Would you date/marry someone who doesn't like parks/roller coasters?

Yes, I'm not saying older folks are bad parents. I hope it didn't come off that way. Good and bad parents come in all flavors.

But without question, I feel younger parents are, far and away, better equipped to be parents.

Jeff said:

I see no correlation between parental success and age.

I don't have hard data or scientifically accurate data or any data at all. I just know what I think I've seen over the years. I feel like the trend has been towards doing those things later in life and at the same time it seems to me marriage means less and kids suck more.

Anecdotal correlation? And correlation (especially Gonch's anecdotal brand) does not equal causation. Nor do I mean to imply that it does. I'm just spouting the advice I'd give if asked...without anyone directly asking, of course.

Even siblings of the same parents can have radically different outcomes. My brother is an addict who lives with my mom. I'm not.

My guess is that your brother is the younger one. (making your parents older with him as a child than they were with you)

Again, not stating anything other than opinion here. Just sitting on the old rocking chair on the porch dispensing my wisdom to those within earshot.

But back to this:

No, but nor do they go away with age.

I think they do to a degree. At the very least you have to concede that you're a different person at 40 than you were at 20 or 25. Maybe even a better person? Maybe a person who has seen personal growth? Smarter, wiser and with better understanding.

I get all of that. But I argue that that's not what is important in raising a small child. In fact, I may even be bold enough to argue that it's the lack of those traits that make better parents to small children.

I think you must have had very different 20's than I did.

Given the course of this conversation, I think we can safely assume that.

Most 20-somethings I know, and indeed me at that age, were pretty sure we had everything figured out. We knew exactly what we were going to do when we grew up, and had it all planned.

I don't think I ever really felt that way and I know once I had a human life to care for, I certainly realized I didn't know dick. And maybe that's the point. It's the reality check that dumbass 20-somethings need.

If age brought anything, it was the understanding that nothing ever goes as planned, change is inevitable, and we don't have all of the answers.

Imagine being given that gift 12 years earlier in life.

Interesting conversation. I'm curious, Gonch, what you consider "older" in terms of parenting?

I don't have hard data or scientifically accurate data or any data at all. I just know what I think I've seen over the years. I feel like the trend has been towards doing those things later in life and at the same time it seems to me marriage means less and kids suck more.

I have a totally different outlook. I'm not convinced we suck at marriage any more than we ever have. Just going off divorce rates, nothing has changed in decades (if anything, divorce rates have dropped since when we were tiny). And I think every generation falls into the trap of thinking the younger generation sucks more, when there's never really evidence to back that up. That said, I think a lot of people share your perspective.

In terms of age and parenting, I would never assume you were lumping everyone into one category. Of course a great parent can come at any age and at any time just as easy as a sucky one, but in terms of age...the people who have kids at an older age (mid 30s, 40's) tend to be better educated, more financially stable, and much more likely to be married or in a long-term committed relationship. These are exactly the people I want having more kids. But in addition to having kids later (correlated with getting married later, which is correlated with marriage stability) we're also having fewer kids today than generations before us. So if they are indeed getting suckier, at least there are fewer of them. :)

Then again, we're all a sum of our experiences, and there is no doubt some of us on this planet are fully equipped at 20.

Not having kids obviously makes me an authority (wink)...

The general gist to me is that younger people have more energy and typically less money, older people generally have more stability. Older people might have more wisdom/experience, younger people are in better health (really important for a pregnant woman). The age thing in terms of the baby's health...there is a pretty decent correlation between "advanced maternal age" and poorer health outcomes for the baby. Although what we call advanced has shifted upward in recent years, the impact seems to be strongest among women in poverty, due to "weathering effects" such that mom's body is less able to handle the physical toll of pregnancy. That's why it really is healthier for poor women to have their babies at younger ages, before time takes a toll on their own health...

OhioStater said:

Interesting conversation. I'm curious, Gonch, what you consider "older" in terms of parenting?

I dunno.

30 is 'older' compared to 25. 35 is 'older' compared to 30. 40 is 'older' compared to 35.

But realistically, I'm talking in a wide generalization. The difference between having a child in your mid-20's and being 40.

...but in terms of age...the people who have kids at an older age (mid 30s, 40's) tend to be better educated, more financially stable, and much more likely to be married or in a long-term committed relationship. These are exactly the people I want having more kids.

I think that's the new prevailing logic.

I just don't think those things necessarily make a better parent to a smaller child. Three points there:

1. Education.
Assuming we're talking until waiting until after college age to have kids - the education argument doesn't hold up. I'd say 22 still qualifies as a very young parent...and at that point you can have a fully realized college education.

2. Financial Stability (personal stability in general, really)
This is the big one that I think isn't important for a small child that so many cite as a reason for waiting. A small child will be more resiliant and adaptable allowing you time to create stability. In fact, I feel like my family's lack of stability early on helped my child in that it both caused us to move around and her to see lots of different things and also forced a little more creativity in parenting (which I had the energy/patience for at 25 that I definitely wouldn't now). I also feel that a less established career allows more time for the kids while certainly not hindering career growth. Later in life it seems like a career (one higher up with more responsibility and more pay) requires more effort and time that has to come from somewhere. My wife (and even I) have less time for the kids than we used to, but less is needed now.

3.Commited Relationship
This one is almost (almost) circuar logic. We wait longer to to marry therefore we wait longer to have kids. There's no a reason a relationship can't be just and commited and long-term if the people in it are younger. And with that said, while I do agree on a commited relationship being preferrable, I'd be surprised if you didn't get some backlash from a 'single parents are good parents' argument.

Now where it becomes really interesting is that I do believe these are all important things to have for older children:

Education helps you lead by example and help your child in general. Solid education makes you a good mentor to an older child. An older child will generally be developing a life of their own and at that point stability is impotant to allow them the roots to grow and become their own self. The financial stability will help too. My experience is that a 16 year old is FAR more expensive than a 3 year old. In general as the child grows into their own, the stable base needs to be there. That growth happens later in childhood. The commited relationship is another case of leading by example. An older child will notice the interpersonal relationship and take cues that will last with them a lifetime. I'd argue a younger child wouldn't notice that mom or dad sucks at dealing with a significant other as much as it will be painfully obvious to an older child.

And that's what I mean when I suggest that I feel there's a scale of growth and natural evolution in life that more closely aligns with a child's (and parent's) best interests if the parent is younger than older.

And again, just to cover myself for the umpteenth time, I'm not saying older parents are bad parents. Just that I think it's easier on the parent and possibly better for the child (at the very least no worse) if the parent is younger than older.

I get that you never said or intended to suggest that older parents are bad parents. Just like I never said a parent who is younger, less educated, less financially stable, and/or single and doing it on their own makes for a worse parent. Just that I think it's easier on the parent and possibly better for the child...at the very least no worse...if the parent is older than younger. :)

There's certainly no silver bullet or causal factors for what's going to make a good parent. In fact, many times you could argue that having a child is what can literally turn someone's life around. I've watched this happen many times. And those factors you discussed above are, for the most part, interdependent of one another.

I'd argue a younger child wouldn't notice that mom or dad sucks at dealing with a significant other as much as it will be painfully obvious to an older child.

Just speaking from my experience as a therapist, this is one thing I would whole-heartedly disagree with. They pick up on everything, and make sense of it in their own way. In fact, the first (and often correct) place to look when a child is having difficulties is the marriage (or lack thereof). And these are children as young as 3 I'm talking about. It's always a bad/raw deal outcome-wise for the child, those symptoms and outcomes merely change with the age of the child.

And what's the leading cause of arguments, conflict, and stress in a family? Financial stress.

I love the fact that your family took the financial strain and it became a positive in your life. In fact, I had a similar experience...but you have to know we're the exception, right?

There's no a reason a relationship can't be just and commited and long-term if the people in it are younger.

And yet, we know that the longer one waits to get married (for the first time...especially the female), the lower the divorce rate.

Your family is a strong, positive exception to a lot of generalities. You're certainly not alone, but you've certainly "beaten the odds", so to speak. I would argue that your intelligence and personality have taken you a long way...along with the hundreds of other little variables floating around that have made you and your family what they are. (yes, that's a compliment). :)

My therapist consistently told me that your parents are the first lesson you get in relationships. My first wife and I did not have good teachers in that case. I've watched a friend with a similar problem have to figure it out through bad relationships of her own, too, so I also agree that it's important.

Gonch, if you're revising your argument around small children, well, come on now. They're not that complicated. At first they cry when they're tired, hungry or crapped themselves. Even the most inept parent can handle that.

OhioStater said:

And these are children as young as 3 I'm talking about.

Well, I'm talking even younger. :)

In fact, I had a similar experience...but you have to know we're the exception, right?

There's a difference between actual financial strain and the differences in where you are financially in life at 25 and where you are at 40.

I'm not talking in a negative 'financial strain' sense. I'm talking how your life naturally changes and grows. We generally have less money, buying power and resources available at 25 than at 40...and I think it works to your advantage as a young parent.

Financial hardship is something entirely different. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough?

Your family is a strong, positive exception to a lot of generalities.You're certainly not alone, but you've certainly "beaten the odds", so to speak. I would argue that your intelligence and personality have taken you a long way...along with the hundreds of other little variables floating around that have made you and your family what they are. (yes, that's a compliment). :)

So what I'm saying all along is true - everyone should be more like me.

Jeff said:

Gonch, if you're revising your argument around small children, well, come on now. They're not that complicated. At first they cry when they're tired, hungry or crapped themselves. Even the most inept parent can handle that.

Well, it's not a revision at all. I've been using 'small children' since my 2nd post.

And I don't think we can fairly say they're not complicated beyond being sleepy food and crap factories in the same conversation that's considering the impact of a healthy realtionship as an example to them.

Wow, the thread really evolved from where I wanted to enter yesterday, but oh well.

Going back to the selfishness and not getting married thing:

Bingo! That's what I always tell people that push and push when asking why I'm not in a relationship/marriage. I have no problem admitting to being selfish, and I mean that in a positive way. Its about being self aware and knowing what you want.

I can have a job that pays decently and do things like coaster trips and buy tech toys because I don't have a family. I also don't have a house payment/rent because I own my house. I don't want someone coming in that I have to think about. I'm just not interested. heck, I just got my brother and his family out of my house after a year, and I've learned that I don't even want to consider a roommate ever.

As for children and what not, I see too many people that tend to get married at 18 and pop out a bunch of kids. They struggle, they're not happy, and the family life isn't that great. I'm saying this from personal friendships as well as being a caseworker that dealt with a lot of these families. Having said that...

I do agree with Gonch to an extent. I think a good marrying age is 21/22 (or older, especially if you don't want children). I think good child rearing age is 22-25.

I don't think 18-19 year olds make the best parents, but again, it's good that it's not impossible to feed, dress, and clean a baby. I think it's good for a person to be independent around 18-19 for a couple of years and then to actually date and find someone they want to marry in their early 20s, then have a year or 2 without children, and then, if they want (or if it just happens), start a family.

From personal anecdotes, those seem to be the best families I know. My best friend was 25 when he got married, she was 23. They'd both been able to be independent adults. Then, after 2 years, they had kids. They're happy, they're a great family, they're not perfect, as no family is perfect, but they work. They work together and as a family unit.

Well, I'm talking even younger. :)

Well that doesn't seem to matter either. :)

Tekwardo said:

I can have a job that pays decently and do things like coaster trips and buy tech toys because I don't have a family.

Weird, I can do the same thing with a family. I'll say what I always say, that getting married or having a child doesn't mean you have to stop being a certain thing, it just means you're the new thing, too.

My dusty golf clubs beg to differ.

Touche.

The title is exactly the midset that's wrong with us.

"Arguing parents could damage their baby for life"

Sigh.

It's overthinking and being more scientific than anyone needs. Immediately this line of thought goes to some crap about brain patterns and raised voices, neural systems and being 'vulnerable' later in life.

Puke.

Who here among us doesn't understand that a contentious environment is worse for a kid? Raise your hand.

Yeah, that's what I thought. No hands. We all get it.

My take was more along the lines of, "It's good for 15 year old Billy to see mom and dad interacting in a healthy way with each other way more than it will matter for 6 month old Billy."

Obviously, screaming at each other isn't good in any situation.

That we're trying to break down raising a kid into data sets, studies and conscious thought processes seems misguided to me. We're missing the forest for the trees. (and while it's a side rant, I feel that's a common issue today in a lot of places...that we miss the big picture or the overall vibe - the point in the first place - because we're too worried about the minutae)

We all know that yelling, "Dumb bitch!" at your wife in front of the kid is a ****ty thing to do. Does it have to be any more complicated than that?

Jeff said:

Tekwardo said:

I can have a job that pays decently and do things like coaster trips and buy tech toys because I don't have a family.

Weird, I can do the same thing with a family. I'll say what I always say, that getting married or having a child doesn't mean you have to stop being a certain thing, it just means you're the new thing, too.

What you can do isn't my point. What I'm able to do for myself without a family is not the same as what you can do with a family. We have totally different circumstances.

And not being a certain thing isn't it either. I don't WANT a child. Nor a spouse. Even if I were dirt poor or filthy rich, I don't want either.

But in my personal circumstance, with my finances, I can do things that I wouldn't be able to do as much of if I were married.

And I don't have to (nor would I want to) worry about being responsible for another person(s). That whole idea actually has no attraction to me.

I've come to understand and accept that my coaster dorkiness has been the main drive for the past 11 years of never having been in a relationship. And seeing that I'm turning 25 in June, I'm just about to that point where I'll probably stop caring. I have thought about what it would be like to date someone who wasn't, at least moderately, into coasters or parks. And I don't know if I could bring myself to continuing the relationship. Because if there's one thing that keeps me positive and helps take my mind off of my crushing loneliness, it's amusement parks. You could call it sad, I suppose, but it's the truth.

I have my friends and the parks we all love to go to.......and that's all I need in my books. :)

The crushing loneliness will go away as you get older, unless, of course, you do find someone. If your situation is anything like mine, you could probably find other things to fill the void of being single all the time. The pain eases up as you get used to it, and eventually, you might find that you really don't need anyone in your life. I am extremely happy alone. Everyone who knows me really loves me, so that's something. :)

It may sound pathetic, but it isn't if you look at it another way.

Lord Gonchar said:

That we're trying to break down raising a kid into data sets, studies and conscious thought processes seems misguided to me... We all know that yelling, "Dumb bitch!" at your wife in front of the kid is a ****ty thing to do. Does it have to be any more complicated than that?

Is someone arguing otherwise?

Tekwardo said:
What I'm able to do for myself without a family is not the same as what you can do with a family.

You're wrong. That's a choice some people make. While you certainly might have to plan a little, we decided before my kid was even born to not allow him to prevent us to do anything. That's why other parents don't go anywhere for ten years, and my kid had been on 30 airplanes before he was 2. People make choices.

Jeff said:

Is someone arguing otherwise?

Nope. Just overthinking it in way that's almost ridiculous in it's obsessive approach.

Just because you arrive at the same conclusion doesn't mean there aren't better and worse ways to get there.

And honestly, it all gets away from the simple statement I tried to casually toss out there:

I feel the life arc from your mid-20's through your mid-40's more favorably lines up with the needs of raising a child than the life arc from 40 through 60 does.

Lord Gonchar said:

We all know that yelling, "Dumb bitch!" at your wife in front of the kid is a ****ty thing to do.

Absolutely. I make sure to yell that every time the kids are out of earshot.

It's overthinking and being more scientific than anyone needs. Immediately this line of thought goes to some crap about brain patterns and raised voices, neural systems and being 'vulnerable' later in life.

Puke.

You do realize, Gonch, I was having fun by posting that, right? And I'm a psychology professor...what do you expect? Some people have binders full of women. I have binders full of weird little studies to whip out...I guess the comedy was lost in translation as it was meant to produce a little smile.

Unfortunately, though, there are millions of parents out there right now who don't get the simple fact that yelling, screaming, and fighting in front of an infant, a 3 year old, or a 15 year old is bad. Do I need a study of infant brain patterns to show me that? No. But is it cool? I think so.

We all know that taking a deep breath and meditating relaxes the body and makes you feel better. Do we need a study that shows that when you meditate you're actually lowering the activity of the part of your brain that is responsible for string negative emotion and anxiety and heightening the activity of your frontal lobes to calm your ass down? Of course not. But it's cool.

Nope. Just over-thinking it

Am I at the right web address?

I think the more logical conclusion would be to say that for you, the right arc to have a kid was 20 - 40. It would seem that for most Americans, though, the "right arc" is becoming 30 - 50. 20 - 40 would have been a nightmare for me and the hypothetical child, but 30 - 50 was perfect.