, i think that's a bunch of hooey.

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: LeeTJ

Originally posted by: glen
Not exactly.
In western civilizations, as Calvanism prevailed, the idea was clearly shaped that children were born evil, and made good only by the Grace of God. Then as the Unitarian movemnt gained strength, the idea that children are good and immportant came about. This is clearly seen in the Christmas tradition, which although a Christian holiday has a huge imphasis on celebrating children especially through gift giving, Santa Claus etc...

i disagree.

i'm not convinced the theology affected how the average person looks at his children.

how can you disagree?
this history not conjecture.
It happenes to be for a limited area of the World, the US and Europe, and for a frairly limited time frame, last 500 years.
You may think folks are not so religious TODAY, but most of US and European history has everythign to do with theology.

 

[Kadarin]

Counter example: Ancient Spartan culture, where all children were raised as wards of the state, and the nuclear family, as such, did not exist. Eugenics was strictly followed, and children who weren't up to "standards" were killed.

 

[xirtam]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: xirtam
notfred, it's "his or her"

No, no it's not. Proper English refers to a person of unspecified gender using the masculine pronoun. Using the phrase "his or her" in place of the standard "his" serves only to make the language awkward. The phrase "his or her" (along with the related "he or she", etc) is simply pointless kowtowing to a group of people who have nothing better to do than to invent injustices. Next thing you know we won't have "manholes", we'll have "personholes", and "Late Night with David Letterperson".

ZV

If it makes you feel better, my original post was correcting his "thier" spelling mistake. After he changed his post to "his or her," I modified my recommendation appropriately.

If he had "his," there would be no problem. And I'm not going to go to the bother to tell him his sentence is awkward. That should be obvious.

notfred's cool, I wouldn't pick on him if he wasn't. It's all that perl coding that has made him bad at spelling, I'm sure.

 

[LeeTJ]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Counter example: Ancient Spartan culture, where all children were raised as wards of the state, and the nuclear family, as such, did not exist. Eugenics was strictly followed, and children who weren't up to "standards" were killed.

they were unique.