If you could provide for your kids

[Anonymous]

These stories are cute by my (happy, well-adjusted, much-loved) child has been telling us since she was 4 that she plans to move out the day after she turns 18. Though she also tells us that we are welcome to come stay with her. She's just extremely independent minded and looks forward to having her own home and making her own way in the world.

We tell her we will support her in whatever she chooses to do, but that she always has a home with us when she needs it, no matter what happens. I'm not worried about there not finishing her education or getting a job -- she's ambitious and thinks about what kind of job she'd like to have all the time. I don't really know where it comes from because DH and I both have kind of middling careers where we do fine and our jobs are interesting enough, but we're not superstars. I actually was a bit of a superstar when younger but stepped way back to have a kid and realized I liked it and now don't even work full time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My kids are 5 and a few months, and I wouldn’t mind them living with them till I die, why do people want them to move out at a young age?

Because anything could happen to parents anytime and you want your kids to be able to survive independently.

[Anonymous]

If you are dumb and immature enough to think this way, you shouldn’t be a mother

[Anonymous]

In some cultures, multigenerational living is an acceptable practice, among rich and poor. There are pros and cons but its a norm. However, kids do pursue education, professions and have families of their own. When it works, it can be a mutually beneficial system for all involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Human beings need to be productive. They spiral when they are not.

Well, there are probably more ways to be productive which doesn't require a path through daycare, preschool, middle school, high school, college, grad school and 40 years of going to a cubicle.

So you are proposing a path thru life where your kid(s) do not get educated? What type of life is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are dumb and immature enough to think this way, you shouldn’t be a mother

Well, not necessarily. She could just be pondering why world is how it is and what if there are other ways, not necessarily a psycho wanting to lock kids in her basement .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Human beings need to be productive. They spiral when they are not.

Well, there are probably more ways to be productive which doesn't require a path through daycare, preschool, middle school, high school, college, grad school and 40 years of going to a cubicle.

So you are proposing a path thru life where your kid(s) do not get educated? What type of life is that?

I'm not OP nor approving her post, just saying that our standard practices can't be the only way to live.

[Anonymous]

You can homeschool and they can get online degrees so not really necessary to go to a school or college.

[Anonymous]

*for traditional education

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Human beings need to be productive. They spiral when they are not.

Well, there are probably more ways to be productive which doesn't require a path through daycare, preschool, middle school, high school, college, grad school and 40 years of going to a cubicle.

It usually doesn’t involve living with mommy and never working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are dumb and immature enough to think this way, you shouldn’t be a mother

Well, not necessarily. She could just be pondering why world is how it is and what if there are other ways, not necessarily a psycho wanting to lock kids in her basement .

To me the psycho part is not thinking she'd like to live with her kids for the rest of her life, but framing it as "what if you could pay for your kids so they didn't have to get an education or ever work?" The implication here is also that they never marry or have kids, since if they have no education or profession and live at home with their parents as dependents, they are very unlikely to develop the kind of adult relationship that is required to have a family.

I can absolutely see living with my kids in some capacity for the rest of my life. But I'm envisioning a situation where our house is their home base while they got to college, pursue goals, develop adult relationships, and perhaps start their own family. I could also see moving in with my kids to provide childcare to grandkids and help them with the little kid years if they wanted that (and ONLY if they wanted that). I am close with my kids and want to have a supportive, mutually enriching relationship with them until I die.

But I don't want to hold them back from having fulfilling, meaningful lives that involve people other than me. It would make me really sad if my child's most signficant relationships in life were just with us. That would feel like a failure on my part. Plus then we will die, and then what? They grieve and then they die? That's not a healthy circle of life, it's called enmeshment and it's very unhealthy and selfish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Human beings need to be productive. They spiral when they are not.

Well, there are probably more ways to be productive which doesn't require a path through daycare, preschool, middle school, high school, college, grad school and 40 years of going to a cubicle.

So you are proposing a path thru life where your kid(s) do not get educated? What type of life is that?

I'm not OP nor approving her post, just saying that our standard practices can't be the only way to live.

There are lots of ways to structure families and lives, but OP is proposing a specific way that I find disturbing. She is suggesting that her children remain dependents until she dies, largely because she likes having them around (there is zero discussion as to whether her kids would enjoy this set up or if it makes sense for them). I have zero problem with multi-generational living, life paths that don't involve college or even traditional careers, etc. But I think keeping your children dependent on you into their adulthood, absent serious disabilities or other reasons why they must be dependent, is selfish and gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are dumb and immature enough to think this way, you shouldn’t be a mother

Well, not necessarily. She could just be pondering why world is how it is and what if there are other ways, not necessarily a psycho wanting to lock kids in her basement .

To me the psycho part is not thinking she'd like to live with her kids for the rest of her life, but framing it as "what if you could pay for your kids so they didn't have to get an education or ever work?" The implication here is also that they never marry or have kids, since if they have no education or profession and live at home with their parents as dependents, they are very unlikely to develop the kind of adult relationship that is required to have a family.

I can absolutely see living with my kids in some capacity for the rest of my life. But I'm envisioning a situation where our house is their home base while they got to college, pursue goals, develop adult relationships, and perhaps start their own family. I could also see moving in with my kids to provide childcare to grandkids and help them with the little kid years if they wanted that (and ONLY if they wanted that). I am close with my kids and want to have a supportive, mutually enriching relationship with them until I die.

But I don't want to hold them back from having fulfilling, meaningful lives that involve people other than me. It would make me really sad if my child's most signficant relationships in life were just with us. That would feel like a failure on my part. Plus then we will die, and then what? They grieve and then they die? That's not a healthy circle of life, it's called enmeshment and it's very unhealthy and selfish.

I think she meant not going away to college or having to make a living, not necessarily staying uneducated. You can go to local college and be productive without having to hold a 9-5 job. As far as spouse and kids, probably OP hasn't given it a thought yet but to be devil's advocate, it's possible to find someone who wouldn't mind a luxurious setup.

[Anonymous]

Lots of people live at home and attend local universities or community colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. Human beings need to be productive. They spiral when they are not.

Well, there are probably more ways to be productive which doesn't require a path through daycare, preschool, middle school, high school, college, grad school and 40 years of going to a cubicle.

So you are proposing a path thru life where your kid(s) do not get educated? What type of life is that?

I'm not OP nor approving her post, just saying that our standard practices can't be the only way to live.

There are lots of ways to structure families and lives, but OP is proposing a specific way that I find disturbing. She is suggesting that her children remain dependents until she dies, largely because she likes having them around (there is zero discussion as to whether her kids would enjoy this set up or if it makes sense for them). I have zero problem with multi-generational living, life paths that don't involve college or even traditional careers, etc. But I think keeping your children dependent on you into their adulthood, absent serious disabilities or other reasons why they must be dependent, is selfish and gross.

You are a rational person. Probably OP is too, just not thinking through.