A Generation of babies or just one that really wants babies?

My generation appears not to be into the extended adolesence thing at first glance. We want families and station wagons and we want them now. We've witnessed Gen X decide it was all about them and put off having babies for so long in order to get their fill or martini-swilling and Manolos that the entire generation now seems to be suffering from the infertility blues. We've seen it. We've babysat for their spoiled, neglected, ritalin-fuelled kids in their stainless steel homes full of kiddie smudges (for those of them who were lucky enough to realize fertility IS finite), and we don't want that. But is what WE want really any better?

My friend A. wants babies around 26. She is certain of this. This is a hard date, not an estimate that could change depending on where she finds herself at 26. She told me this recently over dinner. I replied the standard answer of my generation, which is, "Me too! I want to have my babies in my twenties too!" But then I added a caveat that isn't usually added to this dream, "If I can afford to have them and am in a healthy relationship." A. questioned this. "Define afford them," she challenged. "You know, I need a decent place to house them and money to feed and clothe them and save for their educations," I said simply. As though it were obvious, which I thought it was. A., who, like me, grew up with her own room and a private school education in a three-child family with professional baby boomer parents, feels we can basically have kids whenever, because we don't need to give our kids any of the stuff we had. IIn our upper-middle class social mileu (I am aware my observations are VERY Class dependant in this piece) We were raised in between the post-war period of well-disciplined kids who did chores for paltry allowances and the nanny-raised Gen X brats whose parents don't really love or want them and never spend time with them. We were the first generation to be spoiled, but I really do believe we were not just sleek fashion accessories to be dressed up in baby Burberry like so many last-minute Gen X babies out there. Our parents waited longer to have us than theirs did, but not as long as Gen X did. Typically til their late twenties for women and early thirties for men to have the first one. Why? Because they decided we needed our own rooms and big back yards and stylish clothes from the Gap in addition to parental love and all that jazz. Did we NEED this stuff? No. Did we like having it, yes. Do I think that maybe our desire to have kids before we can give them this stuff is just laziness, or a genuine, thought-out backlash against materialism? I think it's both. AFter all, no, kids don't NEED the the large room I occupied by myself in an exclusive Toronto neighbourhood or the private education I had, but there are lots of things kids DO need.
The Gen X babies' dreadful behaviour we all endured as their camp counsellors has become an excuse to be the products of a semi-spoiled upbrining without feeling we ever need to work as hard as our parents did to provide our children with the same trips to Disney world and Laura Ashley party dresses. Kids will increase our cool quotient, we know, and the way we plan to raise them won't cost us very much. The coolest Gen Y actors are all having or have had babies right now. Michelle WIlliams and Heath Ledger have baby Matilda, Bryce Dallas Howard just had her little one and even 21 year old Charlotte Church is in on the action. IS it because we want to prove we're so alternative we're having them younger than Gen Xers? We're not about stuff, we're about love and peace, dude. Well, the movie stars don't have to worry about stuff and babies. They can have both. But we can't, and kids are expensive and you DO have to save for them. No, not all kids need math tutors and braces, but some do, and if we just have kids with this laissez fair attitude that they can get by with less attitude, we might not be prepared for that. We don't need to spoil our kids, but maybe we should wait to have them until we have a little money saved, or are in the position to start saving, for their futures. You don't have a God-given right to a healthy, learning-disability free child. That stuff happens. The kids can still be great and almost always are, but sometimes they need help and you have to pay for it. Take autism treatments or even ballet lessons and soccer league! They're not free and they can be neccessary.
A. told me when I brought up all these concerns, that all parents need to do is to spend more time with their kids. I agree that Time is invaluable, but kids need a lot of things too that have an exacty monetary value that we have to pay for. It sucks that a lot of this stuff isn't free, which is what A. said. Yeah, I agree, and that affects how I vote, but if the changes don't come in time for the babies I want to have in 5 years (they probably won't with the conservatives in power) and I don't have much money, I think I'll wait just a bit longer. Being a parent is about responsibility. Part of being responsible is being patient. This makes me wonder if my generation's desire to have kids younger is a sign that we are maturing faster and are ready to nurture as nature intended, or if we're just like kids who don't want to wait until after dinner to have dissert? Sure, our grandparents did it young, but the cost of living was lower, the post-war economy was crazy and most women didn't work, so child-care was free. As much as I hate to admit it, maybe our parents did get it fairly right with how they had kids.
So, I'll have kids at 26, if I can, but if I can't, I'll be patient. That's what being a grown up is all about.