COMMENTS: 363
Oh (No) Baby
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Deciding not to bear the fruit of your loins is nothing new, but within the last five years the childfree community has begun to band together, largely through online support groups. The more vocal members of the community have drawn headlines with their sometimes scathing diatribes against "ankle biters," yet the range of childfree people is as varied as the range of those who choose to parent, running the gamut from caring, intelligent individuals to petty assholes.
Who are these people? What do they want? And what's a "crotch dropping?"
Kidcentric culture
It's unclear when the term "childfree" came into being, but it gained popularity in the '90s via the Childfree Network, one of the first organizations devoted to this growing segment of the population.
According to the Centers for Disease Control's 2002 survey "Fertility, Family Planning and Reproductive Health of U.S.," just saying no to kids is becoming a more popular option. Among the 61.6 million women aged 15 to 44 in 2002, 6.2 percent were voluntarily childless, up from 4.9 percent in 1982. Furthermore, the percentage of childless women who expect to have one child in their lifetimes (13 percent) was down by almost half what it was in 1995 (25 percent).
Reasons for choosing this lifestyle can range from personal to pecuniary. In a recent study conducted by economist Amalia Miller of the University of Virginia, a woman in her 20s can expect to increase her lifetime wages by 10 percent for each year she delays giving birth.
Who are the voluntarily childless? Numerous research studies have revealed that most couples who choose not to reproduce are well-educated, are employed in a professional field, have high incomes, are generally white, live in urban areas and are less religious than their child-bearing counterparts.
Childfree couples, or DINKs (Double Income No Kids), say they endure severe pressure from friends, family and co-workers, and the wrath of "breeders" who often paint the childfree as selfish, irresponsible people; hedonistic party animals; or simply "going through a phase."
From the website Childfree.net:
We choose to call ourselves "childfree" rather than "childless," because we feel the term "childless" implies that we're missing something we want -- and we aren't. We consider ourselves childfree -- free of the loss of personal freedom, money, time and energy that having children requires … being childfree-by-choice is rather frowned upon by our kidcentric society, finding information (or links to information) is difficult. Most of us are almost afraid to ask someone who might know where we can find what we're looking for … the disapproving stares and cries of "How can you not want children?!" often send us into a form of "hiding." We feel like freaks and don't realize exactly how many of us and exactly how much information is actually out there. This site attempts to remedy that problem.The Web has become a haven for the childfree, providing a place to meet, vent and socialize. The word "childfree" nets more than 226,000 hits on Google, and there are dozens of childfree message boards and e-mail lists, from national to regional.
No Kidding is a nationwide, nonprofit social club for childfree adults. Since its inception in 1984 in Vancouver, British Columbia, the organization has grown to 92 chapters in 37 U.S. states and five other countries, including Australia, the Ivory Coast and South Korea. The group will hold an international convention in Toronto next June.
Detroit's No Kidding chapter began in 1994, and now has several dozen members who gather occasionally for barbecues and parties, and keep in touch through an e-mail list.
Member Darlene Johnson-Bignotti, 46, married and childfree: "I have friends that I can't see anymore because my idea of a good time isn't going to Chuck E. Cheese's. The very first No Kidding event I attended four years ago was really amazing; being in a room with a group of women who had something to talk about other than their children. I didn't know there were other people out there like me. It was such an experience to be around other women whose lives didn't revolve around the lives of children."
Susan Mayer, 46, works for a Big Three automaker and has been a member of Detroit's No Kidding chapter for about five years. "We do not hate children," she says. "We may not like to be around them all the time, but there are lots of things people don't like to be around all the time. Like construction."
Member Diane Evans-Gleneski, 40, and married for two and a half years: "This society has been totally brainwashed that producing a child is a must, that it's an obligation as opposed to a choice. If you don't [have kids], then you are an object of pity or scorn."
Childfree people also lament what they feel is preferential treatment given to those with kids. Debra Mollen is an assistant professor of psychology at Texas Women's University, and conducted an extensive study on childfree women. She found many of her subjects were expected to work longer hours than co-workers who were mothers.
"Pregnant women get preferential parking, those without children are expected to work longer hours, people with children get tax breaks," Mollen says. "There's social sanctioning for having children."
Semen demons
For something as seemingly innocuous as not wanting kids, many childfree people are extremely gun-shy. Most interviewed for this article didn't want to be photographed. Some -- before agreeing to speak with me -- even demanded to know whether the author had kids. This may well be due to the sometimes biased and nasty treatment childfree people have gotten in the media. Kick a tame dog enough times and eventually it'll bite.
Some media have eagerly jumped on the more outspoken of the childfree set, the "hardcore" contingent. These are the folks who refer to kids as "parasites," "larvae," "semen demons" and "crotch droppings," and to bad parents as "breeders" and "stupid moos." In online forums, they scathingly unleash their frustrations about dealing with badly behaved children.
Dennis Byrne of the Chicago Tribune recently wrote a column expressing his empathy to the childfree: "Aw, poor babies." The self-proclaimed "Primo Breeder" then went on to say that "having children is both a blessing and a great service to society, perhaps one of life's greatest. Raising children is vastly more important (and difficult) work than childless couples planning a winetasting."
Web designer Brenda Smith, who's 26, childfree and living in Novi, MI, says of such criticism, "Sometimes it's easier to go with 'childhater' rather than someone who decides this as a choice. It's something to get people angry about, which makes a better story."
Though there is a small segment of the childfree community that does, in fact, loathe and detest all children, many more childfree people say that's not the case. "I have a 13-year-old nephew who's like a son to me," Johnson-Bignotti says. "Few of us who call ourselves childfree are completely free of children in our lives -- we just choose not to parent."
Parents sometimes invade online childfree communities to lecture or insult the denizens, causing white-hot flame wars. In turn, many childfree boards post stories about neglected or abused children as proof that not all parents are such selfless angels.
"Having children is a selfish act," says Mark Smigielski, 41. "There are tons of kids out there in adoption centers, and there's plenty of hungry kids out there." Smigielski says he donates some of his extra income to charities and church organizations. And by not reproducing, he says, "I'm protecting the environment and ecology."
Fight! Fight!
Why all the hatin'? And why do so many "breeders" get so pissed off at the childfree? It's not just the nasty names. Smith, who's currently earning her master's degree in religious studies, says the idea of not bearing children is in direct conflict with the Bible.
"There's the whole idea of 'be fruitful and multiply,'" Smith says. "Mary was a mother, and that's the ideal for a Christian woman. Undermining and disagreeing with that can throw that all into a tailspin."
Psychologist Mollen: "Many parents get upset because they internalize the criticism, and feel like their choice, the choice to parent, is negated. But most childfree people are simply saying, 'This is what works for us.'"
Given our country's current sociopolitical climate, being childfree is a strong political statement, whether intended or not. It spits in the face of "family values" (despite the fact that many childfree couples have deeply loving, healthy, long-term relationships) and the omnipotent Christian right-wing political machine that seems to color every facet of our lives.
"When they say family, they mean a white Christian couple with one or more minor children in a household," says Johnson-Bignotti. "That's who the political climate is catering to right now."
Being childfree touches on hotbed issues: race, class, gender and religion. Pope John Paul II openly condemned married couples who choose not to reproduce; and "anti-childfree" is gaining its own momentum. As such, the Brits have founded Kidding Aside, an organization devoted to improving the political representation of childfree citizens. Although there's been talk of a starting a similar group in this country, none has taken shape yet.
But the barbs aren't traded only by the childfree and the breeders. There's also some nasty infighting within the childfree community. Brianne Nurse, 22, of Windsor, MI, sums it up neatly: "It's a very personal issue and there are a lot of gray areas -- when you try to make it a black-and-white issue, that's when the fighting starts."
Smalheer has experienced plenty of the backlash. Although she steadfastly considers herself childfree, she's been told by many that she has no right to refer to herself by the term because she's a stepmother. Smalheer says she decided she was childfree when just 12 years old, but five years ago fell in love with a man who had a child from a previous marriage. They married last year, and her husband has joint custody of the 9-year-old boy.
"I still consider myself childfree because I've never had any of my own, and never will," Smalheer says. "You can't choose who you fall in love with.
"There's an ongoing argument that pops up on nearly every childfree online community. It becomes a game of one-upmanship: I'm more childfree than you because of 'blank' -- that blank can be filled with all kinds of things, like 'I've been sterilized' or 'I'd never even date someone with kids.' People like me, who've become involved with someone with kids, are seen as betraying the cause, having sold out, going over to the dark side."
Johnson-Bignotti doesn't agree that someone who's a stepparent can still be childfree. She compares the phenomenon to those who identify themselves as gay and later become straight.
"In that case, you were never gay in the first place," she says. "Same thing with childfree. People who go on to have kids, or aren't sure, they shouldn't identify themselves as childfree. They should identify themselves as fence-sitters. A childfree person who's had kids or married into it, they've ruined it for me because of what it says to other people: That person changed their mind, you will too."
It's an interesting analogy. The friction between some childfree people is similar to the conflicts that sometimes arise between gays and bisexuals -- the notion that bisexuals are "cheating," "having it all" or are just fence-sitters.
Childfree by birth
That analogy goes further. One idea that's beginning to gain strength and popularity in the childfree realm is that being childfree is an inherent psychological imprint, a trait you are born with, like homosexuality. The idea that you're genetically wired to be childfree is supported by those who claim they knew as kids that they never wanted to have one.
"My mother knew something was 'wrong' with me when I played Barbies with my friend, and her Barbie married Ken and they had five kids," Evans-Gleneski says. "My Barbie was president of an oil company, drove a Corvette and lived by herself in a townhouse."
Most people interviewed for this article claim they knew they were childfree at a very young age. Mayer says she knew when she was six. Those in their forties have been childfree for decades, all the while being told they'd eventually change their minds.
Smith, 26, says her mother has finally realized that -- pardon the pun -- she's not kidding. When her mother's friends or relatives say that Smith will eventually come around, Mom knows better. "She'll say, 'Nope, you don't know Brenda. It's not a phase.'"
Although she's still young, Nurse believes she's childfree for life: "My mom says that as far back as 7 years old, I was saying I didn't want kids. I made the formal decision at 18, and then at 19 or 20 I discovered the childfree community online.
"I never rule anything out completely. There is a chance I may change my mind one day, but it's not a big chance and I don't see it happening."
Ain't misbehavin'
At the root of much of the childfree debate is the issue of bratty kids. Children misbehaving in public has been a hot topic in recent years, with newspaper columnists mourning the days of true discipline, lamenting the lack of manners displayed by kids these days. And it accounts for the popularity of shows like Supernanny.
This all bubbled to a media froth recently when the owner of a Chicago café posted a sign in his store, warning that "Children of all ages have to behave and use their indoor voices." What was intended as a simple plea to parents to keep their kids in line turned into another big childfree debate, sparking stories in The New York Times and dozens of outraged opinion columns on both sides of the issue.
The issue was not just kids, but also bad parenting; Johnson-Bignotti says not all parents are "breeders."
"A breeder is like the stray dog down the street, having babies because it doesn't know any better. A parent is someone who actually takes responsibility for their child," she says.
And plenty of -- gasp -- non-childfree people are in agreement: The occasional, and unavoidable, tantrum aside, kids should be taught to behave well in public. Even Gary Glenn of the American Family Association sides with the childfree on this issue. "I have children, and I find it extremely annoying to have to sit in a restaurant with parents who are incapable or unwilling to discipline their children," he says.
Glenn says of the childfree, "If that's somebody's choice, that's certainly their prerogative," but then quickly adds, "I'm sure they're more than happy to collect the Social Security benefits from couples who do have children who grow up to be contributing members of society."
What do childfree people want? For one, they want you to mind your own business. Two, they want your kids to be quiet. Other than that, they're mostly content to live their own childfree lives in peace.
But some want to take it to the next level still; nonsmoking bars and restaurants are everywhere these days, so why not apply the same strictures to kids? Childfree restaurants, coffee shops, hotels, resorts …
"When I'm in a nice restaurant paying $20 for a steak, I want that baby to be quiet," Mayer says. "There are certain places where there just should not be strollers."
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kenhymes on Jan 10, 2006 3:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But obviously, there are hugely important exceptions to the categories represented in the piece: many people can't have children for reasons they don't control, either physiology or the lack of a suitable partner. Also, many have children without truly having consented to the process, whether as a result of rape, or simply social coercion. Focusing on those who see themselves as in control of their choices is not very helpful to resolving the difficulties of those who are not so lucky, on either side of this social divide.
There is not enough community, not enough shared responsibility across kinship lines. This makes nuclear families selfish and smug, and makes single people lonely and disengaged. It also perpetuates the blindness to institutionalized suffering that is the hallmark of our culture. We need to reform our small, local institutions to foster acceptance of different choices, and to offer inclusion and support for those who have little choice in their way of life.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: muggles5
Posted by: sln70
» RE: muggles5
Posted by: MJ Fields
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tohellinahandbasket on Jan 10, 2006 3:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, this whole child-free movement raises more disturbing issues for me, namely, whatever happened to "society"? Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once declared that there was no such thing as society. I take that to mean that she thinks people don't share a common responsibility for one another - that somehow we can share the same land but we don't have to go out of our way to take care of our fellow citizens. In this respect she seems to share common ground with the militantly child-free, by which I mean those who use nasty nicknames such as "crotch dropping" (what a disgusting way to refer to a human being) and take petty delight in parking in spaces reserved for children and parents at the supermarket.
With respect to the child-free, children are the next generation, and our society (long may it remain cohesive) recognizes this through everything from public education and tax breaks to daycare, play groups, child-friendly restaurants and so on. Just because you choose not to have children doesn't mean we, too, must throw the baby out with the bathwater.
As if being a parent weren't hard enough (and I'm not complaining - I made a conscious decision to have them), as parents we also have to cope with the legions of do-gooders who want to tell us how to raise them, right-wingers who want to restrict what our children are taught in school and the child-haters who want us to hide our children away until they've grown up.
So, c'mon, let's have some appreciation for children and those who choose to raise them -- or at the very least, some tolerance for the sake of society as a whole.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Just another symptom of anti-socialness?
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Just another symptom of anti-socialness?
Posted by: kurtinvancouver
» Use your head!
Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Use your head!
Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: Just another symptom of anti-socialness?
Posted by: susanh
» RE: Just another symptom of anti-socialness?
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» On being part of the problem or the solution...
Posted by: saramarie
» RE: On being part of the problem or the solution...
Posted by: bettsoff
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hera62 on Jan 10, 2006 3:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The main problem with working parents is that working mothers tend to get the bulk of the burden shifted on their shoulders compared to working fathers. This, in my opinion, is a far larger issue than the perceived inequality between working parents and their childfree colleagues. Fortunately, I'm seeing enough examples in my own environment of healthy, broadminded parenting without living in a bubble - and with *both* parents taking their own fair share of the load.
For the record, I'm childfree myself but also the grateful godmother of two young ladies (two years and six monts old respectively) who live with their parents in a community living project - not much chance of living in a bubble there!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: hiroe
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: Paul D
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: hiroe
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: ann83
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: mothersmovement
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: sln70
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: BurbankSam
» RE: Burbank Sam
Posted by: kww355
» RE: Burbank Sam
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Burbank Sam
Posted by: BurbankSam
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: mothersmovement
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: peritonlogon
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: lionhead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ruby on Jan 10, 2006 4:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One cannot know the strong feelings for your children and the satisfaction unless you have them. Sorry, I do not think it's the same for stepchildren--and I have one. There is a physical connection to your children that you have to experience in order to know why people want you to have children so badly.
I have changed so much as a person in too many ways to go into that I just would not have done had the motivation not been there from my children. I have become a much more tolerant person, the messiness of children is not offensive to me any more and I truly look at the world completely differently. This is the hardest, stressful and most wonderful thing I have done with my life. I think it's an important experience to take us outside of ourselves and connect with others in society in a way that just doesn't happen otherwise.
That said, I wouldn't expect someone to adopt a puppy just because I might like dogs. No one can walk in our shoes but us. Parenthood is too difficult and important of a job to take on if you don't want to for whatever reason. The children deserve to have parents who want them and are prepared for the sacrifices. I would have been an awful parent if I had had my children before I was ready. I know this about myself. I am not a patient person and mixed with my own immaturity at the time, it would have been a disaster, not to insinuate that is the same about other people. I applaud those who realize it's not for them and are honest about it. There are a lot of experiences that we all miss out on--can't do everything in the world.
I don't think we should waste time trying to convince people who don't want the job to take it on. MYOB.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: Ruby
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: Astroboy
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: tap17x
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: Ruby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urstrly on Jan 10, 2006 5:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I'd like to see is that we look upon every child born in this country as a national asset, deserving of support and attention, decent housing, good medical care and a first-rate education. I wish some of these childless people would involve themselves with the already-born but neglected children who form a sort of national underground. Maybe that would demonstrate that it's possible to nurture without going on an ego trip and help them work through some of their resentment.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Let 'em be...
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: Let 'em be...
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: Let 'em be...
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Let 'em be...
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: Let 'em be...
Posted by: Kat144
Comments are closed-
Posted by: funtime42 on Jan 10, 2006 5:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Childfree and born that way
Posted by: patti_s
» RE: Childfree and born that way
Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: Childfree and born that way
Posted by: Astroboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hotar on Jan 10, 2006 5:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One issue that really hasn't been touched on here is the world we are leaving our children to face. If you think the world is chaotic now, wait 50 or 100 years: More war, more famine, more environmental degradation, overpopulation, less and less security and quality of life. I see a very dark cloud over the future of our species, and part of my choice to remain childless is based on the belief that it is selfish to have children when the future we leave them will be so awful.
Of course, some of the breeders among us will say that today's children are also the future of the race, and so being childfree is irresponsible. I have had people tell me that I would make a great parent, and bemoan my choice. But while it is true that good parenting might make for a better future society, I think the negatives outweigh the positives.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: the other issue: what they face
Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: the other issue: what they face. You mean life then, eh?
Posted by: Colin
» RE: the other issue: what they face. You mean life then, eh?
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: the other issue: what they face. You mean life then, eh?
Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: the other issue: what they face. You mean life then, eh?
Posted by: drmeow
» RE: the other issue: what they face. You mean life then, eh?
Posted by: decembrist
» RE: the other issue: what they face. You mean life then, eh?
Posted by: cominginsecond
» Let's Exist Happily, & Just Forget For A Moment Those Who Don't (Exist)
Posted by: decembrist
» A reply
Posted by: Colin
» Thank the Child-free
Posted by: decembrist
» RE: Thank the Child-free? Cheeky person.
Posted by: Colin
» RE: A reply
Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: A reply
Posted by: Colin
» colin: predicting the future
Posted by: hotar
» RE: colin: predicting the future
Posted by: YogiBear
» Reply to hotar.
Posted by: Colin
» RE: eply to hotar.
Posted by: YogiBear
» ...
Posted by: Colin
» Come off it Colin
Posted by: hotar
» Round and round in circles we go - where we stop, *nobody* knows.
Posted by: Colin
» An analogy of my own.
Posted by: Colin
» I knew it would be out there somewhere...
Posted by: Colin
» RE: A reply
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: A reply
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bettsoff on Jan 10, 2006 5:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can do better things for the world than parent a child I wouldn't be interested in having in the first place.
Contribute where you can with the best you can and let the rest blather on.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Nheduanna on Jan 10, 2006 6:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My mother, upon meeting other seniors for the first time, is often asked "How many grandchildren do you have?" She's much more militant than I am. For many years her response was "None -- and I'm thankful because neither of my children are married." Some folks got the pointiness of her comment.
Sure, there are times when I just don't want to be around other people's children. On the other hand, I've been an outspoken proponent of more funding for public education, especially for arts and music in schools. Pro-Life folks really piss me off when they whine about all the dead babies, then decry welfare mothers. Hey Mrs. Businessowner, what are YOU doing to support better public education? How many single mothers do you employ? Do they have health insurance?
Until we get our priorities straight as a Nation and craft a National health care strategy that covers everyone, a public education strategy that inspires educators and kids and effectively educates (eral education, not pseudoscience), and support businesses that provide jobs that pay a decent wage, why oh why is anyone upset that some folks aren't breeding?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NDnative on Jan 10, 2006 6:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Allison on Jan 10, 2006 6:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People without children have a LOT of freedom they would otherwise lack. If that's their choice, nobody should criticize them for it. Nor should they criticize those who choose to have children and trade personal freedom for the joys of parenthood. How simple is that?
I doubt most of these Internet tough guys would ever call somebody a bad name to their face. Discussion forums are like the unrestrained id of the internet, people's views and language inevitably polarize as they gradually forget they are talking to other real people. Ergo, you can only place so much significance on things you read in them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Just don't be rude.
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Just don't be rude.
Posted by: crusty
» RE: Just don't be rude.
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Just don't be rude.
Posted by: crusty
» RE: Just don't be rude.
Posted by: cominginsecond
» ^
Posted by: decembrist
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Paul D on Jan 10, 2006 6:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think it helps the child-free cause when they use insulting epithets like "crotch dropping" or "semen demon" to describe a human being they find personally repulsive. How different is that from "nigger" or "cameljockey" or "slope"?
I also suspect that the majority of these people consider themselves progressive liberals, in favor of socialized medicine and higher taxes for the rich (because they can afford it), as I do. Yet they bellyache about feeling obligated to work longer hours than a person with children. Guess what? You've got free time to spare; you can afford the extra time to take up the slack.
Every single item mentioned is one of practicality, not some "conspiracy of the breeders." Pregnant women have legitimate right to the preferential parking due to the temporary physical impediments to movement. See my comments above about people without children working longer hours. And having children is a significant financial commitment; the contribution a parent has made to the perpetuation of our species and society deserves a modest tax break in my opinion.
I support a business' right to create a child-free environment for its customers (as detailed in a NYT article a few months ago). But, just as "child haters" are in the minority of the child-free community, so are irresponsible parents in the minority. Despite what you may think, I see a lot more well-behaved kids in public than poorly-behaved.
There is also the issue of common sense. A friend recently had the audacity to complain about noisy children at an opening night showing of the Narnia movie. An early evening show of a childrens' movie, on opening night! Did he expect the theater to be empty?
I think it would behoove the child-free (especially those who claim liberal values) to examine the parallels between their prejuces and those of their opponents. Again, the name-calling doesn't help.
I respect the choice of the child-free; I certainly acknowledge that actual "child haters" are in the minority. I would actively discourage anyone from attempting to marginalize the child-free lifestyle. However, as one who plans to have at least one child with my wife in my lifetime, I think MY choice deserves the same respect and understanding.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: jem
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: yesman
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: hiroe
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: Vyking
» thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: Paul D
» RE: thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: AprilH
» RE: thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: electric_bonzai
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: Gracie1029
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: ann83
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: Gracie1029
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: Calybos
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: YogiBear
» Your comment regarding we have an obligation to pick up your job slack
Posted by: catanthia
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: Kat144
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xenacat on Jan 10, 2006 7:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Kids do not justify one's existance....
Posted by: paxhumana
» RE: Kids do not justify one's existance....
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Kids do not justify one's existance....
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Kids do not justify one's existance....
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: Kids do not justify one's existance....
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Kids do not justify one's existance....
Posted by: Troglodyke
Comments are closed-
Posted by: larraine on Jan 10, 2006 7:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Child free "Movement?"
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Child free "Movement?"
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: Child free "Movement?"
Posted by: borealis
» RE: Child free "Movement?"
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: familyfriendly on Jan 10, 2006 7:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am 36, female and decided very young I wasn't having kids. I think we're way too overpopulated as it is and I enjoy being free. If that's a crime than so be it. My parents never pressure me and are busy with 12 grandchildren from my siblings, and even if they didn't they have always allowed me to be my own person.
It seems that the philosphy many parents have and our govt. propogates is that having children....regardless of whether you are mentally fit or financially capable...is more admirable than if you chose to go it alone and devoted your life to other lofty causes. A childless scientist who invents life-saving drugs is less worthy than anyone who is a parent. That's the kind of mentality we have today in America.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: There's a Place for Us....haha....
Posted by: sln70
» RE: There's a Place for Us....haha....
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: There's a Place for Us....haha....
Posted by: sln70
» RE: There's a Place for Us....haha....
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: There's a Place for Us....haha....
Posted by: sln70
» RE: There's a Place for Us....haha....
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: There's a Place for Us....haha....
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: There's a Place for Us....haha....
Posted by: AmandaHug
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jpinder on Jan 10, 2006 7:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: ladyoracle
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: Paul D
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: McJulie
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: cominginsecond
» ^
Posted by: decembrist
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: demidesigrrl
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: kittynboi
» Sinister
Posted by: decembrist
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: jpinder
» Selfish Ridiculousness!
Posted by: Astroboy
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: Indy
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: Calybos
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ladyoracle on Jan 10, 2006 7:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The parents feel that thier choice to breed is being dissed by the child-free. People are using really conservative arguments, economically speaking, to goad those without children.
Personally, I never played with baby dolls as a child, but went straight to Barbie; I sometimes held other people's children and cooed over them, but for the most part, I found those fragile, wriggling things disturbing and absolutely never said I wanted to have children; I didn't (and don't) even want to get married, because really I don't want my life to in any way be associated with "family values."
Still, I support other people's choices to reproduce; one of my best friends is the mother of an amazing little girl. I respect the work my friend and her husband have done in raising her.
As far as working longer hours because one is childfree, well, yes, but we also have better chances of advancing in our jobs than mothers, who statistically put children before career. That isn't discrimination, but it's giving more responsibility to the employee who has more time and energy to devote to the job. And of course, parents who don't let children interfere with work should not be discriminated against.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Artkansas on Jan 10, 2006 7:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article mentioned that those most likely to be child-free are well-educated professionals. It's ironic because to progress as a society, these are the people we need more of.
As was mentioned, there is a wide range of child free. Some of those quoted sound like officious child haters. The step mother mentioned certainly fits my definition of "child free". She didn't supply sperm or egg to create a child. She did not notch the population up. That she is involved in a family is fine.
I'm kid-free myself. Mostly because the woman I chose to marry, proved to be infertile. I had to choose between my desire for children and the vows I had taken. But even before we knew that, there was debate on the pros and cons of the issue. After it was proven, we both ended up finding ways to get our kid-fixes, volunteering at the Boys and Girls Club or working with Soap Box Derby.
It's a strange issue, because it cannot be yes or no. We must have kids to continue. But we cannot have too many. Deciding who has how many should never be up the the government as it is in China. But somehow the right balance must be found. I'm not sure if our society has a good mechanism for doing that.
I think that our culture is way too child-centric as if bible based "family values" is the only way to organize things. Those, like Jesus, who choose not to have children, should be honored too.
I think groups like No-Kidding miss the big picture. If they are helping the child-free, they should work to provide more for old-age. Medical insurance, burial insurance etc. One of the real benefits of children for people is that as you get older, you are more likely to have people who care for you and are willing to help you, if you have raised them. Until a similar structure is formed for the child-free, fewer people will opt for the benefits of helping stop overpopulation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Jesus was child-free.
Posted by: deejayvee
» RE: Jesus was child-free.
Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Jesus was child-free.
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cielo on Jan 10, 2006 7:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But the most basic reason I feel it is so difficult for parents and children, even beyond horrid healthcare, is the expectation for one or two parents to take on all the burden of childraising. My mother-friend from Africa tells me how being a mother in her culture was easiest in the early years, because extended family and friends shared so much of what was not viewed as a "burden" while the mother was given ample time on her own. Here, all of the responsibility is placed on parents or babysitters and day care people they must pay, and so the child can more easily become a burden. And now we are at a point where even the "nuclear" family is becoming obsolete.
Maybe in a different society even those of us who don't feel inclined to have children might make the choice, but unfortunately one of the toughest jobs just keeps getting tougher. But as a "child-free" person, I'd rather help out parents I know when I can and be a positive influence on their little ones than feel "persecuted" and spend time on another "movement" of those who have time enough for such pursuits.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Non-nuclear
Posted by: kittynboi
» Bad!
Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Bad!
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Bad!
Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Bad!
Posted by: marymad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sigil on Jan 10, 2006 8:04 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until reading this article I had no idea there was such a box to be put into as "childfree"-- but it certainly suits my point of view. My wife and I don't want kids, in spite of the fact that most people we know inisist we would make excellent parents. But our children are our careers, and they require just as much patience and nurturing as any drooling, clubfooted, noisy little precious toddler.
To those who paint a picture of people like us being selfish or anti-social, I would point out that by choosing to not procreate is actually enhancing our contribution to society by a) not diluting our efforts between trying to earn a living and properly raise a human being, b) not creating yet another drain on our world's resources for the simple & arrogant reason that the fruit of my loins is somehow the most important mouth to feed out of 5 billion people, and c) not retreating from the world to create some foul-smelling spawn hive; to actually go out and interact with interesting and creative people.
I have seen too many of my vital, intelligent, creative friends succumb to this pressure and turn away from the beauty they could have created in favor of inulging themselves in narcisstic self-propogation... As if letting their biology run amok and living with the consequences took more discipline than living a rational and contemplative life and making contributions to the world that mattered to somebody other than myself.
And the icing on the cake is that this gender role is considered the trump card for many women. You can see if in how they conduct their lives, that sense that oh well, if this doesn't work out, I can always get preggers and not have to worry about it anymore. Oops! Sorry, guess you'll have to take care of me now, sucker! A fine way to express a desire for equality.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Another perspective on parents
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Another perspective on parents
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Another perspective on parents
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Giving up on oneself
Posted by: owleyes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: owleyes on Jan 10, 2006 8:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: why is this a controversial issue?
Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: why is this a controversial issue?
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: why is this a controversial issue?
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: why is this a controversial issue?
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: why is this a controversial issue?
Posted by: codingguy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: g on Jan 10, 2006 8:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, yeah. On the other hand, don't we pay taxes for schools for other people's kids?
As for Europe being more child-friendly... well, that depends on where you are. Walking a strollers on the sidewalks of Rome or Florence is hell. Parking for pregnant women? Pleease. Forget about libraries with kids sections. Restaurants are seldom child-friendly (and that is a blessing according to many). Child care on the job? Forget it. Then again, there is (mostly) a better welfare state, with paid leave and state health insurance. So, it's a mixed blessing. I know: I lived there for 35 years.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: My 2 cents
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: My 2 cents
Posted by: sln70
» RE: My 2 cents
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: My 2 cents
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 10, 2006 8:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess some people like the place, but I've been to (up)Chuck E. Cheese with my kids. . .years ago, and I still get the sweats thinking about it. Speaking personally, eternity in Chuck E. Cheese would be fitting punishment for the seventh circle of hell. . .
Seriously – why do some people remain childless? Let's see: In my city, millions of people create permanent gridlock, nobody can get anywhere, and in other cities around the world the situation is worse; 300 million people in America and climbing; over six BILLION people world wide, heading for 10 to 20 billion, and already taxing to the breaking point every support system that planet Earth has to offer. We're fouling our nest to the point that we are, for the first time in our history, seriously considering whether we on Earth will even HAVE a nest in the next generation or two. Hell, we can't even find enough places to bury our crap. And still we make more people and look down on those who don't. Oh, yeah – and in America today the single biggest predictor for bankruptcy and poverty is having children. Our "child-loving" society is now structured so that very few can afford to raise them, while that society offers little to no real support, like, for example, subsidized child care for workers or paid education through college, as in Europe. Treating the childfree as pariahs under these conditions borders on insanity.
Those people who want children so badly should "live-and-let-live," do the world a favor, save some lives that are already here, and adopt.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: paxhumana on Jan 10, 2006 9:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Family values," "put children first"-- and all these public relations campaigns designed to tell us that our family is of MUCH more important than other people-- are just another way of promoting our culture of greed. Americans have interpreted this sanctioning of family as excusing and even legitimizing their baser impulses. What kind of baser impulses?
1. Overspending. My child must get everything he wants, NOW. Not buying is bad parenting because it might cause disappointment--and no child should EVER have to deal with not thinking that s/he is the center of the universe.
2. MY CHILD (not "children") first. These parents want to protect their kids from all of the "negative" parts of chldhood that make us mature adults--disappointment, sometimes embarrassment, having to compromise with others, not always getting what you want. These parents are the first to complain about teachers/coaches, to insist that everyone who participates in a contest should be treated as if his/her half-assed project is just as good as those who really worked. These parents come to community meetings to argue that THEY shouldn't have a tax increase to fund public schools because THEIR kids go to elite private schools.
3. Bad parenting can be fixed by $$$. These parents enroll their kids in so many activities that the kids never develop critical thinking or artistic skill. These kids can't deal with frustration or boredom. NEWSFLASH: being bored MAY just make junior figure out how to entertain himself (and for those of you about to insist Junior will then hold up a liquor store, who's the negative child-hater here?). I teach a summer class for kids. It meets at 1:00 p.m., and at least a third of every class has been made up of kids who are already on their second or third "activity" for that day when they arrive. They are exhausted and have nothing creative to bring to the table--they prefer to let the cruise director announce the next activity.
Yes, this is JUST the kind of behavior that will lead to a brighter future for America: overindulged kids who have been raised to value selfishness.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Family values" is just another excuse for selfishness and greed
Posted by: paxhumana
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Colin on Jan 10, 2006 9:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyway, from my experiance here's why people call those who chose to do without: 'selfish'.
- Because you are a product of millions upon millions of life forms all struggling to survive, from your mother down to iddy biddy bacteria. For you to simply decide to ignore that passage of life, to some, smells a little selfish.
- Because you've enjoyed what I've no doubt you yourself have referred to as the gift of life. Perhaps sharing that gift with another set of atoms and molecules would be a nice thing to do.
- Because in 40 years you'll be relying on someone elses children to help you in your old age (from pensions to wiping your botty)
- Because the reasons tend to be, as shown above, 'because I don't want to.' Maybe you like long walks in the park or early nights with your spouse - I don't know. All I do know is that you've picked you over something else.
- Because having a child should be a truly giving experiance and you've chosen not to give. Another person with little understanding of the rigidity of logic might mistake that for selfishness. It's their loss in this case, I know.
Personally, I don't care what other people do (as long as it doesn't hurt me). I don't actually see people as selfish for not having kids. I do see them as ignorant however, given we're animals and all, for daring to complain about the fact they've gone against the tide and they are surprised the water is pushing against them.
Animals have babies. Live with it - not sulk about it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why not having children is considered selfish.
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Why not having children is considered selfish.
Posted by: Newt
» RE: Why not having children is considered selfish.
Posted by: hiroe
» RE: Why not having children is considered selfish.
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Why not having children is considered selfish.
Posted by: owleyes
» YOU'RE MEAN!
Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Why not having children is considered selfish.
Posted by: Gracie1029
» Selfishly Ignoring the Gift of Life by Sharing it With My Partner
Posted by: decembrist
» A reply
Posted by: Colin
» And a practical example.
Posted by: Colin
» RE: And a practical example.
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: And a practical example.
Posted by: Colin
» RE: And a practical example.
Posted by: owleyes
» heehee
Posted by: decembrist
» My People Respond to Your People
Posted by: decembrist
» RE: My People Respond to Your People
Posted by: Colin
» RE: My People Respond to Your People
Posted by: Calybos
» You don't have to breed to give life.
Posted by: Monde
» RE: Why not having children is considered selfish.
Posted by: yesman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Newt on Jan 10, 2006 9:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My feeling is that there are indeed so many multitudes on this fragile, finite planet that as a species, humans can certainly afford to leave the demanding, tiresome job of childrearing to those who really desire it. I understand what an important responsibility it is–I see how my parents sacrificed for me. I hope that I can earn enough to give my parents a comfortable retirement. while saving for my own.
I am not a "child-hater," and I try not to use crude names when referring to anyone in our society. In my large extended family, I try to be a positive mentor for my younger cousins. I hope to be a good aunt to any of my sister's potential kids.
I feel that we are best served when viewing ALL members of the next generation as our heirs, not just our own biological offspring. We are running out of oil, clean air and water, as well as space for anyone to live in. Our species is in overshoot–without fossil fuels and oil-based fertilizer, the earth is estimated to only be able to support about 2 billion humans. Not to mention that children's toxic PVC toys will never degrade, and the mountains of waste created by disposable diapers, Lunchables, etc. Global warming threatens this generation immediately, and I shudder to think of the toxic legacy we are leaving for future generations.
Unfortunate economic circumstances in this country have put working parents between a rock and a hard place–spend $700 a week on childcare, or quit a job to raise the kids yourself? Choose between retirement or college educations for the twins? I think a lot of people have kids only because they think they are supposed to, then end up regretting it later. I've seen many friends with disintegrating marriages, out-of-control kids and serious depression issues because of too many kids too fast.
In my opinion, nothing says love like voluntary sterilization.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Proud to be Childfree
Posted by: venus924
» RE: Proud to be Childfree
Posted by: Ruby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: crusty on Jan 10, 2006 10:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Life is an unbelievable journey and it is the ultimate gift. If you think you would be a bad parent do not have kids. If you know that you have other fish to fry dont have kids.
In closing I am pretty surprised that this article got the most response (of the articles I have read) today. How are you folks who cry revolution going to revolt if you cant even separate your differences over child rearing?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: wow
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: wow
Posted by: sln70
» RE: wow
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: wow
Posted by: crusty
» RE: wow
Posted by: sln70
» RE: wow
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: wow
Posted by: sln70
» RE: wow
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: wow
Posted by: hiroe
» RE: wow
Posted by: sln70
» RE: wow
Posted by: hiroe
» RE: wow
Posted by: sln70
» RE: wow
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: wow
Posted by: BurbankSam
» RE: wow
Posted by: crusty
» RE: wow
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Newt on Jan 10, 2006 10:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah crusty, you're right. Just be sure when you do have a kid, that you give your wife plenty of good loving, private time and foot rubs!
My only real problem with the whole debate is that there is a definite environmental component–we simply cannot afford to keep consuming resources at such a breakneck pace. I am pro-child in the sense that I believe in the right of a person to grow up and live in a world free of pesticides, contaminated food & water, dirty asthma-causing air and other toxic substances. I also believe in the right of non-human animals to live in undeveloped habitats. Anyone reproducing beyond the replacement rate (2 kids per couple) should forfeit their tax breaks.
All I can say is if you plan to be a parent, really try to make the world a better place for everyone's kids, not just your own.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sln70 on Jan 10, 2006 11:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "not enough food argument" - total bollocks. There's enough food, just not enough political will to distribute fairly.
The "we work longer hours" argument - I don't even see this as true, from my life experience.. but let's say it IS. That also means that you get the promotions faster. AND let's face it, the 'longer hours' part only means for paid work. Parents work 24/7 for 18 odd years.
The "there are too many people" argument - not really. There's a LOT of land out there.
The "this world sucks" argument. - It always HAS sucked, but, according to my grandfather who lived through WWII and the depression - every part of life is better now than it was back in the day
The "parents are creating great greedy soul-sucking monsters" argument - are YOU a soul-sucking consumption machine? Not all parents want the entire toy-r-us stock in their homes.
Now the other side..
The "but kids give meaning to your life" argument - utter tripe. If you had no meaning, kids are not going to manufacture it.
The "being childless is selfish" argument - in what way? Because the child-free don't have to change diapers and they get to stay our late for weeks at a time or put extra effort into their carreers? It's not selfishness that's spotted.. it's envy on the part of parents who HAVE given up so many freedoms.
The "you owe it to your community" argument. - Oh yeah, just what we need - people who don't want to have kids having kids. This sounds like a pro-life argument to me, and it gives me the heebie-jeebies.
and that's it in a nutshell. Nobody is right to force their opinion on this onto anyone else!!! It's a personal preference, akin to arguing whether or not blondes have more fun!
:)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Arguments Disected
Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Arguments Disected
Posted by: Paul D
» RE: Arguments Disected
Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: Arguments Disected
Posted by: sln70
» Hey, Even-Steven
Posted by: decembrist
» RE: Hey, Even-Steven
Posted by: sln70
» But--
Posted by: bettsoff
» To Dissect the Dissector
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: To Dissect the Dissector
Posted by: sln70
» RE: To Dissect the Dissector
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: To Dissect the Dissector
Posted by: sln70
» RE: To Dissect the Dissector
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bl on Jan 10, 2006 11:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: blondelady
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: blondelady
Posted by: liberalibrarian
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Jan 10, 2006 11:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In fact, there are benefits and drawbacks to any major decision in life. Selfishness is perhaps a matter of relativity. If a person has children in order to ensure that he or she has someone to care for him or her in later life, that can be construed as selfish. If a person just really loves kids and has 6 or 8 of them, that's also probably incredibly selfish considering the state of the ecology. But if a person decides not to have children, it doesn't matter what the motive is. There will not be a damaged child of parents who had a baby for the "wrong" reason. Selfishness is irrelevant for the child-free - at least in this context.
I would have loved about 8 kids myself. My family is child oriented, and I am a product of that attitude. But I believe that no one should ever, ever have a child without a true desire for a family. And I only had 2 because, in spite of what I wanted, I believe that each person only has the "right" to reproduce himself or herself one time. This is not a religious attitude, but a pragmatic one. I believe the earth is too crowded, resources are too scarce, and a certain restraint is required.
All too often, we judge who we are by the things we hate or don't want to do. (People who don't like sports or don't like opera, for example, seem to think that these dislikes are virtues.) Being childfree or bearing children should not be a matter of virtue. The childfree who call parents "crotch droppers" or whatever are turning their childfree choice into a virtue, as parents are if they denigrate the decision not to have children.
One of the odd things about some people who don't have children and seem to dislike children so much is that they appear to forget that they were children once themselves. It's not like they sprang fully grown from the head of a greek god. They should have a certain respect for children as small human beings, not as some kind of alien intruders. (This obviously does not apply to all the childfree.)
(continued in next post)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Jan 10, 2006 11:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And, finally, there are undoubtedly places where children are not, and should not, be welcome. Bars, adult entertainment centers, and other inappropriate venues are some examples. But to say that children should not be in restaurants or planes or other public places is somewhat arrogant. If you don't want to be around children, eat at home. Kids are human beings. All adults were once children. All human beings should have standards of public behavior including adults. But we are a society, and society of necessity includes children. They are the next generation, they will inherit our norms and customs, they will form their values and behavioral guidelines from our treatment of them and of each other.
Tolerance, self-fulfillment, and an understanding that we are all in this together are needed for this issue, just as they are in most aspects of life.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: LeeAnnG
Posted by: Newt
» RE: LeeAnnG
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jasonix on Jan 10, 2006 11:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: arly christianity discouraged child-bearing: Jasonix
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: arly christianity discouraged child-bearing: Jasonix
Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: arly christianity discouraged child-bearing
Posted by: BurbankSam
Comments are closed-
Posted by: shadowhawk on Jan 10, 2006 11:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Babies are fine and good when the couple (yes, couple) are financially and emotionally stable and have planned on the baby. Too often, these babies are unplanned for and unwanted. It's unfair to all involved, especially the child.
I'd rather see the unwanted embryo aborted than born into a world where it will likely be neglected and abused.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: esponsibility
Posted by: sln70
» RE: esponsibility
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: esponsibility
Posted by: sln70
» RE: esponsibility
Posted by: YogiBear
» What About the Hunting Thread?
Posted by: decembrist
» RE: What About the Hunting Thread?
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: What About the Hunting Thread?
Posted by: owleyes
» ^
Posted by: decembrist
» RE: esponsibility
Posted by: drmeow
» RE: esponsibility
Posted by: Basenjis
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zsmith on Jan 10, 2006 12:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Its a trick
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Its a trick
Posted by: Ruby
» RE: Its a trick
Posted by: chocolate
» RE: Its a trick
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tgabriel on Jan 10, 2006 12:18 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have heard the arguments people with children make that their children will pay my social security when I retire childless. For that I thank them.
Now, I would like their thanks for the enormous contribution I have made in both income and property taxes that went to the education of those children so they can have good jobs and pay lots of social security taxes when I retire.
My wife and I, much to the annoyance of some of our acquaintances with children, see ourselves as a complete family.
Not speaking for my wife, I can say without reservation I am very glad I chose not to have children. I have not missed the experience one whit.
I have observed among many of the folks I know who are parents they seem to not have had any choices when it came to procreation. The sad thing to me is that since they bowed to some sort of pressure to have those children, now they are letting other people raise them. Almost as soon as their children are out of the womb they are in day care so the parents (?) can resume their pre-child activities.
Odd behavior to me...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Child Free 25 years
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Child Free 25 years
Posted by: BurbankSam
» RE: Child Free 25 years
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Child Free 25 years
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: Child Free 25 years
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Child Free 25 years
Posted by: BurbankSam
» RE: Child Free 25 years
Posted by: Newt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bettsoff on Jan 10, 2006 12:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope you're happy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: midge on Jan 10, 2006 12:26 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That being said, I agree with comments others have made that there are a good deal of people out there who don't really have a choice in the matter, and we should focus on alleviating and perhaps even eliminating the underlying social problems associated with it, so that everyone can make a choice that they're happy and comfortable with.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: impolitedinnerguest on Jan 10, 2006 1:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, yes, it makes sense biologically to reproduce. But I can't help but think it's somewhat selfish to want to have a child for purely emotional reasons. Why create a new child to love when there are so many children out there who need love and care so desperately? I think we should become parents for the sake of the children, not for our own emotional satisfaction. I'm not advocating everyone only adopting, but wouldn't it help if people with multiple children decided to adopt one or two?
(Yes, it would!)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What's really selfish?
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: What's really selfish?
Posted by: impolitedinnerguest
» RE: What's really selfish?
Posted by: owleyes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: originalbranek on Jan 10, 2006 1:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Whiners
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Whiners
Posted by: originalbranek
» RE: Whiners
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jwg on Jan 10, 2006 1:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Gene pool
Posted by: chocolate
Comments are closed-
Posted by: truthteller on Jan 10, 2006 1:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, I pay into a retirement plan that supports current retirees, and future employees will pay into my retirement (if the companies and the neo-con fascists don't do away with just about all retirement plans). I work a lot of hours and save significantly more money than probably 90% of all Americans (no Beamer or latte machines for me). So, I don't have any qualms about future workers suppoting me. In older culture communities this same function is accomplished by the entire community supporting and revering the aged, a process that we seem to keep forgetting.
I agree that there are too many people in the world, and I resent being called selfish by people who have kids they expect the rest of the world to support. I don't have a problem with working sometimes to give those with families a day off. I would just as soon work Christmas, since I really don't have anywhere else to go (being an Atheist as well - hey I'm a triple threat to the fundis - Godless, Commie [not] and Child-free, take that you fascist bastards!) I know that I'm at the top of the list of the thought police when they start coming to take away the dissenters.
I think one of the best ads for remaining childfree is the 3 part "Frontline" running this week called "Country Boys", about a couple of typical, dysfunctional, white-trash teenage boys in rural KY that are headed for lives of alcholism, poverty, early marriage and lots of equally dysfunctional, parasitic kids. The one kids Father is an unemployed, alcoholic with terminal Cirrhosis, lives in a trailer; and the other lives with a Grandmother because his Father murdered his stripper Stepmother (on-stage, no-less!), and then shot himself. These are the very people who need to breed less.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Childfree and happy about it
Posted by: Newt
» RE: Childfree and happy about it
Posted by: Epicurienne
» RE: Childfree and happy about it
Posted by: truthteller
» RE: Childfree and happy about it
Posted by: wren6
» Childfree and happy about it (rest of post)
Posted by: wren6
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zumme on Jan 10, 2006 1:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Childfree impact on demography
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Childfree impact on demography
Posted by: zumme
» RE: Childfree impact on demography
Posted by: kittynboi
» Adoption is the option here.
Posted by: Monde
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Moosehead on Jan 10, 2006 1:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is but one of the many things anti-abortion people just don't get about humanity: Until (if ever) you want a child, you're not doing any favors to society (or the child, or God, or whoever) by creating a life that you, in your heart, do not want to care for. Parenting is damn hard work, and if you're not thoroughly committed, you simply won't have the patience, kindness, discipline, or sense of humor you need to raise another human being.
And yet: for that bit of appreciation, I expect some reciprocation from the child-free for my efforts as a parent. Yes, they still need to pay taxes for public education. Yes, they have to try and understand why I need flex time, as I also to work my ass off at my job, to give my kid extra care when he needs it. It's called a civilized, educated society. And it depends on that very kind of quid pro quo and tolerance.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I kid you not
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: I kid you not
Posted by: Newt
» Speaking for myself--
Posted by: bettsoff
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nodaklibrul on Jan 10, 2006 1:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny. Being in a childfree marriage, I always felt that the people with children are "more than happy" to let my spouse and me work longer hours, pay higher taxes, and subsidize their children's education to ease their procreation.
Seriously, the conflict is one of commitment vs. obligation. Obligation is something that can be forced upon people externally. Commitment is something that comes from inside -- it is much deeper and stronger.
Many in this society are brought up to believe that, whether they are suited or not, they simply must marry and procreate because that is their obligation. Many of these people view any other "choice" as an easy way out -- like ducking an obligation.
Some people choose to have children and make that choice after serious reflection and weighing of the consequences. They are truly committed to the responsibilities of raising children, not out of some external societal or religious obligation, but because they have internally come to terms with accepting the responsibilities.
Their are also people, like me, who have seriously weighed the consequences of having children given our own goals, strengths, and weaknesses. I made a childfree choice not because of selfishness or any dislike for children, but for similar reasons that I would choose not to perform brain surgery on my best friend.
What this entire conflict points to is the schism that separates this country today. The religious, fundamentalist right wing is trying to force everyone to "live up to your obligations" under the guise of "family values" -- as long as it's the fundies definition of obligations and family values we're forcing on everyone. Those who promote and undertake such obligations are most hostile to those who make other choices.
Liberals and progressives, however, are aware that commitment does not come easily. One must fight for it and agonize over it. Choice is far from the easy way out. Of course, it would be simplistic to say that we should ignore all of our obligations. We should, however, be extremely wary of the agenda of those promoting them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drmeow on Jan 10, 2006 2:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Newt on Jan 10, 2006 2:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And a lot of my male friends have secretly confided that they don't/didn't want kids, but only caved in to appease their wives/girlfriends. A few are divorced. My boyfriend's co-workers are envious that he can "skip this obligation."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Grateful
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Grateful
Posted by: Newt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Newt on Jan 10, 2006 2:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lunasol on Jan 10, 2006 2:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't really feel any need to have my own little bundle of joy, but if my husband wanted one, I'd certainly be on board with starting a family. But it turns out he felt the same way. So with neither one of us really feeling the biological or psychological urge to procreate, we decided to take the radical step to NOT have children. I mean, really, why should we? We're Westerners -- we're already using more than our allotted share of the Earth's resources. Why bring along another person to use up even more. Neither one of us managed to follow the proscribed conservative plan of avoiding poverty through financial inheritence, so we would not be able to provide our children with all the things they'd really need to compete at high levels in this day and age, no matter how much we sacrificed. And neither one of us is royalty, a genius or anything special, so it's not like our genetic line really needs passing on to a next generation.
The argument I hear the most for having children goes something like this, "I never knew what a rich and rewarding experience having children would provide." Well, I don't doubt that. But experiences are subjective, and those people have no way to understanding how rich and rewarding my life is for not having children. It's not better, not worse, just different and that can be equally good.
Not having children gives me the opportunity to do more for my community than I could if I had them. I give what money I can to children's programs and scholarships. I happily pay higher taxes that will ensure better schools and benefits for children in the inner city where I live. I watch out for the kids on my street, babysit for neighbors and relatives, volunteer for programs for families, and try to keep in my what I want to leave for the next generation. I adore children. And they don't have to be mine for me to love. That's what not having children has given me.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: badkitty53 on Jan 10, 2006 3:11 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ace on Jan 10, 2006 5:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do see some parents as selfish when they are having 3, 4, 5 children when there are many needy kids out there who could use some of these parents' resources.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Ace
Posted by: Ruby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Epicurienne on Jan 10, 2006 6:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I consider the Bible to be a badly written collection of fiction stories. I refuse to have children just because of the Bible.
"Pope John Paul II openly condemned married couples who choose not to reproduce..."
I'm not Catholic, so I don't have to obey the Pope. Besides, how could an old man who never even MET me possibly know what's best for my life?
"'I'm sure they're more than happy to collect the Social Security benefits from couples who do have children who grow up to be contributing members of society.'"
And I'm sure childed people are more than happy that most people pay property taxes that go to pay for public schools - even those who don't have kids.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Torgo on Jan 10, 2006 10:42 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But if a person decides not to have children, it doesn't matter what the motive is. There will not be a damaged child of parents who had a baby for the "wrong" reason.
Absolutely. Unless one considers oneself perfect and omniscient, the possibility of procreation being the "wrong choice" is a definite possibility. Given this reality and the virtue of personal responsibility, a virtuous person will not seek to have other human beings (the children) bear the burden of one's own mistakes.
If my decision to get vasectomized and remain childfree ever turns out to be "the wrong choice" I shall still sleep better than I would if I had forced the burden of my mistake onto the innocent shoulders of my potential children.
As it turned out, since my vasectomy at 27, I have since learned that my family history has bipolar disorder on my mother's side, and I recently suffered cardiac arrest (at the age of 36, and while taking care of my heart on a treadmill at the gym) due to genetically determined hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. If I had died (and I sure as hell almost did) I wouldn't have left any orphans. I have a metal defibrillator implanted in my chest, but I have a clear conscience.
Stand up like Atlas, lay down for the surgeon, break the cycle, and bear your own burdens (rhyme unintentional.) You'll sleep better at night, for you never know what destructive genes you may be carrying. To borrow from my favorite author, the peace of mind and "The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: YogiBear on Jan 10, 2006 10:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Pregnant women get preferential parking, those without children are expected to work longer hours, people with children get tax breaks," Mollen says. "There's social sanctioning for having children."
This reminds me of a place I worked once where the CEO was a smoker, so smokers were allowed to take more breaks than the rest of us. I used to pretend I was a smoker to get the breaks. Ironically, our work was involved with cancer research.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: carcinoid112 on Jan 11, 2006 12:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm 53 with at least 2 probably inherited health problems, and a third one that may be related, plus a nice very rare cancer that MAY relate to some of the other stuff. If they weren't inherited, they're genetic mutations. So, WHY do people think it's appropriate to tell me that if i'd had kids, they'd be there to help me now that i'm ill and need help? More people with the same illnesses are gonna help me? Yeah, right. I'm having enough trouble caring for my 80 year old mother, who is in fair health. WHY would you want to condemn a child you love to spending all their adult life/time with their OWN family caring for you with no financial recompense when there are people that do the same thing and get paid for it? Would you expect your child to give up their job to care for you? If so, it's a good thing you had children, since other forms of slavery are illegal.
And, for the LAST time world, if I thought that having kids was the only thing to "complete me as a woman," that ship sailed when my mother took the DES so she could have the second child that her body was not yet ready for. After all, she was 'getting on' at age 26, and only had one child. How DARE she?
Children are a privilige and a responsibility, not a right or a duty. Grow up, all of you, and mind your own business!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: People, get your OWN life...
Posted by: kittynboi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jbloggz on Jan 11, 2006 7:21 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: jbloggz
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: jbloggz
Posted by: jbloggz
» RE: jbloggz
Posted by: genyab
» RE: jbloggz
Posted by: jbloggz
» RE: jbloggz
Posted by: venus924
» RE: jbloggz
Posted by: jbloggz
Comments are closed-
Posted by: genyab on Jan 11, 2006 1:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think about it, then think about how many kids live in poverty, are born in places where they haven't the food or water to live. Yes, we can provide a better life for kids here, with all the designer clothes, video games etc. that child labourers make so we can complain about how tough it is here in the western culture of over consumption while the children of this generation are spolied, diabetic and obese- ugggh! I won't bring a child into this mess, have known it since I was a young woman at 17, I am 45 now. Things have not gotten any better in the world. If a child comes into my life by some other means, so be it, but I don't need to have one to be more of a woman.
If everyone skipped one round of birthing, the world would get a little easier for those who struggle every day for food and water. If people with kids would take good care of them, show them Nature and help them appreciate life's delicate balance, that would be good too, but do they? I don't think so. I don't appreciate being looked down upon because I made a deeply personal and spiritual choice to not bring a baby into this world. Thank you for acknowledging people like me. I am not a child hater, I love kids, and always find there are plenty who need love and attention without birthing my own.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A Baby too many
Posted by: Ruby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Monde on Jan 11, 2006 3:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It all makes sense to me now, and also terrifies me. I believe in a dynamic relationship with God as opposed to a static, rigid and unchanging one. In my eyes, the message changes with time. "Be fruitful, multiply" worked in Jesus Christ's time. In 2006, "Be frugal, waste not the gift of Life" is the message God - or whatever singularity and plurality exist as the highest power of the metaverse - has transmitted to me. I think perhaps I am not alone here. It might even be hardwired into our genes: the widespread acceptance of homosexuality in just about every community other than the Dominionists seems to speak to this idea. When resources are thin and the population is thick, don't make more population. I cannot grasp how this could possibly be construed as selfish, or failing to contribute to society. Sometimes a contribution takes the form of NOT contributing to a problem, but instead a solution.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Dominionism again.
Posted by: sln70
» No, I increase the liberal population by not breeding...
Posted by: Monde
» RE: No, I increase the liberal population by not breeding...
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Dominionism again.
Posted by: BurbankSam
Comments are closed-
Posted by: catanthia on Jan 11, 2006 6:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I spent seven years working with selfish, manipulative people like you who thought that just because they had kids, the workplace, and myself, the only childfree worker in the office “owed them something.” In my stupid desperation to fit in, I bought into their “you can afford the extra time to take up the slack” mentality and ended up ruining my health, as well as my first marriage, and caused considerable damage to family relationships because of the 55 hour plus work weeks, plus weekends I ended up working. Lots of “extra work” got shoved off on me by working parent coworkers who had your pathetic mentality – and flippantly thought that because of my child free status “I had free time to spare, and I could afford the extra time to take up their slack.” and refused to acknowledge the stress and tension they caused in my personal life; like you …..they only cared about themselves.
Well. Reality check….
YOU are not better than me.
I can NOT afford the extra time to pick up your slack.
I have a life of my own.
I am entitled to a life of my own.
Since I did not participate in my “life” in your choice to have children, I have no obligation to do your job for you. I have no obligation to pick up your slack. You do not deserve credit for the work I do for you. On that note, you should not get paid for the work we childfree do for you.
So the next time you callously shove your work off on your childfree co worker, think about something else besides yourself.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hotar on Jan 14, 2006 6:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jamesor on Jan 14, 2006 9:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of my aunts and uncles are bitter, uneducated, and mean. Their children, my cousins, are bitter, uneducated, and mean. Many of them are criminals. Half of them are already dead. The other half of them are parents, bad parents, lording their inherited bitterness over their battered progeny.
I am a kid-loving 46 year old, childfree, man in a stable, long-term, monogamous relationship. I have never been political about my childfree-ness. I have simply just never wanted children.
Again, why would this be a problem?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: AGain, why would this be a problem?
Posted by: codingguy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rini on Jan 14, 2006 10:52 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To the childfree I say....KUDOS!!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I agree
Posted by: sln70
» RE: I agree
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: morticia on Jan 14, 2006 6:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: The Big Taboo...
Posted by: sln70
» RE: The Big Taboo...
Posted by: YogiBear
» Whoa, there, sport....
Posted by: morticia
» The nesting problem
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: The nesting problem
Posted by: morticia
» RE: The nesting problem
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kym525 on Jan 15, 2006 10:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think in this case, both the child-bearing and the child-free communities need to stop bashing each other and to start creating a society in which EVERY child, regardless of race, is sacred and worth loving.
My decision to be 'child-free' doesn't need nor rely on others to validate it for me. I'm perfectly capable of firmly, yet politely, telling those who think I'm missing out on something to mind their own business.
The only time I look down on those who have children are when those children are ill-behaved in public. I feel that if you cannot be a firm (yet loving) disciplinarian and rein your kids in, then you shouldn't be a parent. If you can't tell your teenaged kids they cannot have everything they want, regardless of if they need it or not, then you really shouldn't be a parent.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A child-free woman of colour speaks
Posted by: marymad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: patti_s on Jan 15, 2006 10:41 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Animals are born with an instinct to pass along their genes. This instinct is so strong the animals can't deny it. I think everyone has probably seen how dogs that aren't put up will come from miles around if there is a female in heat. In their non-thinking world, they are born, reproduce, and die.
Still, there are those of us who are farther away from living by instinct, who know early on, we are not meant to be parents. We do not have a thinking brain for nothing! If anyone has the feeling that they should not have a child, I applaud their right to decide not to. patti_s
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: patti_s
Posted by: fferris
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chocolate on Jan 15, 2006 2:14 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: benzene on Jan 15, 2006 4:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» The Malthusian Doctrine ....
Posted by: morticia
Comments are closed-
Posted by: rclord on Jan 15, 2006 5:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shouldn't they pay more attention to how well children are treated? The American Humane Associate has been reporting on child abuse being widespread in the United States (http://www.americanhumane.org/).
What responsible parent would waste his or her time pressuring childless people to have kids? I should think they'd be too busy bringing up their own children to give a rat's ass.
I also think the "childfree movement" is wasting their time putting down parents. I certainly agree that those who don't want kids shouldn't have them. But why waste your life fighting with people that think otherwise? Isn't life too short? Aren't there more important things for people to do in this world, like making it a better place for everyone, children and adults?
I believe that both pro- and anti-childree activists just want attention.
Get a life, both of you.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: livingthelife on Jan 15, 2006 8:37 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Check your facts, please
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: livingthelife BENEFITS OF CHILDREN
Posted by: brittnee
» RE: livingthelife BENEFITS OF CHILDREN
Posted by: chocolate
» RE: livingthelife BENEFITS OF CHILDREN
Posted by: morticia
» RE: livingthelife BENEFITS OF CHILDREN
Posted by: isoriangoddess
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Livemike on Jan 16, 2006 12:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Consider their attitude to the economics of children. They simply assume that for the first 18 years of their life the child will make no major economic contribution to their own needs. Now there are better ways to ensure your child grows up wrong but they generally involve felonies assault. Having to pay your own way is an economic fact of life, unless your last name is Packer, Gates or Bin Laden. So why not get them used to the least common situation in the world, a free ride? Because a 14 year old who can pay for his own room and board is a 14 year old who you can't be controlled. He gets to decide if he wants to keep living there and thus if he has to follow your stupid rules. That's not acceptable to the majority of parents who value control far above the "welfare of the child". The "child" might think that his "welfare" includes having sex in the room he pays board in with the "girl" he intends to marry. That's too much like a real life for the "loving" parents.
Of course they'll be howls of protest from the left that this will interfer with the child's 12 years of schooling. We can only hope. Anyone who needs 12 years of sitting in the most boring place on earth outside prison to learn something won't benefit from it. If you doubt me just read political interest group rubbish to the average high school graduate and ask them to name the logical fallacies within it. When they can't you'll know why democracy is going to hell. They teach driving at least 3 years too late after the best time the best motor skill learning years. Most of what is learned is forgotten in a few years, mostly because it was never intended to be useful. It's all part of the big lie that you need a college education to do almost anything. If they really cared about their children they'd tell them most professions can be learnt via apprenticeship better. But that would threaten their own jobs.
* The parents not the kids.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: isoriangoddess on Sep 29, 2006 3:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: isoriangoddess on Sep 29, 2006 3:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kenhymes on Jan 10, 2006 3:08 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But obviously, there are hugely important exceptions to the categories represented in the piece: many people can't have children for reasons they don't control, either physiology or the lack of a suitable partner. Also, many have children without truly having consented to the process, whether as a result of rape, or simply social coercion. Focusing on those who see themselves as in control of their choices is not very helpful to resolving the difficulties of those who are not so lucky, on either side of this social divide.
There is not enough community, not enough shared responsibility across kinship lines. This makes nuclear families selfish and smug, and makes single people lonely and disengaged. It also perpetuates the blindness to institutionalized suffering that is the hallmark of our culture. We need to reform our small, local institutions to foster acceptance of different choices, and to offer inclusion and support for those who have little choice in their way of life.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: muggles5
Posted by: sln70
» RE: muggles5
Posted by: MJ Fields
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tohellinahandbasket on Jan 10, 2006 3:44 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
However, this whole child-free movement raises more disturbing issues for me, namely, whatever happened to "society"? Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once declared that there was no such thing as society. I take that to mean that she thinks people don't share a common responsibility for one another - that somehow we can share the same land but we don't have to go out of our way to take care of our fellow citizens. In this respect she seems to share common ground with the militantly child-free, by which I mean those who use nasty nicknames such as "crotch dropping" (what a disgusting way to refer to a human being) and take petty delight in parking in spaces reserved for children and parents at the supermarket.
With respect to the child-free, children are the next generation, and our society (long may it remain cohesive) recognizes this through everything from public education and tax breaks to daycare, play groups, child-friendly restaurants and so on. Just because you choose not to have children doesn't mean we, too, must throw the baby out with the bathwater.
As if being a parent weren't hard enough (and I'm not complaining - I made a conscious decision to have them), as parents we also have to cope with the legions of do-gooders who want to tell us how to raise them, right-wingers who want to restrict what our children are taught in school and the child-haters who want us to hide our children away until they've grown up.
So, c'mon, let's have some appreciation for children and those who choose to raise them -- or at the very least, some tolerance for the sake of society as a whole.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Just another symptom of anti-socialness?
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Just another symptom of anti-socialness?
Posted by: kurtinvancouver
» Use your head!
Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Use your head!
Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: Just another symptom of anti-socialness?
Posted by: susanh
» RE: Just another symptom of anti-socialness?
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» On being part of the problem or the solution...
Posted by: saramarie
» RE: On being part of the problem or the solution...
Posted by: bettsoff
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hera62 on Jan 10, 2006 3:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The main problem with working parents is that working mothers tend to get the bulk of the burden shifted on their shoulders compared to working fathers. This, in my opinion, is a far larger issue than the perceived inequality between working parents and their childfree colleagues. Fortunately, I'm seeing enough examples in my own environment of healthy, broadminded parenting without living in a bubble - and with *both* parents taking their own fair share of the load.
For the record, I'm childfree myself but also the grateful godmother of two young ladies (two years and six monts old respectively) who live with their parents in a community living project - not much chance of living in a bubble there!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: hiroe
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: Paul D
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: hiroe
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: ann83
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: mothersmovement
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: sln70
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: BurbankSam
» RE: Burbank Sam
Posted by: kww355
» RE: Burbank Sam
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Burbank Sam
Posted by: BurbankSam
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: mothersmovement
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: peritonlogon
» RE: A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: lionhead
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Ruby on Jan 10, 2006 4:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One cannot know the strong feelings for your children and the satisfaction unless you have them. Sorry, I do not think it's the same for stepchildren--and I have one. There is a physical connection to your children that you have to experience in order to know why people want you to have children so badly.
I have changed so much as a person in too many ways to go into that I just would not have done had the motivation not been there from my children. I have become a much more tolerant person, the messiness of children is not offensive to me any more and I truly look at the world completely differently. This is the hardest, stressful and most wonderful thing I have done with my life. I think it's an important experience to take us outside of ourselves and connect with others in society in a way that just doesn't happen otherwise.
That said, I wouldn't expect someone to adopt a puppy just because I might like dogs. No one can walk in our shoes but us. Parenthood is too difficult and important of a job to take on if you don't want to for whatever reason. The children deserve to have parents who want them and are prepared for the sacrifices. I would have been an awful parent if I had had my children before I was ready. I know this about myself. I am not a patient person and mixed with my own immaturity at the time, it would have been a disaster, not to insinuate that is the same about other people. I applaud those who realize it's not for them and are honest about it. There are a lot of experiences that we all miss out on--can't do everything in the world.
I don't think we should waste time trying to convince people who don't want the job to take it on. MYOB.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: Ruby
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: Astroboy
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: tap17x
» RE: Been on both sides
Posted by: Ruby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Urstrly on Jan 10, 2006 5:07 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What I'd like to see is that we look upon every child born in this country as a national asset, deserving of support and attention, decent housing, good medical care and a first-rate education. I wish some of these childless people would involve themselves with the already-born but neglected children who form a sort of national underground. Maybe that would demonstrate that it's possible to nurture without going on an ego trip and help them work through some of their resentment.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Let 'em be...
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: Let 'em be...
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: Let 'em be...
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Let 'em be...
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: Let 'em be...
Posted by: Kat144
Comments are closed-
Posted by: funtime42 on Jan 10, 2006 5:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Childfree and born that way
Posted by: patti_s
» RE: Childfree and born that way
Posted by: munchkinpup
» RE: Childfree and born that way
Posted by: Astroboy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hotar on Jan 10, 2006 5:36 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One issue that really hasn't been touched on here is the world we are leaving our children to face. If you think the world is chaotic now, wait 50 or 100 years: More war, more famine, more environmental degradation, overpopulation, less and less security and quality of life. I see a very dark cloud over the future of our species, and part of my choice to remain childless is based on the belief that it is selfish to have children when the future we leave them will be so awful.
Of course, some of the breeders among us will say that today's children are also the future of the race, and so being childfree is irresponsible. I have had people tell me that I would make a great parent, and bemoan my choice. But while it is true that good parenting might make for a better future society, I think the negatives outweigh the positives.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: the other issue: what they face
Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: the other issue: what they face. You mean life then, eh?
Posted by: Colin
» RE: the other issue: what they face. You mean life then, eh?
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: the other issue: what they face. You mean life then, eh?
Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: the other issue: what they face. You mean life then, eh?
Posted by: drmeow
» RE: the other issue: what they face. You mean life then, eh?
Posted by: decembrist
» RE: the other issue: what they face. You mean life then, eh?
Posted by: cominginsecond
» Let's Exist Happily, & Just Forget For A Moment Those Who Don't (Exist)
Posted by: decembrist
» A reply
Posted by: Colin
» Thank the Child-free
Posted by: decembrist
» RE: Thank the Child-free? Cheeky person.
Posted by: Colin
» RE: A reply
Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: A reply
Posted by: Colin
» colin: predicting the future
Posted by: hotar
» RE: colin: predicting the future
Posted by: YogiBear
» Reply to hotar.
Posted by: Colin
» RE: eply to hotar.
Posted by: YogiBear
» ...
Posted by: Colin
» Come off it Colin
Posted by: hotar
» Round and round in circles we go - where we stop, *nobody* knows.
Posted by: Colin
» An analogy of my own.
Posted by: Colin
» I knew it would be out there somewhere...
Posted by: Colin
» RE: A reply
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: A reply
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bettsoff on Jan 10, 2006 5:49 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can do better things for the world than parent a child I wouldn't be interested in having in the first place.
Contribute where you can with the best you can and let the rest blather on.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Nheduanna on Jan 10, 2006 6:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My mother, upon meeting other seniors for the first time, is often asked "How many grandchildren do you have?" She's much more militant than I am. For many years her response was "None -- and I'm thankful because neither of my children are married." Some folks got the pointiness of her comment.
Sure, there are times when I just don't want to be around other people's children. On the other hand, I've been an outspoken proponent of more funding for public education, especially for arts and music in schools. Pro-Life folks really piss me off when they whine about all the dead babies, then decry welfare mothers. Hey Mrs. Businessowner, what are YOU doing to support better public education? How many single mothers do you employ? Do they have health insurance?
Until we get our priorities straight as a Nation and craft a National health care strategy that covers everyone, a public education strategy that inspires educators and kids and effectively educates (eral education, not pseudoscience), and support businesses that provide jobs that pay a decent wage, why oh why is anyone upset that some folks aren't breeding?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: NDnative on Jan 10, 2006 6:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Allison on Jan 10, 2006 6:42 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People without children have a LOT of freedom they would otherwise lack. If that's their choice, nobody should criticize them for it. Nor should they criticize those who choose to have children and trade personal freedom for the joys of parenthood. How simple is that?
I doubt most of these Internet tough guys would ever call somebody a bad name to their face. Discussion forums are like the unrestrained id of the internet, people's views and language inevitably polarize as they gradually forget they are talking to other real people. Ergo, you can only place so much significance on things you read in them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Just don't be rude.
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Just don't be rude.
Posted by: crusty
» RE: Just don't be rude.
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Just don't be rude.
Posted by: crusty
» RE: Just don't be rude.
Posted by: cominginsecond
» ^
Posted by: decembrist
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Paul D on Jan 10, 2006 6:54 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think it helps the child-free cause when they use insulting epithets like "crotch dropping" or "semen demon" to describe a human being they find personally repulsive. How different is that from "nigger" or "cameljockey" or "slope"?
I also suspect that the majority of these people consider themselves progressive liberals, in favor of socialized medicine and higher taxes for the rich (because they can afford it), as I do. Yet they bellyache about feeling obligated to work longer hours than a person with children. Guess what? You've got free time to spare; you can afford the extra time to take up the slack.
Every single item mentioned is one of practicality, not some "conspiracy of the breeders." Pregnant women have legitimate right to the preferential parking due to the temporary physical impediments to movement. See my comments above about people without children working longer hours. And having children is a significant financial commitment; the contribution a parent has made to the perpetuation of our species and society deserves a modest tax break in my opinion.
I support a business' right to create a child-free environment for its customers (as detailed in a NYT article a few months ago). But, just as "child haters" are in the minority of the child-free community, so are irresponsible parents in the minority. Despite what you may think, I see a lot more well-behaved kids in public than poorly-behaved.
There is also the issue of common sense. A friend recently had the audacity to complain about noisy children at an opening night showing of the Narnia movie. An early evening show of a childrens' movie, on opening night! Did he expect the theater to be empty?
I think it would behoove the child-free (especially those who claim liberal values) to examine the parallels between their prejuces and those of their opponents. Again, the name-calling doesn't help.
I respect the choice of the child-free; I certainly acknowledge that actual "child haters" are in the minority. I would actively discourage anyone from attempting to marginalize the child-free lifestyle. However, as one who plans to have at least one child with my wife in my lifetime, I think MY choice deserves the same respect and understanding.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: jem
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: yesman
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: hiroe
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: Vyking
» thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: Paul D
» RE: thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: AprilH
» RE: thank you all for proving my point
Posted by: electric_bonzai
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: Gracie1029
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: ann83
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: Gracie1029
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: Calybos
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: YogiBear
» Your comment regarding we have an obligation to pick up your job slack
Posted by: catanthia
» RE: pro-child liberal
Posted by: Kat144
Comments are closed-
Posted by: xenacat on Jan 10, 2006 7:03 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Kids do not justify one's existance....
Posted by: paxhumana
» RE: Kids do not justify one's existance....
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Kids do not justify one's existance....
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Kids do not justify one's existance....
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: Kids do not justify one's existance....
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Kids do not justify one's existance....
Posted by: Troglodyke
Comments are closed-
Posted by: larraine on Jan 10, 2006 7:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Child free "Movement?"
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Child free "Movement?"
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: Child free "Movement?"
Posted by: borealis
» RE: Child free "Movement?"
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: familyfriendly on Jan 10, 2006 7:06 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am 36, female and decided very young I wasn't having kids. I think we're way too overpopulated as it is and I enjoy being free. If that's a crime than so be it. My parents never pressure me and are busy with 12 grandchildren from my siblings, and even if they didn't they have always allowed me to be my own person.
It seems that the philosphy many parents have and our govt. propogates is that having children....regardless of whether you are mentally fit or financially capable...is more admirable than if you chose to go it alone and devoted your life to other lofty causes. A childless scientist who invents life-saving drugs is less worthy than anyone who is a parent. That's the kind of mentality we have today in America.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: There's a Place for Us....haha....
Posted by: sln70
» RE: There's a Place for Us....haha....
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: There's a Place for Us....haha....
Posted by: sln70
» RE: There's a Place for Us....haha....
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: There's a Place for Us....haha....
Posted by: sln70
» RE: There's a Place for Us....haha....
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: There's a Place for Us....haha....
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: There's a Place for Us....haha....
Posted by: AmandaHug
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jpinder on Jan 10, 2006 7:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: ladyoracle
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: Paul D
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: McJulie
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: cominginsecond
» ^
Posted by: decembrist
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: demidesigrrl
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: kittynboi
» Sinister
Posted by: decembrist
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: jpinder
» Selfish Ridiculousness!
Posted by: Astroboy
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: Indy
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: Calybos
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Why is it selfish?
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ladyoracle on Jan 10, 2006 7:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The parents feel that thier choice to breed is being dissed by the child-free. People are using really conservative arguments, economically speaking, to goad those without children.
Personally, I never played with baby dolls as a child, but went straight to Barbie; I sometimes held other people's children and cooed over them, but for the most part, I found those fragile, wriggling things disturbing and absolutely never said I wanted to have children; I didn't (and don't) even want to get married, because really I don't want my life to in any way be associated with "family values."
Still, I support other people's choices to reproduce; one of my best friends is the mother of an amazing little girl. I respect the work my friend and her husband have done in raising her.
As far as working longer hours because one is childfree, well, yes, but we also have better chances of advancing in our jobs than mothers, who statistically put children before career. That isn't discrimination, but it's giving more responsibility to the employee who has more time and energy to devote to the job. And of course, parents who don't let children interfere with work should not be discriminated against.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Artkansas on Jan 10, 2006 7:34 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article mentioned that those most likely to be child-free are well-educated professionals. It's ironic because to progress as a society, these are the people we need more of.
As was mentioned, there is a wide range of child free. Some of those quoted sound like officious child haters. The step mother mentioned certainly fits my definition of "child free". She didn't supply sperm or egg to create a child. She did not notch the population up. That she is involved in a family is fine.
I'm kid-free myself. Mostly because the woman I chose to marry, proved to be infertile. I had to choose between my desire for children and the vows I had taken. But even before we knew that, there was debate on the pros and cons of the issue. After it was proven, we both ended up finding ways to get our kid-fixes, volunteering at the Boys and Girls Club or working with Soap Box Derby.
It's a strange issue, because it cannot be yes or no. We must have kids to continue. But we cannot have too many. Deciding who has how many should never be up the the government as it is in China. But somehow the right balance must be found. I'm not sure if our society has a good mechanism for doing that.
I think that our culture is way too child-centric as if bible based "family values" is the only way to organize things. Those, like Jesus, who choose not to have children, should be honored too.
I think groups like No-Kidding miss the big picture. If they are helping the child-free, they should work to provide more for old-age. Medical insurance, burial insurance etc. One of the real benefits of children for people is that as you get older, you are more likely to have people who care for you and are willing to help you, if you have raised them. Until a similar structure is formed for the child-free, fewer people will opt for the benefits of helping stop overpopulation.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Jesus was child-free.
Posted by: deejayvee
» RE: Jesus was child-free.
Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Jesus was child-free.
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cielo on Jan 10, 2006 7:48 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But the most basic reason I feel it is so difficult for parents and children, even beyond horrid healthcare, is the expectation for one or two parents to take on all the burden of childraising. My mother-friend from Africa tells me how being a mother in her culture was easiest in the early years, because extended family and friends shared so much of what was not viewed as a "burden" while the mother was given ample time on her own. Here, all of the responsibility is placed on parents or babysitters and day care people they must pay, and so the child can more easily become a burden. And now we are at a point where even the "nuclear" family is becoming obsolete.
Maybe in a different society even those of us who don't feel inclined to have children might make the choice, but unfortunately one of the toughest jobs just keeps getting tougher. But as a "child-free" person, I'd rather help out parents I know when I can and be a positive influence on their little ones than feel "persecuted" and spend time on another "movement" of those who have time enough for such pursuits.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Non-nuclear
Posted by: kittynboi
» Bad!
Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Bad!
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Bad!
Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Bad!
Posted by: marymad
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Sigil on Jan 10, 2006 8:04 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Until reading this article I had no idea there was such a box to be put into as "childfree"-- but it certainly suits my point of view. My wife and I don't want kids, in spite of the fact that most people we know inisist we would make excellent parents. But our children are our careers, and they require just as much patience and nurturing as any drooling, clubfooted, noisy little precious toddler.
To those who paint a picture of people like us being selfish or anti-social, I would point out that by choosing to not procreate is actually enhancing our contribution to society by a) not diluting our efforts between trying to earn a living and properly raise a human being, b) not creating yet another drain on our world's resources for the simple & arrogant reason that the fruit of my loins is somehow the most important mouth to feed out of 5 billion people, and c) not retreating from the world to create some foul-smelling spawn hive; to actually go out and interact with interesting and creative people.
I have seen too many of my vital, intelligent, creative friends succumb to this pressure and turn away from the beauty they could have created in favor of inulging themselves in narcisstic self-propogation... As if letting their biology run amok and living with the consequences took more discipline than living a rational and contemplative life and making contributions to the world that mattered to somebody other than myself.
And the icing on the cake is that this gender role is considered the trump card for many women. You can see if in how they conduct their lives, that sense that oh well, if this doesn't work out, I can always get preggers and not have to worry about it anymore. Oops! Sorry, guess you'll have to take care of me now, sucker! A fine way to express a desire for equality.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Another perspective on parents
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Another perspective on parents
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Another perspective on parents
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Giving up on oneself
Posted by: owleyes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: owleyes on Jan 10, 2006 8:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: why is this a controversial issue?
Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: why is this a controversial issue?
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: why is this a controversial issue?
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: why is this a controversial issue?
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: why is this a controversial issue?
Posted by: codingguy
Comments are closed-
Posted by: g on Jan 10, 2006 8:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, yeah. On the other hand, don't we pay taxes for schools for other people's kids?
As for Europe being more child-friendly... well, that depends on where you are. Walking a strollers on the sidewalks of Rome or Florence is hell. Parking for pregnant women? Pleease. Forget about libraries with kids sections. Restaurants are seldom child-friendly (and that is a blessing according to many). Child care on the job? Forget it. Then again, there is (mostly) a better welfare state, with paid leave and state health insurance. So, it's a mixed blessing. I know: I lived there for 35 years.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: My 2 cents
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: My 2 cents
Posted by: sln70
» RE: My 2 cents
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: My 2 cents
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 10, 2006 8:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess some people like the place, but I've been to (up)Chuck E. Cheese with my kids. . .years ago, and I still get the sweats thinking about it. Speaking personally, eternity in Chuck E. Cheese would be fitting punishment for the seventh circle of hell. . .
Seriously – why do some people remain childless? Let's see: In my city, millions of people create permanent gridlock, nobody can get anywhere, and in other cities around the world the situation is worse; 300 million people in America and climbing; over six BILLION people world wide, heading for 10 to 20 billion, and already taxing to the breaking point every support system that planet Earth has to offer. We're fouling our nest to the point that we are, for the first time in our history, seriously considering whether we on Earth will even HAVE a nest in the next generation or two. Hell, we can't even find enough places to bury our crap. And still we make more people and look down on those who don't. Oh, yeah – and in America today the single biggest predictor for bankruptcy and poverty is having children. Our "child-loving" society is now structured so that very few can afford to raise them, while that society offers little to no real support, like, for example, subsidized child care for workers or paid education through college, as in Europe. Treating the childfree as pariahs under these conditions borders on insanity.
Those people who want children so badly should "live-and-let-live," do the world a favor, save some lives that are already here, and adopt.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: paxhumana on Jan 10, 2006 9:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Family values," "put children first"-- and all these public relations campaigns designed to tell us that our family is of MUCH more important than other people-- are just another way of promoting our culture of greed. Americans have interpreted this sanctioning of family as excusing and even legitimizing their baser impulses. What kind of baser impulses?
1. Overspending. My child must get everything he wants, NOW. Not buying is bad parenting because it might cause disappointment--and no child should EVER have to deal with not thinking that s/he is the center of the universe.
2. MY CHILD (not "children") first. These parents want to protect their kids from all of the "negative" parts of chldhood that make us mature adults--disappointment, sometimes embarrassment, having to compromise with others, not always getting what you want. These parents are the first to complain about teachers/coaches, to insist that everyone who participates in a contest should be treated as if his/her half-assed project is just as good as those who really worked. These parents come to community meetings to argue that THEY shouldn't have a tax increase to fund public schools because THEIR kids go to elite private schools.
3. Bad parenting can be fixed by $$$. These parents enroll their kids in so many activities that the kids never develop critical thinking or artistic skill. These kids can't deal with frustration or boredom. NEWSFLASH: being bored MAY just make junior figure out how to entertain himself (and for those of you about to insist Junior will then hold up a liquor store, who's the negative child-hater here?). I teach a summer class for kids. It meets at 1:00 p.m., and at least a third of every class has been made up of kids who are already on their second or third "activity" for that day when they arrive. They are exhausted and have nothing creative to bring to the table--they prefer to let the cruise director announce the next activity.
Yes, this is JUST the kind of behavior that will lead to a brighter future for America: overindulged kids who have been raised to value selfishness.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: "Family values" is just another excuse for selfishness and greed
Posted by: paxhumana
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Colin on Jan 10, 2006 9:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyway, from my experiance here's why people call those who chose to do without: 'selfish'.
- Because you are a product of millions upon millions of life forms all struggling to survive, from your mother down to iddy biddy bacteria. For you to simply decide to ignore that passage of life, to some, smells a little selfish.
- Because you've enjoyed what I've no doubt you yourself have referred to as the gift of life. Perhaps sharing that gift with another set of atoms and molecules would be a nice thing to do.
- Because in 40 years you'll be relying on someone elses children to help you in your old age (from pensions to wiping your botty)
- Because the reasons tend to be, as shown above, 'because I don't want to.' Maybe you like long walks in the park or early nights with your spouse - I don't know. All I do know is that you've picked you over something else.
- Because having a child should be a truly giving experiance and you've chosen not to give. Another person with little understanding of the rigidity of logic might mistake that for selfishness. It's their loss in this case, I know.
Personally, I don't care what other people do (as long as it doesn't hurt me). I don't actually see people as selfish for not having kids. I do see them as ignorant however, given we're animals and all, for daring to complain about the fact they've gone against the tide and they are surprised the water is pushing against them.
Animals have babies. Live with it - not sulk about it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why not having children is considered selfish.
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Why not having children is considered selfish.
Posted by: Newt
» RE: Why not having children is considered selfish.
Posted by: hiroe
» RE: Why not having children is considered selfish.
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Why not having children is considered selfish.
Posted by: owleyes
» YOU'RE MEAN!
Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Why not having children is considered selfish.
Posted by: Gracie1029
» Selfishly Ignoring the Gift of Life by Sharing it With My Partner
Posted by: decembrist
» A reply
Posted by: Colin
» And a practical example.
Posted by: Colin
» RE: And a practical example.
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: And a practical example.
Posted by: Colin
» RE: And a practical example.
Posted by: owleyes
» heehee
Posted by: decembrist
» My People Respond to Your People
Posted by: decembrist
» RE: My People Respond to Your People
Posted by: Colin
» RE: My People Respond to Your People
Posted by: Calybos
» You don't have to breed to give life.
Posted by: Monde
» RE: Why not having children is considered selfish.
Posted by: yesman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Newt on Jan 10, 2006 9:37 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My feeling is that there are indeed so many multitudes on this fragile, finite planet that as a species, humans can certainly afford to leave the demanding, tiresome job of childrearing to those who really desire it. I understand what an important responsibility it is–I see how my parents sacrificed for me. I hope that I can earn enough to give my parents a comfortable retirement. while saving for my own.
I am not a "child-hater," and I try not to use crude names when referring to anyone in our society. In my large extended family, I try to be a positive mentor for my younger cousins. I hope to be a good aunt to any of my sister's potential kids.
I feel that we are best served when viewing ALL members of the next generation as our heirs, not just our own biological offspring. We are running out of oil, clean air and water, as well as space for anyone to live in. Our species is in overshoot–without fossil fuels and oil-based fertilizer, the earth is estimated to only be able to support about 2 billion humans. Not to mention that children's toxic PVC toys will never degrade, and the mountains of waste created by disposable diapers, Lunchables, etc. Global warming threatens this generation immediately, and I shudder to think of the toxic legacy we are leaving for future generations.
Unfortunate economic circumstances in this country have put working parents between a rock and a hard place–spend $700 a week on childcare, or quit a job to raise the kids yourself? Choose between retirement or college educations for the twins? I think a lot of people have kids only because they think they are supposed to, then end up regretting it later. I've seen many friends with disintegrating marriages, out-of-control kids and serious depression issues because of too many kids too fast.
In my opinion, nothing says love like voluntary sterilization.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Proud to be Childfree
Posted by: venus924
» RE: Proud to be Childfree
Posted by: Ruby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: crusty on Jan 10, 2006 10:05 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Life is an unbelievable journey and it is the ultimate gift. If you think you would be a bad parent do not have kids. If you know that you have other fish to fry dont have kids.
In closing I am pretty surprised that this article got the most response (of the articles I have read) today. How are you folks who cry revolution going to revolt if you cant even separate your differences over child rearing?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: wow
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: wow
Posted by: sln70
» RE: wow
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: wow
Posted by: crusty
» RE: wow
Posted by: sln70
» RE: wow
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: wow
Posted by: sln70
» RE: wow
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: wow
Posted by: hiroe
» RE: wow
Posted by: sln70
» RE: wow
Posted by: hiroe
» RE: wow
Posted by: sln70
» RE: wow
Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: wow
Posted by: BurbankSam
» RE: wow
Posted by: crusty
» RE: wow
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Newt on Jan 10, 2006 10:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah crusty, you're right. Just be sure when you do have a kid, that you give your wife plenty of good loving, private time and foot rubs!
My only real problem with the whole debate is that there is a definite environmental component–we simply cannot afford to keep consuming resources at such a breakneck pace. I am pro-child in the sense that I believe in the right of a person to grow up and live in a world free of pesticides, contaminated food & water, dirty asthma-causing air and other toxic substances. I also believe in the right of non-human animals to live in undeveloped habitats. Anyone reproducing beyond the replacement rate (2 kids per couple) should forfeit their tax breaks.
All I can say is if you plan to be a parent, really try to make the world a better place for everyone's kids, not just your own.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: sln70 on Jan 10, 2006 11:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "not enough food argument" - total bollocks. There's enough food, just not enough political will to distribute fairly.
The "we work longer hours" argument - I don't even see this as true, from my life experience.. but let's say it IS. That also means that you get the promotions faster. AND let's face it, the 'longer hours' part only means for paid work. Parents work 24/7 for 18 odd years.
The "there are too many people" argument - not really. There's a LOT of land out there.
The "this world sucks" argument. - It always HAS sucked, but, according to my grandfather who lived through WWII and the depression - every part of life is better now than it was back in the day
The "parents are creating great greedy soul-sucking monsters" argument - are YOU a soul-sucking consumption machine? Not all parents want the entire toy-r-us stock in their homes.
Now the other side..
The "but kids give meaning to your life" argument - utter tripe. If you had no meaning, kids are not going to manufacture it.
The "being childless is selfish" argument - in what way? Because the child-free don't have to change diapers and they get to stay our late for weeks at a time or put extra effort into their carreers? It's not selfishness that's spotted.. it's envy on the part of parents who HAVE given up so many freedoms.
The "you owe it to your community" argument. - Oh yeah, just what we need - people who don't want to have kids having kids. This sounds like a pro-life argument to me, and it gives me the heebie-jeebies.
and that's it in a nutshell. Nobody is right to force their opinion on this onto anyone else!!! It's a personal preference, akin to arguing whether or not blondes have more fun!
:)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Arguments Disected
Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Arguments Disected
Posted by: Paul D
» RE: Arguments Disected
Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: Arguments Disected
Posted by: sln70
» Hey, Even-Steven
Posted by: decembrist
» RE: Hey, Even-Steven
Posted by: sln70
» But--
Posted by: bettsoff
» To Dissect the Dissector
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: To Dissect the Dissector
Posted by: sln70
» RE: To Dissect the Dissector
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: To Dissect the Dissector
Posted by: sln70
» RE: To Dissect the Dissector
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bl on Jan 10, 2006 11:28 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: blondelady
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: blondelady
Posted by: liberalibrarian
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Jan 10, 2006 11:30 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In fact, there are benefits and drawbacks to any major decision in life. Selfishness is perhaps a matter of relativity. If a person has children in order to ensure that he or she has someone to care for him or her in later life, that can be construed as selfish. If a person just really loves kids and has 6 or 8 of them, that's also probably incredibly selfish considering the state of the ecology. But if a person decides not to have children, it doesn't matter what the motive is. There will not be a damaged child of parents who had a baby for the "wrong" reason. Selfishness is irrelevant for the child-free - at least in this context.
I would have loved about 8 kids myself. My family is child oriented, and I am a product of that attitude. But I believe that no one should ever, ever have a child without a true desire for a family. And I only had 2 because, in spite of what I wanted, I believe that each person only has the "right" to reproduce himself or herself one time. This is not a religious attitude, but a pragmatic one. I believe the earth is too crowded, resources are too scarce, and a certain restraint is required.
All too often, we judge who we are by the things we hate or don't want to do. (People who don't like sports or don't like opera, for example, seem to think that these dislikes are virtues.) Being childfree or bearing children should not be a matter of virtue. The childfree who call parents "crotch droppers" or whatever are turning their childfree choice into a virtue, as parents are if they denigrate the decision not to have children.
One of the odd things about some people who don't have children and seem to dislike children so much is that they appear to forget that they were children once themselves. It's not like they sprang fully grown from the head of a greek god. They should have a certain respect for children as small human beings, not as some kind of alien intruders. (This obviously does not apply to all the childfree.)
(continued in next post)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: LeeAnnG on Jan 10, 2006 11:31 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And, finally, there are undoubtedly places where children are not, and should not, be welcome. Bars, adult entertainment centers, and other inappropriate venues are some examples. But to say that children should not be in restaurants or planes or other public places is somewhat arrogant. If you don't want to be around children, eat at home. Kids are human beings. All adults were once children. All human beings should have standards of public behavior including adults. But we are a society, and society of necessity includes children. They are the next generation, they will inherit our norms and customs, they will form their values and behavioral guidelines from our treatment of them and of each other.
Tolerance, self-fulfillment, and an understanding that we are all in this together are needed for this issue, just as they are in most aspects of life.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: LeeAnnG
Posted by: Newt
» RE: LeeAnnG
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jasonix on Jan 10, 2006 11:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: arly christianity discouraged child-bearing: Jasonix
Posted by: Basenjis
» RE: arly christianity discouraged child-bearing: Jasonix
Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: arly christianity discouraged child-bearing
Posted by: BurbankSam
Comments are closed-
Posted by: shadowhawk on Jan 10, 2006 11:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Babies are fine and good when the couple (yes, couple) are financially and emotionally stable and have planned on the baby. Too often, these babies are unplanned for and unwanted. It's unfair to all involved, especially the child.
I'd rather see the unwanted embryo aborted than born into a world where it will likely be neglected and abused.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: esponsibility
Posted by: sln70
» RE: esponsibility
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: esponsibility
Posted by: sln70
» RE: esponsibility
Posted by: YogiBear
» What About the Hunting Thread?
Posted by: decembrist
» RE: What About the Hunting Thread?
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: What About the Hunting Thread?
Posted by: owleyes
» ^
Posted by: decembrist
» RE: esponsibility
Posted by: drmeow
» RE: esponsibility
Posted by: Basenjis
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zsmith on Jan 10, 2006 12:00 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Its a trick
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Its a trick
Posted by: Ruby
» RE: Its a trick
Posted by: chocolate
» RE: Its a trick
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tgabriel on Jan 10, 2006 12:18 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have heard the arguments people with children make that their children will pay my social security when I retire childless. For that I thank them.
Now, I would like their thanks for the enormous contribution I have made in both income and property taxes that went to the education of those children so they can have good jobs and pay lots of social security taxes when I retire.
My wife and I, much to the annoyance of some of our acquaintances with children, see ourselves as a complete family.
Not speaking for my wife, I can say without reservation I am very glad I chose not to have children. I have not missed the experience one whit.
I have observed among many of the folks I know who are parents they seem to not have had any choices when it came to procreation. The sad thing to me is that since they bowed to some sort of pressure to have those children, now they are letting other people raise them. Almost as soon as their children are out of the womb they are in day care so the parents (?) can resume their pre-child activities.
Odd behavior to me...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Child Free 25 years
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Child Free 25 years
Posted by: BurbankSam
» RE: Child Free 25 years
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Child Free 25 years
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: Child Free 25 years
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Child Free 25 years
Posted by: BurbankSam
» RE: Child Free 25 years
Posted by: Newt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: bettsoff on Jan 10, 2006 12:24 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope you're happy.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: midge on Jan 10, 2006 12:26 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That being said, I agree with comments others have made that there are a good deal of people out there who don't really have a choice in the matter, and we should focus on alleviating and perhaps even eliminating the underlying social problems associated with it, so that everyone can make a choice that they're happy and comfortable with.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: impolitedinnerguest on Jan 10, 2006 1:04 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, yes, it makes sense biologically to reproduce. But I can't help but think it's somewhat selfish to want to have a child for purely emotional reasons. Why create a new child to love when there are so many children out there who need love and care so desperately? I think we should become parents for the sake of the children, not for our own emotional satisfaction. I'm not advocating everyone only adopting, but wouldn't it help if people with multiple children decided to adopt one or two?
(Yes, it would!)
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: What's really selfish?
Posted by: owleyes
» RE: What's really selfish?
Posted by: impolitedinnerguest
» RE: What's really selfish?
Posted by: owleyes
Comments are closed-
Posted by: originalbranek on Jan 10, 2006 1:07 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Whiners
Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Whiners
Posted by: originalbranek
» RE: Whiners
Posted by: YogiBear
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jwg on Jan 10, 2006 1:16 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Gene pool
Posted by: chocolate
Comments are closed-
Posted by: truthteller on Jan 10, 2006 1:23 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You know, I pay into a retirement plan that supports current retirees, and future employees will pay into my retirement (if the companies and the neo-con fascists don't do away with just about all retirement plans). I work a lot of hours and save significantly more money than probably 90% of all Americans (no Beamer or latte machines for me). So, I don't have any qualms about future workers suppoting me. In older culture communities this same function is accomplished by the entire community supporting and revering the aged, a process that we seem to keep forgetting.
I agree that there are too many people in the world, and I resent being called selfish by people who have kids they expect the rest of the world to support. I don't have a problem with working sometimes to give those with families a day off. I would just as soon work Christmas, since I really don't have anywhere else to go (being an Atheist as well - hey I'm a triple threat to the fundis - Godless, Commie [not] and Child-free, take that you fascist bastards!) I know that I'm at the top of the list of the thought police when they start coming to take away the dissenters.
I think one of the best ads for remaining childfree is the 3 part "Frontline" running this week called "Country Boys", about a couple of typical, dysfunctional, white-trash teenage boys in rural KY that are headed for lives of alcholism, poverty, early marriage and lots of equally dysfunctional, parasitic kids. The one kids Father is an unemployed, alcoholic with terminal Cirrhosis, lives in a trailer; and the other lives with a Grandmother because his Father murdered his stripper Stepmother (on-stage, no-less!), and then shot himself. These are the very people who need to breed less.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Childfree and happy about it
Posted by: Newt
» RE: Childfree and happy about it
Posted by: Epicurienne
» RE: Childfree and happy about it
Posted by: truthteller
» RE: Childfree and happy about it
Posted by: wren6
» Childfree and happy about it (rest of post)
Posted by: wren6
Comments are closed-
Posted by: zumme on Jan 10, 2006 1:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Childfree impact on demography
Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Childfree impact on demography
Posted by: zumme
» RE: Childfree impact on demography
Posted by: kittynboi
» Adoption is the option here.
Posted by: Monde
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Moosehead on Jan 10, 2006 1:38 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is but one of the many things anti-abortion people just don't get about humanity: Until (if ever) you want a child, you're not doing any favors to society (or the child, or God, or whoever) by creating a life that you, in your heart, do not want to care for. Parenting is damn hard work, and if you're not thoroughly committed, you simply won't have the patience, kindness, discipline, or sense of humor you need to raise another human being.
And yet: for that bit of appreciation, I expect some reciprocation from the child-free for my efforts as a parent. Yes, they still need to pay taxes for public education. Yes, they have to try and understand why I need flex time, as I also to work my ass off at my job, to give my kid extra care when he needs it. It's called a civilized, educated society. And it depends on that very kind of quid pro quo and tolerance.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: I kid you not
Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: I kid you not
Posted by: Newt
» Speaking for myself--
Posted by: bettsoff
Comments are closed-
Posted by: nodaklibrul on Jan 10, 2006 1:56 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Funny. Being in a childfree marriage, I always felt that the people with children are "more than happy" to let my spouse and me work longer hours, pay higher taxes, and subsidize their children's education to ease their procreation.
Seriously, the conflict is one of commitment vs. obligation. Obligation is something that can be forced upon people externally. Commitment is something that comes from inside -- it is much deeper and stronger.
Many in this society are brought up to believe that, whether they are suited or not, they simply must marry and procreate because that is their obligation. Many of these people view any other "choice" as an easy way out -- like ducking an obligation.
Some people choose to have children and make that choice after serious reflection and weighing of the consequences. They are truly committed to the responsibilities of raising children, not out of some external societal or religious obligation, but because they have internally come to terms with accepting the responsibilities.
Their are also people, like me, who have seriously weighed the consequences of having children given our own goals, strengths, and weaknesses. I made a childfree choice not because of selfishness or any dislike for children, but for similar reasons that I would choose not to perform brain surgery on my best friend.
What this entire conflict points to is the schism that separates this country today. The religious, fundamentalist right wing is trying to force everyone to "live up to your obligations" under the guise of "family values" -- as long as it's the fundies definition of obligations and family values we're forcing on everyone. Those who promote and undertake such obligations are most hostile to those who make other choices.
Liberals and progressives, however, are aware that commitment does not come easily. One must fight for it and agonize over it. Choice is far from the easy way out. Of course, it would be simplistic to say that we should ignore all of our obligations. We should, however, be extremely wary of the agenda of those promoting them.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: drmeow on Jan 10, 2006 2:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Newt on Jan 10, 2006 2:25 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And a lot of my male friends have secretly confided that they don't/didn't want kids, but only caved in to appease their wives/girlfriends. A few are divorced. My boyfriend's co-workers are envious that he can "skip this obligation."
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Grateful
Posted by: sln70
» RE: Grateful
Posted by: Newt
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Newt on Jan 10, 2006 2:29 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lunasol on Jan 10, 2006 2:52 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't really feel any need to have my own little bundle of joy, but if my husband wanted one, I'd certainly be on board with starting a family. But it turns out he felt the same way. So with neither one of us really feeling the biological or psychological urge to procreate, we decided to take the radical step to NOT have children. I mean, really, why should we? We're Westerners -- we're already using more than our allotted share of the Earth's resources. Why bring along another person to use up even more. Neither one of us managed to follow the proscribed conservative plan of avoiding poverty through financial inheritence, so we would not be able to provide our children with all the things they'd really need to compete at high levels in this day and age, no matter how much we sacrificed. And neither one of us is royalty, a genius or anything special, so it's not like our genetic line really needs passing on to a next generation.
The argument I hear the most for having children goes something like this, "I never knew what a rich and rewarding experience having children would provide." Well, I don't doubt that. But experiences are subjective, and those people have no way to understanding how rich and rewarding my life is for not having children. It's not better, not worse, just different and that can be equally good.
Not having children gives me the opportunity to do more for my community than I could if I had them. I give what money I can to children's programs and scholarships. I happily pay higher taxes that will ensure better schools and benefits for children in the inner city where I live. I watch out for the kids on my street, babysit for neighbors and relatives, volunteer for programs for families, and try to keep in my what I want to leave for the next generation. I adore children. And they don't have to be mine for me to love. That's what not having children has given me.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment:
