The times, they are a changin'

[fpb]

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand.
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command,
Your old road is rapidly agin';
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand,
For the times they are a changin'.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g798CHaazwkE1E0TMQv8AZ60Bj1wD91DKPI00

Like all really inevitable and natural development, this one surprised everybody, including me. Well, what the Hell did we all expect? People like babies. Women particularly like babies. Girls - with a few exceptions in whose personal history it is all too easy to read the emotional reasons - intensely love babies. You cannot introduce a baby among a group of schoolgirls without being practically drowned by cooings and bursts of wonder at the cuteness of them. Nobody should have expected that this natural instinct could be for ever silenced by an artificial image of a brilliant career woman, something which, for nine women out of ten, has no reality at all. Women look at Sex and the City with its childless, unmarried, rich, elegant forty-years-old, as they read Hello magazine: as a kind of fable. I do not understand the appeal myself, but I very much doubt whether it has anything to do with daily or real life. Women read their glossy magazines in ordinary, sometimes drab homes, and do not seem to make much of an effort to imitate them. It all seems to me to live in a special space of the mind dedicated to unreality. If any woman identifies with the Sex and the City characters, it cannot be because of their surroundings or careers; it is more a matter of the common complaint about weak, shiftless, commitment-phobic men - which, whether or not it is true, is at least a commonplace female whine. The idea that millions of schoolgirls go out into the great wide world in the hope of becoming top corporate lawyers, marketing VPs, or even fashion designers or Hollywood actresses, seems to me naive in the extreme. Some of them may dream of such things; most of them know that they never will happen. And the universal cultural pressure on girls to regard babies as obstacles in the way of their careers is increasingly nullified by the fact that, across the advanced world, the vast majority of women know that they will have no careers. The idea of spending one's life moving forwards in a job until one achieves a high and permanent rank is outdated, not only for the majority of women, but of men too. The same people who tried to scare us with the fear of being hobbled to babies for life also informed us, in the same breath, that the notion of jobs for life is an outdated superstition.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide;
The chance won't come again.
And don't speak too soon
For the world's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who that it's namin';
For the loser now will be later to win,
For the times, they are a changin'.

It is a case study in the power and limit of cultural consensus. They removed the stigma from illegitimacy; these days, most people who call someone a "bastard" (and weirdly enough, it is a popular insult) do not know what is meant to be insulting about the term. But they could not remove the attraction from babies, or the magnetism from sex. Every attempt to make maternity unattractive or dreaded must founder on the reality of human nature. A number of people will no doubt absorb these attitudes: they are the kind who, for one reason or another, deviate from the human average. The majority may well learn to repeat them by rote, but will never internalize them; their emptiness will become manifest - they will vanish like mist in the sun - at the sight of a single real baby. You have made it easier, not harder, for your children to have babies. The result, as I said, should have been expected; it is only the result of our universal attachment to statistics - which are, after all, always yesterday's news - that kept us from seeing the obvious.

I am not saying that there will ever be a fad for having babies as such among sixteen-year-olds. One good (or rather bad) experience of childbirth would knock that sort of nonsense on the head, and at any rate even sixteen-year-olds are not that silly. The point is rather that the coming generation is beginning to instinctively see its future, not in terms of career - they learned at the cradle how difficult and fickle a thing it is - but in terms of children, of family, of heirs. These girls know that in nine times out of ten, what will give their lives continuity and content will not be the ever-changing, mostly frustrating, sometimes dangerous and unwelcoming, reality of work, but their families; that their real life is apt to be at home, with a husband or partner if they are lucky, but with a baby anyway. And like young people across the world, they are impatient to start.

The line, it is drawn.
The curse, it is cast.
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin'.
AND THE FIRST ONES NOW WILL LATER BE LAST -
For the times, they are a changin'.

Comments

[fpb.livejournal.com]

What is more, you do not seem to realize that you are arguing against yourself. Raising a baby is indeed extraordinarily hard work. At the age of 43, having to look after my sister's child for a few hours, it was borne in on me that I would never be able to make any kind of decent father again. I was simply too old to give the creature the energy it demanded. And I realized that mother nature knew what she was doing when she made women most fertile between 16 and 24: it is probably the only time in life when a person can really afford the terrible expenditure of energy that looking after even one baby, let alone more, requires. Anyone who puts off having a child till they are 35/40 are expecting to be rich enough to afford a (young) nanny or other expensive forms of part-time care. When you are my age, you will understand that the notion of having a baby at 40 without being rich enough to employ someone to do most of the work is much more destructive than that of having it when you are young, strong and bursting with energy.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

While, I'd agree that having babies earlier is better for health and energy reasons, I do remember reading articles that women who become mothers before the age of 17 are at more risk (health-wise) than women in their early twenties. I think it was something like this (http://www.infoforhealth.org/pr/j41/j41chap2_3.shtml) article, but I'm not sure whether it's a reputable source. I'm a bit wary of the random Indian reference in there.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You are too honest for your own good. As for health, I would be curious to hear how my mother (who had me at 16, my sister at 17, and my brother at 21) fits in - she looks a good ten years younger than her 62, and I don't remember her being seriously ill in the last ten or fifteen years at least. (But then, she comes from a very long-lived family, in which centenarians aren't uncommon.)

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

I'm just in a rather analytical mood. I blame my thesis. Most of the time, I really do choose my words carefully and try not to make generalizations and try to be critical (even of articles I'm using to try to back up my point!) But hey, get me angry, and I can be as irrational and dishonest as the next person! :p

Well I think that article really implied that 16 year olds were more likely to have health problems. But if your mother was a healthy 16 year old who had enough red meat and no real health problems and had mostly passed puberty, and had good doctors, then she would have been fine. Same as a 40 year old who ate correctly, was healthy, fit, etc, would probably be fine having a kid as well. Most of those statistics go on the 'normal' person, and yeah, the normal 20 year old would be far better equipped energy and health wise to deal with a baby. However, I would weigh that up against the fact 20 year olds are rather irresponsible (generally, obviously there are many exceptions!) and while having a baby may make them more mature, I would honestly prefer they wait five years and grow up first. I've seen too many 20 year olds leave their keys, wallets, laptops lying around randomly, or abandon friends when they're bored. I'd really not want to see how they deal with a baby when they realise that it's not all fun, smiles and baby showers.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And how many irresponsible 16-years-old are more responsible at 20 or at 40? I do not think people change that much, and, alas, I have met any amount of selfish, careless, me-first old folks. Those included, even-more-alas, a number of parents.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

I'm hoping at least some of them! I would agree that some people wouldn't change, but I do think that 'some' (that's such a vague term, but I obviously can't put a percentage on it!) of them will change. I mean, it's called 'growing up' for a reason. At the age of sixteen, hormones tend to rule us a bit more than at the age of 25. Even if we know what's right and wrong, we don't necessarily follow it.

Those included, even-more-alas, a number of parents.

Mmm. Imo, parents should be made to pass some sort of parenting class. This would be difficult to implement though. But a good theoretical idea. Some parents don't know the first thing about looking after a baby. And not all of them will read a book to get the information. Society seems to believe we're inbuilt with some sort of parenting radar.

I really don't think there's anything wrong with being selfish as long as you don't bring another life in the world. If you're just looking out for yourself in the world, that's fine. You'll probably end up with no friends, but it's your choice. But if you have a baby (which is one of the few decisions that is completely free and open to us without any restrictions!) then you're bringing a helpless dependent in the world, who should be considered first in your life because they are entirely dependent on you.

Parenting classes

[fpb.livejournal.com]

It may interest you that some Catholic dioceses insist on people taking marriage and parenting classes before they are married. And it has happened that, as a result of open discussion in these classes, some people have actually decided that they were not ready or suited. "Some", of course - the majority did. After all, most people realize that when you make a decision, you take the bad as well as the good. Even if you only decide to send an aunt a thank-you card, you have to go through the nuisance of choosing and buying one and writing an appropriate message. There is no decision without nuisance.

Re: Parenting classes

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

That's a really good idea actually. Hey, this is about the only time when I'd applaud a decision by the Catholic church.

After all, most people realize that when you make a decision, you take the bad as well as the good.

Of course. But this way they're making an informed decision. And that's what matters, in my book. As long as you know what the bad is, you won't be surprised or horrified when things don't turn out to be perfect.

[elegant-bonfire.livejournal.com]

I think people stay irresponsible if they are allowed to do so. I count myself among those who didn't. Yeah, I was a flake at 16--one of my more memorable gaffs was backing my mom's car full speed into a telephone pole--but my mom made me grow up. I spent my first two years of college locally, then transferred to a bigger state university. Mom told me flat out that if I moved back to her house after I was done with college, I would have to pay rent. After my 3rd year of college, I declared myself independent to qualify for more student grants rather than loans, and I never lived with my mom again. She pushed me out of the nest and made me fly on my own. ;)

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

How does one become responsible without suddenly being given a duty that requires you to become responsible, with no reprieve if you "just don't feel like it"?

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

Through deep reflective thought?

I admit, it's probably not the most efficient method of becoming responsible, but it is theoretically possible.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I have not observed deep thought being that effective. O_O

Most of life seems to involve leaping into the breach and rising to the challenge of the unexpected complications that come your way.

I would never say that planning is unimportant (the good Lord knows, I am a PLANNER, to the point of having had to teach myself spontaneity...!), but the truth is... you can only ever plan so much of your life, and even the parts you plan rarely work out the way you intend. :)

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

Well it probably isn't for everybody. I'm a fairly introspective person and although I haven't had a chance to experience many, many things in life, I do like to consider what I'd do in certain circumstances and come up with possible outcomes and ethical valuations of certain decisions versus other decisions.

But maybe I'm a bit weird. :p

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

I don't think you're weird, for truth. :) I've been told that introspection is rare, but I don't know how true that is. But in my own experience, my introspections have not really prepared me for reality. Either I'm very poor at imagining situations and extrapolating based on them, or reality just trumps thought exercises. *chortle*

I admit I was very irritated as a youth when people would tell me, "You won't get it until you go through it." And then I was irritated again as a young adult to discover in every case I can remember, it was true. And now, to my my resigned amusement, I find myself saying it myself: "You won't really understand until you do it." :)

I guess I'm just a big fan of experience...! Comes from living a very sheltered childhood and discovering that the things I hadn't experienced couldn't be prepared-for by reading, researching or thinking...!

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

Well, actually, I've found that true for some circumstances as well. :) However, the introspection did help somewhat even in those circumstances.

In any case, I'm sincerely hoping some of my imagined scenarios don't happen! I'm sure I'll know how I'll really react should a worldwide plague actually happen, but in the absence of that, I'll happily plan out possible reactions. They might be completely useless, but hey, least I would be a little better off than somebody who never thought about it at all. Hopefully!


I admit I was very irritated as a youth when people would tell me, "You won't get it until you go through it."

Might I ask what instances this included?

Personally, I think my instances of not being able to imagine scenarios accurately enough came from too little research (and me pretending to myself that I'd actually done the requisite research!) rather than anything else.

[haikujaguar.livejournal.com]

Ah, so. For me, it's things like: going through the major illnesses of loved ones. What it's like to have someone die. What it's like to be in love. What it's like to be married. What it's like to be pregnant; what it's like to be a parent. What it's like to suffer major illness; what it's like to be depressed; what it's like to work; what it's like to get older.

I had imagined all these things, of course. And I had done a fairly good job of deciding what to do about them. What imagining them did not help me with at all was understanding how they would make me feel, and how they would change me.

[privatemaladict.livejournal.com]

I'm 24. I hope I will manage to have a child by the time I'm 30. Yes, biologically it's better to do it... pretty much at the age I am now. But clearly that's not an option for me.

And mother nature isn't exactly having the first say these days. 100 years ago, it was typical for a girl to get her first menstrual period at the age of 16 or 17. Of course many became pregnant earlier than that, but a lot weren't actually fertile until they were 18 or so. Nowadays, mainly for nutritional reasons, the average age for a first menstrual period is 12. I got mine when I was 10, meaning I was theoretically fertile around age 11. Even if your mother had you at 16 and did a great job raising you, you can't possibly argue that I would've made a good mother at 11. Just because something is biologically possible, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

And I made some terrible decisions in my teenage years. If I'd got it into my head to have a baby when I was 16, its dad would've been a drug-addicted Year 11 dropout who thought he was the next Marylin Manson. And I was one of the more stable girls among my friends.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And maybe you would have got out of that nonsense. Parenthood is a great knocker-out of nonsense. I know one person who got rid of a drinking habit by her own unaided effort because she felt she was not being fair to her little child.

[privatemaladict.livejournal.com]

Maybe I would have. But that doesn't change the fact that I'm much better equipped to have a child now than I was then - and I hope to be even better equipped (e.g. with a stable partner and an income) before I undertake the great challenge that is parenthood.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

Your last paragraph made me laugh. My bad.

[privatemaladict.livejournal.com]

It's okay, it really is funny in retrospect. But imagine if I really had done something I couldn't undo at that age - imagine if my life now was shaped by my decisions then. In some ways it is, of course - the decision not to have sex with that boy, for instance. But seriously - I did so many stupid things. I had such a warped view of the world. How could I not? I'd never seen any of the world beyond my home and my school. I didn't even have literature as a source of knowledge, since all I read at that age was fantasy.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

You mean LOTR isn't accurate to life! And here I was looking for hobbits around every corner!

Hmm. I think I've changed since I was sixteen, but probably not as much as you have. I don't really think of my sixteen year old ideas as being warped in any case. :p It was more that although I knew what right and wrong were back then, I was far more likely to do the wrong thing just to be contrary. Whereas now, I'm a bit more circumspect. I hope.

Maybe that's what growing up is all about. Learning to shut up when necessary.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I can only tell you what I know. And this child was my nephew, as close to being my own without having to involve a member of that sex that resolutely refused to see any attraction in my person. Nonetheless, I know that only a couple of hours of his company - and I love him dearly - left me saggier than a strand of boiled spinach. Not that I am the fittest person in the world, but I used to rate my endurance - ten years ago, I could walk twenty miles and not get particularly tired.

As for being commitment-phobic, that is like blaming a blind man for his poor taste in paintings. I never had the opportunity.

[curia-regis.livejournal.com]

But one does hear people claim that it's different when it's your own child; you might well feel differently yourself, in that particular circumstance.

I've never seen that as a good reason to have a child. What if it doesn't end up being different? If you have no reasons to believe that it would end up being different and you don't want children, then banking on that remote hope seems a bit overly idealistic to me.

Personally I learned recently that apparently my distaste for children was shared by both my mother and grandmother. Apparently (or so they claim) they did get over it enough once they had an unwanted pregnancy, but really! It still seems overly idealistic thinking to me.