Uno, where is your great post?

I was enjoying it from an anthropological point of view, and it made so many valid points. I was looking forward to discussing it.

Post? What post? I don't see no post.

Sue. Really. Sometimes I need to just SHUT UP!

While I stand by what I said, from an anthropological stand point, I saw way too much possibility for derailment. SO I detoured the train. But thanks.

Later...RATS! You rotten Sue! Okay, I'll bite (because you knew I would) Let's really narrow it down to it's most simple element. I will make my statement:

The single most stupid thing a woman in this day and age can do is have a baby.

Now I will try and remember what I said next, because I forget this stuff 5 minutes after I write it, my memory is seriously that bad!

I said, please do not make posts about how fabulous and wonderful your children are. DO not make posts about how having them has added depth and meaning to your life. This is not about how much you love your children, no one is questioning your love for your children, but that is NOT WHAT THIS POST IS ABOUT!

This post is (was) about how vulnerable and essentially crippled a woman with a baby is. How useless, immobile, stupid and dependent human offspring are, for a very long time. And how, back in caveman times, if a male wanted his genetic heritage to survive he, and the clan he was a member of, had to work together to provide safety, shelter and support for that infant and the female who raised it! If you were a deadbeat caveman dad, your genetics died off and likely so did you when an angered cavewoman gave you a crack over the cranium with a club. In caveman times, you eihter added to the group or you endangered the group and I doubt that drains on limited resources were tolerated. Dads who would not hunt were probably pushed off cliffs.

My post ( that no longer exists) said that cavechildren were likely raised collectively in a clan because it would not have been possible for two on their own to keep offspring to maturity without surrounding support. Missing post said, the saying "It takes a village to raise a child" is annoying and stupid because a village is a collection of people living close by, but separately, and that is too much seperation for safe and secure raising of offspring.

This was brough to mind by the recent frustration and worry that a mother expressed over what is looking like a caveman who needs a thwack with a club! I don't know how we got where we are and I don't think it's an improvement. But a woman and her child were at risk in caveman times and are at risk now. Without the support of a clan and with many men who do not seem worried about providing the shelter and support it takes to bring along surviving offspring, a woman with a chld is a target, a woman with a child may as well have two broken legs. Today, even worse than 10<000 years ago, she is at risk for abandonment.

I do not mean to be man bashing. But from an anthropological standpoint, I believe men and clans who worked to have their offspring survive passed on their genetics. Men who had babies and then hung around drinking beer but not tending the kids or making fires were beaten with a club and left for the sabre tooth tigers to gnaw. That man was a drain and a danger, who needs him? BONK!

Perhaps things went off the rails when people migrated to the open plains and grasslands and clubs were in short supply. THen all you could do was frisbee a dried teradactyl turd at some loser neanderthal, maybe give him a black eye, but not kill him. And THAT might be where we went wrong!

Geez, I am getting far to slow in my old age. I am usually the first to post on one of these and be left hangin!
I think this is the second or third one I have missed now. Always makes me very curious.

Okay, Sue, Coopslave, there it is, up at the top. CHeck it out. Now Sue, I await your pithy reply.

uno wrote:

How useless, immobile, stupid and dependent human offspring are,

Heck, I know adults like that.

.

As a woman who is currently crippled by young offspring, I agree with you. Luckily, I have a good caveman, but it still drives me nuts to only be able to do 40% of what I WANT to be doing.

Another two or three years and I will again be able to run at full capacity.

This having-a-baby stuff sucks.

R. Roo, maybe you ought to duck, I see teradactyl turd flinging on the horizon!

Fowler, way to further the discussion.

Authentic, hat's off to you for saying that babies are a massive impediment to movement. Many cannot admit that, feel threatened, as if saying thus means that Gordon will swoop in a undo your children. Being home with small kids, even with the aid of a great caveman, can be BRUTAL. Loving raising your kids and suffering from it at the same time is one of the dichotomies of the female condition.

R.Roo, wish I knew how to intelligently respond to your words, but I don't. Where hunter gathering moves over into government programs, that's too big a leap for my brain to make. A leap that took us tens of thousands of years. HOwever, isn't it a sad reflection that the collective living of humans that insured the survival of the species has been destroyed to the point we now have to collect money and make legislation and programs to help us raise those offspring? The resources that used to be pooled are now divided and those with more resources can have more kids. But wait...can they? Seems even very wealthy husbands want the freedom to abandon wives and kids leaving them nothing and thus laws had to be created to protect women from the massive failing of these men who slipped, tragically, through the gene pool.

I think our north american white culture suffers more from this than some others. Some cultures/societies view our child rearing methods as cold and cruel. Some cultures are not chomping at the bit to hurl children out on their 18th birthday, anxious to wash our hands of our offspring. These ideas are not universal. It is very narrow and stupid of us to think they are. Maybe we do it wrong.

But...I have taken this in a direction I didn't want it to go. I have thought often over the years that nothing a man does, NOTHING is as risky, bold, brave and potentially fatal to an existence, as what a woman does when she has a baby. It is an act of faith that the gentic interest of the clam will be put first and you will be supported in your efforts. Too many women discover there is no clan and your caveman has cut and run with Raquel Welch in a fur bikini. We do not do right by our chldren because first and foremost, we do not do right by mothers!

Now I find myself deleting what I have typed. You're infecting me uno!

Oh..I have a great pain in my chest! An ache, a sorrow, something old, older than me, in my bones. Mia famiglia! That drive and desire to keep and hold close and live in respectful harmony, to be surrounded by the very old, the shiny new, all together, from birth to death, moving close, stepping back, holding in quiet support, chastising in loud disapproval. A net, a place to live and grow and no one left, no one alone, no one scared and hungry. Strong men, stronger women, beautiful children safe in the bossom of so many loving hearts and arms. A place to belong, to call home, to come back to when the world hurts. THIS is what I think we have lost. The caveman with his small brain cavity and his instinctual drive had something that we have never been able to recreate. What we have is different, but is it BETTER?

SoSavageSue...cavewoman...where are you?

I have had five of these things we call children, I have even lost one two and a half years ago, but I know she watches over me. I have also been a woman married to my children's father and I have been a single mother. So I fully understand that statements I am about to make.

When you look at only logic and take out emotion as was requested, I totally agree Uno. It is the worst thing a woman can do. It does hinder us. Physically, emotionally, and mentally. I have had both, a caveman that didnt care and one that did. I (like the mother mentioned) had agreements with both prior to having the hindrances that it would be the caveman that supports and protects the family while I stay home and raise them. My oldest that past away also had birth defects. So I am all too aware of the added hardship it can be.

As a single woman, I was always torn. I go out to provide a living for my children and my mind is on them, where I felt I should be. Yet, when I was home with them, my mind was on how I would pay the bills to care for them. It was a circling trap. Even when I was with the first caveman (I say this literally), who didnt care, I still felt this trap. As I knew and found out the hard way, some cavemen cant be taken at their word. Once that child was here, then they showed the true colors. I think that many cavemen believe that once their genes are past on they then own said woman who was only the vessel for their genetic conquest.

Even now, with a good man, it is not easy. I find that many times in my daily life, I am trying to figure out how to get certain things done while having them under foot. Ultimately, I am a person of emotion and so their needs are filled and other things pushed to the side. Yet, what does that say for me as a person. Putting my children first means that I do not keep my end of doing the daily chores.

However, there is another way to look at it. The smartest thing a woman can do is have a child. I say this only because for a few years of hardship, they get extra helping hands for many years that will ultimately listen to them above said caveman because you were the one striving to care for them and suffering to make it all happen. Is it then, in the end, not worth having a child? A few short years of hardship for several more getting the helping hands you need?

And yes, as Fowler said, knowing adults that are as children, but by their own choice. Everyone, no matter how differently abled can make a contribution, it is for an adult their choice to not do this. A child can not make that choice. But it is as a culture of giving everything to a child that helps to create the adults like this. I am proud to say that I make my children do chores. They learn that you get something for putting in something. Life is not just handed to you.

And Uno, I have to wonder, the saying it takes a village to raise a child. I perceive it to be other cultures who said this and their villages were not we we see them. They are housed very closely together and usually multiple generations per house. Is it not then more like the clan you think of then a village we see in this day in time? I believe this is a large factor of what is lost on our present way of living. I find living next to my in laws as a pain in the A**, yet, for my children's sake, I know it is better then in any city.

DISCLAIMER: I love with all my heart my children. It takes every ounce of strength I have to continue on after loosing one of them, and it is only because I have the others to raise that I can continue on. It is these emotions, this love, that I choose to have these miracles.

uno wrote:Authentic, hat's off to you for saying that babies are a massive impediment to movement. Many cannot admit that, feel threatened, as if saying thus means that Gordon will swoop in a undo your children. Being home with small kids, even with the aid of a great caveman, can be BRUTAL. Loving raising your kids and suffering from it at the same time is one of the dichotomies of the female condition.

I am all about the honesty. I don't believe in lying, possibly because lying takes more effort than just telling the truth. If you always tell the truth, you have no lies to try to remember.

Children ruin your life. They give you a new and different and a larger and possibly a better life, but the life you once had? Ruined. Gone forever.

And yes, I love my kids. More than anything.

uno wrote:
SoSavageSue...cavewoman...where are you?

I am teaching children. Interesting children. Children everyone should meet. I shall weigh in this evening. Be warned, I am childless. I believe it was called barren in the olden days.

Good point Pfarms, perhaps the village that it takes to raise a child exists somewhere. But not here. We are too fractured. Laws, social programs, will not replace the lost clan. You can not legislate a village.

Sigh. Made a big post and then it disappeared.


Earlier, when our brood was young, I was working contracts. I would work for a while and be off for a while. I said it then and I'll say it now, it is MUCH harder being at home with the babies than it is out working. It was always greed that, if she were to be able to make more than I, I would be the one to stay home. Now the brood is older and we both work (whew).



Regarding the view that natural selection should be taking care of such things as absentee parents and the like, unfortunately from a biological view that will not happen. I'm afraid that the animal kingdom is full of such strategies. Yes, the devoted individual that plays by that specie's rules may see more success overall but, for very little investment, some may see some breeding success. I'm afraid humans aren't all that special in this regard.

Yah just like fowler I made a post and site went down for maintenance Ugh!

uno wrote:We are too fractured. Laws, social programs, will not replace the lost clan. You can not legislate a village.

I agree.

I find it sad as I was raised closer to the village style then many will ever know. My mom was a single parent. My grandparents, both uncles and their families and my mom shared 5 acres. My self and my cousins were all raised together by the uncles, aunts, grandparents, and of course my own mother. I wish my children could experience that.

.

Fowler, I don't think I meant that natural selection should take care of absentee parents. I think I said that a whack to the head with a club should take care of such duds. That's premeditated, not natural.

I can imagine all sort of scenarios where societal selection could have had a very heavy hand in the gene pool! Let's say, if you are a member of a clan and your bear hide mate gives birth, the clan will help you support your mate,a s longa s you help also. But the momwent you split, your mate and your offspring will be whacked on the head as so much dead weight the clan will NOT care for without your input.

I don't know if this happened. But I don't think cave people had many social safety nets. The ONLY social safety net that existed was the instinctual drive of a mother to nurture and ensure the survival of her young. That genetic burden seems mostly to run down the maternal lines.

And while the animal kingdom is full of examples of useless males, most animals do not have babies that are as utterly useless and blob like as humans. If you are an animal that raises its young with no mate, you are much more likely to have a baby that can run several hours after birth, forage on its own, cling to you while you climb a tree, or otherwise knows to shut up when a large dinosaur is near. A human baby does NONE of those things. Humans are at a mass disadvantage because of the pointlessness of their useless offspring. These babies are born....a terrible, crippling burden. The care they need is miles beyond what any animal has ever been expected to provide. SO do animals have cut-and-run fathers? Yes. But they have offspring who the mother is (usually) capable of raising without too much threat to herself or the young. Not so with human beings! Males who do not stick around to support the mother and child set their own genetic line up to die. Cavemen didn't vote liberal, conservative, or anything else. THey did what htey had to to survive. Walking away from extra mouths to feed with no hands to help with that seems a sensible thing to do from an ancient point of view.

uno wrote:

And while the animal kingdom is full of examples of useless males, most animals do not have babies that are as utterly useless and blob like as humans. If you are an animal that raises its young with no mate, you are much more likely to have a baby that can run several hours after birth, forage on its own, cling to you while you climb a tree, or otherwise knows to shut up when a large dinosaur is near. A human baby does NONE of those things. Humans are at a mass disadvantage because of the pointlessness of their useless offspring. These babies are born....a terrible, crippling burden.

But human babies do naturally swim.

Yes, I believe in the 'Beach Bum' theory (that we had an aquatic ancestor).

True. They swim. To where? And do they bring back a fish or graze on plankton? No. Fowler, go sit down.

uno wrote:True. They swim. To where? And do they bring back a fish or graze on plankton? No. Fowler, go sit down.

Where does a baby zebra run to? Where does a squirrel climb to? A clinging monkey? Ha, just enough to slow you down so you get caught. No no. You said they were slugs and I merely pointed out that they are, in fact, capable of doing something.

and I haven't tested it in any event. Maybe it'd come back with a salmon in it's mouth.


But yes, returning to your topic, in the past societal selection would have made passing on genetics a long shot.

Let's see, the cost of raising a child in Canada to age 18 is $243,660 (that's before university/college/whathaveyou).

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Then there is the additional cost to women (in particular). Lost revenue, delayed career etc.

Yes, having a child certainly doesn't seem to make sense. Hoping one of my three pays off.

Sounds like we have a lot in common with cats. Sorry if you're a cat-hater. Just reading Uno's second post above.

And while the animal kingdom is full of examples of useless males, most animals do not have babies that are as utterly useless and blob like as humans. If you are an animal that raises its young with no mate, you are much more likely to have a baby that can run several hours after birth, forage on its own, cling to you while you climb a tree, or otherwise knows to shut up when a large dinosaur is near. A human baby does NONE of those things. Humans are at a mass disadvantage because of the pointlessness of their useless offspring. These babies are born....a terrible, crippling burden. The care they need is miles beyond what any animal has ever been expected to provide. SO do animals have cut-and-run fathers? Yes. But they have offspring who the mother is (usually) capable of raising without too much threat to herself or the young.

I get what you are saying. But where does the female responbility lie? We are supposed to be able to pick and chose the best mate we think there is (unless it is forced), but don't we share some of the blame? Yes, there are some of dumb enough to be fooled (I am not judging here, speaking from experience) or stuck in even worse circumstances that this alternative appears better. But ultimately do we not decide for ourselves to have said children? And vulnerable or not, are we not thankful we did? I am. The one cell I needed, I got. The rest is up to me. Whether a curse, or a blessing, I will decide and I will make it work. (I chose blessing )

.