Love/hate relationship with the phone...more hate than love ;-)

I'm happy to have a cell phone. Really. After all, I may need to call and get the time for a movie. Or check my account balance. No, wait-- I use the computer for those things.

Well, Papaw might ring to ask if he can stop by with some pie. (Always a "yes!") Sometimes I need to reach a friend to plan a playdate. Or call my neighbor and ask her to send my boy home for dinner.
But the stickin' phone also causes soooo many interruptions to my life. Even when I don't answer it.
There are some things you just shouldn’t do with a phone…
It's up for debate. This is just my opinion (and the opinion of possibly every person who has bought a phone scrambler. Too bad they're illegal.)

(Side note/ disclaimer/ fine print: I am not mad at anyone, nor am I thinking of any one person who has violated the phone etiquette rules. Heck, I'm sure I've violated them myself! I think this is all pretty minor. I just don't answer my phone most of the time, no biggie. This is more of a In-A-Perfect-World kind-of thought... I won't unfriend anyone if they answer the phone during dinner, so relax!! :-) It's all good. Now, on to the gritty...)

#1 Don't call me if you're bored. :-) Please.
I love my friends and family. I enjoy getting together with you, going to field trips, cooking club, crafting club, church, playdates, lunch outings. But I enjoy being WITH the people I'm with. If you aren't here, you can safely assume that someone else is. I have four little people All. The. Time. My kids practice enough "time playing alone nicely" when I have to make *necessary* (boring, unappealing, irritating) calls. So I don't like to just wander off and ignore them while I carry on an unnecessary and lengthy conversation. If you were standing right here, you could see that the 3-year old's nose just started bleeding, or my 5-year old slammed his own finger in the bathroom door. Or the neighbor kids are at the door wanting to play. Or that I was cooking while talking and now my stove is on fire. Or a million other things that can happen in 5 minutes. Not that any of those things have actually happened. Oh my.

But you're not here, so you innocently carry on, chatting away while I ...
a) drop the phone and deal with the issue at hand.

b) ignore any issues at hand because, after all, the phone trumps "real life,"
or c) rudely interrupt you to scream, "call you back," while grabbing baking soda and flinging it at the stove.
So I prefer to talk to people in person. Or on email, when I can rise and leave the computer whenever I need to. If we need to catch up, let's stick to a 5-minute update and plan a time to go grab a bite to eat. THEN we can talk!

- Okay, everyone owns a cell now. Which means, of course, that we can talk whenever and where ever we want, not that we shooooouuld. Which brings me to
Rule #2 It’s rude to talk on the phone in restaurants, libraries, classes...baptisms, funerals, museums... also during plays, in theaters, observatories. If the lights are off, your phone should be, too. ( or at least keep your phone on silent. Duh.) And weddings. Of course.

(yeah, this thing is REAL, click the picture to go to the site)

Annoying people by making disruptive noises has been on the "Miss Manners" list since the human body first learned to make nasty sounds on purpose.(Fred, did you hear that?!)

#3 It’s rude to talk loudly. I don’t mean the slightly-elevated speaking tone. I mean the STRAIGHT-UP-SCREAMING that I hear occasionally. Usually in a store. If you have to scream, wait until you're in your own home. Plus it makes you look super crazy if you’re walking down the street screaming into a hidden Bluetooth. (Besides, shouting itself is already an etiquette violation! Right, kids?)

#4 Ahh… Bluetooth. (click it, you know you want to!) Great when you're driving, cooking, or when your hands are full... but not so useful for anything else. For goodness sakes, take it off your ear when you’re not on the phone. The thing is goofy-looking and it’s completely unnerving to talk to someone who could be on the phone with someone else. Plus the blinking light is distracting. Are you even expecting a call? Really? One thing I know for sure, if we take ourselves too seriously, life will be sure to humble us… publicly.
Take the cell phone out of your ear and truly “be” in the moment.

#5 Speaker phoning is completely unnecessary and obnoxious in public. There’s no reason why anyone should have to listen to both ends of your conversation. I did meet a sweet lady once who simply didn't know how to turn her speaker phone off. You can bet that I kindly helped her. :-) My good deed for the day!

#6 Yes, I know the Crackberries, the iPhones, and the rest of the techno-stuff is super addictive, but that doesn’t mean they should be permanently glued to your hand or ear! When you’re with someone, be with them (remember what I said above?) Do not constantly text in the company of others. (Yes, girl, this applies to you in the theater, even if you're sitting alone. Your screen light is still on.)
Focus on the person you're with, not your email, sports scores, online shopping, or texting your hubby 50 times in 10 minutes. Put the phone away when you're with someone (noooo, not on the table by your wine.)

#7 A kindergartner does NOT need a cell phone. Of course, in my humble opinion, no elementary child really -needs- a cell phone.

Sooo, if you leave me a message, and I send you an email back, now you know why. I'm not avoiding YOU, just the phone. If you call me when you know I'm home, and yet it goes to voicemail, you can safely assume that I'm busy. Because I do not ever answer the phone when I'm busy-- that means I do not jump up from dinner, or leap half-naked out of the shower to answer a possibly-important call. If it's important, you'll leave a message. Or, better yet, send me an email. I homeschool four children, run a household, pay the bills, try to maintain a social life, prayer life, family life, plus spend lots of time with my Man... so forgive me if I ignore the phone 90% of the time.

Okay, I'm done.
What do you think? Do you, like most women, love the phone? Am I just completely nuts for despising it as much as I do? Perhaps my phone-over-activity as a teenager has led me down this road, of phone-scorn? You know what they say about guys using up all of their words before they get home from work; maybe women also have life-time-phone-minutes, and mine are already gone?
Can we maintain that 5-minute max phone allowance for conversations?? If you need me, let me know. If it's important (really, think about that one-- if your cat puked up a hairball, or your kid stuck an aspirator in his mouth, then it is NOT important phone fodder,) then call and I'll talk. But if you're just milling over which movie you want to see or what color to dye your hair, jot me an email and I'll get back to you when I can. Now, if you happen to have email-scorn, then we'll just have to *gasp* get together in person!! ;)

Now, where did I put that stupid phone?

To Train Up a Child OR you could call it How to Abuse a Child

Yesterday a friend on facebook-- a great friend of mine-- openly asked for advice on disciplining/ training children. She was reading To Train Up a Child by Debi and Micheal Pearl, and needed some insight from friends.
Seeing as how I love talking about children and books, I decided to research the book for myself.
I've rarely been so shocked by a book's content.

First, I went to Amazon, just to read reviews. You know something might be amiss when the average rating is less than 3 stars, and about 3/4 of the reviews (550+) were 1 star reviewers, with some serious concerns. The more I read, the more disgusted and appalled I became. So you should know that I went into the book already biased against it. It's hard not to be when you read direct quotes like,

"On p.44 they say not to let the child's crying while being hit to 'cause you to
lighten up on the intensity or duration of the spanking.' On p.59 they recommend
whipping a 3 year old until he is 'totally broken'."

So as not to swamp my friend's page, I brought up the reviews and my own concerns on my facebook page. Join the discussion here, if you want.

I received multiple facebook messages and emails from friends who had read the book, and maybe even recommended it to others. Why? Because there are some truths. Because it starts off all folksy and common sense. You find yourself nodding about little things. The Pearls mix a few Truths with a lot of extremes. Which causes some people to swallow hook, line, and sinker. They don't intend to, but they are caught. I'm glad-- SO GLAD-- that many of them are rereading, seeing, analyzing, questioning now.

Never take something you read for granted. Not the newspaper, a book by experts, or even my blog. ;-) Test everything against Scripture.

I read as much as I could online, and then checked the book out. It's nauseating to me, to read about such abuse, and know that it's continuing.

And, just as upsetting, is the fact that I know people who are saying "oh, just glean what you can," or "eat the meat and spit out the bones," or "as long as you discipline consistently, then whatever method you choose is okay." Hogwash. Abuse is merely "bones"? Something just to be overlooked? It's okay to "consistently discipline" by whipping with piping and holding your children down? Christian women, COME ON. STAND UP. Don't just say what you think people want to hear. It's really not "I'm okay, you're okay, just do whatever works for you." NO. There are absolutes, and child abuse is an absolute NO.



With permission, I'm sharing this post from fellow Mama Blogger Laurel at Our Journey of Faith. It's a 3-part series on her blog, and I encourage you to read them all.

Book Review: To Train Up A Child

While there are many parts of this book that we could look at, analyze, review, and get upset about ... what I really want to look at is the Pearls views on spanking, something that I fully disagree with.

The really hard part about writing this series of blog posts is that ...

I do believe in using spanking as a discipline tool;
I just don't believe in using it as the Pearls advocate.

I am not against the practice of spanking;
yet I am appalled in the ways that so many parents use it.

I agree that spankings can be beneficial;
but don't have any grasp as to how parents
(such as Lydia's) could beat a child so severely
that it could lead to the death of the child.

I. One issue that I have with Michael & Debi Pearl's philosophy of child training is their use of spankings at a very young age:

"One of our girls who developed mobility early had a fascination with crawling up the stairs. At four months she was too unknowing to be punished for disobedience. But for her own good, we attempted to train her not to climb the stairs by coordinating the voice command of "No" with little spats on the bare legs. The switch was a 12" long, 1/8th" diameter sprig from a willow tree." (page 9)

They are using a "switch" on a 4 month old? Unbelievable.

They claim it is "for her own good"; but couldn't they have just put a gate at the bottom of the stairs if they were concerned for her safety?

And, again, they claim that their use of a switch is not for punishment, but for training. I fully disagree with this method of training.

Michael goes on to share the story of a father that he was having a conversation with, who had an undisciplined 12 month old on his lap. The child wanted to go to the mother (who was across the room), but the father clearly "needed" to show this child who the authority was:

"Clearly, the lines were drawn. The battle was in array. Someone was going to submit his will and learn his lesson. Either the father would confirm that this one-year-old could rule his parents or the parents would confirm their authority. Everyone's happiness was at stake, as well as the soul of the child. The father was wise enough to know this was a test of authority. This episode had crossed over from "obedience training" to discipline for attitude.

For the next weary forty-five minutes, fifteen times the child would make his legs move, and the daddy would turn him around and spank his legs. The father was as calm as a lazy porch swing on a Sunday afternoon. There was no hastiness or anger. He did not take the disobedience personally. He had trained many a horse or mule and knew the value of patient perseverance. In the end, the twelve-month-old submitted his will to his father."

Do you see any problems here?

"Everyones happiness was at stake, as well as the soul of the child." Wow! That is a powerful statement. First of all, a child's disobedience should not control the parents' happiness. Secondly, how could this one little instance, at 12 months old, possibly do irreparable damage to the child's soul if the parent did not show their authority?

So, over the course of 45 minutes, this father spanked his young son 15 times ... for "moving his leg"??? I want my children to learn to obey me out of respect for me, rather than fear. I believe that this father was ultimately training his child to fear him (as MANY children trained this way have shown this to be true).

II. Another issue I have with Michael & Debi Pearl's philosophy of child training is the "instruments" that they use to "reinforce instruction":

"Any spanking, to effectively reinforce instruction, must cause pain ... Select your instrument according to the child's size. For the under one year old, a little 10" - 12" willowy branch, about 1/8th" in diameter is sufficient. Sometimes alternatives have to be sought. A one-foot ruler, or its equivalent in a paddle, is a sufficient alternative. For the larger child, a belt or larger tree branch is effective."

Oh my! I just cannot imagine going outside and picking out a tree branch ... in comparison to the size of my child ... in order to beat them with. Can you?

You can read THIS LINK to find out about the 1/4" Plumbing Supply Line, recommended by the Pearls, which was the "instrument" that was used in the death of 7 year old Lydia Schatz, in February.

III. A third issue that I have with Michael & Debi Pearl's philosophy of child training is who they believe has the right to spank a child. My philosophy: Only a parent should spank their own children.

Michael & Debi Pearl believe that they have the right to spank any child that is in their home, whether or not the child's parents are present. On page 53, Michael shares about a time that two sisters were in their home (ages 2 and 14). He seemed shocked that ...

"The fourteen-year-old admitted she was not allowed to discipline her little sister."

So, Debi ... "set up a training session" and "spatted her hand with a little switch".

They also advocate (I can't find the reference right now) allowing any of your older children to switch your younger children. They use an example of a 10 year old being allowed to switch a younger sibling.

Two big problems here ...

#1 We do NOT allow ANY of our older children to spank the younger children. Even if a Big Kid is left in charge for a day ... they do NOT have the right or the authority to spank the children. They are well aware of the many other discipline techniques that can be used (timeouts ... removing privileges ... )

#2 I would probably go BALLISTIC if I found out that an adult had "switched" by child without my permission (which I would NEVER give). I am actually surprised that the Pearls haven't spent time in jail for beating other people's children.

In another instance (on page 56) Debi sets up another "training session" with the mother of the child sitting right there. The little 2 year old boy picked up a plastic toy wrench and hit his mother on the arm with it ...

"... little Johnny got tired of assaulting his mother (all bold emphasis is mine) and turned on my wife. After the first blow, almost without diverting her eyes from the mother, and with no change of expression, she picked up a matching plastic toy. This was not to fight back, but to train. The mother is the one who would most benefit from what was about to occur. As little Johnny drove home the next blow, swiftly and with more than matching force, my wife struck. ... Again, Johnny strikes. Again, swift retribution (training really). ... again, but with less force, he struck. The immediately returned blow was not diminished in strength. ... he again, and with even less force, struck my wife on the arm. I was thinking, "She will lighten up this time and match his diminished intensity." Again, my wife struck, seemingly, with all the force she could possible muster without standing for a wind-up. ... To my amazement, with one-fourth the original force, he again struck my wife. This time, her bottom came off the couch as she drew back to return the blow; and I heard a little karate like wheeze come from somewhere deep inside. I was hoping that Johnny was getting close to learning his lesson. ... (but) he continued to trade blows about ten times. On Johnny's part, the blows got lighter and lighter until, after a short contemplative delay, he gave a little tap that was returned with a swift, forceful blow. ... (then) I could see an idea come into his experimental little head. He turned to his mother and pounded her on the arm. ... my wife handed the wrench to her. The next time Johnny struck, the young mother courageously returned the blow. It only took two or three times to learn his lesson for good. The mother was the one being taught. If she remained consistent, Johnny would be forever broken of a tendency to be a bully. Understand ... this was not discipline, but training."

Do any of you have a problem with this???

I was sick to my stomach while reading this again, and writing it out for you.

I am nearly speechless ...

I cannot even fathom it ...

How can thousands of Christian parents read these Parenting Principles and actually believe that they are based on God's Holy Word???

This. Is. Just. Plain. WRONG!!!

On page 64 Michael shares that ...

"When my wife babysits ... it is always understood to be on the condition we have full liberty to discipline and train."

Would you EVER leave your children in their care???

IV. I will conclude my review of To Train Up A Child with my concern about their purpose in switching a child ... to "break" his spirit.

Speaking of a 3 year old boy who spilled some water and wouldn't clean it up. This is what they would recommend ... (page 59)

"She then administers about 10 slow, patient licks on his bare legs. He cries in pain. If he continues to show defiance by jerking around and defending himself, or by expressing anger, then she will wait a moment and again lecture him and again spank him. When it is obvious he is totally broken, she will hand him the rag and very calmly say, "Johnny, clean up your mess." He should very contritely wipe up the water. To test and reinforce this moment of surrender, give him another command. "Johnny, go over and put your toys all back in the box." .. After three or four faithfully performed acts of obedience, brag on how "smart" a helper he is."

10 switches on his bare legs for spilled water?

Totally broken??? How can anyone see this as a "good thing"?

My heart aches for the precious children who's hearts have been severely "broken" by their parents, as a result of following the Parenting Principles that the Pearls advocate.

How can we stop this foolishness before more children are murdered by their "loving, Christian parents"???

We will conclude with another ... Parenting Guarantee ...

"For the rest of the day, he will be happy and compliant. The transformation is unbelievable.

You have just witnessed the potential making of a peaceful home and of an emotionally stable and obedient child. If you are faithful to guard against and reward every infraction, whether in attitude or action, in just a few days you will have a perfectly obedient and cheerful child."

What more can I say? It truly grieves me to see how this parenting philosophy has grown into a legalistic community of parents who ... crave perfection ... expect perfection ... and won't settle for anything less than perfection from their children. This, in turn, creates children who live in fear of their parents. And ... in addition to fearful children ... this philosophy can actually lead to death ... as was the case for precious little Lydia Schatz.

Let me know if you write a blog post on this critical parenting issue. I believe it would be a GOOD THING to spread the word about the dangers of these principles, which are clearly NOT Biblical. I read that the Pearls made over $1.8 million in 2008 from the sales of these very books. Now, THAT is scary!!! Even if you have not personally heard of the Pearls' ministry, it is BIG ... and it needs to be STOPPED!

If you'd like to read others' thoughts on the topic ...
MommyLife has written 5 posts about the Pearls, since Lydia's death.
TulipGirl has a long list of Christian leaders and ministries that have spoken out against the Pearls' child training methods.
TulipGirl even wrote a post about them back in March 2005. Very interesting.
WorldMagazine has a blog post about it, as well.

Finally, in Avoiding Millstones, I found heartfelt words of encouragement in "An Open Letter to Those who Advocate Spanking".
That was a great review, Laurel. Thank you for allowing me to repost.
These reviews, friends, aren't written only by people who don't use spanking. These reviews are written by Christians and non-Christians, spankers and non-spankers, basically every kind of concerned, appalled parent.

This post was written by a woman who is the friend of the family being charged in the death of their child, after following the Pearls' methods.
PLEASE don't follow these "guidelines." Please don't encourage others to follow such a messed-up philosophy. And, if you see someone spanking their children excessively, SAY SOMETHING. Who else will stand up for that child? How many lives could be saved, if someone would simply stand up and say something?

On Divorce of a Christian

I'll be upfront. I have a bone to pick.

One of my dear, dear friends is in a bad situation, and has been for nearly 10 years. She's been ignored, emotionally abused, insulted. She was abandoned for over a year-- and I mean abandonment in the full sense of the word. Her husband left. Moved out. Provided zero financial assistance, and very little correspondence. There were vague promises to return "sometime soon." For me, that would have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

Gosh, no, who am I kidding? The second, third, fiftieth time that her husband left on a Friday and failed to return for days, or even call... I would have changed the locks.
Just being honest.
Love does not mistreat and abuse. Love does not intentionally cause pain. That is not love.



Like me, my friend is a Christian. Unfortunately, she is married to a man who has never professed any kind of faith. He holds himself to no "rules" or morals. And, c'mon, even unbelievers can hold themselves to standards and be good spouses. Unbelief should not be used as an excuse for rotten behaviour. And I do hear that argument quite often, "oh, well, he's unsaved, so how can we expect anything different?" Hogwash. I've known many non-Christians who were intelligent, respectable people.

My bone is that supposedly well-meaning Christian friends comment in passing that they will pray for her... that she should stay "because that's what the Bible says," and then they carry on their way. They don't see the damage, the destruction, the aftermath of the storms. They didn't see a woman sobbing for days, weeks, years. They didn't watch this woman crying out in labor, whose husband had just left to catch a plane for a party (YES, while she was in LABOR.) They don't see the children who are growing up fatherless...but emotionally abused when he is actually in the picture.

Here's the kicker. He says he doesn't want a family anymore. He's not "in love" anymore. He wants to leave.

What does the Bible say about this? Well-meaning Christian sites, like Got Questions, quote 1 Cor 7, to back up their Stay Married Advice:

"12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not
a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And
if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with
her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified
through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her
believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they
are holy. "

Ah, yes.
But the next verse has been conveniently left off:

"15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing
man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in
peace. "

Her husband wants to leave. For crying out loud people, give the woman sound advice: LET THE MAN LEAVE. Give her no guilt trips. No superficial comments. Offer good advice or no advice at all. Never guilt someone into staying in a bad relationship, if you can't possibly know the devastation of the family.

Though by no means God's desire "from the beginning," it will likely be best for all concerned if he does leave. Scripture gives room for this. God's heart is for us. For our protection.

We can't be legalists with the law. How biased and prejudiced can people get?

Some people will believe and push anything but the text, and "a text without a context is a pretext."

My heart breaks for this woman and her children. And my blood boils when I hear others encouraging her to stay, endure, and "do the right thing." Doesn't she deserve a chance at a normal life? Should she worry every day about whether her husband is even coming home? And if he'll be sober when he does? Does she need the credit card debt piling up on her, when she has been the only breadwinner for years, sometimes working 2 or 3 jobs to pay the bills? Should she try to make a man stay, who says that he wants to leave?

Now, really stop and pray for her. For the kids. My prayer is that the man will either shape up or ship out. God is in the business of performing miracles... but He doesn't change people without their willingness. Saul had a rude awakening and some convincing signs, but ultimately he had to open his heart, before God would work that metamorphosis in his life.

The Pros to Having a Large Family

iStock

Remember when I started talking about family size? And I promised a second-part, with Advantages To Having A Large Family. Then I dropped the ball, got distracted, preoccupied with art, school, field trips, and many other excuses... and I forgot.

Well, here it is, in all it's glory (yeah, whatever.) My own reasons for why large families are such a dang good idea, for those who want them:

The Advantages For A Large Family

Child-tax credit! Just kidding. ;-)

We’ve heard the argument that “responsible people” will not have children that become a burden to society. (By the way, it even makes me feel sick to type out such a thing, as no child should ever be considered a burden.) Then there are those who call couples who have children "breeders." Oh, yes, they are out there. And the restaurants that won't even serve children (New York, look it up.)

However, surely having large families, with many caring relatives is actually better for society. We can take care of our own. In the future, given the prevalence of small families, there will be many, many older people who will be forced to rely on government care and nursing homes, as they become unable to live alone. Large families help and look out for each other.

(Mimi and Papaw with my four kids, and their four cousins)

Another advantage is that the children of large families are given more responsibility, usually through necessity. I like to tell the kids that “we work together as a family.” I simply don’t have enough time and arms to do everything that needs to be done. You’d better believe this encourages a strong work ethic and a mature attitude at a young age. I have a 10-year old now that can cook us lunch, and do the dishes afterward. Sometimes I trade the dishes-chore for her putting little brother down for a nap. She has developed confidence in what she can do. That said, my standards are not super-high. We have a relaxed house, and I don’t expect the kids to keep it spic and span. It’s just not reasonable, in my opinion. I once heard a friend say that doing chores and helping younger siblings all the time means being deprived and 'robbed of childhood.' Psha. That’s ridiculous. Doing chores and helping others equals more mature, responsible, and helpful adolescents. I believe that it usually carries into adulthood.

From an educational viewpoint, a large family means accommodating and getting along with others, “cooperative learning” among a group of siblings. They also learn patience. And—Big One—they learn that the world does not revolve around them. Better to learn this early.

Another benefit: they are each others' company and entertainment, as well as emotional support. Ask a mom of a single child how hard it is to keep her kid entertained. I have several single-child friends (nothing wrong with that) and most of them will tell you that it can often be just as challenging, in large part because they are their only-child’s only playmate (can’t have company over all the time!) Children learn to interact with peers through interacting with their sisters and brothers. Granted, it's not always peachy fun, but neither is life in the “outside world.” It teaches a sense of reality.

Here’s another tidbit: Statistics show that big families tend to, well, run in families: Women who grow up with many siblings are more likely to have lots of kids themselves. What does that tell you? It’s great to be part of a large family! It’s enjoyable for everyone. If the kids saw miserable parents, they wouldn't likely grow up and recreate the situation. Being a part of a large family is fun, entertaining, and educational.

So when you see a mother with a trail of children following her (or running crazy around her, as the case may be,) don't scowl or even make a funny comment - you won’t be original, I promise you. Better to genuinely smile and realize how lucky she is to get all that love, all those cuddles, sweet "I lub you"s. That is a blessed woman. She may look frazzled and tired, but at the end of a long day, she can peek in at those sleeping children and sigh happily.... not just because they're asleep, but because she loves them so deeply, and can't imagine any greater blessing.

I realize this post is only the tip of the iceberg but, well, I'm tired. Because I have four kids. And they wear me out. ;-) Must rest.

Okay, and here's another possible answer for that stupid question,

“You do know what’s causing that, don’t you?”

"Sure, I just found something I was good at, and decided to stick with it."

Random Quotes on Children:

(I can’t remember where some came from. If you recognize any--I think most were on a “quotes site” somewhere-- please let me know who to attribute them to.)

“Is this what it really comes down to, dollars and cents? It isn't possible to count everything in economic terms. Doing so, or even attempting to reduce everything to the naked economic calculations, shows a kind of soullessness that is the unique product of our spiritually impoverished time.”

"Other people have things, we have children.”

"Kids are as expensive as you make them."

“He that raises a large family does, indeed, while he lives to observe them, stand a broader mark for sorrow; but then he stands a broader mark for pleasure too.” - Benjamin Franklin

“Money, in our time, is a value. Having children, our link to immortality and eternity, is not.”

If our American way of life fails the child, it fails us all." Pearl S. Buck (and I urge you to read about how she changed adoption!)

Maybe we should open our eyes and look at children for what they really are:

blessings, joys, entertainment, laughter, balls of energy, motivation to live better, miracles

delaying the sequel

Okay, I'll be honest. I wrote the next post, The Pros to Having a Large Family, but I've delayed posting it. After reading all of the comments on the last post, I don't want to offend anyone. Yes, there are pros. Ask anyone who has a large family, and they'll tell you that there are many up-sides and advantages. It's fun, entertaining, and beneficial to the kids in many ways. Hard sometimes, but worth every minute of it. However, I know there are also advantages to having one. Or two. And I do realize that there are people who would love to have children and can't. Or would love to have more and can't. It's touchy.

I will post the next segment soon, but first wanted to clarify that my intention was/is not to say that one family size is better than another. It's really more a Defense of the Large Family. Because I'm apparently in the "large family" category now, I've heard a lot of ridiculous and presumptuous comments, and I'm attempting to counter those. The posts I had planned are really written to the Person Who Would Criticize My Choices (or the choices of my friend, which is what really set me off.) Most parents with more than two children are finding that "large families" are being subtly (or sometimes noisily) discouraged.

If only everyone had common sense.

For the Family-Size Critical Person:

Say nothing to the couple who has been married 5+ years and doesn't have children yet. Don't ask, or comment. Don't make jokes about biological clocks or other downright stupid things. Unless you are a close friend, and you are tactful and kind, you shouldn't even consider saying or asking anything. Maybe they are choosing to wait. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe they have decided not to have children. Most people who decide not to have children probably shouldn't. If you don't want kids, don't have them. Makes sense. Or maybe they would love to, and it hasn't been physically possible. You don't know their story, so don't presume to. Butt out.

From experience, I can tell you that it is especially painful when someone asks "so, are you done having kids now?" right after you've had a miscarriage.

Don't say anything to the couple who has one child. Sometimes they are simply waiting until the right time to have more. Or maybe they've decided that one is the right size for their family. There's nothing wrong with that. I know many perfectly happy, well-rounded intelligent only children. There is nothing wrong with being an only child. They will not "suffer," so don't imply that they will. In fact, consider that the mother of an only child often has a harder job (she is not sitting around eating bon bons all day while her only child reads quietly for hours on end.) She may not deal with sibling rivalry, but she must play many more roles. Now that my children are all old enough to really play house and tag together, I have more time to pursue some of my interests and get other things done... (advantage for large families.)

Also, consider that many people deal with secondary infertility and it may be difficult to hear judgment about their "choice" to have an only child.

Then there's the "perfect" American dream family of two children. Two is a great number. There is nothing wrong with having two. The only thing wrong is when someone believes every couple should limit their family to one or two children. It's perfect for many people, but not God's plan for others.

For this family, two is perfect.

What it comes down to is this: Let other people live their lives. If you can't say something NICE, then don't say anything at all. No suggestions or "helping" unless someone explicitly asks for your advice on how many children they should have (psh- yeah, right.) You, Family-Criticizer, are not all-knowing. You could not possibly know what is best for my family. Or my sister's family. Or my friend's family. You can only know what is best for yours. And if more people would focus on truly doing what is best for their own families, they would have far less time to belittle the choices of others. So, when I happily tell you that I would love to have more children through adoption someday, you can say something truly encouraging and helpful, or nothing at all. When my friend asks for prayer concerning the timing of having more children, you can-- imagine this-- offer prayer. And love and encouragement. Or just prayer, if you can't think of something nice to say.

When a friend says that she's decided one child is perfect for her family you can-- imagine it-- say "That sounds great; I'm sure you're making the right choice for your family." Or smile and say nothing, if you must.

On and on, just imagine the scenarios of treating people as you would want to be treated; letting people live their own lives; being a friend who gives genuine love and support. Oh, wouldn't it be nice if all in-laws, friends, and strangers could abide by the golden rule!

On having a large family, part1

Wendy and October, with kids (minus one of Tob's, who was at home)

Disclaimer: the following is not meant to disparage anybody who has few or no children. It's just to say no one should be criticized for their family-size choice.

"You know what's causing that, don't you?"

So, fess up. How many of you out there, with more than 1 child, have been asked this question upon announcing a new pregnancy?

Recently I witnessed an exchange between one of my good friends and her pals. She plans to have more kids. And, apparently, her friends believe this means that she will be confining herself and sacrificing the possibilities of education, vacations, new cars, summer homes, sports for her children and everything that in their estimation is worth having. In fact, one woman said that the sports-deprivation would cause the children to "suffer." (Yes, it would be laughable, if this woman was not dead-serious. Since when does sports rank as high as love and support, family unity? Or even education?? When did it become a necessity for successful parenting?)

I suppose this goes along with the whole feminist idea that large families are harmful to women; supposedly motherhood turns them into domestic slaves to husband and children.

Then there’s the idea that somehow people who choose large families are irresponsible, backward and selfish, while having few or no children is the sure sign of being “enlightened,” and environmentally responsible. Fewer babies equal greener mama?

I’ll agree that today’s world does make it harder on single-income stay-at-home-mom families. However, even this is a matter of priorities. It's only unfeasible for some people because they choose to spend their money on unnecessary and pricey toys, enroll their children in every activity that comes along regardless of cost, travel extensively, spend too much on dining, and many other non-essentials. If you want to spend your money that way, then so be it. Live and let live. However, large families can make it if they’ll just cut back on unnecessary expenses.

I don't understand the often-heard argument that people with many children are more “selfish”' than people who decided kids would cramp their style. Having children, at least if you are a conscientious and loving parent, is the most effective cure for selfishness that a person can find. You can't be a good parent and remain selfish. Your life is devoted to others, who you love unconditionally. Parenthood demands putting someone else's needs first. But you can read another debate about that here, Having Children: Selfish or Selfless?

Maybe that is why many people now instinctively recoil from having many children. It demands too much of you.

And, now, before part2, let me say that I do NOT think this is for everyone.Who should not have a large family, (or perhaps any children)? Anyone who doesn't want children. Duh. Anyone who is not prepared financially to care for them (home and food,) and anyone who has "other issues" that rule them out.... there are obvious examples of this that I don't really want to bring up.


Btw, a good answer for that question:
"You know what's causing that, don't you?"
"yes, Lots of wonderful sex with my husband. Lots of it," said with a large and mischievous grin.

Might throw them off balance enough to hinder other ridiculous questions.

Next up, What are the real arguments to be made for large families?
Yes, I'm on my soap box.