Without disregarding the notion that Flanagan's malaise dates from feeling abandoned by her mother... and perhaps that her own existence was not enough to satisfy her mother's creative urges... (thanks to Joan Walsh for this piece, and to most of the letter writers)

...it occurs to me today (as opposed to the many other days when this same media-made war is being played out in the public sphere) that there is some idea afloat that a woman cannot be both feminine and a feminist. Why the hell not? Just because the man/woman thing appears to some to be a dichotomy (maybe it's all a continuum?), doesn't mean we have to apply a false dichotomy to what it means to be a woman in a world that would have it be a lose/lose proposition.

The rest of the arguing is just about the details.

[see comments 1 & 3] but maybe they'll eventually get bored and move on to some other site.

>>But why not use the time-honored method of just being cold and distant, failing to return phone calls, disappearing without an explanation, and babbling psuedo-psychological insights like "I think I need my space" or "I don't know what I want"...until she just get sick of all the crap and dumps HIM????<<

Perhaps that does sound depressing, but it also sounds like the voice of experience, and it was one of my favorite sentences from this thread. If there were more time and the LW took that tack, the GF would have a real-life learning experience that would prepare her for the future. Not that all guys break up with a woman that way, just an awful lot of them.

There was one guy who spent many weeks persuading me to give him another chance after I broke up with him, swearing he wanted a real commitment. He later broke up with me in a restaurant.

All in all, there's a lot of pretty good advice in the letters, even if most of them do swing between the extremes of tell her ASAP and tell her after exams. The fact that the LW is even asking for advice about this is commendable and that he decided to write Cary for that advice is even more commendable. So, I doubt he's the type to take Laurel's advice, no matter how useful it might be to her in the future. That he's not ready to settle down, even into a great relationship, is also understandable. My experience has taught me that timing is everything. More important than meeting "the right person" is being the right person.

Once he assimilates whatever value he can from these letters, the LW has a real opportunity here to act like the man he wants to be some day...

Most of the comments saying "just do it" seem to be from people who are newly pregnant or new parents or parents with still young children. Assuming their children are healthy, they haven't yet had time for any real regrets. Of course, most people fall in love with their own children. (Up in the Air, that's the mommy gene you're worried about. For some people-- me, too-- it's more specific... and not always available for other people's children.)

But back to the ages of children. The middle-school and teen years are nothing like the early years, and none of them are like having a young adult child, or one who is full grown with children of his or her own, and full-fledged adult problems of their own. A professor once said to me, when my daughter was probably 12 or so: small children, small problems; big children, big problems. I thought I understood what he was saying, but I really couldn't until I got there myself. It was no picnic. Was it all worth it? It's easy to say YES when your children are still young. But now, I don't think I'm the one who can really answer that. My daughter, or her son... they're the ones who can say yes or no. I can say that over time, when problems have come up they've been increasingly more difficult. (That's why it's such a good thing one has time to fall in love and bond with a child first... before the hard things come up.) And just in case anyone's still listening here... it's not just until they're 18 or maybe 21. Our children are the real "until death do us part" relationships. You don't really get out of it until someone (hopefully the parent) dies. Abandonment is not a real exit.

As for being expensive or not... no, they don't eat that much when they're small, and their toys are simpler. But all of that changes. Clothes. Toys. Food. Teenage boys are human vacuum cleaners in the kitchen. Sporting equipment, fees, activitites, proms, tutors-- and all of this so far assumes public school-- add up. I have to agree with the comment that the LW's concerns about money are not trivial. If you grew up feeling as if you had what you needed, then those concerns might seem mercenary to you, but for anyone who grew up with serious want of resources (myself included) it's not something to just brush aside.

The people who keep complaining about these stories reveal their youth. I can remember when it was just assumed that a married couple would have children if they could, and without very much in the way of planning. The reason that there are so many of these stories and letters about whether or not to have children is because having a choice is still fairly new. People are still figuring out what it means, and there are not a lot of examples, at least not of happy, carefree, purposefully childfree people (i.e., women) to study and learn from. Most women still get a lot of pressure from family and friends to have children, even when they've made it clear that they don't want to have any. And it isn't an easy thing for a grownup woman whose biological clock is pounding away to balance those almost physical urges with the other demands of her life.

Ironic, isn't it... when you consider how easy it is for most men to decide what they want to do with their own biological urges?