Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok, exaggerating a little but I really don't know how to feel about this. I agree that not smothering your kids is a good idea but I also think that she wen to an extreme to change that. In essence: I wanted to have kids, but I didn't want it to be an inconvenience, so I walked out and let them hang out on occasion. Now I want to rationalize the decision and get others to agree (forgive) me. Very strange.

This article is rather interesting, still havn't made my mind up to what to think of this woman.

She sounds like a selfish prick who refuses to shoulder her responsibilities as a parent.

Smoothing it over as 'in their best interests', on the one hand is a glib excuse of an abandoning parent with a good vocabulary, on the other hand, she's a selfish prick, so being distant from her is probably very beneficial to her biological children.

Man or woman, if you don't want to raise them, don't have them.

Why isnt child protection (what ever you call it in english) comming into action.

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:Man or woman, if you don't want to raise them, don't have them.

Accidents happen.

lol

she cannot say her method works. she cant even say her methods work for herself

the only way she will know if her kids "are okay" is after the kids have lived their lives and not once have any of the kids say "i wish you were around more"

geez

i would like to think im turning out well (i have a job, a love life and i can afford some luxuries) but i know for a fact that a part of my life is irrevocably changed and can never be recovered because i grew up in a broken family

a dad leaving a kid behind is NOT acceptable. it is COMMON but definitely not acceptable.

do we really have to wait for mothers leaving their kids behind to be common too?

yeesh.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:She sounds like a selfish prick who refuses to shoulder her responsibilities as a parent.

Smoothing it over as 'in their best interests', on the one hand is a glib excuse of an abandoning parent with a good vocabulary, on the other hand, she's a selfish prick, so being distant from her is probably very beneficial to her biological children.

If she knows that she cannot be an effective mother if she's around all the time, then isn't choosing to do otherwise the responsible option?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bakerofish wrote:
i would like to think im turning out well (i have a job, a love life and i can afford some luxuries) but i know for a fact that a part of my life is irrevocably changed and can never be recovered because i grew up in a broken family

The same is true of children who grow up with both parents. I know plenty of kids that grew up with Tiger Mothers that absolutely wish one of their parents had been absent.

Sasori wrote:

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:Man or woman, if you don't want to raise them, don't have them.

Accidents happen.

I knocked up a girl on the first date due to a broken condom at a very bad moment. You are preaching to the choir on that one.

But, He is still my son and my responsibility, and I don't just mean child support payments, I would love nothing more than to leave this armpit of the world known as SW Pennsylvania behind and find greener pastures, but that wouldn't be fair to my son. So I stayed to help raise my son, he moved in with me over Christmas as he inherited my wild streak and his mother cannot handle him anymore.

My point is if you don't take care of your responsibility and raise your kids your doing them a great disservice, and punishing them for something that is YOUR FAULT and that is, by definition a POS deadbeat.

I sort of understand where she's coming from. Obviously I'm not a mother, but my parents divorced at one point and my life got significantly better afterwords. If someone ultimately wants to be somewhere else or they have passions to chase, they're not going to be entirely happy where they are. I'm not saying everyone should abandon their kids, but if she goes through life and her kids turn out all right and she was happier, who can really judge? Society has held dated notions before (racist attitudes, sexism, etc) and been none the wiser.

I understand what you are saying but in the article this wasn't a divorce becuase of the father so much as she was divorcing the kids. She even states her epiphany was that she didn't want to be a full time mom so she left.

Kid: Are you getting divorced becuase of us?
Mom: Yes, I just don't want to be around you that much. I want to travel a see lots of other people and you would cramp my style.

That's not the only way it could have gone down. If you've been around someone who doesn't want to be in a situation, they tend to get downright unpleasant, even when they're trying not to be. The kids may well have understood that she was getting an amazing opportunity for her and the chance to be happy. We don't really know. She could have been a bad mother when she was around too

One thing we can all agree on is that having kids young is a stupid idea. Seriously, wait til you're 30, it isn't going to kill you and you'll most likely want to do things you can't do when you have kids.

I completely agree with MGS on this one.

I also think that when she's older and her kids most likely hate her for rejecting them she will regret this course of action. More self-centered, new age hippie nonsense from baby boomers. I really can't wait until they all retire and go away.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Seriously, wait til you're 30, it isn't going to kill you and you'll most likely want to do things you can't do when you have kids.

You can't make generalizations about things like that. I had my first one at 22, on purpose, and am pretty happy with the way things are turning out.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:That's not the only way it could have gone down.

Except that that is how she said it went down. It isn't left as a riddle. She explains she didn't want to be a full time mom and took off and saw her kids occasionally. If that works for her I guess that is fine, but I don't think it is a good idea to go around saying others should trade their kids for themselves. People have to learn how to do both, and can. I also wouldn't compare being a parent to racism or sexism. My problem isn't that the parents split up, as sometimes it probably is better for the kids, the problem here is her motivations seem problematic.

There are multiple women giving their experiences in this article not just the one.

Ah its okay, this is the pertinent article http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/02/28/leaving_my_children

My wife scanned it and understands completely, we both agree on this :

..My problem was not with my children, but with how we think about motherhood. About how a male full-time caretaker is a "saint," and how a female full-time caretaker is a "mother." It is an equation we do not question; in fact we insist on it. And we punish the very idea that there are other ways to be a mother....

This women seems fairly sane and sensible and probably took the right decisions for her and her family.

Ahtman wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:That's not the only way it could have gone down.

Except that that is how she said it went down. It isn't left as a riddle. She explains she didn't want to be a full time mom and took off and saw her kids occasionally. If that works for her I guess that is fine, but I don't think it is a good idea to go around saying others should trade their kids for themselves. People have to learn how to do both, and can. I also wouldn't compare being a parent to racism or sexism. My problem isn't that the parents split up, as sometimes it probably is better for the kids, the problem here is her motivations seem problematic.

"We talked about it for months and we prepared together, not really knowing what being 3,000 miles apart might look like or feel like.‬"

does not equal

Kid: Are you getting divorced becuase of us?
Mom: Yes, I just don't want to be around you that much. I want to travel a see lots of other people and you would cramp my style.

I can see how the idea of this particular traditional value getting threatened is more frightening than others, but I don't see the vast majority of people acting on it.

Monster Rain wrote:
You can't make generalizations about things like that. I had my first one at 22, on purpose, and am pretty happy with the way things are turning out.

Most people shouldn't have kids beneath 30 IMO. If it's working for you, cool, but it doesn't change my opinion. This isn't a comment on you and is only vaguely related, but I still see no need for people to be having kids until the orphanages are empty. That seems more selfish to me than anything else.

Being a parent isn't a 'traditional value'. This isn't a Republican wedge issue. Lesbian parents would think this was pretty messed up. There are different ways to be a parent, the one commonality is being there. Again, you are arguing a different problem unrelated to the article. This isn't a 'parents have to stay together' debate. At 3000 miles away you can't be there for birthdays, sports events, good grades, bad grades, first kiss, first sexual assault charges, ect ect. She wasn't even a part-time mom (as she called herself) at that distance.

She also talks about buying into the 50's style idea of motherhood, but almost none of the parents I know buy into that anymore. She bought into a bad philosophy, made herself miserable, and so moved across the continent to get away from her children. I find it ironic that she is a spiritual advisor.

Kid: Are you getting divorced becuase of us?
Mom: Yes, I just don't want to be around you that much. I want to travel a see lots of other people and you would cramp my style.

I thought it was fairly obvious that that was a joke and not in the article.

Most people shouldn't have kids beneath 30 IMO.

Yes, it is an opinion. Not a very good one, but nevertheless it is one. You are coming off as the Tracy Jordan quote in my sig.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Most people shouldn't have kids beneath 30 IMO. If it's working for you, cool, but it doesn't change my opinion.

Which is sad, because you're making a pretty uninformed generalization that is demonstrably false. I assure you that I'm not the only person that it's working for.

Sasori wrote:

Grabzak Dirtyfighter wrote:Man or woman, if you don't want to raise them, don't have them.

Accidents happen.

Use multiple layers of protection (pills to prevent ovulation, condoms, morning after pills, etc) if you're gonna have sex, and know that you might have kids anyway so if you really, REALLY aren't ready to have kids, don't have sex?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually it's best for the woman to have children BEFORE thirty. Due to the way eggs are formed, a woman has all of her eggs like four months after birth, and those are all she will ever have. The longer she waits to have a child, the more potential chance that the eggs (technically, oocytes, one or two of which mature into eggs once a month depending on the woman's cycle) have taken cellular damage due to aging, radiation, and so on and so forth.

A woman who has kids past the age of fourty has a very high risk of having genetic defects, for example.

Ahtman wrote:Yes, it is an opinion. Not a very good one, but nevertheless it is one. You are coming off as the Tracy Jordan quote in my sig.

Which is sad, because you're making a pretty uninformed generalization that is demonstrably false. I assure you that I'm not the only person that it's working for.

God forbid I state an opinion on a forum. I'm not saying that my view is best or even that it is right, I'm only voicing my view. Using anecdotal evidence, watching my high school class and some close friends exist, it leads to happiness but also lots of unhappiness. This may or may not be "right" and I've never declared one way or the other, so stop pretending I'm something I'm not. On the off chance, maybe I am though.

Actually it's best for the woman to have children BEFORE thirty. Due to the way eggs are formed, a woman has all of her eggs like four months after birth, and those are all she will ever have. The longer she waits to have a child, the more potential chance that the eggs (technically, oocytes, one or two of which mature into eggs once a month depending on the woman's cycle) have taken cellular damage due to aging, radiation, and so on and so forth.

I know this in general, though I'm fuzzy on the specifics since I'm not a woman. Pick a year then, having kids "young" is still a stupid idea to me.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Yes, it is an opinion. Not a very good one, but nevertheless it is one. You are coming off as the Tracy Jordan quote in my sig.

Which is sad, because you're making a pretty uninformed generalization that is demonstrably false. I assure you that I'm not the only person that it's working for.

God forbid I state an opinion on a forum.

Take a breath there and move away from the martyr complex. No one said you can't or shouldn't post your opinion; that doesn't mean you won't be criticized for it. We have the option to disagree with it and to say so. You said something bad, people called you on it, try not to cry a river over it.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Using anecdotal evidence, watching my high school class and some close friends exist, it leads to happiness but also lots of unhappiness.

For the individual people to which you are referring, sure. Maybe they should have waited.

It doesn't apply universally.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I know this in general, though I'm fuzzy on the specifics since I'm not a woman. Pick a year then, having kids "young" is still a stupid idea to me.

Define young?

I am speaking from a purely biological, physical standpoint. Late teens into the late twenties is generally the best time to have a child if you want the child to be healthy. Many would consider ANY year in that age range to be young.

Naturally ti's fully possible to have a child when you're sixty and the child is still completely healthy. Just unlikely. Assuming it's even possible for you to produce viable eggs at that point due to menopause.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I know this in general, though I'm fuzzy on the specifics since I'm not a woman. Pick a year then, having kids "young" is still a stupid idea to me.

It's healthier to have them young, and if you have kids in your 20s they're off to college by the time you're in your early to mid-forties. I think there's an argument for it, if one is ready to have them.

Dang. I thought I was fast enough for the auto-append... Melissia is too fast!

Ahtman wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Yes, it is an opinion. Not a very good one, but nevertheless it is one. You are coming off as the Tracy Jordan quote in my sig.

Which is sad, because you're making a pretty uninformed generalization that is demonstrably false. I assure you that I'm not the only person that it's working for.

God forbid I state an opinion on a forum.

Take a breath there and move away from the martyr complex. No one said you can't or shouldn't post your opinion; that doesn't mean you won't be criticized for it. We have the option to disagree with it and to say so. You said something bad, people called you on it, try not to cry a river over it.

Rather, I said something which you thought was bad. Saying "I disagree" and saying "I disagree and your view sucks objectively" are a little different from one another. I'm hardly crying a river, just a little irritated.

Monster Rain wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Using anecdotal evidence, watching my high school class and some close friends exist, it leads to happiness but also lots of unhappiness.

For the individual people to which you are referring, sure. Maybe they should have waited.

It doesn't apply universally.

...hence why I said "using anecdotal evidence" and never claimed it applied universally.

Melissia wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I know this in general, though I'm fuzzy on the specifics since I'm not a woman. Pick a year then, having kids "young" is still a stupid idea to me.

Define young?

I am speaking from a purely biological, physical standpoint. Late teens into the late twenties is generally the best time to have a child if you want the child to be healthy. Many would consider ANY year in that age range to be young.

Naturally ti's fully possible to have a child when you're sixty and the child is still completely healthy. Just unlikely. Assuming it's even possible for you to produce viable eggs at that point due to menopause.

"Young" is whenever you think you might want to do things like go to Japan and aren't completely ready for a sedentary lifestyle. I'm not speaking biologically here, I'm speaking in terms of being ready mentally and emotionally. If you only look at the biological side, the teenss on tv who have kids when they're 16 are the peak of responsibility.

Technically speaking no. Because having a child too early is also potentially detrimental to the child.

If your body is awash with hormones and you're still growing, not quite a full adult yet physically, it would very likely effect the child. Same with any drugs you might be taking, legal or otherwise.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Rather, I said something which you thought was bad.

I don't think it is bad, I know it is. It really isn't a matter of an opinion. Being a relativist makes it difficult to admit that just having an opinion doesn't make it valid, but believe me, it doesn't. If your thought had just applied to you than it can't be right or wrong necessarily becuase you make that choice, but when you try to apply it to all humanity you put it up for broader scrutiny. In this case your half thought out idea has been judged and found lacking. Just saying it is an opinion doesn't suddenly put an idea beyond reproach or judgment.

But me not being a relativist, I don't have that problem ^.^

Melissia wrote:But me not being a relativist, I don't have that problem ^.^

Everyone has that problem. Whenever you try to generalize, even if you believe you're speaking from empirical fact, the standard of proof becomes sufficiently high as to preclude "its my opinion" from acceptable defenses.

Which isn't necessarily all that high to someone like me whom takes the very firm stance that opinions can not only be wrong, they're regularly so