Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    My father was 42 when I was born. When I was 10 he had a debilitating
    stroke and I had to watch him sit in a chair for 17 years and slowly
    deteriorate. He could never be a "real" father to me. I didn't love him
    any less, but I may have resented him at times for not being able to do
    all the father-son things with me. I remember that he was a typical
    father before the stroke. 
    
    For myself and only for myself, I'd have to say that no, I wouldn't
    want to father any children at this point in my life. Not only would it
    not be fair to any child I might have, but it wouldn't be fair to me.
    I would be well into my 60's when the child got out of college and this
    just a bachelor's degree, never mind grad school. I might not be
    healthy like my father before me wasn't and couldn't take care of or
    support a child. If I was healthy, I would want those years for my and
    any potential SO to enjoy together. 
    
    I am currently 38. My kids are 15 and 13. I hope they are well settled
    into their lives before I'm 50. I love them and would unconditionly do
    whatever I had to do to meet their needs, but I would like my latter
    years for myself and my grand kids. Selfish, maybe, it's just the way I
    feel. 
    
    Phil

    I'm 37. My wife is 44. We're trying very deliberately to have a child.
    If we're successful, it will be my first and my wife's fourth.
    
    She has expressed the opinion that it's not the pregnancy that bothers
    her, it's the years of care afterwards. We've agreed that I'll be the
    primary child care provider, but that doesn't mean she'll entirely
    evade the responsibilities represented by small children. She'll also
    be inconvenienced by my unavailability.
    
    If she gets pregnant next week, she'll be 66 when the child graduates
    from college. I'll be 59. That's a time when people are stashing away
    some wealth to provide for their retirement. A child entering college
    could be a major hassle that way.
    
    My attitude is that we'll make an assessment of what we can afford, and
    offer that. It may be the case that we can't afford ANY contribution
    toward college. I don't think that should mediate against having a
    child, though. I always imagine a conversation with the prospective,
    not-yet-conceived child, magically projected to age 18:
    
        Look, kid, here's your choice. If you're born, your mom and I
        aren't going to be in a position to put you through college. You
        will have to choose some other route through life, or else you'll
        need to put yourself through school. The alternative is to not be 
        born.
    
        Which is it, no college or no existance?
    
    Given this framing, the child's answer seems COMPLETELY obvious: it
    will choose to exist. This also renders ridiculous (IMO) the "it's not
    fair to the child" viewpoint. "Hey, kid, your Dad's going to be a bit
    slow on the basketball court, and probably won't be able to play three
    sets of tennis with you when your sixteen, because he'll be 53 and
    slowing down. Do you want to exist?"
    
    I want a child, so I can love it and nurture it and pass along whatever
    fragment of wisdom which I've attained and it is willing to hear. I am
    completely convinced that, regardless of prevailing economic
    conditions, the state of the ozone layer, or my capacity to shoot
    baskets with alacrity,... the child will be happy that it was brought
    into the world.
    
    There are millions of children being raised by their grandparents. I
    seldom hear even suggestions that they are thereby harmed. There are
    millions of children being raised by children; teenage pregnancy has NO
    advocates, so far as I can tell. If I had my druthers, I'd vote for the
    grey-hairs every time. I'd hold that older people are better situated,
    emotionally and financially, to raise children. The ability to run
    faster and jump higher isn't even secondary, it's more like tenthiary.
    
    - Hoyt

   We used to have some next door neighbors that had three children.
    
    One was 20.
    One was 10.
    One was 3 months....
    
    And these kids were all planned.  I know, atleast, that the last
    one was, because the whole family had been planning on this kid
    well before it was conceived.
    
    At the time, I was 12, and pretty good friends with the 10 year
    old.  She said it was weird because she was an only child, but she
    wasn't.  My mom said she thought it was weird because she couldn't
    imagine raising kids for 40 years!!  Personally, I don't feel that
    this was fair to the youngest child.  By the time this kid was in
    high school, his parents would be reitred.  Would they then be able
    to give the child the same things they gave their elder children??
    I doubt it.  I can see keeping a child if you inadvertedly got pregnant
    at an "elevated" age, but purposely having one????  It's not fair
    to the kid.
    
    KarenKay

    As an older father of a three year old I have some perspective on this
    topic. I am 47.  When I am 65 my son will be 21... just getting on his
    own for good.  As I retire he goes on his own, what wrong with that?
    "Can't offer him much as an older father".  How about financial
    resources and knowledge built up over the years?  This situation is
    like any other. There are advantages and disadvantges to younger and 
    older fathers. Which is worse? I don't know, you pick.  The biggest
    disadvantage is that I am likely to not be a Grandfather for long.
    For those of you who who say younger is better, look at the flip side
    of the coin.  Age and experience offer potentially more resources of
    all types (except health) from older parents.  "Can't relate to young
    kids". Ask my son whether that is true. Also, it depends on the
    individual. I know 20 year olds who can't relate to kids, and I know
    65 year olds who relate marvelously with them.   Jeff
    

    My father was well into his 40s when I was born, my mom in her 30s.  My
    dad died when I was 20, my mother is still alive.

    I am 39 and hoping to have my first child before too many more years
    makes it impossible. (I've wanted to be a Mom for years but I've never
    quite gotten the hang of parthenogenesis.)

    A friend of mine was born when his father was in his 60s and his mom
    was in her late 40s.  Frank was fine and is fine except that his older
    sisters were the same age as most of his friends' parents. Frank was
    orphaned in his teens and then lived with a married sister and his
    nephews who were his age.

    Yes, parenthood at a later age means parents who may not be around for
    a long time and parents who may have less energy but older parents provide
    other benefits.  Older parents can be calmer, more fixed in life,
    better able to provide psychological and material comforts.

    It's a trade off but not necessarily a negative one. I think the most
    important thing is to want the child and be realistically able to care
    for it.
          
      Margaret

    Late-life babies run in my family.  My mother was 36 and father 42 when
    I was born.  40 and 46 when my youngest sister was born.  My
    grandfather, raised three separate families with the last child born
    when he was 74.  He maintained an active life until that son was 17 and
    he was 91.  (Strokes can get anyone.).  
    
    My parents are both living and happy to have as many kids as they did
    later in life.  They were financially well off enough to provide us
    with activities that otherwise would have been out of range of a
    beginning family.  I never thought of them as older.  I am now in my
    mid-thirties, with well-spaced children 16 and 4.  Should I have
    another it won't be until the youngest is in full time school (three more
    years).
    
    The idea that older parents may die while you are young was a theme my
    little sister used to harp on.  However, both she and I had friends
    with younger parents that lost one or more parents before the end of
    their teens.  
    
    Age is only a piece of an equation.  Willingness to be active and
    general health are far more important in my book.
    
    Meg 

    My Dad is 42 and has remarried and had a new baby.  I am 21
    and my brother Matthew is 2, I too had mixed feelings when 
    my brother was born, "Is he too old?" "Will my Dad be able to 
    do things with him?" " Will my father be as openminded as he was
    with me when I was a child?"  And I have decided that my brother
    will get just as much if not more than I got.  When I was born my
    Dad was 21 and broke, he had just graduated from college and 
    was trying to begin a career.  Now my Dad is settled and makes
    a good amount of money, for that I think my brother will benefit.
    
    Also as far as being able to play football etc. I think that a person
    who has decided to have a child at a later age should take that
    into account, in my case, my father is pretty active and healthy
    and I feel he will be able to enjoy my brother just as much as he
    enjoyed me.  Not only that but where my father leaves off I 
    think that I will pick up.  I am just in the middle of the two 
    and play an active part of my brother's life.
    
    As far as college, I think its wrong of parents not to 
    do as much as they can to help their kids go through 
    college.  Especially for just one child (vs. having a family
    of 5 etc) it won't kill a family to put a little bit 
    ina savings account every week.
    
    Thanks for letting me have a little input.  
    SLG

    
    re -1
    
    Why do you think it is wrong for parents not to contribute to their
    children's college education?
    
    
    I disagree with you, but would like to hear why you feel the
    way you do.  I put myself through school with no help from my
    mom, and only once having to ask my grandparents.  I worked two
    part time jobs (one of them a coop job with Digital) and still
    found time to study.  Several of my friends were being sent to
    school on their parent's money.  They screwed around and basically
    got nowhere.  In fact two of them still are not working in the
    field they graduated in which was engineering.  This is two years
    out of school now and still they prefer not to use their degree
    much to the dismay of the parents who paid for their education.
    
    I feel that a person who puts themself through school truly understands
    the realities of life.  After all, sooner or later you are going to
    have to survive on your own.  Why not make it sooner?  At least you
    will not be in for a serious shock when you graduate.  Yet on the other
    hand, if I had known that I was going to get out of school with a
    26K debt over my head I would have picked a state school.  That is
    one thing the financial aid advisors never tell you, and you really
    don't think about it when you are filling out the loan papers.
    
    My mom just could not afford to help me.  Given the current state
    of the economy and the cost of a college education, this is a
    reality that many kids are going to have to face.  Even if the 
    parents do put money away starting when the child is born, the
    costs are still going to outweigh the amount saved by a considerable
    percent.  
    
    It is not a child's right to have a free education.  The parent's 
    give enough just raising a child.  If parent's can afford to help
    defray the costs and they want to that is great.  However, I would
    not expect it!  My kids are going to have to work their ways through
    school if they choose (hopefully) to go to college.  I feel the 
    experience has been an invaluable part of my life education.
    
    Michele

    "Being fair to the kid" (whose parents are in middle-years
    when s/he is born) seems to be the objection.  What does
    "fairness" mean?  
    
    My wife and I raised four kids and "fairness" was a word
    that got bandied about a lot.  "If X got something then it
    is only fair that Y gets it, too."  EVEN IF Y DIDN'T WANT IT!
    
    Late in the game, I began to realize that everybody "getting"
    the same thing from the parents was a terrible trap.  It can
    relieve the parents of having to relate as individuals to each
    of their individual kids.  "If the oldest got it, then each of
    the others must also get it, and I don't have to worry about it."
    But "fairness" obscures the unique situation that exists between each
    parent and each child.  I was not the same man at age 26 when
    the first was born as I was at age 33 when the last came along.
    The kids were very different from each other.  Two have university 
    degrees, one barely scraped through high school, and another
    did not make it through high school. 
    
    And I am not simply talking about the things that money buys.
    I'm talking about relating.  Each kid was unique, and it is
    an enormous amount of work to relate to a kid from where the
    kid is, rather than where you would like the kid to be.  I don't
    claim to have done this well, at all.  It is only in hindsight
    that I see this.  If I were to become a father again (no chance)
    I would be a totally different father than I was for my four kids.
    
    But I would hesitate to say "better."  Maybe what some of my kids
    needed was exactly what they got.  Maybe what I would do now would
    be inappropriate for that kid.
    
    Each parent and each kid is a special combination and trying
    to apply some kind of abstract "fairness" rules just obscures
    the uniqueness.
    
    Bill

    I hear the word 'fairness' being used alot, especially when one is
    dealing with kids... usually the word fair is used when the person
    really means equal.  The prior noter brings up the realities of life.
    LIFE IS FUNDAMENTALLY NOT FAIR, (at least from most peoples'
    perspective). Fairness is a goal to strive for WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE, and
    often its NOT appropriate in non equal situations which the prior 
    noter goes on about.  Parents can easily be held hostage to the word
    fair. Son X says 'ITS NOT FAIR!' because daughter Y got a new bike.
    But, the son doesn't take care of his bikes and in fact has lost the
    last two new ones he was given.  The parent being held hostage will buy
    the son ANOTHER bike because 'its not fair'.  The parent who throws the
    word fair out and substitues the word appropriate is more likely to 
    respond in the ultimately fairest way.   

    Boy, we're off on a tangent, eh?
    Fair.  How ridiculous.  As was stated prior, different kids have
    different needs and different levels of maturation.  My mom and
    dad spent more $ on my college education, but my older sister didn't
    care.  She got her occasional trip to Chicago to see her boyfriend
    (now husband).  Each child, heck, each person, has their own individual
    needs.  As long as those needs are met, the parents are being "fair".
    
    Even if it annoys the child.
    KarenKay (BTW, I am 21)

    Yeah I did go down a rathole, sorry.  What does "Fair. How rediculous."
    mean in the context of .11, and my prior note?
    
    To get back on track with older parents.  As an older father I have 
    wached kids use the "But Dad its not FAIR!" argument many times, and
    being a "wise older Father" I think I finally figured out how to avoid
    THAT argument being used inappropriately. I explained it in my prior
    note.  Would a father of 21 be as likely to have the experience of an
    older father?

    My grandfather remarried and fathered a son when he was in his 40s.
    This meant that my mother had a brother (half-brother, actually) who
    was younger than her two children, and I had an uncle (half-uncle, but
    we didn't worry about the fine points) who was younger than me. (We loved
    to introduce "my uncle" to my friends.)
    
    It's true that when parents are older there is a greater chance of
    their dying when the child is young. However, older parents are more
    apt to be financially secure, and often have more patience than younger
    parents. In my grandfather's case, he outlived 2 wives, my mother, 2
    great grand-chiildren and umpteen other relatives, so I'm not sure
    statistics mean much on an individual case. He was a horrible parent
    from what everybody tells me, but his age had nothing to do with that.

    	Part of the problem that any parent has is treatly all of their
    children 'fairly'. What I was alluding to whenI mentioned being
    fair to a child late in an adult's life is the level of activity
    required by a parent through that child's life.
    
    	Someone previously mentioned that their father had fathered
    another child at the age of 74. Was it because he truly wanted that
    child or because he wanted to show everyone that "he still had it
    in him".? I'm not saying that this is or was the previous noters
    father's motive, but often it is/can be. The result is a child who's
    father may have wisdom and patience but can't wrestle and roll on
    the floor and play football on the grass, climb a hill, swim with
    his son or daughter on his back. Those are the bonding mechanisms
    that a father has with his kids.
    
    	Another thing I alluded to in my 'fair' meaning was the school
    activities and after school activities. Often kids don't say much
    but they realize that they are different. Once a parent is known
    to be elevated in age in comparison to the other parents in a child's
    class, activities may be curtailed. Strangely, teachers may avoid
    asking a elderly parent to volunteer for class projects feeling
    is may be "too much". Children recognize that the other kids parents
    are younger and appear to be more "in tune" with what's going on.
    The parents may also get hurt because the child spends more time
    with a friend's younger parents........
    
    	Ken

    In the town that I'm from, I have very old parents.  My mom was
    26 when she had me and my father was 34.  I know, that isn't old-
    but it was perceived that way!!  I'm serious- kids used to ask me
    if my mom was my grandmom.  (she doesn't look any older than her
    age)  Just a kind of aside...
    
    In my humble opinion, much of what determines whether an older
    parent will be a good parent is the physical/mental/financial well-
    being of the parents in question.  I know several kids who were
    oopses, coming along 8 to 10 years after the next oldest child.  
    In some cases, it worked out fine, and in some cases it didn't.  
    A lot of times I noticed that the parents were tired of raising kids
    by the time the "oops" hit the teen years, and therefore kinda let 
    the kid run wild.  Parenting is a hard task- not to be taken lightly.
    Before one becomes a parent, ideally, one should have seriously
    considered the commitment and responsibility one is taking on. 
    If an older person is having a kid because they love children, are
    a good parent, got remarried, whatever, great.  Just consider
    everything very carefully.
    
    KarenKay
                                                   

    Well, when I was born my mother was 36 yrs. old, and my father was 48
    yrs. old.  Given a choice between having older parents (like I did) or
    not being born at all, I would certainly choose having older parents
    since it's nearly impossible to imagine never having existed at all. 
    However, given a choice between having older parents (like I did) or
    younger parents, I'd go for the younger parents second time around, (if
    there were a second time around!) :-), knowing what I know about having
    had older parents.
    
    I don't think it would have been as bad if both of my parents had been
    36, like my mother, but it was difficult having a father who was 48
    yrs. older than myself.  Many of my friends had/and even *have*
    grandparents who are younger than my father was, and I'm talking about
    friends who are close to my age.
    
    It always seemed to me, as a kid and teenager, that my father never
    wanted to go anywhere or do anything!  He always wanted to stay home
    and work in his garden or read.  But, I knew from hearing him talk that
    he had enjoyed going out when he was younger.  
    
    I never got to know my father as a young man.  He was middle-aged with
    white hair even in my earliest memories.  I can recall being teased by
    classmates in gradeschool because I had "an old man for a father."  
    
    When I was in junior high school he had a heart attack and had to
    retire.  From that point on we lived on social security and money was
    always tight.  I was always told that whatever I did after I graduated
    from high school, I had to remember that they couldn't give me a penny. 
    Not for college, not for a wedding, not for a car.  They were already
    worried about old-age, and I wasn't even grown-up yet.  It seemed that
    after my father had the first heart attack, that from that moment on my
    parents only worried about (1) my father dying (2) not having enough
    money to get by on with social security, or (3) my older brother
    getting killed in Vietnam - this was the 60's [he didn't].  It honestly
    seemed to me that they had no time or energy left to even begin to
    consider what was supposed to happen to *me* when I graduated from high
    school.  I was given no encouragement towards a career and no concern
    was shown when I screwed up and had low grades in some subjects.
    
    Another problem was that my father, being the age of a grandfather,
    absolutely could not relate to the social changes that went on in the
    60's (sexual revolution, marijuana experimentation, etc.)  I was mild
    compared to most kids my age, and my father thought I was depraved, and
    we had many shouting matches about it.  
    
    To top it off, he died at (almost) age 76, when I was 27.  I had
    finally become friends with him after reaching my 20's, and then when
    he died I really missed him.  He lived to be almost 76, so if he had
    had me when he was in his 20's I would have been able to know him for a
    lot longer.
    
    I am 24 yrs. older than my daughter and we have a lot more in common
    than I had with either parent.  We sometimes can wear the same clothes,
    and we enjoy the same rock concerts and movies, and discuss men
    together.  I feel much closer to her than I ever did either of my
    parents.  I felt close to my parents, in a way, but I always felt I had
    to hide certain things from them, and I think my daughter and I are
    fairly open.  She knows she's not going to shock me with too much.
    
    Anyway, if I could do it over, and had a choice, I'd rather have
    younger parents the next time around.
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .14
    
    > The result is a child who's
    > father may have wisdom and patience but can't wrestle and roll on
    > the floor and play football on the grass, climb a hill, swim with
    > his son or daughter on his back. Those are the bonding mechanisms
    > that a father has with his kids.
    
    Those are SOME of the bonding mechanisms that a father has with
    his kids.  Also, reading a story to the kid, listening to the kid,
    holding the kid, helping the kid deal with his difficulties and
    his failures.  ALso, just being with a kid WITHOUT putting "perform for me"
    pressure on the kid.  Please don't short change fathers by pigeon-
    holing them into that physical activity role.  (And I hope the
    mother can do all that physical activity too, as well as the
    holding, reading, etc.)
    
    > Strangely, teachers may avoid
    > asking an elderly parent to volunteer for class projects feeling
    > it may be "too much". 
    
    Is the father unable to speak to the teacher and make clear what
    he is or isn't capable of?  Likewise, is a 25-year old father in 
    a wheelchair helpless?  No!  The teacher and the other parents may
    regard him as helpless, but he can change that by indicating what
    he can do and what he wants to do.  A 60-year old father or a 25-year
    old paraplegic may not be able to run up and down the basketball 
    court, but he may be a great coach from the bench.  His ability to 
    see what is happening may be every bit as good as the 25-year old 
    who can run with the kids.
     
    > Children recognize that the other kids parents
    > are younger and appear to be more "in tune" with what's going on.
    > The parents may also get hurt because the child spends more time
    > with a friend's younger parents.  
    
    Yep, the kid may go off with a friend and the friend's parents
    on a skiing weekend.  The older parent's job is to figure out 
    what they can do with their kid and the kid's friends in return.
    
    I still maintain that nothing is inherently "unfair" in having
    an older parent.  If the parent is working at being a parent,
    it is all the kid can ask for.  An older parent will be a 
    different parent than a younger parent, but not automatically
    "unfair."
    
    Bill

    "That" is part of the problem with this Country.  Its age
    descriminiatory.  If your over 40 your 'out of it, out of touch, and
    hardly know a thing' according to the younger set, at least thats the
    impression I get. If we are so dumb how do you think we managed to
    survive to BE 'old'?
    
    Look at the ads on TV, being 'old' or looking old is the worst thing
    that can happen to you short of being dead. Well, all of you who are
    young should remember that one day you too will be over 40 (probably)
    and I suggest that you treat 'old' people the way you will want to be
    treated.  You better start now because the Country has a long way to
    go, and, as I understand it the population bulge by the turn of the
    Century will be with the older people.
    
    As far as my 3 year old son goes I intend to take care of myself
    physically so I will survive to be old enough so we can have a
    relationship while he is an adult.  And, knowing that some 44 years
    seperate us I will make a special effort to compensate by paying
    particular attention to whether I am in fact out of touch with his
    generation, and, if I am I will try and be open minded and adjust
    my thinking. 

    RE: .16
    
    Lorna, it does sound like your father wasn't there for you
    in a lot of ways.  The concerns of dying, money to live on,
    and the survival of your brother in VietNam are pretty real
    concerns, but I do understand that that doesn't relieve your 
    feeling of getting shortchanged. 
    
    But perhaps he would not have been there for you at a younger
    age either?  Perhaps it was not age as much as simply who he
    was and what he was capable of?
    
    Not many men in that era (no matter what their age) knew how
    to be close and supportive to a daughter (it's not easy today).
    
    It seems unfair to me to compare your *current* relationship with your
    daughter (woman to girl) to your father's relationship with you *back
    then* (man to girl) and to pin very much of the differences onto the
    age gap.  There was a big culture gap and a big gender gap, as well
    as the age gap.
    
    How would you compare your mother's relationship with you versus
    your relationship with your daughter?  How would you compare your
    father's relationship with his son versus his relationship with you?
    
    I'm not trying to change what happened to you, just trying to
    avoid having the blame (for what sounds like an unhappy time for
    you) placed so heavily on the age gap between you and your father.
    
    (My parents were in their mid-30's when they had me (in the
    middle of the Depression) and I can remember all the times that 
    my father tried to "relate" to me -- because
    I can count them on one hand.  He was in good health, but his
    father died when he was 5, his step-father died when he was 10,
    and he immigrated to this country when he was 21.  He didn't know
    how to be a father, let alone an "American" father.  He didn't swim,
    play any sports, climb, run, dance, make music, etc.  He worked
    hard and saved his money so that I could go to college -- that
    was his gift to me.  His curse was a lot of shaming, tight
    control, and put downs.  But he *did his best*, given what he
    had to start with.  My job was to survive and to crawl out
    from under the rock of the parenting that I got.  And then to
    understand my parents enough to honor them for what they tried to do,
    even if from my perspective they failed at it.) 
    
    Bill

I am 52 years young and real tired of growing children!  My oldest is 23 and 
still going to college... My youngest will start his second year in college
this fall.  I love both boys very much but I feel that the American dream that
I thought would be mine at this age is dead because of trying to put both thru
college.  My wife and I never dreamed it would cost so much and be so terribly
important to have a college degree(neither of us got a degree althought we both
attended college).  We are currently asking the oldest to finance his last 
year or years(his major seems to have been fun for three years) but still we
will have to make the payments for him till he is able to himself(never maybe).
It is real hard to insist that the oldest be self sufficient in these days of
corporate cut back, etc.(he never found summer work this year).  If I had it to
do over I think I would have started earlier to have children as I have very
little in common with these boys(sports only).

Well enough!

    
    I don't know about this "fair" stuff either.  I mean, maybe having an
    aging parent would be less fun for a kid, but also maybe having a blind
    parent or a paraplegic parent or any number of other things might
    prevent the parent from participating in little league or basketball or
    from coaching their kid's soccer team or whatever.  However, if I
    thought this way, not only might I question my fairness in parenting a
    child at a later age, I might question my fairness in having a child at
    all, given my history of hereditary allergies, many of which affect my
    life on a daily basis.  
    
    I think a parent who really WANTS a child, and is willing to give the
    energy and commitment to love and raise that child to the best of their
    ability - with the financial ability, the time to devote, the
    dedication to commit, and the caring and loving to give - should go
    right ahead and do so if they want.  THAT'S the kind of parents this
    universe needs more of - be they old, young, blind, physically
    challenged, blond, black, white, allergic.....
    
    -Jody
    

    re .16, you've brought up some interesting points.  I think I could
    make a list of "Good Things My Parents Did Raising Me" and another list
    of "Bad Things My Parents Did Raising Me" and probably someday my
    daughter will feel that she could make these lists, too.  I know that
    no parent is perfect.  I think my parents were "good parents" in some
    ways and not so good in other ways.  Obviously, one of the main
    problems for my father was getting sick and having to quit work and
    then not having enough money.  I've always tied this in with his age,
    but if he could have stayed healthy longer I'm sure it would have made
    a big difference.  Another major problem is that social mores went
    through such an upheaval during the time I was growing up that it was
    even more difficult for someone of my father's generation to
    understand, especially where he had grown up in a fishing village in
    Nova Scotia (not exactly a cosmopolitan background).
    
    My father did pay a lot more attention to my brother when we were kids,
    than he did to me.  Ironically, though, my father and my brother had
    very little in common, and my brother showed almost no interest in any
    of the things that my father enjoyed and tryed to teach him, such as
    carpentry, farming, and playing the violin.  It apparently never
    occurred to my father to try to show me anything.  He didn't notice me
    until I grew up and he realized we shared an interest in discussing
    politics and world events and reading some of the same books.
    
    I was closer to my mother, but not in the same way that my daughter and
    I are.  I did actually confide almost everything to my mother, as long
    as it didn't include sex, drugs or booze, since she preferred to
    pretend those things didn't exist.  But, my mother was overweight and I
    was thin so we never remotely wore the same clothes, she hated
    rock'n'roll so we didn't share an interet in music.  I always realized
    that she was a grown-up and that we couldn't really be friends.  My
    daughter is 16 and I'm 40 and we wear almost the same size clothes and
    wear similar styles, we like a lot of the same music, movies and books,
    and we can talk about men and sex and laugh and giggle like
    girlfriends.  We can be more open than I could be with my mother. 
    We've had a lot of people ask us if we're sisters.  Nobody would have
    ever asked my  mother and I that.  
    
    Getting back to my father, I think he did a good job of raising me to
    be a good person and instilling values.  He was also very open minded
    and liberal in everything except sex, and taught me to question things. 
    But, I think it obviously never occurred to him that girls would ever
    have to work to support themselves, or should go to college, and he
    never showed any encouragement or interest in my having a career. 
    Neither did my mother.  I think it was their biggest failing as
    parents, and I think part of it was their advanced ages and the fact
    that they were just too wrapped up in themselves too worry about me.
    
    Lorna
    

    I think that having babies late might be youngifying (to coin a term).
    You naturally concregate with other new parents, who tend to be
    younger. The kid brings in the newest music, clothes, and language. The
    child's view of the world is a good one for us all to recall,
    regardless of age. They might be just the right medicine for us old
    farts; studies show that elderly with pets live longer, why not kids?  
    
    8^)
    
    I'm 37, with step-daughters 15, 12, and 12. I try pretty hard to stay
    semi-hip, and feel totally triumphant when the fifteen-year-old touts
    Metallica and I cooly reply "Yeah, they're pretty good, I have their
    last two albums." A friend remarks "Ooh, B-52s, your parents are so
    cool." Yes, it's true. I wonder if they'll ever appreciate the way I
    dance?!
    
    If we have (another, for my wife) baby, then I'll be motivated to learn
    the games of still another generation. I haven't tackled skate boarding
    yet, or Nintendo. If the little dude is just learning these things,
    can't I?
    
    If I'm 74 before it happens, though, then I'll create a trust before
    the delivery.
    
    - Hoyt

    re .23, I really don't think 37 is very old to have teenagers around. 
    I'm 40 and my daughter is 16 and we have a lot in common.  But, when
    *I* was 16 my father was 64 (!) and my mother was 52.  That was a lot
    different.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re 37 not being too old for having teenagers (-1):
    
    Dog, I hope not! But I mentioned in an earlier reply to this topic that
    I'm also trying to become a biological father for the first time; my
    teen-agers are step-daughters. If it happens immediatly, I'll be 54
    when the little tyke hits 16. If she/he works hard at the game, then
    that's about the age at which he/she'll be able to take me on the
    tennis court.  ^)
    
    - Hoyt

    
    Bravo .19!
    
    My parents also had children relatively late in life.  When I was
    growing up I did occasionally wish they were younger.  It wasn't
    because any of my friends called them old, or because they were
    physically unable to cope with an active child, or they weren't hip
    enough.  I just wished they were younger because everyone elses parents
    were younger and and you know how kids like to be the same as their
    friends!  They gave me no more or less than younger parents.  They gave
    me something different.  It would have been different if they had been
    in their early twenties or late fifties.  My point is, all parents are
    have different ideas, values etc etc etc that are passed onto their
    children.
    
    It is a personal choice (in most cases) to have children, IF AND WHEN
    you feel ready.  Just because you pass a certain age doesn't mean you
    should stop trying because it might be unfair to the child to have
    older parents.  It took my parents 5 years to have their first child.
    
    I'm 23, I would hate to have children right now.  I don't feel I am
    mature or unselfish enough yet (or even if I will be).  Let people make
    their own decisions in life.  You may disagree but it really is no-one
    else's business but their own.
    
    		Holly
    
    PS. THis is NOT directed at anyone in particular, just my thoughts

    
    My grandfather got married when he was 98.  Someone asked, "Why would
    you want to get married at 98 for?"
    
    He replied...
    
    
    	"Well.  I didn't want to!"  :^)
    

    Joke: 
    
    The attorney looks at the aged couple and asks "Please explain to
    me why you want to get a divorce NOW?! You're 96 years old! You've been
    married for 78 years!??!"
    
    The couple exchange glances, then one replies "We've been waiting for
    the children to die."
    
    
    It occurs to me that having children late in life is a relatively good
    way to assure that you don't out-live your children. There's also the
    lamentable situation where 72-year-olds are caring for their age-96
    parents. Put forty years between you and your kids, and these problems
    won't arise.
    
    - Hoyt

    I am currently 50 years young and divorced. I have three kids living
    with me, a girl age 23, two boys age 10 and 13. We go hikeing, fishing
    camping, target shooting , boating, swiming  and metal detecting on 
    a regular basis(almost every weekend we do something) I enjoy my kids 
    enormously we have a good time. I play basketball with them in the yard. 
    I work with them on baseball and football. I attend pta meetings and 
    talk with their teachers once or twice a month. I teach all of them 
    how to fix and repair cars, dishwashers, washing machines, paint
    remodel the house , build decks and fences, mix and pour concrete.
    and whatever else needs to be done around the house. All this includes
    my daughter.  I feel that age in years has nothing to do with being
    a good parent it has to do with atitude and a "bad" attitude will
    produce a poor parent whatever the age as a "good" attitude will
    produce a good attitude whatever the age.
                                             

    I'm 42, with a (nearly) 2-year-old son.  I think my age and maturity
    and ability to understand are much more valuable to me as a parent
    (and to my son) than my being younger would be.  I can't imagine
    being 22 and having a kid! 
    Who is saying that "old" parents can't do anything?  My 76-year-old
    uncle shingled his house roof a couple of years ago.  Another uncle
    scraped and painted his house at the age of 82.  My wife's father,
    at the age of 72, hiked 3 miles with me through the Maine woods to
    go fly fishing.  My dad and I climbed mountains in the Berkshires
    together, when he was in his 50s.
    I also wonder about the idea that older parents aren't able to
    relate to new ideas.  Seems to me that some of the most narrow-minded,
    dogmatic, prejudiced people I know are in their 20s, and some of the
    most enlightened, free-thinking, liberal people are in their 40s
    and 40s.  
    Age is a state of mind.  When my grandmother turned 90, somebody
    asked her how old she felt.  "I feel about the same as I did when
    I was 16," she said.
    
    I can't give my son the same things I could give him if I were
    22 or 32 instead of 42, but turn that around: if I were 22 or 32,
    I couldn't give him the things I can give him now.  Who is to say
    which is better?  A lot depends on the kid.  If my son turns out
    to be a jock athlete, he may feel shortchanged, but if he's thoughtful,
    philosophical, mechanical, and a lover of the outdoors, I expect he'll
    think he got a pretty good deal.
    (n.b. I've *never* been an athlete, so he'd feel shortchanged on that
    score even if I were 22.)