"Although one was a 30-week premie and the baby/toddler from hell, I don't remember that time as being overwhelming. Neither were the soccer years. Neither ever told me he/she hated me; I never had to worry that they were bigger/stronger than I am and defiant of the house rules, even though by the time the son left home, he was bigger than his 6'4" dad. It wasn't all sunshine and rainbows, but I don't recall any of it being bad, and through it all I kept up a rewarding professional career."

That's great! I'm happy for you.

But you cannot guarantee that LW will have the same experiences just because you did, with your kids and life situation.

The point of many of these posts is not "scare tactics" but simply to caution that all sorts of things can and do happen, and having kids is not something to rush into without seriously consideration.

"I don't know why modern women perpetuate the myth that parenthood is something that just happens to you. You're the adult."

I don't see that myth being perpetuated here.

"If it's what you want to do, do it well. It's not impossible, you know. The stars don't all need to be aligned."

The problem is that it can be hard/impossible to know, while you are doing it, if you are really doing it well. You only find out in the long run.

"It mainly just involves hard work, commitment and common sense."

That's the big picture. The devil is in the details. Doing it well is all about the details.

"Is there some psycho-sexual need for women to have children?"

Yes there is - and it's not just women who have it. Babies are a lot of work but they are a lot of fun, too.

It's perfectly normal for both men and women to want to have children. That doesn't mean everyone should have kids.

It's also a simple Darwinian fact that those with no desire to have and raise kids tended to have fewer than those with a strong desire, so the selection process continues.

It's about what she thinks of it.

And whether, by buying a book, she put money in the pockets of somebody like Coulter, Hubbard, Limbaugh or Darth Cheney.

You're right that money is an important factor, and that many families simply cannot afford for one parent to stop working for several years.

But there are other factors too:

- There are careers, like some health care jobs, where "taking a few years off" can make you unemployable because things change so fast. Think about the computer you were using ten years ago....

- Job security is often an oxymoron today. Tie that to health care benefits and it's very risky in many cases to depend on one career.

In the end it comes down to doing what's best for the particular family in question. Often that's not an easy decision.

Unless someone has all the facts about a particular family's situation, they shouldn't pass judgement on the choices made.

"But since we're the ones with the tits, we need to be "on duty" for the first year minimum so as to be able to breastfeed for 12 months."

One word: Pump.

"There are more and more SAH dads, but it is sadly still a small percentage of men who can cope with the zero pay/zero respect gig that at-home parenting unfortunately is."

That's not really a big issue.

"Men get much of their self-worth from getting a paycheck whereas relationships mean the world to a female. No, that's not reactionary, those are just the facts"

No, they are stereotypes. The reality is much more complicated.

"ask the men and women in your life or read the countless articles and books that deal with the subject."

I have asked plenty of people, and the main reason there are so few SAHD's is that it works out better for the family that way.

For example, what if Dad makes 40% more than Mom, and his job has better health benefits? Or his job is more secure than hers? Not saying that's fair, but if that's a family's reality, what should they do?

is the long-term answer.

Sure, it's *possible* to generate all our electricity from PV panels - or from any other single source. But it's not the smart/efficient/cost effective way to go. In fact, over-reliance on single energy sources is the problem. I'm old enough to remember the old saw about how nuclear would make electricity "too cheap to meter". Never happened, not even for the French who get most of their electricity from nuclear energy. (They pay more then Americans do for residential electricity, once all the fees, taxes, and other costs are calculated).

Where the sun shines a lot, PV panels on a roof are a good idea. In other places wind is a good idea. Hydro, geothermal, they all have applications. And of course conservation, and the use of electricity for those applications where it's the best technology for the purpose.

The big problem is that there's no simple, single solution. For example, is it more environmentally friendly and cost-effective for someone in the South to put PV panels on their roof, or a solar water heater? Or for someone in the Northeast to install a geothermal system?

The article also ignores the energy cost of manufacturing the panels (it's a big reason they cost so much) and their expected usable life (nothing lasts forever).

I must also call shenanigans on the 12,000 kwh per person per year, and the assumption that the demand will always grow. Controlling our population and waste are a big part of the picture too.