People sometimes ask me why I never had children.
Early on in my marriage, I would reply "No child deserves me as a parent." Later, my response became, "Because I am too selfish." Both comments are equally true.
I never felt that I would make a good parent. Just as I did not acquire a driver's licence until I was 20, because I did not feel that I was capable of assuming control over something as potentially deadly as a car, I did not feel that what I believed about child-rearing would produce a good child/adult.
Our resonsibility to our children is also our responsibility to society as a whole. We owe our children the duty to teach them to easily and properly function in society. We owe society children who will function properly within society.
I honestly did not feel capable of fulfilling those goals.
At one point in our marriage, I offered my husband (who I feel would have made and EXCELLENT father) a divorce so that he could find someone who would give him children.
And I was selfish. I did not want to share my husband with other beings who had equal claim on his time, his attention, his love. Heck, there were times I was jealous of the cat!! If I could not accept his telling the cat "I love you.", how was I ever going to accept a child?? I was selfish. I am selfish.
So, no kids, no carrying on of the family name. This branch on the family tree dies.
Oh, wow. And that is one p*ss poor reason for having kids. "Don't let the family name die." WHY NOT?? My husband's family has plenty of descendents to honor the name (Thanks to great-grandpa and his six or seven wives) And frankly, why honor the past? In China, there was a cult of ancestry. And what of the current generations?
There is nothing wrong with geneology. What is wrong is defining yourself solely by what your ancestors accomplished.
I would rather be known for who I am today than for who I am descended from. My ancestory may matter to me, but it does not define me. I am defined by who I am, what I have done, and what I leave behind me.
And since I have no children, if I want to be remembered, it will be my reputation, for good or for ill that defines me after death.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
"Our SOB"
Watching the events in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan and Yemen, I am reminded of a story that dates back to the Truman administration. In a discussion of a dictator somewhere, an advisor commented that the man in questions was an DOB.. Truman purportedly replied, "Yes, but he's our SOB."
That sums up what is wrong about American Foreign policy. It was wrong during the cold war, and now that the cold war has ended, it is even more wrong.
An SOB is generally considered (as a National leader) to be autocratic, dictatorial, uncaring about human rights or the welfare of his people.
By supporting leaders who can be described in this fashion, the US is setting ourselves up for more trouble with the country in the future. Eventually, events will topple or remove that leader. What then? The bulk of the populace does NOT view the US as a friend. We supported and propped up the leader they have now deposed. As far as the general population of the country is concerned, the US does not care about human rights, education, the rights of women or minorities, or even spurring the democratic process.
Mubarek came to power 30 years ago. For the first ten years, the US could believe his statements that his was a democratic government. But when the same individual wins election after election, the US just might want to start requesting evidence that the country is a democracy.
Oddly enough, the limit of two terms on the president in this country has prevented (since FDR) the rise of a strong-man rule. There have been two-term presidents since FDR who might have been lured into running for a third term.
So, when the US is evaluating the quality of the democratic ideals esposed abroad, one of the issues we need to be aware of is whether there is a limit on the number of terms an executive can serve.
It won't solve the problem, but if ther US were to become a large bit more cautious about our support for the SOBs of this world, in the long run, we would be better preceived by the people they rule.
That sums up what is wrong about American Foreign policy. It was wrong during the cold war, and now that the cold war has ended, it is even more wrong.
An SOB is generally considered (as a National leader) to be autocratic, dictatorial, uncaring about human rights or the welfare of his people.
By supporting leaders who can be described in this fashion, the US is setting ourselves up for more trouble with the country in the future. Eventually, events will topple or remove that leader. What then? The bulk of the populace does NOT view the US as a friend. We supported and propped up the leader they have now deposed. As far as the general population of the country is concerned, the US does not care about human rights, education, the rights of women or minorities, or even spurring the democratic process.
Mubarek came to power 30 years ago. For the first ten years, the US could believe his statements that his was a democratic government. But when the same individual wins election after election, the US just might want to start requesting evidence that the country is a democracy.
Oddly enough, the limit of two terms on the president in this country has prevented (since FDR) the rise of a strong-man rule. There have been two-term presidents since FDR who might have been lured into running for a third term.
So, when the US is evaluating the quality of the democratic ideals esposed abroad, one of the issues we need to be aware of is whether there is a limit on the number of terms an executive can serve.
It won't solve the problem, but if ther US were to become a large bit more cautious about our support for the SOBs of this world, in the long run, we would be better preceived by the people they rule.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
