Children and family structure
Lance A. Brown
Ron Smith <GR4120%SIUCVMB...@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU> writes:
> What can we do as a society to reduce the damaging consequences
> of the nuclear family, a structure-come-lately, that seem to
> fail so miserably at meeting the community and family needs of
> people?
I thought I grew up in a nuclear family, just my parents and siblings
under one roof. Since getting married, moving ~1000 miles from all our
relatives, and having a child I've learned better!
I grew up surrounded by relatives. My cousins came over to our house
after school to study and eat supper before going back for evening
school activites because the bus ride home and driving back would take
too long. Parent-only vacations were a snap, us kids stayed with one
aunt/uncle or another on their farms. Holidays were times of crowded
rooms and 40 people sitting down to holiday dinner. My parents never
had problems finding babysitters; a few phone calls always turned up
an older cousin who had time. My home may have been nuclear, but my
family wasn't.
Then I grew up, moved halfway across the country, started my own
family, and learned what a nuclear family is like with no relatives
around.
No relatives means none of the support structure I had come to expect.
No close relatives to rely on in a pinch. No one who could watch
Theresa (daughter) while Kimberly (wife) and I catch a movie. We've
not been out to a movie in almost 1.5 years. No one to come over and
help spring cleaning, celebrate holidays with, or just chat and watch
the kids.
Part of the problem is that we've lived in apartments from August '92
until last April. Apartments are NOT conducive to community building.
We almost never knew the people living around us. No one tried to
meet new people or make friends. Since moving into a house we've met
our neighbors, found someone to babysit for us, and feel like we are
in a community again.
The nuclear family is NOT a bad thing in itself. Combined with a
culture where people move around a lot chasing educational and career
opportunities, it can isolate and intensify family problems. The idea
of "keeping problems in the family" becomes an emotional pressure
cooker when "the family" is only two people.
What can be done about it? I am unwilling to say that people should
not move away from family, that is a personal choice after all.
Developing friends at your UU fellowship is a catch-22 situation:
needing a support network in place in order to have the away time
needed to develop a support network.
I find the idea of a polyamorous live-in relationship appealing
because it can provide more adults to help raise children and seems to
be an excellent adaption to not having extended family close at hand.
My one daughter runs Kimberly and I to the raw edge of civilized
behavior often enough; I positively dread the idea of having another
child without more support structure to help out. This does not mean
I am going to start searching for another adult to join my
household. :-)
Life is a puzzle,
all the pieces must be around here someplace!
Lance
Justin B. Alcorn
Lance's post on his growing up with relatives close by struck a chord with me,
as I had the opposite experience. My parents moved around a lot and I saw
relatives only rarely (I had one grandmother I saw every summer for at most 1
week. I don't even know most of my relatives).
However, I did have an 'extended family'. In 1972 or '73, the West Shore
Unitarian church began an 'Extended Family' program. people who were
interested were assigned to extended families. Each 'Family' was composed of
a cross-section of families, singles, elderly and children. If I remember
correctly, there were 3 such families (I was 8 years old in 1972).
These people have been my family ever since. The other 'Families' didn't last
past 2 years, but there was something about ours that held on. The other kids
in the 'Family' were like cousins to me. The adults watched me grow up and
still tell stories about my hijinks at E.F. parties (which were always
potlucks! :-)
In the last decade, our parties have gotten fewer. However, I got a message
on my machine yesterday. An older couple that moved away some years back have
retired and are coming home, and the whole family is coming together to
welcome them back! I should see about 25-30 people on Friday night who have
known me for more than 2/3 of my life, and are closer to me than any of my
real relatives outside of my nuclear family.
Just one of the many things the UU church has given me over the years.... :-)
--
"Darn These Computers, They're so naughty and complex!" +-----------------+
+------------------------------------------------------+ | Team OS/2! |
| jal...@wariat.org | Independent Systems Consultant | | |
| (216) 768-3929 | Cleveland Heights, OH | |Ask me how to fix|
+------------------------------------------------------+ | broken Windows! |
OS/2 Certified Engineer and Emissary +-----------------+
===========================================================================
# "There may be one, many, or no gods, I'm really not sure #
# but I'd love to talk about it over coffee." - Mac #
===========================================================================
David McLure
On July 7th, "Lance A. Brown" <l...@BIOSTAT.MC.DUKE.EDU> wrote:
> I thought I grew up in a nuclear family, just my parents and siblings
> under one roof. Since getting married, moving ~1000 miles from all our
> relatives, and having a child I've learned better!
>
> I grew up surrounded by relatives. My cousins came over to our house
> after school to study and eat supper before going back for evening
> school activites because the bus ride home and driving back would take
> too long. Parent-only vacations were a snap, us kids stayed with one
> aunt/uncle or another on their farms. Holidays were times of crowded
> rooms and 40 people sitting down to holiday dinner. My parents never
> had problems finding babysitters; a few phone calls always turned up
> an older cousin who had time. My home may have been nuclear, but my
> family wasn't.
>
> Then I grew up, moved halfway across the country, started my own
> family, and learned what a nuclear family is like with no relatives
> around.
This strikes a definite chord with me as well! I too am a
child of what I had once considered a more or less "nuclear family"
at first glance. Upon closer observation, however, it turns out
that I was actually "raised" for a large part by my paternal Grand-
mother while both of my parents worked. Later, my cousin and my
Aunt moved in with us after my Aunt split with her husband, so for
a while, we had a regular commune going almost (at least when
compared to our present state of isolation from family members).
Since then I have left the midwest and have moved out East
to the Greater Boston Area (GBA) where my wife and I have spent the
last 10 years becoming financially independant, hetro-married, and
beginning along a path of raising two children *COMPLETELY ALONE*.
We might as well be living on a space colony on Mars for all the
extended family support we recieve given our 1000 mile distances
from our respective parents in this endeavor (actually, we do live
on Mars, but that's another story :-). We are here living like
this out of necessity (employment) and not because we chose to
move away from our extended families.
Unlike Lance, we have had the advantage of living in a
house for the entire time we have had children anyway. We began
life in Massachusetts in an apartment, but soon switched to an
upstairs house rental unit. Later, we bought a house (at the peak
of the housing boom - good timing huh?), and have lived there ever
since. As such, we have also had the good fortune of living next
to good neighbors (for the most part), many of whom who also have
kids and as a result, are around much of the time and we tend to
help each other watching all of our kids when they are romping
around the neighborhood. Other than our neighbors however, we
are alone. Good babysitters are extremely hard to find, and our
experience has been that the good ones soon leave for school and/or
better paying jobs (waitressing, etc.).
With Daycare costs approaching $14,000 a year as it
is, we are not able to afford much in the way of additional
babysitting costs. We (or at least I) have often toyed with
the idea of hiring a live-in Nanny, but most Nanny's these days
typically only want a nine-to-five job anyway, so this doesn't
address the night-out-for-mommy-and-daddy scenarios, much less
a day or two romp in the woods or at a resort somewhere.
We find it hard enough to simply get through a day of
work, pick up the kids from Day-care (and/or school now for our
older son during the school season anyway) spend some quality
time with our kids but still get them to bed early enough that
they get their rest, and then finish doing the household and
business chores before passing out in time to wake up and do it
all over again the next day. The weekends are usually filled
with soccer games and other children-focussed activities requiring
our full attention to our kids, so we almost get even *less* rest
from our child-rearing duties on the weekends. Vacations are also
a joke in terms of being restful, as these are always 1000-mile
treks home to the midwest for the one big chance to see the
grandparents and become totally spoiled (there's nothing like
trying to appear happy to see someone after spending 12 hours
worth of limo rides to airports, two stop plane flights with
layovers in Timbucktoo, followed by yet more rental car rides
to the final destinations at the other end - all with two
miserable children and all of their accoutrements).
People with kids who also have the luxury of an extended
family structure in the immediate vicinty probably experience
some of these limitations, but I find that it is almost like
night and day talking to people who do not currently raise kids
about the lifestyle limitations children impose on a couple.
How I long for the day when we will be able to even consider
going to GA, or even going anywhere by ourselves. Even going
to church itself is like launching a major D-Day invasion from
a logistical standpoint. I find that we don't make or maintain
too many close friendships anymore either, due in part to our
inability to do or go anywhere (people who don't understand our
situation tend to interpret our grounded-with-children situation
as a sort of excuse for anti-social behavior or something).
As a struggling two-parent nuclear family in the strictest
sense, I feel we approach higher degrees of stress than I recall
in my own experiences growing up in a relatively extended family
structure (although even my own experiences contained plenty of
nuclear stresses as well). To our credit, I also feel we handle
these stresses quite well. However, it seems silly that in this
modern age in which we can put people on the moon and so forth,
that parents should still need to suffer unnecessarily like this.
As a result, I am find myself becoming increasingly interested
in the notion of polyamorous relationships for the sake of our
own sanity as parents attempting to raise children, as well as
for the sanity of two children being raised by stressed-out
parents of the so-called "normal nuclear family" structure.
I also tend to view the issue of sex in a polyamorous
relationship as being somewhat irrelevant when it comes to the
children in the situation. Most of the time I would imagine that
sex would not even be much of an issue at all (except for the
gossip mongers and busy-bodies for whom such a situation would
provide fuel enough to have people thinking that such a relationship
would consist of non-stop sexual encounters). These are among the
same sorts of jealousy-based streotyping and perverted imaginings
which undoubtedly hinder most any non-traditional couple (or in
this case throuple or more). After all, the subject of our sexual
encounters, much less spousal kissing and hugging, is something
which almost never comes up in our family, either in conversation
or in practice. In fact, my wife and I rarely have either the
time or the privacy necessary for lovemaking in our existing
nuclear family relationship. We kiss and hug our kids, but that's
about it. Aside from occasional theoretical conversations on the
subject, the only glimpse of sex they see is the occasional TV
show or AIDs action commercial on condoms (this will change as
they become older and more prepared to deal with the issues, but
as the oldest is still only six years old, this is sufficient for
the time being). As far as our kids are concerned, we don't have
sex. At least not anymore (and, unfortunately, for the most part
anyway, this is completely accurate).
If anything, I might view a polyamorous relationship as
something which might actually provide myself and my wife to have
more opportunities to make love with each other (thereby enabling
a potentially greater degree of intimacy than we currently have in
our monogamous relationship). This would be possible because
someone else with whom we would be theoretically comfortable
confiding in sexually would be available to watch the kids while
we were free to escape off to some remote corner of the house
to make love uninterrupted in privacy (and a polyamorous household
with more breadwinners could conceiveably afford to reside in a
bigger house with more such private corners too) ! In contrast,
this is not the sort of opportunity which either a babysitter,
Nanny, or even an extended family member could necessarily be
counted on to help provide.
-davo
(who after getting the kids to bed late last night
and having all of the planets align accordingly,
finally had the chance to make love to his own wife
for the first time this year).
Audra Russell
Davo,
Are you sure you're the same guy I met about a month ago at
the Wayside Inn? <GRIN> I understand your frustration, but it
seems to me that you are idealizing the idea of polyamorous
relationships to something more akin to having an extra adult or
two around to help raise your kids and give you time to be romantic
with your wife. Do you really think that is what someone so
inclined is looking for? Somehow I find that very hard to believe.
Surely, they are primarily interested in developing an
interconnecting set of amorous relationships that also involve love,
emotional support, and commitment (or so they say anyway). While
assisting in raising their children might be included in that range, I
would hardly think that one would go into such a relationship for
that reason alone -- its much too complicated a way to deal with the
problems.
Have you tried forming a babysitting co-op with other parents
in your area? I understand that these work by giving parents a
night off with the kids at a trusted neighbor's house. Sounds like
you and your wife need time together more that anything else.
Audra
David McLure
Audra Russel <audra_...@il.us.swissbank.com> writes:
> Are you sure you're the same guy I met about a month ago at
> the Wayside Inn? <GRIN> I understand your frustration, but it
> seems to me that you are idealizing the idea of polyamorous
> relationships to something more akin to having an extra adult or
> two around to help raise your kids and give you time to be romantic
> with your wife. Do you really think that is what someone so
> inclined is looking for? Somehow I find that very hard to believe.
The main reason I agreed with Lance's points on this
issue is because of the way certain people seemed to think that
polyamorous living situations and child-rearing neither could nor
should ever be mixed. I am simply trying to point how it is not
only conceiveable that such a situation could be handled in a
responsible way for the children, but that such a situation might
actually prove to be a superior environment for children to that
normally provided by contemporary babysitter/nanny/extended-
family arrangements (none of which really allow people means of
building much trust into the relationships). Even extended family
situations are somewhat awkward because, as everyone knows all too
well, you can't pick your in-laws.
Obviously, there are other, more amorous reasons for ever
considering a polyamorous living situation, but I bring up the
child rearing angle because of the way children can have such a
limiting influence on a couple's lives (assuming you give them
adequate attention in the way you raise them). I'm not sure that
people who don't have kids, or even people who do or who have had
kids under perhaps a somewhat more extended family environment can
quite understand the demands involved in raising kids under such
an extreme example of a nuclear family situation such as ours.
> Surely, they are primarily interested in developing an
> interconnecting set of amorous relationships that also involve love,
> emotional support, and commitment (or so they say anyway). While
> assisting in raising their children might be included in that range, I
> would hardly think that one would go into such a relationship for
> that reason alone -- its much too complicated a way to deal with the
> problems.
You seem to have a pretty set notion of how polyamorous
relationships operate. I'm not so such that the specific model
you envision would really apply to our situation. Maybe if I was
a little younger and more experimental I might be tempted to sculpt
a polyamorous circle of friends and lovers which is more along
the lines of the you suggest, but I don't think that is what either
Lance or I are considering here for our respective situations
(of course, I can't speak for Lance).
Instead, what I envision will probably never materialize
for me in my lifetime. At least not soon enough for my wife and
I to ever take advantage of the potential spare time we might have
from the shared child care. Chances are that during such momments
when it is not one's turn to watch the kids that the other (two
or more) adults involved might simply busy themselves with non-
sexual activities instead of sexual pursuits, but the point is
that the arrangement could at least be flexible enough to handle
amorous/sexual situations in a responsible way.
I guess what I am thinking of as the ideal situation
is more of a cross between a live-in nanny/babysitter/extended
family member and an extra lover/friend around for both of us.
Given that both my wife and I are basically hetrosexual, then it
could be that one extra person would not be sufficient to satisfy
the equation, and that it might be that the situation would instead
call for more of a two-family combination of sorts; sort of a modern
day Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice without the corny imagery of everyone
all piled into the same bed and expecting intimacy to magically
take place. I could envision, for example, two families going
in on the purchase of a duplex home, and then discussing plans
of knocking a hole in the wall dividing the two sections and
adding some sort of door that could be locked on either side
(i.e. it would need to be unlocked on both sides in order to open).
Such a relationship would probably never work without years
of planning and preparations involving all of the parties to be
involved, all prior to the point where the actual polyamorous
commitment (be it a marriage, or, as in the above example, simply
a communal living situation) began to formalize itself. Even
prior to the planning process, a friendship would obviously need
to have already existed between all parties for the idea to ever
have a chance of succeeding.
> Have you tried forming a babysitting co-op with other parents
> in your area? I understand that these work by giving parents a
> night off with the kids at a trusted neighbor's house. Sounds like
> you and your wife need time together more that anything else.
We tried one briefly but it didn't work out too well for
us. As it turned out, most of the members were bored housewives
who were mainly only available to babysit other people's kids
during the weekday to allow them to go play tennis and so on.
As it was, we already had day-care while we worked and we simply
needed someone to watch the kids on an occaisional weekend or
evening, and even then we seemed to need or want the services of
the coop far less than they wanted us to babysit. We simply didn't
have enough time to devote to the organization. Besides, there
was little or no real trust involved in that organization as you
really had no clue who these people were or why they were really
involved in the coop to begin with (aside from a brief aquaintance
or two at the coop meetings). This was hardly the sort of
environment we felt comfortable with.
Instead, what we found to be somewhat more workable (as
well as affordable) was to have a neighborhood girl come over on
Saturday mornings to simply watch the kids for us while we worked
around the house doing things which otherwise might not get done
so easily. For example, I was able to work on my computer/video
things in the basement, and my wife was able to work on her hobbies
and/or chores elsewhere. We actually felt as though we had lives
again on those mornings. Now that Holly is gone off to school,
we are back to square one again. The problem with babysitters
in this scenario is that there is always an understanding that
the relationship is temporary. It has to be - babysitters and
nannys have a life and love needs too, so even a live-in nanny
has to be thought of as a temporary situation (a little like an
apartment tennant). I guess I want more from my relationships
in life than simply that which temporary situations can offer.
I also don't think we could ever actually hire a
live-in nanny either. Not only would this situation also be
only temporary, but in order for the nanny to have a fulfilling
life, they need to be able to bring their own circle of friends
into the situation as well. We know because we were the best
friends of a live-in nanny here in Massachusetts, and we ended up
spending a good deal of time at her place (i.e. her employer's
place) at parties, as well as alone with her and the children
when her employers were away and so on. In my mind I can't
imagine a live-in nanny situation working any other way. Also
fortunately for her employers, we were good friends to have (if
I do say so myself). We could have been total monsters though.
I'd be too afraid of the latter situation to enter into such a
situation without knowing all of the players involved ahead of
time. The main problem is that we simply couldn't afford a nanny
to begin with.
As for the amorous quotient, I'm still examining my
feelings on this one. :-)
-davo
Lance A. Brown
Davo's last post in this thread fits very well with my ideas as well,
Audra. I am interested in polyamorous situations as a way of
*creating* a family unit that is larger than the nuclear family when
extended family is not present. This is all theoretical, and will
most likely remain so, because my wife and I know of no one we would
like to move into our home.
Davo's message about his family situation is very nearly identical to
mine except he has TWO kids! Yoiks! I don't even wanna think about
that yet! All the way down to frequency of amorous encounters with my
wife. Raising kids alone is VERY difficult. I've heard the saying
"It takes a whole village to raise a child" and I believe it
whole-heartedly.
Perhaps polyamory is not an appropriate term to describe what I am
after. I want to add people to my family who are first and foremost
friends, whom I've come to love dearly, and who love me and my family
in the same way. Such people I call heart-kin. Heart-kin are like
blood-kin except the bond is based on friendship and love instead of
bloodlines. Obviously, such people are rare as perfect diamonds and,
considering the divorce rate in this country, I expect many people
have great difficulty finding just _one_ such person and I wants LOTS!
:-)
Questing,
Lance
Harlan White
On Mon, 11 Jul 1994, Lance A. Brown wrote:
>
> Perhaps polyamory is not an appropriate term to describe what I am
> after. I want to add people to my family who are first and foremost
> friends, whom I've come to love dearly, and who love me and my family
> in the same way. Such people I call heart-kin. Heart-kin are like
> blood-kin except the bond is based on friendship and love instead of
> bloodlines. Obviously, such people are rare as perfect diamonds and,
> considering the divorce rate in this country, I expect many people
> have great difficulty finding just _one_ such person and I wants LOTS!
> :-)
>
> Questing,
> Lance
>
Certainly sounds like polyamory as I define it. To wit:
Polyamory--the philosophy and practice of loving more than one other
person at a time.
Love--a serious, supportive, intimate, more or less stable, affectionate
bond, which usually involves sexual or at least intense physically
sensuous behavior, existing between two people or amongst a group of people.
Lee deGruyter
On Tue, 12 Jul 1994, Harlan White wrote:
> Love--a serious, supportive, intimate, more or less stable, affectionate
> bond, which usually involves sexual or at least intense physically
> sensuous behavior, existing between two people or amongst a group of people.
This sure excludes a lot of relationships that I would define as loving -
I love a lot of people I don't want to have sex with.
Lisa
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lisa deGruyter (ld...@tenet.edu) Austin, Texas -{ Earth Is Enough }-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ron Smith
To those who have little time of their own: your children
will get older (ours did anyway). He is now 14, and for the
past couple of years we have had much more time that we
can truly call our own. We also have more time with our son
that is qualitatively different than the time we had with him
when he was younger.
Another option for those seeking community of the sort that
provides a partial replacement for their lost extended families
is co-housing. Essentially it is the formation of intentional
community, usually (but not always) involving the construction
of new homes, community spaces etc...
There is a cohousing discussion group on the internet. If anyone
is interested I can find the address and post it.
Ron Smith
Harlan White
On Tue, 12 Jul 1994, Lee deGruyter wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Jul 1994, Harlan White wrote:
>
> > Love--a serious, supportive, intimate, more or less stable, affectionate
> > bond, which usually involves sexual or at least intense physically
> > sensuous behavior, existing between two people or amongst a group of people.
>
> This sure excludes a lot of relationships that I would define as loving -
> I love a lot of people I don't want to have sex with.
>
> Lisa
Yes, of course you do, and I have no dispute with that. However, the
kind of love you are referring to is not the kind which is relevant to
the definition of polyamory. There are other definitions of love which
are equally appropriate in other contexts.
Harlan