Sunday, September 16, 2012
Tasty hot links for the childless
While I recover from a killer migraine, here are some tasty tidbits to chew on. Jane Ratcliffe presents a wonderful piece called "My Feline Family" about how her life didn’t go as planned. She's 50, sans husband or kids, but it’s a good life anyway. Read about it at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-ratcliffe/childless-woman-cats_b_1861924.html.
We talked about the Republicans a couple weeks ago. But honestly, the Democrats were just as bad. I adore Michelle Obama, but “Mom in chief?” Sigh. There was a great blog post on it at Slate.com, but it seems to have been taken offline since I first read it. Double sigh. But really, did you feel represented by either party?
I just finished reading a wonderful book that is not about childlessness overall, but does have some things of interest to us. It’s called Tiny Beautiful Things: Advice on Love and Life from Dear Sugar by Cheryl Strayed, who is also the author of Wild. It’s an advice book but nothing like Ann Landers or any of the ladies giving advice in the papers now. Writing as Sugar, Strayed not only answers the questions but goes deep into her own experiences and shares the wisdom she has gained. Two of these letters are about childlessness. The first is from a woman who finds her fertility running out but doesn’t have a partner. Should she try to have a baby alone? The second is from a 41-year-old man who thinks he might want kids but isn’t sure Meanwhile, his partner is even less sure. Again, they’re running out of time. “Sugar’s” answers are wise and wonderful and good advice for anyone in these situations. She does not say whether or not to do it, but helps her readers figure out the answers themselves.
For me now, the answer is to go someplace warmer than this office and take a nap. See you Tuesday.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
That Jane Ratcliffe article was great - I especially liked the comments. They were all positive (don't say you're "childless"; you are child-free!!).
I am the same anon from the previous comment. With respect to political groups highlighting mothers, "mother-in-chief", etc, I think it is more about looking out for the welfare and future of children. OUR children. Even though we are not biological parents, children who are a part of this society belong to all of us, and it is in all of our best interests to ensure that they have a good future. Education, health, and well-being are all vital. These are the people who will care for us in the future (through their tax contributions and how they care for the elderly), and so how we care for them now really matters. This also includes ensuring that low income families, who tend to have the highest number of children, but who are also run by a single parent, are well taken care of and are provided with as many opportunities for their children as possible. They deserve it, and so does the future of this country.
Anonymous, yes! Bravo! Thank you for these comments. I agree. In the big picture, children are the responsibility of all of us, not just the people who produced them with their bodies.
Thanks to anonymous, and you, Sue, for bringing these points up. While watching the political conventions, I did feel somewhat like both parties were playing some kind of "Mom-card," in a way that was a bit off-putting to me. I have always thought that "our children" applied to all of us, whether or not we have our own biological children.
Sue-- hope your migraine gets better soon. I get those too.
Post a Comment