Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Fun with Polls Children

A lot of fanfics have indicated that Lois and Clark should've had kids I've been wondering just how many they would've had.

I just can't imagine them not having children.

They are a blessing from God and considering that Lois and Clark have Utopia to found, I can't imagine a better way than to have a broad base of super or semi-super children.

James

I've had this conversation several times recently.

Personally, I believe Lois and Clark would want kids, but not a lot of kids (like 4 or 5 or more). I really think 2 or 3 would be their maximum. My personal views might play a big role here, though.

For several reasons:

1. Money. Pure and simple, kids are expensive. Reporters, even famous ones like Lois and Clark, don't make millions of dollars. I don't think they would want to sacrifce anything with their kids -- like they would want to make sure they have enough money for each of their kids to go to a good college -- plus little daily incidental expenses as they are growing up -- nice clothes, good food, etc (I am sort of a snob, I know, but I can't imagine them not wanting their kids to have everything). I know from experience that college can be horribly expensive -- my UG tuition was over 30000 a year and my sister's is even more than that. I think my parents would have been broke putting us through college had I not had a almost full scholarship.

2. Lois grew up in a family of two, and Clark was an only child. I am not exactly sure that either of them would be comfortable having a huge family. Clark always had the desire to have a family -- and I don't think he would ever want an only child because of his experience. But I don't think he'd want a gaggle of children either because he has no expreience. Similarly, it is cannon that Lois is sort of uncomfortable with children. Her family experience and lack of experinece with children would probably lead her to want two children, maybe three.

3. Time commitment. As much as I love the idea of a stay at home mom and I really admire everyone that is able to do it, I don't think Lois would. I know my mom tried, and just couldn't do it so she had to go back to work becausse the not working made her crazy. Lois's career is way too important to her to ever stop working -- and with more kids, the less she would be able to work. It would become almost a necessity for her to stay at home. Plus, with Clark being Superman, most of the responsibility of raising the children will ultimately fall on Lois. She will be their care giver so much more than Clark -- and the more kids, the more stressed out Clark's constant abscence will make her.

I am pretty sure I had a couple of other reasons, but I can't remember them right now and I am late for work

I know my thoughts are probably biased from the way I have been raised, and because I don't want children myself (I go through phases of wanting and not wanting ).

- Laura

You, too? My hubby and I have been married for 14 years (at the end of the month) and we've finally decided that we're just not "baby people". If things work out, we may adopt a couple of older children (ages 5-7) some day...but we still aren't sure. Right now, there's just enough room in the condo for us and the two cats.

I also agree that Lois & Clark would probably only have two kids, mostly for the same reasons.

I am one of the aforesaid next gen authors. Truthfully, I'm not sure how many they'd go for, but I think that they *would* have kids. Lois was beginning to show signs of perhaps wanting to stay home with their kids by the end of the series. After all, one *can* do the telecommuting thing and write from home. I also think that money wouldn't exactly be a problem--after all, Clark knows where some undiscovered gold mines are.

Laura (who knows that just because you had a small family isn't necessarily indictivite of how many kids you decide you want.)

I'd say '2 AT LEAST'.

I can't picture them not having children at all, nor having only one, and I really doubt they'd stop at 2.

The reasons Alaura (that's what I'm gonna call you from know on ) mentions are correct in a point of view (there are always the arguments LauraBF mentions), but especially about the money thing... I should know. I have two brothers, younger than me, my father is a biology teacher, my mother doesn't work, and there are so many things coming up that take a great deal of money, that my family, although we finally find the way to afford most of the things we want, there are some things that the family budget just can't take.
For example, last year my little brother participated in a Gymnastics Tournament in Barcelona. We all went there.
This year, he had to participate at the World Championship in Lisboa. We couldn't afford such a big expense once again, so only he and my father went.

But, as for L&C, I just don't think they wouldn't want to have a house full of children (well...metaphorically speaking). Clark, as we all know, has this thing with kids and I can only think of him as the head of a big, big family. As for Lois, I believe that, once a mother, she'd get all excited and would want more. (children, I mean )

There are limits, of course... I doubt they'd have more than 5 (Okay, 6... how about 7, maybe?? Laugh all you want, but that's the way they'd think, IMHO.)

See ya,
AnnaBtG. (who, btw, when she's thinking about children, also goes through phases of wanting and not wanting. Maybe L&C go through such phases too, who knows??)

Don't get me wrong, I do think Lois and Clark want kids and would have kids. I just really have a hard time picturing them with a lot of kids. There have been some great next gen stories where they have more than 2 kids -- Nan's Dagger Series and Irene's Firestorm Series come to mind , but to read them I sort of have to suspend my disbelief. (Shameless plug -- I have even written several stories where Lois and Clark have kids or talk about kids . . . but they are not nextgen stories . . . distinguishing the two Lauras ).


I did not see that *at all*. She was starting to want to have kids, but I don't think she ever showed any desire to stay home with her kids. Her desire to work, to be the best reporter in the world, to earn a Pulitzer prize could never be . It sort of bothers me when authors have Lois stay home with the kids all the time and is a novelist or writes editorials. Where is the adventure there? I have always thought of Lois as having the kind of personality that always craves some kind of adventure. Where would she get that thrill that she craves, that adrenaline rush if she was at home with the kids all day.

I am not at all saying that staying at home with your kids is bad. It's just not for everyone! And I think Lois is one of the people that wouldn't take well to it. I don't think she has the personality to stay at home all day with her kids. She would crave the action that she was used to working. Yes, she could work from home, but it just wouldn't be the same as chasing stories and pulling down crime rings. And, yes, as she grows older, she will be less able to run around and put herself into the jaws of death, but she would always be able to cover press conferences, have the newsroom experience, etc. And when her kids are young, she will still be young enough to experience her career the way she is used to with adventure and chasing the story -- if not putting herself in as much danger as before.

I don't see how money wouldn't be a problem! Especially if Lois stayed at home! I've talked to Annie a lot about this, and she has assured me that reporters are not extremely well paid. They aren't struggling for money, but they certainly aren't rich! I mean, my parents are both teachers -- my mom teaches math and my dad taught Physics) (my dad is retired) -- yet they are frugal enough with their money and worked as much extra as they could, so they combined for almost $200,000 a year. My sister and I never lived for want of anything. Neither of us have any debt, and we both got new cars when we were 16 and went to colelge for free. I seriously see Lois and Clark trying to do that for their kids. And that takes money. A lot of money.

Do you honestly think Superman would use the gold he found in an undiscovered mine? I think that is a very unlikely occurrance. Clark was never shown as being rich at all. Obviously, he isn't using any gold from a secret mine. And Superman would probably consider it stealing to use gold like that. I think money would be a very serious concern in their lives. And the more kids they have, the more money they will need.

I mean, there are a lot of factors that will eat up their money:

• inflation
• college (their kids might not get scholarships)
• clothes (they could do hand me downs, but wouldn't their kids protest . . . I know Jenny never wanted to wear my old clothes. Plus, we were drastically different sizes)
• food (increases exponentially with # of kids . . . especially if they have superpowers)
• Metropolis public schools probably suck, so they might have to send their kids to private school -- it's a big city -- look at Cleveland Public Schools -- trash, trash, trash
• the list goes on and on

I mean, wouldn't Lois and Clark want to send their kids through college? Wouldn't they want their kids to have the best they can give them?
(again, I am a total spoiled brat, even as an adult, so I just can't see them shopping at garage sales or K-Mart -- and I don't understand how parents wouldn't make sure their kids college was paid for.)

True, but this is Lois we're talking about here. She has always been portrayed in the show as being a little unsure about kids. True, towards the end of the show, she started acting like she wanted kids, but someone that uncomfortable with kids can't have such a complete metamorphosis. It's not necessarily indictive of how many kids you will want, but the family size you grow up in can often effect the family size you are comfortable in -- or the exact opposite. For example, my mom is one of 6 -- three sets of twins in the family -- she hated having so many people in her house that she decided 2 kids MAX! My friend comes from a family of 6 and can't imagine not having 6 kids. It's a matter of personality. I seriously can not see Lois being comfortable with a large family from what we saw on the show.

Again, sorry if I offended anyone . I have really strong opinions on this and they might not be popular . . . sort of like my political views .

- Laura (definately is in an "I don't want kids EVER" mood today -- she just found out her friend's 1 year old son was diagnosed with cancer )

I voted for 2-3 which seem to be far and away the most popular choices. LauraU (LauraA? What the heck are we calling you these days? <G>) and I have discussed this ad nauseum, so her first post basically speaks for me too.

I definitely think Lois and Clark will have children. First, I think it's pretty clear they want them, and second, how would there be utopia without them? I also think they wouldn't stop at one. Given Clark's lonely childhood and Lois' bond with Lucy, I can't see them having an only child. But, for all the reasons listed above, I just don't see them having more than three.

The money issue isn't just being a snob. Lois and Clark live in Metropolis, which is comparable to New York City as far as living expenses go. They are reporters, and even if they are REALLY good, trust me, they aren't getting rich. If they have more than one child, either one of them is going to have to quit and stay home (and it'd have to be Lois is Clark is going to be free to be superman) or they are going to astronomical child care costs. As someone who has both worked as a nanny and written a series of articles on the climbing costs of child care, let me assure that on their salaries in Metropolis, one of their entire incomes would go to paying for three kids in child care at a time. Now, Lois could stay home, but I find this hard to imagine. I've seen many women do it wonderfully, and as someone who is a journalist and wants to be a stay-at-home mom someday, I think this is a great ideal. However, I'm not sure Lois would do this. As for telecommuting.... Well, she could telecommute to *a* job, but not her current job. There is absolutely no way. Her job involves way more than making phone calls and typing up a story. (And I don't just mean that because that's the way Lois does it - being a reporter at a metropolitan newspaper is very demanding. You can not do it from home.) So if Lois stays at home and works she's either going to freelance the type of soft news stories she currently hates, or she's going to delve into fiction writing. Either is possible, I'm just saying I think it's more likely Lois would have 2 - maybe 3 - kids and continue to work in her current job or something similar.

Annie (who, for the record, has always wanted a minimum of three children personally)

$200,000 a year? That's at least five times as much as my parents ever made... so I've never had a new car in my life and spent ten years paying back college loans... but that doesn't exactly qualify as child abuse

There's also a school of thought out there that it's good *not* to give the kids everything, on the idea that the more you work for something, the more you value it, and vice versa. I could see Martha and Jonathan going along with that idea -- so it's possible Clark would agree, too.

Hard to say, of course, since there's really very little evidence in canon for us to work with. I think fic authors can justify a wide range of options here, which is always fun

I think it's extremely unlikely that Lois would be happy with only a house and children to deal with -- that wouldn't be enough of a challenge for her. But... there are *other* challenges in life besides bringing down arch-criminals, and I think it's possible that she could switch her focus, under certain circumstances. So, I think it could be done but it'd be difficult to make it in character for her. Whatever she did, I'm sure she'd jump in headfirst and do it 110%.

One factor to consider is that Clark is the only source available of Kryptonian genes -- would they feel any sort of obligation to have more children, on account of that? Or maybe the biology wouldn't work out at all.

As for Utopia, I've often wondered about that... I always figured there had to be more going on there than just genetics -- Superman would be most powerful on a moral, inspirational level, I would think. I could see an older L&C working with troubled kids or taking in foster children or something...

Oh well, I'm back where I started. Almost anything can be justified by a skilled author.

PJ

NO Kids.

Let's not forget one very important factor. Clark ain't human!

I have no trouble witht the Utopia thing. It's supposed to be founded by Lois and Superman's 'descendents'. That doesn't mean it has to be their 'biological' descendents.

They could choose to adopt or foster (despite what that one episode tried to portray). Also Utopia could be founded by their inspirational descendents. The ideals that Superman, and Lois, represent and practice could lead to a movement that becomes the foundation for Utopia. So, it's not really necessary for them to have actual biological children of their own, which is good, since different species can't naturally reproduce.

I'm not going to get into the discussion as to 'how many' kids Lois and Clark might want or have. I have my own beliefs as to what is and isn't responsible in a world of finite resources already over stressed by a burgeoning population.

Tank (who is surprised he managed to get through the whole post without mentioning how annoying children are)

Perhaps, but then they would say 'tough, you can't always have what you want'.

I can - Clark comes from a fairly humble, low-income family, after all. So long as his children weren't being bullied or ostracised at school because of their clothes etc, I don't think he'd have a problem with saving money this way. Lois would be more likely to want smart, fashionable clothes for her kids, but even she can be pretty pragmatic.

I also think L&C would, as Pam suggested, want to teach their children that some things are more rewarding if you have to work for them a bit. Also that you can't have everything you want...oh, I said that already, didn't I? <g>

But all that said, I agree that L&C are unlikely to want a large family (assuming they could have children at all) - for most of the reasons already given (ie financial and emotional).

Yvonne
(who never had the faintest idea how much her parents earned)

Back to add another two cents worth. <G>

I just wanted to add that I don't really think Lois and Clark would have a huge problem with hand-me-downs or shopping at discount places. I'm not sure I can see Lois shopping at K-mart, but there are plenty of slightly nicer places - Target, Kohls, etc - that are much cheaper than department stores. When I said they couldn't afford to have more than three children, I was thinking more of food and other basic living expenses, like a house big enough for a large family. They'd certainly have to move out of Metropolis and into a suburb. There is no way they could afford a five bedroom apartment in the city. And, no, each kid doesn't have to have their own room, but if they have seven kids, they can't exactly cram them into a three bedroom apartment. And really I think their largest expense for the first 10 years or so would be child care. Even once the older kids started school, they'd still need full time child care for the youngest kids PLUS part-time care for the older kids.

And, on an unrelated note about whether Lois and Clark would be able to have children... I wasn't really considering whether the children would be biological or adopted when I said they would found utopia. I think Lois and Clark would want to raise children, whether they can have them biologically or not. And, I think that any child they raise, they would consider to be their child, regardless of biology - just look at Clark and his parents. I think that Lois and Clark are very likely to adopt, and I think that any child raised by them - regardless of their biology - would be a part of creating utopia.

Annie