Three Kids? You Showoffs.
| AR Articles on the Demographic Transformation |
|---|
| Writing on the Wall (Aug. 2001) |
| Birth Rates: Who is Winning the Race? (Nov. 2000) |
| If We Do Nothing (Jun. 1996) |
| More news stories on the Demographic Transformation |
My husband and I are getting ready to do what many couples in these brink-of-recessionary times would consider unthinkable. No, we’re not buying a Martha’s Vineyard retreat or planning a month in St. Bart’s or eco-decorating our house.
We’re planning to have a third child.
What shocks people, when we tell them, isn’t the thought of hauling three kids onto a place for a vacation, or even the idea of coming home every night to a houseful of runny noses and homework assignments. What gets them is the sheer financial audacity. Raising kids today costs a fortune. Last month, the Department of Agriculture estimated that each American child costs an average of $204,060 to house, clothe, educate and entertain until the age of 18.
But to me, a family with just two kids seems minimalist, and even a bit sad. Back in the 1970s, when my husband and I were born, sprawling families were more common. My husband had two sisters and, following a Brady-Bunchy set of remarriages in my family, I wound up with seven brothers, real and step. I’ve always fantasized about creating a “Meet Me in St. Louis”-style household of my own, with children constantly underfoot and enough relatives around to skip to my lou en masse.
And yet nowadays, people seem aghast if a couple wants more than two children. When Elana Sigall, a 43-year-old attorney in Brooklyn, was pregnant with her third, people came up to her constantly, she said, to admonish her: “You’ve got a boy and a girl already. Why don’t you just leave it alone?”
What’s worse, the desire to have another child opens one up to charges of elitism and status consciousness. In many major U.S. cities and their suburbs—especially New York, where I live—having three or more children has now come to seem like an ostentatious display of good fortune, akin to owning a pied-Ã -terre in Paris. The family of five has become “deluxe.” Last year, novelist Molly Jong-Fast mused in the New York Observer, “Are people having four or five children just because they can? Because they feel that it shows their wealth and status? In a world where the young rich use their $13,000 Birkin bags as diaper bags, one has to wonder.”
We not only wonder, we marvel, we get jealous, we gawk. “Having three kids in the city is a way of showing off, absolutely,” says Elisabeth Egan, who, like many families she knows, moved out of New York to the suburbs of Montclair, N.J., to manage the feat. “A third child in the city is definitely a luxury good.”
{snip}
There’s no question that it takes a lot more money to bring up baby nowadays. Many parents would scoff at the Agriculture Department’s humble figures. When you get into the nitty-gritty, the price of kids feels more like a million dollars a pop.
Consider raising a single “luxury” child. By luxury, mind you, we’re not necessarily talking hedge-fund rich, merely able to afford and “raise right.” And the pressure to do that, even if you’re not uber-wealthy, has become overwhelming. From the moment the heartbeat blinks across the sonogram screen, Big Baby starts in with its pleading and conniving: I’m your child! How can you spare any expense? Don’t you care?
{snip}
So parents quickly adjust to the demanding realities of the child-rearing industry. Baby showers have replaced bridal showers as the blowout du jour; American women today have an average of three. The accompanying baby registries have mushroomed into a $240 million business, according to research firm Mintel International Group. Between diapers and bouncy seats, parents can count on spending at least $6,500 on the first year of baby gear alone. “You walk into Babies R Us, and you’re just overwhelmed,” recalls Brooke Houghton, a 35-year-old mom from Chicago who said she ran out of the store in panic after 15 minutes. “There was just so much equipment I hadn’t even considered.”
Once a new mom’s maternity leave (if she’s lucky enough to get it) is up, a nanny or quality day care is in order. {snip}
For parents who both work full-time—or those otherwise occupied with family, charitable and social obligations—child care doesn’t end when the children enter school. If you calculate nanny pay on top of $26,000 annual private school tuition (eventually multiplied by three), you’re talking $140,000 just to keep your children safe and reasonably occupied while the sun’s up. Once children are a bit older, there’s the battery of ballet, piano, squash (offbeat sports viewed as an inroad to Harvard), and the vehicles needed to get there. Hyper-vigilant child safety laws mean that up to the age of 7, children are boxed into full-size or booster car seats. Try jamming three of those into the back seat of a compact car.
Most families simply can’t afford all this. {snip}
Today’s American children, by contrast, get an average of 70 new toys a year, yet child development experts agree that the best toys are simple playthings such as blocks, balls and figurines that a child can play with over and over, in new ways. {snip}
{snip}
As for my husband and me, we hardly have unlimited resources, but we’re still planning to go forth and multiply in the big city. The way we figure it, one day our children will be grateful for what we didn’t give them—and what we did for them instead.
{snip}
(Posted on April 8, 2008)
Comments
If this was a black or hispanic couple or any other non-white couple they’d not tell them “haven’t you had enough children?” Oh! That’s right. Can’t have more white people (the people who hold America, Europe and Canada together) reproduce, can we? No, that’d make it too hard for our 3rd world invaders to take over our lands.
Posted by at 6:40 PM on April 8
Haven’t we White people become helpless? “How can we raise THREE children?! How can we EVER afford it?!” Saying, “Well, how did our parents and grandparents manage to raise larger families that, often, turned out OK?” is branded as overlooking the changing American scene, the higher costs nowadays for raising children, the additional education necessary today for kids to excel, blah, blah, blah …
Ask the Mormons how they do it. In some of the more heavily Mormon areas of Utah, Mormon families average four, five, six children. Larger families than that are not uncommon. Look at the Amish, the Orthodox Jews. They manage to do it, don’t they? That appears to prove, in my book, that it’s not impossible.
Another article posted this evening points up how the world’s Caucasian population is dropping. Things like the attitudes displayed in the article above are “Exhibit A” as to why we’re losing White people. If my grandparents could raise 13 children; Grandpa’s brother and his wife, 10; one of their first cousins and his wife, 10; and another first cousin, eight; then there’s no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the average White couple nowadays could raise three or four. Be fruitful and multiply, you blue-eyed brothers and sisters!
Posted by Wayne Engle at 6:49 PM on April 8
If you have 2 boys, what’s wrong with wanting to have a girl? (and vice versa). It’s about love. In general no-one should question a couple’s desire to have children.
Posted by at 6:53 PM on April 8
Most families simply can’t afford all this.
White people need to have more children, and not so many luxeries. Everyone can afford more children, and for the mother to stay home to care for them. Of course, this would mean sacrafice, and today’s society thinks sacrafice for family means both parents working for “stuff”.
Posted by Kellie at 6:58 PM on April 8
I saw quite a few “deluxe” families last time I visited Disneyland. Funny thing, they were all Mexicans. Does this mean they are “showing off” their newfound power?
Posted by at 7:20 PM on April 8
“But to me, a family with just two kids seems minimalist, and even a bit sad. Back in the 1970s, when my husband and I were born, sprawling families were more common. My husband had two sisters and, following a Brady-Bunchy set of remarriages in my family, I wound up with seven brothers, real and step. I’ve always fantasized about creating a ‘Meet Me in St. Louis’-style household of my own, with children constantly underfoot and enough relatives around to skip to my lou en masse.”
This was for me the most touching and honestly stated observation in this article. It is personal and unapologetically human, in the face of materialism gone wild and hedonism being explained away by this sorry fact of measuring “success” in the West. Particularly, in large urban areas, like NY, NY; or LA, where it is expected that one will outdo their neighbors with a bigger Mercedes, and it is looked down upon for having a third child and getting a mini-van instead.
Indeed, things have changed irreversibly since the 1970s in terms of useful and needed technological/material concerns. The personal computer, which all of us who frequent AR enjoy so much, is no longer a luxury, but a mandatory facet of modern existence that cannot be lived without. In some respects, being without a telephone would be more possible, and not having a television favorable to, losing PC and internet access. It is just that revolutionary in allowing communication, and will likely become ever more the central facet of such in the foreseeable future.
Heck, the video/phone connection is a possible luxury today, how long until it is the norm? 10 years, or given some new optimal breakthrough, 5 years?
However, with that said, I would forgo even such personal “necessities,” to have children. It is normal to want them and highly abnormal not to, in my book. Since I am now engaged to and planning this with a woman who sees the priority in this, I can speak with full self-consciousness rejected. It is not “hypocrisy” or “grand standing” to say that having a large family, and missing out on a few creature comforts is admirable for others, but not for me anymore.
We plan for three and possibly four?
We do not see it as planning a “deluxe” family, only that our first child will have siblings and enjoy the special companionship that this will bring, even if we never are able to afford our own set of R2-D2 and C3-PO robots to indulge that first child with the newest trendy gadgets to play with, should they be available in 2015 or so. Moreover, we feel that such would be even more disgraceful, if we “excused” such motivations “focused” on our child’s “needs,” as opposed to having children and being equally and secretly amused with those same gadgets, that eclipsed our having them.
We might not have that newest: computer, TV, or even set of hypothetical robots. Nor, will that first child; however, he/she will have flesh and blood brothers and sisters, that will offer a lot more than entertainment and being “cool” with the “popular” kids at school, he or she will have other people to care about and depend on long after I and my future wife are gone.
God let it be so!!!
Posted by John PM at 8:50 PM on April 8
More proof that a pregnant white female carrying a white child is going to be the next hate crime. Seriously.
I work with a mulatto man, and his ex-wife: white. His preferred dating pool: white women. His goal: more quadroons. My supervisor commended him on his ability to make “beautiful babies” and stated that black men and white women combine to make gorgeous kids. I felt sick, and I know this is the kind of thing that won’t qualify for investigation. If anything it would put *me* in the dangerous position of having to explain why I found the topic offensive.
And as a parting shot to the Washington Post: my younger brother, the “luxury” child of the family, that absolutly unnecessary child in a family that had already achieve equilibrium of one boy, one girl, went to Iraq for two years, and was shot at and even was even stabbed by the enemy, and still made it home in one piece. My brother is a hero, but according to this toilet paper rag, he was “unnecessary”. Unbelievable.
Posted by Jacqui in AZ at 9:36 PM on April 8
“We’re planning to have a third child.”
Want to give non-whites and radical leftists something to worry about?
Just tell them if all white families in the US did exactly as the above family did for just five years the white population would surge by millions, bringing the white percentage up to about 80% again.
Posted by w.r. at 9:57 PM on April 8
We have three girls and I have to say that I felt more of a difference in finances and workload between baby one and two than I did between baby two and three.
I came from a small family and my husband from a larger one and when I see the relationship between him and his siblings, I have to admit I wish my family had been larger so that I could have the same friendships and closeness. I hope that my girls will be able to stay close, as well.
If you can afford to feed, clothe and educate three children (or more) and want to dedicate yourself to raising them to be honorable, contributing members of society it’s nobody’s business but your own.
Posted by Miss Baby at 11:47 PM on April 8
“You’ve got a boy and a girl already. Why don’t you just leave it alone?”
Of course no one would be allowed to ask a Hispanic or black person this question, but it’s perfectly acceptable to suggest to a white person that they’re having too damn many kids.
If a person said this to me I know exactly what my response would be: “Go f-*& yourself.”
Posted by Alan at 11:49 PM on April 8
I have observed that people who have a lot of siblings tend to have a better understanding of human nature than those that have few or none. Spending all that time with brothers and sisters teach children some of the basics of human behaviour which means they become wiser and better at dealing with people later on in life.
Posted by Selma at 12:18 AM on April 9
A third child is a “luxury”? Since when were children (either having a lot of them or having few/none of them) considered like a car or a fancy house? Strange times indeed.
If this isn’t the height of arrogance coming from the Washington Post, I don’t know what is.
Posted by DP at 12:21 AM on April 9
Why in the world would anyone pay $26,000 for a year’s schooling for a kid? What do these people think they’re getting for all that money? My school charges 3500 bucks per kid, and nobody teaches better than I do, at any price. Maybe you have to pay extra for communist indoctrination. There is a large slice of the American upper class that is mentally disturbed.
Posted by Schoolteacher at 2:06 AM on April 9
Since replacement requires that each couple average 2.1 children, having a third child is the difference between slow extinction and healthy growth. This is an encouraging trend among Whites.
Posted by Greg Johnson at 4:37 AM on April 9
The highest standard of living was recorded in the 1950s. During that time, it was accepted that the man of the house would work, while the lady would do the family chores. It was also the time when large families were the norm and a single salary could comfortably afford a large house, good car and all the necessaries of life.
Two things destroyed this state of affairs. The male-hating movement of feminism, which stated that having a family and having pride in them was little more than slavery. Women were encouraged to go out and demand the formerly male responsibility for themselves, while misbranding it “male privilege”. The result was an immediate influx in the number of workers in society and a consequent drop in wages. The unbridled racial suicide of unfettered immigration also brought about an oversupply of workers, again with the drop in wages via the simple laws of supply and demand. And again more recently, corporate labour outsourcing without any loyalty to those who built the organisation or their target market.
This whole sorry state of affairs now means that it takes two full time workers to afford to raise one, maybe two children.
Posted by ODDL at 6:50 AM on April 9
John P.M.
Congrats on the engagement and the marriage “plans” (i.e. children).
I’ve read your posts in the past and saw your being finicky about the woman you would chose. Glad to see you found the right one.
I’m remarried, have two kids and now one on the way. Good chance I’ll end up with five all together.
I did have a friend say, “You’re going to bring a child into this world?”. I told him, “Someone will have to rescue America, maybe it will be this kid!”
Enjoy the honeymoon.
Posted by GWS at 7:10 AM on April 9
If you just move to a mostly white town the public schools will by default be at least above average.
Then you just have to pay a little attention to countering the liberal hogwash that will be pushed on them.
Posted by at 8:13 AM on April 9
“In many major U.S. cities and their suburbs—especially New York, where I live—having three or more children has now come to seem like an ostentatious display of good fortune, akin to owning a pied-Ã -terre in Paris. The family of five has become “deluxe.” Last year, novelist Molly Jong-Fast mused in the New York Observer, “Are people having four or five children just because they can? Because they feel that it shows their wealth and status? In a world where the young rich use their $13,000 Birkin bags as diaper bags, one has to wonder.””
This is not a Christian World and life view, putting it bluntly.
This is a subset of a subset of an ethic view of life prevalent in NYC, and virtually nowhere else in the West.
To consider one’s womb as a ‘designer accessory’ and children as merely ‘fetal bling’ is quite satanic, in my opinion.
And, contrary to narrow visioned individuals, there are those outside of LDS circles, who uphold the biblical dictum:
“Lo, children are an heritage of the Lird, and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a might man, so are chjildren of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them, they shall not be ashamed, but thty shall speak with the enemies in the gate.” Ps. 1273-5.
They are known (appropriately) as the “Quiverful movement.” They are the future of honest Christian Whites. Many who are part of this cutting edge in ‘White Race Replacement’ (view the article on Whites being
This is the real future of America, for these parents are NOT ashamed, but rather are Proud they are doing God’s will, for they know ‘whom they have believed.’
Posted by Fr. John at 9:10 AM on April 9
The problem is that unlike other races, white people think too much. The white mans’ capacity to reason himself out of existence knows no bounds.
Posted by sbuffalonative at 9:27 AM on April 9
“You’ve got a boy and a girl already. Why don’t you just leave it alone?”
Of course no one would be allowed to ask a Hispanic or black person this question, but it’s perfectly acceptable to suggest to a white person that they’re having too damn many kids.
If a person said this to me I know exactly what my response would be: “Go f-*& yourself.”
Posted by Alan at 11:49 PM on April 8
——————-
Precisely. Another response would be: “Would you ask that same question to a Black or Hispanic?”
Posted by at 9:35 AM on April 9
The article never comes out and mentions race, but it almost seems as if this lady could be some kind of a white causes sympathizer. She uses a reverse psychology tack almost like Jared Taylor. I guess that’s the most we can expect from someone with a Phd. Personally, I’m not upset about the ‘demographic decline’ here in America. It’s the only thing that will convince white women to vote for moving away from them. Thanks God there’s something.
Posted by LHathaway at 10:53 AM on April 9
It’s not bad. The article never comes out and mentions race, but it almost seems as if this lady could be some kind of a white causes sympathizer. She uses a reverse psychology tack almost like Jared Taylor. I guess that’s the most we can expect from someone with a Phd and priviledged. Personally, I’m not upset about the ‘demographic decline’ here in America. It’s the only thing that will convince white women to vote for moving away from them. Thank God there’s something.
Posted by LHathaway at 10:58 AM on April 9
I just found out my wife and I will be having our third child later this year. You can afford it. Look at your lifestyle and make some sacrifices: get rid of the expensive gas guzzler, move to a more modest home (or whiter state), go to a state park instead of Europe, etc.
Posted by Civilized Neighbor at 11:50 AM on April 9
The article is also very characteristic, I think, of the myopic attitudes of east coast, big-city liberals who view their own experiences as normative, and who see the “red state” territory between New York and LA as being inhabited by barbarian tribes (insofar as they think about it at all). The woman who wrote this article has managed, just barely, to break through those stifling attitudes and has for once caught a glimpse of something a little bigger than herself, her job or her possessions.
Posted by Dave at 3:03 PM on April 9
You should make a point of encouraging other white families to have more kids. We do it and when we were in Europe we did it there too. One of the lines I use is “You make great looking well behaved kids. You should have more.”
Posted by RealityCheck at 4:31 PM on April 9
I just had my fourth child. It is being raised right and if I could have a million I would! There is no greater joy in this world and when they are as smart as mine they are not much work. My 5 year old daughter always wants to help more with the baby than I expect her to, which was not at all. She actually gets sad when she can’t help.
People are so obsessed with material possessions that they forget what is really important. There should be nothing more important than family! The second most important thing is raising children right. Believe it or not, its more important than your favorite shows. I know most of you reading this post know that. Its the difference between pumping them out and taking real pride in your family.
Posted by Vidar at 2:01 AM on April 15