having children

Jerry Freeman · Post by **Jerry Freeman** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 10:30 pm

Well, OK then.

I thought this thread was going along fine without me.

What I see in the mobile home business is an interesting cross section of humanity.

I encounter a lot of people who have not been responsible with money and are just trying me out to see if they can somehow get a house trailer off of me.

And I encounter many decent people who have had unfortunate things happen, more often than not medical, that have damaged them financiallly and damaged their credit. Unfortunately, I can't do much for them other than make suggestions about how to go forward to repair their credit.

And I encounter a lot of responsible people who are just getting started, are ready to own their first home, and have decided a mobile home, sometimes on property their family owns, sometimes on a rented lot in the country or in a mobile home park, is the way they want to go. Plus a fair number of seniors who are downsizing, moving closer to their kids or out to the countryside after selling the house that's bigger than they need now. And also I encounter established working people who have lived in mobile homes for a long time and are replacing an old one.

I make each home the best I can possibly do within the constraints that will still allow it to sell at a price people can accept. My homes cost typically about half what a new one will cost, and they're every bit as nice. It's not unusual for a customer to tell me they went to 30 dealers before they saw my homes and decided to buy from me.

I work on them (Gary, who's some kind of saint of a handiman does more of the hands on work nowadays while I run the business), not thinking about what it will mean to the people who eventually will live there. Selling one of these is a fairly rare event, so I forget what it's like each time.

Then I do sell one, and the buyers remind me what a big thing it is. It's somebody's home, and oftentimes, it changes their lives.

This is kind of roundabout, but I guess my point is, when you only see a population of people from a distance, it's easy to think they're all alike. But the thing is, people are people, no matter where they are and no matter what broad category of humanity they might happen to fit.

The closer you get, the easier it is to see that there are decent people everywhere, and there are shady people everywhere. It's got nothing to do with social status or property value, as far as I can tell.

One of the best things I ever heard was from an east Indian traditional physician who said, "My advice to you is, never think of anyone as bigger than you are, and never think of anyone as smaller than you are. Always think of everyone as just the same as you."

Gary has fostered something like 58 kids. His son will be getting out in about a week after two years in prison for a series of DUI's. His other son just bought a place in Tennessee where he's moved from Colorado to take over a management job with a large construction company. Gary doesn't talk about one any differently than the other. If I can keep things going well enough to support the payroll, his son who is just getting out will be working for me before long, alongside his father while he tries to put his life back together.

I don't feel qualified to say much about adoption, really. I never thought I would have children at all, and it never would have occurred to me to go into adoption on my own. As it happens with many men, adopting kids was part of the package that came with the relationship with my life's partner. I accepted that and followed Arleen into it.

I don't have words for what the experience has been/is like, except to say that in a very real way, each of these seven children has adopted me just as much as I've adopted them, and they have done at least as much for me as I could ever possibly do for them.

Best wishes,
Jerry

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 10:59 pm

Jerry, that was a very eloquent, thoughtful and very beautifully written response.

gonzo914 · Post by **gonzo914** » Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:02 pm

susnfx wrote:...very few of what you would think of as having a "trailer park gene."

Just as it is that not everyone who has a heart attack has the bad-cholesterol gene, so it is that not everyone who lives in mobile homes has the trailer-court gene.

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:35 am

I will approach this from a religious angle, as that reflects my beliefs on the matter. I apologize in advance to those who wish I wouldn't.

In the beginning of Scripture we read one of the first commandments given to us was to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. On a surface reading, this is clear enough. It's repeated again after the Deluge, a few chapters over.

An essential function of all life is to reproduce... to reproduce with abundance. As a whole, we are instictively (if there be such a thing as instinct) driven to it. Man and beast and plant and bacteria, alike. It is a basic tenet of physical life. It's not a command to try to have a certain number of offspring. It's not a command to try not to have a certain amount of offspring, but, I believe, to be content with what we are given.

Beyond the surface level, as all spiritual truth has levels deeper than the surface, and is not of any private interpretation, it speaks of being spiritually fruitful and multiplying. IOW, we are to be fruitful and multiply in good works. Not for any physical or emotional reward, but to increase in bounty, because that is the essence of the divine. To grow in grace. To grow in love toward our fellow man. Not to make our goal in life gain for ourselves, but to benefit others. Not to make our ultimate goal attempts at proselytization, but to bear one another's burdens, as our brother man needs us, all humanity being one blood.

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:43 am

Cranberry wrote:I've also lived in many trailers during my lifetime. And, contrary to the stereotype, I am not toothless, contiunally pregnant (although I am barefoot ), or uneducated.

I lived in trailer houses a few times, growing up. Never in anything as luxurious as a double-wide. Once in an actual trailer park, otherwise just out in the country on my grandparents' land, but I fit the stereotype.

Flyingcursor · Post by **Flyingcursor** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am

One of the central themes of a lot of older science fiction revolved around over population. Many of the "future histories" deal with some method of population control becoming necessary. I wonder if we'll come to a time when there are strict population control measures?

Jerry Freeman · Post by **Jerry Freeman** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:14 am

I believe there are strict population control measures in China now, are there not? China comprises a fourth of the world's population, I think.

Best wishes,
Jerry

avanutria · Post by **avanutria** » Mon Jul 04, 2005 7:22 am

Yes, one child per family. Unfortunately this tends to result in an abundance of baby girls being abandoned, as culturally boys are more valued than girls. I believe my aunt chose China as the location for her two girls for this reason, although I'm not sure.

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Oct/46138.htm

" I'd like to explain China's family planning policy. China's family planning policy is not the "one child policy" as understood by some people. The government advocates each couple to have one child in accordance with the family planning policy. However, any couple facing genuine difficulties, mainly those in rural areas whose first child is a girl, can apply for the birth of second child by going through the necessary formalities. If couples in urban areas are both the product of a one child family they are entitled to produce a second child. Besides, the policies in ethnic minority areas are actually more flexible. Since specific birth policies are set by each province according to local circumstances, the conditions vary from province to province and from city to city..."

I wonder how hard it is for rural families to go through the necessary formalities...

Montana · Post by **Montana** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 1:11 pm

I'll add some comments to this discussion and hopefully not offend too many.
First, I want to give Cran a pat on the back for bringing up this discussion. It can be very involved (as evidenced by the previous three pages) but it is important. It can also become very emotionally charged so I think it takes courage to bring it up.

Cran, my take on all this is very similar to yours (which is probably why I'm commenting). I have always claimed that the foundation of a number of the world's problems is the continually growing human population. And as it continues to grow, the problems will only worsen. This is not a science fiction story line; it is a reality. Pollution, crime, poverty, environmental destruction; all these things will have greater impact as the population grows. If we could stop or even reverse the growth, we might be able to enter a stasis in some of these areas. But that won't happen.

I just have a question for some out there and it's not meant to be a slam or anything. I am truly curious. If you want to have lots of kids for religious reasons, what would you want if your religion said the right thing to do is only have enough children to replace you and your spouse? Would that then have been enough for you?

On the subject of adoption: foster children are difficult but that is only one type of adoption. They say that a child's personality is basically set by the time they are 2 years old. So if you are adopting an 8 year old foster child, you could have a battle trying to counter-act that early imprinting. That said, these are probably the children who may need adoption the most (hardest to find homes for). If you adopt a baby, you can have a hand in that early development so the child's chances are probably better.

There are a lot of hoops to jump through in adoption which can appear to act against the process. However, I have seen why those hoops are important. One of those hoops is that they require that a couple has been married for two years. I know a couple where the woman just had to have a baby NOW and she was unable to conceive. She married a man (a very nice unfortunate man) with some money who went on to try to do anything to make her happy. They lied to to the adoption agency or paid them off or something and were able to get a black baby (they are white) after they had only been married one year. One year later they are divorced and neither has the time singly to care for the child so he's in daycare a lot. I don't think this is what the adoption agency had in mind. The child may have many of his own quandries growing up in a mainly white community without the confusion of mutliple families.

I have never felt the "drive" to reproduce. I knew even when I was young that I didn't want children. Since I do see the negative impacts of population growth, I cannot in good conscience add to it. But in an interesting counter to the "selfishness" of having kids, I have had it suggested that the reason I don't have kids is because I'm too selfish. There is definitely a societal push for people to have kids and I think this needs to be tempered somewhat. Often when people find out I don't have kids, they assume something is wrong with me. I have made what I believe to be a moral choice, just as those who have kids claim to have done.

Whew. Sorry for that diatribe. :roll:

emmline · Post by **emmline** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:38 pm

Montana wrote: I have never felt the "drive" to reproduce. I knew even when I was young that I didn't want children.

I wonder if it's a stronger urge in females. I know some women don't have that drive, but in general maybe it is.

Montana wrote: There is definitely a societal push for people to have kids and I think this needs to be tempered somewhat.

Yes, I think you're right. I wish there wasn't. I wonder what would happen to the population graph if childbearing were not pushed.
In my extended (and not always blood-related) family, I feel like the adults who've remained childless are as included and valued--and not pressured--as anyone. Guess that's not always the case.

mvhplank · Post by **mvhplank** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 7:16 pm

Just a little segue...

Montana wrote:They say that a child's personality is basically set by the time they are 2 years old.

I don't think it takes that long. My sister's second child, a girl, seems to have been born wary of strangers and it has caused no end of interesting discussions. It took her months before she was content to be held by her father and longer than that to warm up to her grandfather (who was initially hurt by her apparent rejection).

My sister had to do a lot of explaining to the girl's kindergarten and first-grade teachers. It seems that it's OK if Niece is formally introduced to a person by someone she already trusts--but strangers? Tears and wailing!

Anyway it seems that kids--born to families or adopted in--are who they are, and there are some aspects that may be molded, and some that are just-plain hard-wired.

M

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Tue Jul 05, 2005 10:36 pm

Thanks, Montana, and Walden (I like hearing your views, Walden, religious or not, because you tend to think deeply about such things), and everybody else for the very interesting conversation and exchange of ideas.

Father Emmet · Post by **Father Emmet** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:52 pm

izzarina wrote: Instead I have to endure the lady at the checkout line at my local grocery store informing me that I’m a horrible person for having too many kids, and she is praised for her comments.

I am always amazed at how people feel free to say whatever they want to parents with children. Everything from "You know they shouldn't do that" to "why so many" to "you know there are ways to avoid pregnancy". It's just plain rude.
How would that woman at the checkout like it if you said to her "Why did you let your ass get so fat? There are ways to avoid that you know."
Some folks watch a few episodes of "Super Nanny" and think they know it all.

jsluder · Post by **jsluder** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:47 pm

Father Emmet wrote:I am always amazed at how people feel free to say whatever they want to parents with children. Everything from "You know they shouldn't do that" to "why so many" to "you know there are ways to avoid pregnancy". It's just plain rude.

They're not just rude to parents; they're rude to everyone. My wife and I have chosen (for very personal reasons I won't go into here) to not have children, through either birth or adoption. When meeting someone for the first time, we are often asked, "Do you have children?" When we answer, "No", they usually ask, "Why not?" It's very difficult to refrain from blurting out, "That's none of your damn business." :roll:

John

Teri-K · Post by **Teri-K** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:52 pm

jsluder wrote:
Father Emmet wrote:I am always amazed at how people feel free to say whatever they want to parents with children. Everything from "You know they shouldn't do that" to "why so many" to "you know there are ways to avoid pregnancy". It's just plain rude.
They're not just rude to parents; they're rude to everyone. My wife and I have chosen (for very personal reasons I won't go into here) to not have children, through either birth or adoption. When meeting someone for the first time, we are often asked, "Do you have children?" When we answer, "No", they usually ask, "Why not?" It's very difficult to refrain from blurting out, "That's none of your damn business." :roll:

John

Nice to hear that from someone who has made the same decision. I have a son from a previous marriage, but my hubby and I had no desire for children. When we get that question, we simply say: "Because we're far too selfish!" and nip their judgemental thoughts in the bud. People immediately drop the subject.