Can the Grinch please steal my Christmas?

I'm a lapsed catholic. Growing up, my mother would bring us to church twice a year: Christmas Eve, and Easter Sunday. There was little enthusiasm because it was just something we had to do. Naturally, we disliked going to sit in a quiet building sitting on uncomfortable pews listening to a man we didn't know drone on about the lessons of the Bible. To us, Christmas was about presents. My parents tried their best to teach us that we were fortunate because not every boy and girl had presents or even a tree. We were told to appreciate what we had. But the memories of those lessons pale compared to the sight of presents too numerous to fit under the tree and of the hours my mother spent wrapping them. Most prominently of all my memories is how my mother insisted that my brother and I have exactly the same number of packages, and that the total amount spent on our packages was within X number of dollars of each other. If she couldn't make it within that margin, one of us would get a card with money in it (sometimes we both would, with different amounts. She HAD to make quota), with a very intense explanation as to why. To a point, that's reasonable. You don't want to show your kids favoritism, I get it. But the vehemence with which my mother clings to this ideal is frightening, bordering on indoctrinating.

Now, my brother has 2 kids, so they are subject to the same treatment both from their parents, and my mother (my father is quite different, but arguing with my mother would make for a hostile environment. He plays along). From a very young age, these kids are being taught to count presents, and the whole "he/she has more than I do" schtick. It annoys me and it's totally unnecessary. All it's teaching them is a sense of entitlement and expectation, not fairness. Add to that the fact that the kids are being given any and all item that fits their specific niche craze of the moment (Disney princesses and Pixar's Cars, in case you were wondering), whether they ask for it or even know of it's existence. They are being saturated with consumerism.

Kids don't learn what you tell them. They don't learn what you intend to teach them. They are conditioned by their environments. You do it, they do it. That's not an absolute, but it's a damn good rule of thumb. At this rate, my niece and nephew are going to turn into People of Walmart.

And so, I stand in defiance. I give them educational or creative toys every year for their birthdays and Christmas. I can't wait until they're old enough for telescopes, chemistry sets, watercolors, pottery, electronics kits, etc. I plan to be there to help them crack their gifts open and learn to play with them properly because I know damn well their parents will sit them in front of the hundreds of hours of recorded shows on the PVR. I'm going to take them back-country camping, teach them to start a fire with their bare hands, explain to them why the sky is blue, tell them how volcanoes work, show them what global warming is, teach them why Febreeze and other chemicals are bad, watch "Supersize me" and "Food, Inc." with them and so many more things.

Knowledge is power. These may not be my kids, but I'll be damned if they're going out in this insane world powerless. They're as close to a legacy as I have, and I want to be proud of who and what they are when I leave them behind for what lies beyond. So to those of you who approve of and embrace the way my family behaves, I dare you to tell me the childfree are forsaking their "responsibility" of building a future because they're not having kids. I dare you.

Bah Humbug, everyone.

The good kind of dirty

It's 2012, and the industrialized world is driven by social media. Most of us use Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest and a host of other sites where we can communicate our thoughts, likes and dislikes with other people. This blog is a perfect example. But with social media comes the inevitability of trends and memes, where you'll see the same thing posted by multiple people. This image is one iteration of something I've seen posted by many parents:

Sometimes it's an image, sometimes it's a typed out status. All of them point to the same thing: that having a house that looks like a tornado tore it apart is ok if you have children. Now before anyone hangs me out to dry, I want to say I know kids can be messy. I was terrible for not picking up my toys as a child. Even as an adult, I tend to put off doing dishes or cleaning up Nonetheless, I disagree with the above statement for a few reasons.

Generalization

This message of a messy home and happy kids is one of those statements that fosters a sense of community and solidarity amongst parents, because it's justification. Parents with messy homes don't feel so bad because other parents have messy homes, so it must be ok. It's a common thread in any subculture: If the herd does it, then it must be right.

There are some who flat out hop on the bandwagon because it gives them an excuse. An acquaintance of mine knows someone (we'll call her M) who is just such a person. Statements like this one give her an excuse to not do housework, so she has more time to play on her laptop while the kids are being raised by the television. Being selfish and attention-loving as she is, M will brag about not putting any time into the housework because she's looking after her family. She is the exception, not the rule, and I realize that. It's still a sad situation all around.

Causality

The statement implies that the messy house is because of the happy kids. In other words, dedicating more time to family life while sacrificing time spent doing chores. That is invariably seen as an acceptable trade off, because there is nothing more important than taking care of the kids. It's a noble sentiment in and of itself, but I find it too absolute.

I grew up in a clean house. Not a spotless one, but a clean one. My toys were put away when I was done at the end of the day (much to my chagrin), the dishes were done, any dirty laundry was in the hamper. The house looked lived in, for sure, but it wasn't a wreck. Nowadays, I see so many houses that require you to watch where you step for fear of putting your foot in a plate of food left on the floor, or stepping on a toy, spare battery, set of keys, fork, stray shopping bag or whatever else that was left where it was set down. I lived as a bachelor for 9 years, and my apartment never even came close to looking like that (and bachelors are notorious for being slobs). Maybe the times are different.

My mother was a stay at home mom until I was about 9 or 10 so when I was very young, she was home all day and in the evening, she and my dad would take turns taking care of me while the other one cooked/cleaned. I also have a brother who is 5 years older than I am. That was a large enough gap that they didn't have to watch us both with the same diligence. My brother could be left to his own devices while they cared for me. He could even help look after me. So it's entirely possible that my personal experience has clouded my judgement. I also have no memory before the age of 4. Perhaps my house was a pig sty during my toddlerhood (Is that a word? It sounds like it should be a word).

If you don't feel like dusting or doing dishes or putting away laundry, be my guest. It's your house. If you don't mind having your belongings strewn about your house where every day is a scavenger hunt, go for it. Honestly, I won't judge so long as it doesn't become a hazard and no one's safety is at risk. But don't tout yourself as a super parent because your stove top is a mess or because your socks are hanging form the ceiling fan. That's something M would do, and I don't want any parent to turn into M.

Great Expectations - revisited

Last week, I posted about a sense of entitlement some parents have. There was some back and forth in the comments with a friend and fellow blogger of mine, and I wanted to give her voice the spotlight and respond to her comments rather than let the conversation fall into a comment thread that may have less attention. So Felicia, this one is all about you :)

I won't rehash the comments, I invite everyone to go read them to establish context before I respond to Felicia's points.

So in most cases, it's not exactly free money, it's tax credits we didn't get (that your parents got)

I over simplified the section about government benefits in my previous post, mainly because I didn't want to bore people with the semantics of it. I may have misrepresented the situation somewhat. For that, I apologize. It is not a matter of the government cramming money into parents' hands every month. There are tax benefits (started at the same time as income taxes themselves, during the time of the Second World War). Those are income dependent. There are other benefits that vary based on a multitude of factors. Flat payments aren't really the norm (I can think of one off the top of my head, but that's not the point). I will be the first to admit I'm not the most well versed in this particular type of government benefit because it doesn't affect me, the point of my statement was that taxation and benefits can be very different for parents vs. the childfree, and in some cases that has led to what I consider to be an over-dependence.

Otherwise, I agree. People are way too self entitled. And that has much to do with how they were raised.

I agree, 100%. This is a symptom exhibited by society at large. I'm just looking at one particular slice of humanity.

I love the way you say "the choice they made". While I don't begrudge you not wanting kids, someone has to ensure that there will be a next generation

Strictly speaking no, someone doesn't. There are very few things that humans absolutely must do. Consume food and water in sufficient amounts, expel waste, breathe, and take sufficient shelter from the elements. That's it. From a strictly biological standpoint, that's all that's required. Having or not having children has zero impact on those necessities of life. Bear in mind that I'm looking at this from a scientific point of view. I'm not talking about a comfortable life, or a happy one. I'm talking about life in the strictest biological sense. That same biology, over millennia of evolution, has instilled most humans with a drive, a desire to procreate to ensure propagation of the species. A great number of people follow through with that powerful instinctual drive. Others just want to have a legacy. I fully admit that if everyone stopped reproducing and no one ever started up again, we would disappear as a species in a very short time. But we could. We do have that option. It may seem unpalatable or even unfathomable to some, but it is absolutely possible (in theory, at any rate). And so if people are having children out of some sense of obligation that the propagation of the species is required, that's still a choice. One that is made because all other options are summarily rejected out of hand, but a choice nonetheless.

The human race is a few thousand years old. Our planet precedes us by 4 billion years, and the rest of the universe is almost 10 billion years older than that. We have no idea what was or wasn't before that. The necessity of the human race to survive is relevant only when observed through the lens of our collective arrogance.

If it weren't for some services or courtesies, as you put it, no one could afford to have kids

I honestly had no facts to back up a response to this one, so I crunched a few numbers. Let's take a family with 2 parents and 2 children with no special needs, living in my hometown. No fancy tax loopholes or any other complications.We'll only consider the 2 main federal benefits, the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB), and the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB).

According to Statistics Canada, the average family income after taxes in 2010 was $88,900 for a household with 2 working parents with children. (Source)

Given their tax bracket, this family is taxed at a rate of roughly 47% (Source). That means that their UCCB would be $530 a year after taxes. or $44.16 a month.

According to the Canada Revenue Agency, this family would get a CCTB of $84.19 a month (Source), for a total income of $90,440.28, or $7,536.69 a month

The only data I could find on the cost of raising children (something that can vary greatly) was from Manitoba Agriculture, which is far from where my imaginary family is living (Source). Still, better than no numbers at all. They estimate the cost of raising a child to the age of 18 to be roughly $166,760.50 (boys are a bit pricier than girls, this is an average). That breaks down to roughly $772 a month.

This leaves the family with $6,764.69 a month for the parents food, monthly bills, and miscellany. Without the government benefits, they would have $6,636.33. Is that enough? To me, it seems like it would be, but I don't have any first hand experience to say for sure. There are so many variables, and my example situation is very simplified. Still, these numbers were pulled from the middle of the field, the average wherever possible. That means that half of Canada's families have more money than this. Benefits increase as income goes down, so if the statement had been "no one <below income amount X> could afford to have kids", then it would be 100% correct (though I don't know exactly where that line would be). Those are the people I had mentioned in my previous post, the ones who have that expectation of government support for something that was, as previously mentioned, their choice.

And then who would work at McDonalds in 20 years?

You got me there. I do love my McNuggets!

Anyone is welcome to add to this be it corrected math, facts I missed, etc. All I ask is that all parties keep it civil regardless of whom or what you agree with. If you'd like to read more from Felicia's own blog, you can do so here. Very insightful, and far less rant-filled than The UnParent!