I'm sure that this already exists, but it seems like this site needs a dating service option. I am child free and not looking to help put a bun in the oven. Last girlfriend lied to me saying that she couldn't conceive, later telling me it was a lie so she could get pregnant. Luckily that didn't happen.
On review, I suppose I could see myself a father some day, but I'm pretty darn ok with never having one.
I have nothing against choosing to not have children, but christ on a pogo stick, sites like this piss me off. I think that if I can accept others' choice to go childless, they could accept my choice and avoid calling me a breeder (to-be).
This site in particular, while quite adorable in name and tone generally, has a few especially frustrating aspects. For example, in the "news roundup" section, a kid who killed his mom is given as a reason to not have kids. Because yes, that happens so often. And a reply to a proposal to have preferred parking spots for pregnant woman is from Free Republic, and is the most misogynist piece of trash I've read in a while, suggesting that women should have just kept their legs shut in the first place. Give me a fucking break.
I also really hate the attitude that childless adults are taking on extra tax burdens to pay for things "they'll never use", like schools, or child tax benefits. Do they ever get ill? If kids aren't well-educated, who will be the next doctors? Do they ever need legal advice? (And one article describes setting up power of attorney) - who will be the next lawyers? Do they like having government pensions? If no one new is paying in, where will the money come from? I know these arguments are overused against childfree adults, but I'm not trying to use it against the choice - I still think that everyone contributes in their own way and being childfree offers alternative benefits to society - but I do use it against the idea that people don't get anything back from contributing to the pool of money beyond what is specific to them. We all benefit and use resources in ways we don't and can't imagine - it's so naive to suggest that other people's children will have no value to your life.
Just my two cents; awfully sorry to go off like this.
Livii, if you were a non-breeder and had to deal with a mommie-centric world and set of expectations, you might understand our venom. We are cranky in turn from constant societal pressure to drop a set of sprogs. As if it was our fucking duty to overcrowd the world further. Append your favorite racist "too many brown people, too many stupid people" argument here - I've heard them all.
To every parent who is committed to doing a good job: I salute you, and I fully support you. Merely do me the favor in turn of respecting my choice not to sire or rear children. Y'all wouldn't like the results if I did, I assure you.
Completely agree with you on the tax thing. It's incomparably stupid.
>>a kid who killed his mom is given as a reason to not have kids
i thought that was hilarious, and i'm sure it was meant as such. i always toss in that comment whenever a parent complains about children vomiting or not sleeping or constantly being sick or whatever -- it's just a humorous phrase we childfree folks use.
i totally respect couples (or singles, for that matter) who choose to have babies, more power to you. that said, it's also slightly annoying when we have to pick up the slack at work for parents who must stay home with sick kids, or who must take off work to attend recitals, etc.
my boss is very cool about it, probably because she's childfree herself. whenever one of my pets needs to go to the vet, she allows me to take time off to do so.
LET THE FLAMING BEGIN RE: "PETS ARE NOT BABIES!"
heh.
anyway, i just thought it's a fun site, and i think the humor there isn't being mean, just being silly. IMHO.
Good points livii.
On the other hand, my brother-in-law has had to travel for his job every month this year, specifically because his colleagues have kids but he doesn't. Shitty company policies aside, those without kids are often requested/expected to pick up the slack of those who do. And of course you can't say no. Who would say no to helping a colleague with a sick kid? After awhile though, it can grate on the nerves.
On preview, sorry, didn't mean to pile on.
livii, I have to second goetter's comments. as the female half of a very happily child-free marriage, I get so pissed off by the constant questioning of my decision, as though it just weren't really possible that a woman wouldn't want to have a baby (no one questions my husband's decision.)
the fact is that when you chose to have children, no one hounds you with questions, concerns, and outright denials of the validity of your decision. (well, I would, but I am obnoxious that way.)
I have had many people respond to my innocuous decision not to reproduce by telling me that actually I do want to have a baby. they don't say "you don't want to have children?" they say "oh, you want to have a baby, you know you do" often followed by the sickening phrase about finding the right man. well I certainly don't have to worry that anyone would ever think that of my hub HAHA. but its really really annoying to have to reitierate constantly a decision that no more needs to be questioned than any other highly personal decision.
not to rant, but its a real sore point with me, particularly as I personally find the desire to have children UTTERLY foreign, incomprehensible and sickening, but I keep my big mouth shut around my friends/family who have kids or plan to spawn.
livii: no need to apologize. I thought the exact same thing as I browsed the site. These people (the site contributors, not all childless folks) think their child-free status is something they need to fly like a flag, and it seems they feel more than a little superior to "breeders".
This is all more about insulting children and parents than celebrating their choice.
I think we can all agree that having children or not having children are equally valid choices, and that no matter what, supporting schools and children are a good idea (to support the future for us all, and to try at least try to pretend we live in a meritocracy by evening out disparity of opportunity). I love children; I also know I'm not ready to have them, since I love giving them back to their parents even more. Yay for kids, and yay for not-kids!
You choose to have a kid? cool
You choose not to have a kid? cool
I had a kid an love it, but I have no issue at all if you choose not to have one.
Not everyone needs to have a child.
What's driving me and my wife nuts now is that everyone is now telling us we have to have more then one.
My answer tends to be shut up and mind your own business.
People have such a hard time understanding free will.
Yay for kids, and yay for not-kids!
Well, that's hardly any way to tell people to fuck right off!
You toffee-nosed, malodorous pervert!!
that's better, petebest.
Heh, nothing to get the childfree and the childed riled up like actually discussing the choice. Because of course, everybody else's choices are nothing but an indictment of yours. I prescribe random kittens for everybody as a cool-off measure.
(Me: Childfree, happy, doesn't mind paying school taxes, have beaten all relatives into submission on the issue, wistfully wishes she could talk to female friends without hearing stories about epidurals and episiotomies at the table, and quite amused by the site.)
Medusa, the nonreproducing women definitely have it worse, yes.
The only good thing about my spouse's endometriosis and subsequent hysterectomy is that it made a certain segment of the population STFU on our choice not to reproduce. We could always play the "I would love children... but... but... I'M BARREN" [violins, sobbing] card. Which would be of course mega obnoxious and manipulative, but lo! it was in the arsenal, and folks knew it.
Loki: STFU&MYOB is a pretty good mantra for life.
Last girlfriend lied to me saying that she couldn't conceive, later telling me it was a lie so she could get pregnant.
Brrr. I know two other similar stories. Both ended in pregnancies.
hurray for immlass!
Whatever choice people make in regards to having kids is their business.
But I do chuckle reading sites like this, wondering if any of the participants think about the fact that if their parents shared the same view...
I can't but think of the apocalyptical fanatics we all love to hate, those who believe the end's right around the corner and so there's no reason for any sort of environmental regulations, etc. We're offended, I think, because they make like they have no interest in the earth's future, that the only think the matters is themselves, here and now. That's what's grating about childfree advocates-- if you've got an interest in what happens with the earth after you're dead (and even before) then you must have an interest in the next generation. And sure, some people might decide against having their own children because they think they'd make unfit parents, but most of them seem like they'd be better than the average yahoo. Overpopulation also seems to me a red herring. No one's starving except where the problem is distribution, not production. I suppose you could put it down to general misanthropy, but any way you cut it it seems ugly to me.
I'm not anti-child, just anti-child right now. I'm 28, working on a grad degree, and enjoying my twenties to thier fullest. Even if I hold out past my biological ability, I know I can always adopt. My friends and family know of my situation and of my plans, yet still they hound me about having a child. I understand the frustration of the childfree- and think the humor of this website is a great way to vent.
exppii, there is really only one point that needs to be taken into consideration: choice (ah! that lovely word)
"every child a wanted child" should be more than just a fantasy
I like the stationery section of the site. The "I'm not having a baby!" shower invitations should come in handy eventually, after my "I'm not getting married!" shower and my color-coordinated "This is not a wedding!" gala event.
The best comeback I've heard came from a couple of newlyweds I know:
Nosy Lady to Newlyweds: "So, when are you two going to have kids?"
New Wife: "Er, um..."
New Husband: "We're not. I prefer just to leave a stain on the bed."
End of conversation.
That's what's grating about childfree advocates-- if you've got an interest in what happens with the earth after you're dead (and even before) then you must have an interest in the next generation.
Or an interest in there not being a next generation, because humans have fucked this planet right up.
But I do chuckle reading sites like this, wondering if any of the participants think about the fact that if their parents shared the same view...
My mom told me that if she had to do it over again, she would not have had kids. You'd think that would have shocked me or made me angry, but it didn't. I am here, and despite her not being the "maternal" type, I turned out OK. I think it was a combination of unacknowledged depression and societal pressure that lead her to believe that she didn't really have a choice in having kids.
Overpopulation also seems to me a red herring. No one's starving
That's the anti-Malthusian argument. My quality of life line, however, I draw well before starving. By the time snowshoe hare population dynamics kicked in, it would be far too late from my vantage point: the world would be completely deforested, save for boreal and alpine climes, and under massive cultivation. Fewer people = more lebensraum. I loves me my lebensraum.
(It simultaneously amuses and annoys me to see European governments and economists panicking about falling national birthrates. At some point they'll have to beard that lion in its den. Today the world is built atop inflation.)
Derail, sorry. Again, I'm absolutely not telling anybody not to rear children. Rearing children is both necessary and good. Just not universally.
I thought the site was pretty funny. Both myself and my girlfriend don't want children (thank God, I've had relationships go south, in part because of my views on this).
Ultimately though, I frankly can't stand the little bastards, whether they be family or random shits on the train/store/etc. If it's smaller than me and not covered in fur, i.e. a dog or cat, I don't want to know from it.
That said, by no means do I think that people who want/have children are evil or misguided or anything remotely like that. Just keep 'em away from me as much as possible, and quiet when they're around me, and nobody gets a Tickle Me Elmo jammed into their chest cavity. 'nuff said.
I thought this was damn funny. My grandmother is so desperate for me to get pregnant she tried to encourage me to have an affair with a friend whose wedding I was traveling to, with rationalizations like "Well, you've always liked him" and "no one needs to know it was him." Un-fucking-believeable. I don't even let on that I'm dating, let alone introduce a boyfriend to my family, but it doesn't seem to discourage them. Thursday will be six hours of nonstop baby pushing. My brother has been vehemently opposed to having children his entire life (member of Zero Population Growth, Voluntary Extinction, etc., favorite hat says "Thank You For Not Breeding"), but they're still hoping he'll have an "accident".
When I was director of HR, I saw the statistics on how people with children make like 20% more than people without children? So I fired all the people with children, hired all people without children, cut payroll by 20% (not to mention the HUGE cut in benefits) and was made CFO later that week.
Do they ever get ill? If kids aren't well-educated, who will be the next doctors? Do they ever need legal advice? (And one article describes setting up power of attorney) - who will be the next lawyers? Do they like having government pensions? If no one new is paying in, where will the money come from? I know these arguments are overused against childfree adults,
Not only are they overused, they make entirely no sense.
First, a thousand dollars a year in tax credit to be spent (or not) on your kids won't make the difference between a doctor and a gangbanger. I'll chip in for the public schools, but the tax break just makes no sense.
Second, people don't need economic incentives to have kids. There's already enough societal pressure, not to mention built-in arrogance, neediness, boredom and the like to foster a healthy enthusiasm for child birth. Look, people have kids because they want to have kids, not because they want to do us all a big favor.
Third, social security is already messed up and not going to last through the next 50 years whether we like it or not. And this has way more to do with the baby boom than the falling birth rate.
Don't get me wrong, kids are cool, and I'll probably have some someday, but I'm comfortable with the fact that I'll be having them for entirely selfish reasons. Otherwise I'd adopt.
I always tell people that for me, babies are like motorcycles. In the abstract, I can see why someone might want one. I, however, do not.
They used to counter this by saying "You'll feel different when you're older!" Luckily, they gave up on that line after I turned 30.
I guess my biological clock never got wound up, because I've known ever since I was a little kid that I'd never want to bear children. Shrug.
It is interesting to see this discussion. I can empathise to some degree with the constant irritant of being prodded to have children, since in my first marriage my wife didn't want any. At work, with acquaintances, from her parents, she'd get urged to have kids. The tone was smug and knowing in a completely unhelpful way, "You just don't know you want kids". It was unpleasant, and I wish people wouldn't do that.
A large part of the reason we got divorced is that I did want kids, but I knew that pressuring her into it was simply not the right thing to do. I got tired of pretending that I didn't want them, essentially.
On the other hand, in my second marriage, we do have kids. One of the big things I looked for when dating again was desire/ability to be a great mom. I ended up marrying a woman with a six-year-old, we've had a bio-child since then, and are just now finishing adopting a baby from China (travelling in two weeks.)
Sites like this are irrelevant to me at this stage in my life. I really don't care if people choose not to have children. They are free in that choice, and I will never second-guess that. The thing is that they'll never get what some of the more foolish of them seem to want, which appears to be that those us who do have children should carry all financial costs for our own children, and also for them in their old age. They will not succeed in this because they aren't a significant political force. I submit that they never will be. Selfish people (and remember, I'm talking about the foolish people who think they shouldn't have to support any child choices by members of society) are just not very good at working with others to achieve a common end.
Stripped of all the mollifying arguments about the benefit of paying for education for our children, the stark truth is that there are more of us than there are of selfish-don't-wanna-pay-no-tax people and we force them to carry the burden of what we have decided is the public good. We don't really have to convince anyone that they should pay taxes to this end, because we vastly outweigh their voice. I think that's where some of the anger comes from on sites like this. Child-oriented society can simply refuse the debate, get its way, and that must sting to the more short-sighted of them.
If sites like this were simply support networks for people tired of being told what lifestyle they must follow, they'd be more interesting and attractive. As it is, the foolish calls for "fairness" drive me and others like me away.
and are just now finishing adopting a baby from China (travelling in two weeks.)
Really? Me too! 2 weeks to go! Where are you adopting from?
holy smokes, dueling adoptive china babies!
Jiangxi, Nanchang, Guixi SWI. Packing lists abound! Match group Oct 15. Travel authorization Dec 11.
Her chinese name "HuiYao" means (really, I'm serious, a friend in China translated for me) "Clever rock-and-roll".
Ah, right. I guess I won't be seeing you in Guangzhou, then, where we're picking our little one up on December 5th.
Clever rock-and-roll
Mazing!
invoke, are you sure that all don't-wanna-have-kids are opposed to sharing the tax burden for kid related items?
I, for one, am not. I am happy to have my income & property taxes go towards education, libraries, afterschool programs and other family-related programs. I have worked with children, in both therapeutic and educational milieux, and I very much feel that whether or not one has children, they are the future we will live in when we are old (yikes!) and I for one would prefer that they be literate and fully invested members of society.
Invoke never claimed that. He said, what some of the more foolish of them seem to want.
However, he's holding out. Wolof at least has been kind enough to share pictures of Claire.
medusa, i find the whole "childfree adults are selfish people who don't want their resources used to better the lives of children" argument to be terribly insulting. just because we don't choose to live with them ourselves doesn't mean we don't want the best for them. sheeeeesh.
However, he's holding out.
*starts slow hand-clap*
Yes, invoke, let's see the new baby monkeyfiltarian!
And Clever Rock-and-Roll is the Best Name Ever. (Sorry Wolof.)
Bananas to you both.
Sidedish, thanks so much for the moral support as I rabidly go around savaging every and any monkey who I perceive is attacking or criticising the no-baby position. the issue is one of those big red shiny "don't-push-that!!!" buttons for me.
perhaps I will go take an ativan now
OK. Sheesh.
Clio HuiYao's Referral Pictures
SideDish, I am not arguing that all childfree folks are selfish. My opinion is that the ones who argue use of "their resources" for "my children" are foolish. I think/hope they are in the minority of happy-childfree folks.
Beautiful girl!
Correction, I meant to say "argue against the use" in my previous comment.
Thanks, Wolof. Good luck in China.
When I was director of HR, I saw the statistics on how people with children make like 20% more than people without children? So I fired all the people with children, hired all people without children, cut payroll by 20% (not to mention the HUGE cut in benefits) and was made CFO later that week.
Wow, Fes, are you serious?
Sorry to be late to the thread, but people are sure throwing around some loaded terms. "Childed," "spawn" and "breeder" are simply derogatory. What about KNOCKED UP? Yes, that's right -- what about MY demographic? Oh, and no special treatment for me, either. None at all. I still get dirty looks. (mildly serious)
And invoke and Wolof, you are doing a beautiful thing. Congratulations!
Wow - since becoming a dad I turn to mush at any/all baby pictures. It's really embarrasing, frankly. Congrats invoke and Wolof. (and it's cool, I still dig all you non-breeders...)
Aw...as a non breeder, lemme just say i loooooove babies! and Clever rock and roll is such a cutie patootie!
I guess i'm in the minority...non breeder, doesnt want any, but loves kids and being an aunty...as long as the parents come get the little brat at the end of the day!!!
Not only is there immense social pressure on those who choose not to have kids, but, apparently, you are also a threat to marriage itself. It's worse than the gay, apparently.
I'm with you Ramix. Five nieces, adore 'em all. Kids are great, although I am a little lukewarm on the 2-6 age range. Too much screaming and nosepicking.
What's with you breeders, always with the breeding?
Is that said in a "squidward" (Futurama) voice, Alex?
Her chinese name "HuiYao" means (really, I'm serious, a friend in China translated for me) "Clever rock-and-roll".
Ok, your friend is right - sort of. *guffaw* ahem.
"Hui" is likely the word for "intelligence" (there is another "Hui", identical in sound, but a different word, also commonly used for girls, but its meaning is "benevolence").
"Yao" is the first word in the phrase "Yao-gun" which literally means "Rock and roll". Hence, "Yao" means to "rock back and forth".
However, I kinda doubt that this is the word used in the name, as there are at least two homophonous words which are commonly used for girls: one, which looks quite a bit like the word above, means "precious jade" or "pure white [as it pertains to jade or precious gems]"; the other I can think of looks nothing like the other two words, and means "elegant"*.
*don't mind that it says "handsome" in the explanation first, this term is used for women, especially in poetry.
Sorry for the long explanation. Good luck to you two monkeys! I wish your two daughters, health, wealth and happiness :)
Sorry to have caused so much fuss. I hope it was clear that I wasn't knocking the childfree, just the site for being (IMO) dumb and loaded, and those childfree people who make inane tax arguments (again, there was a link to a book about that on the site, which is what set me off).
I know just how it feels to be pressured into having children, because I get it all the time, too. My lovely, lovely grandma, who I love to bits, was visiting at Thanksgiving. I'd been at a wedding the night before and felt pretty ill the next day. She asked me, confidentially, if I was actually pregnant and just didn't want to tell anyone yet. And I'm planning on having babies! So yeah, I can understand that the childless amongst us may need to sort of stick up for themselves, band together and all that. I just hated the site for making it seem like the better choice, the only *right* choice, and the insults that were slung at the rest of us in the process.
Anyway - the babies on this thread? Teh cuteness! Congrats to both of you! And I want to name something Clever Rock'n'Roll now.
Finally - Fes, I'll have to echo Alex Reynolds:I sincerely hope you were joking. Because you must realize how totally discriminatory that would be? I really hope I'm just not able to pick up on your sense of humour here, because otherwise I'm literally appalled.
(Sorry for the derail)
Thanks for the analysis.
According to my friend, who used to write Chinese textbooks for a living and who has lived in Beijing for 15 years, "Yao" is in common usage to mean "rock-and-roll music". He has seen the actual character, and says that's the one here. However, the origins of the word are really very interesting, thanks. The original translation we got from the orphanage was "Clever Beauty", which is also nice, possibly more technically-and-non-colloquially-accurate but not as fun.
(But really, sorry for the derail)
Ditto on the ?huh Fes? remarks. He must be kidding.
I work in the court system, and believe me, the saddest kids I see are ones whose parent(s) didn't want children, and communicate that very clearly to the child. I applaud people with enough self-awareness to know that parenting isn't for them. It's a hell of a lot more than just having babies or not.
Almost all my friends are child-free (though none hate kids, or I'd have a hard time being friends with them) - I'm the only one of the bunch who fully expects and wants to be a parent someday.
However, no one disrespects anyone else's decision, because we've all discussed it and all know that our reasons are equally valid and informed. Several of my friends have mental and physical issues they wouldn't want to pass on to biological offspring, but still think late adopting would be a possibility. Others know that they just don't want to have the responsibility for a dog, much less a kid, and have considered it fully.
I've been a nanny and know what children actually entail, and I feel my choice is also educated and valid - and so do they. I've had friends tell me they'd be sad if I didn't have kids, because I'd be such a good mom.
But it's a choice I made for myself and myself alone, and it's a choice I made after a lot of thought. I think a lot of the ire from child-free people comes from the fact that a lot of people enter parenthood ill-informed and without having the slightest clue what they're doing - which leads to bratty-ass kids.
However, I would say to people who are child-free only because they don't like the behavior of those screaming kids in the mall: not all kids are like that. You just don't notice the ones that aren't. Being child-free because of some rotten-ass kids is as dumb as breeding because babies are cute.
Fes has kids.
Oh, Fes is always deadly, deadly serious. That's how he became CFO.
Come on, people....
Invoke, thanks for sharing your baby monkey. Get her a coat that fits!
It kind of bugs me I know smart, good people who are committed to not having children, especially when there are so many asshats breeding like rabbits.
Fortunately the people at this site are not contributing to the ranks of the former. Don't breed. No, really, don't breed.
Two of my sisters and many of my friends have declared their lack of desire for babyproducing, and they're all dedicated and loving aunts to my son - although all refused, for some reason, to take part in toileting activities. I have no problem with that. And I know mothers who turn their nose up at grubby hands and fingers in noses. That bugs me.
In other words, I say "meh".
I believe that children are our future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Hmmm Breedfilter.
Even better than 'secret santa"
Secret Sperm Santa? ™
pug, you deserve Alnedra's hammer for that.
"Childed," "spawn" and "breeder" are simply derogatory.
I can see why "spawn" and "breeder" are considered derogatory, but how did we get to "childed" as derogatory? I picked a word that paralleled "child-free" in structure; as far as I know it's not even a term in common parlance among childfree folk.
I try not to be PC enough to whinge when people say child-less even though I understand the urge to lecture ("I'm not less without a child", etc.). It's a legitimate English construction even though I don't like it. Is a dislike of "childed" the same thing? Or is it just an operating assumption--incorrect, as it happens--that any term a childfree person uses that a parent doesn't know is inherently meant to be insulting?
*genuinely curious, not trolling*
rodgerd:
I don't know what Alnedra's hammer is, but nonetheless, I probably do deserve it.
But seriously...I don't fully understand our (meaning the USA's) unhealthy, maudlin obsession with children. It's saccharine, and I think some of oopsiforgottohaveababy.com's content is a reaction to it. I heard George Carlin rant about this subject once: I wish I could remember it better now.
immlass: Your offense at childless reveals only a miunderstanding of the English language.
Rodger needs a tiiiiimeout /singsong
Nobody should be offended at anything. It's a label, a status. It's either "Hey, I'm childed! I have to take the entire week of Thanksgiving off because daycare is closed!" Or it's "You're childed. We won't promote you or invite you to important functions because we know you can't come." It's often damned if you do and damned if you don't.
But people who choose not to be a parent (and to me, that extends this whole "childless" POV) should be accepted and unquestioned. I was in the no children camp until I got KNOCKED UP!!!! Long story, had to make the best of it, and I wouldn't trade it for anything. Still, I think I can see both sides, and I do often find the anti-procreation group a bit strident. Maybe justifiable.
immlass: Your offense at childless reveals only a miunderstanding of the English language.
So are you saying immlass, or society , is guilty of imbuing the word "childless" with a negative connotation? Because I've definitely noticed that when people say "childless" they usually mean it negatively.
I understand the origin of the "-less" (=without) suffix, rodgerd. I was quoting the argument I hear about it, which is a play on words.
The broader argument holds, though, in the sense of people who choose not to have children don't generally want to be defined by something they're not. It's kind of like calling gay folks "not-straight". As peoplefilter says, people who say you're childless generally seem to mean it negatively, either in the sense of "you poor folks who can't" or "you selfish gits who won't". People who don't think of themselves that way get a bit touchy about the terminology.
My experience with strident childfree folks is that they've had either a lot of bad experiences or a particularly bad recent experience with an obnoxious parent. Most of the obnoxious parents I know were also jerks before they had kids, so holding it against the procreation decision seems wrong-headed.
Well, one of the problems is cultural conflict. Too often people who choose not to have children none the less have parents who chose to have children, and this can lead to misunderstandings.
/all in jest
Hey pug, thanks for making me look up "maudlin" in the dictionary. I've always had the definition of it slightly wrong I guess.
From dictionary.com:
Etymology: alteration of Mary Magdalene; from her depiction as a weeping penitent
1 : drunk enough to be emotionally silly
2 : weakly and effusively sentimental
Proud/happy parent though I am, I think there are a lot of maudlin sentiments about children.
*tips hat
Another one who doesn't want kids and I swear if the next person I meet says, "it'll be different once you have one" I'm going to rip off their head! UGH!!! My immediate response to that statement has been and always be, "if I'm right will you adopt them?" I dont go around pushing my position on people I don't understand why they have to push their opinion on me.
ps: Sure we're supposed to reproduce to keep the species going but everyone else is doing a bang up job I don't need to get involved :)
I totally understand that there's a lot of social and familial pressure to have kids with a lot of blatant disaproval if one chooses not to (especially for women). I mean, I don't understand it from experience, really, even though I'm childless. But when I hear the anger and hostility from this crowd, I try really hard to understand where they're coming from.
But the problem I have is a couple of things. First, the rightful hostility against those who pressure the childless to have kids becomes hostility to everyone that has kids. That comes out with a general criticism of the decision to have kids, ridicule of it, terms like "breeder", etc. That's just answering an injustice with another injustice.
The second problem I have—which is more emotional and nonrational—is with hostility expressed against children, like debaser's comment above. That gets my hackles up probably from an instinctive desire to protect children. I get that someone may not like kids, and I can accept that intellectually, but vehemenent expressions of it are provocative to me.
Dang, no one has ever encouraged me to have kids. No one even kept me from the clinic door when I went for an abortion. I must smell, or something. Or perhaps I grew up in a civic and family atmosphere in which people around me figured it was my own decision!
I think I understand baby lust when I stop by the pound and see doomed puppies. I want all that puppy goodness, I want it bad. But I chose abandoned full-grown dogs who have flourished under my care, and I may well be a foster parent some day, for one of those tons of humans that stopped getting cared for when they got all inconvienient and shit. Or, maybe not.
Although my wife and I do plan to have children at some point, I've always considered "When are you going to have children?" to be an annoyingly intrustive question. So, I always answer "Not for another nine months, at least". It gets a laugh, and defuses the question enough that one can then change the subject fairly quickly.
This line is probably less effective with a pressuring-grandma-type, who might mistake it for a serious answer. But I've found it to be a good way of dealing with nosy strangers.
Also, I would like to agree with everybody else that Clever Rock-And-Roll is (a) adorable, and (b) the best-named-baby ever.
Pets are babies, by the way.
I am grateful always for having a family that doesn't expect me to pump out the next installment in the line for them. And never did. I guess they figured that their own kids turned out okay, and don't expect me to produce a do-over.
I'd never have kids because I don't have infinite patience, and I would hate to lose my temper once and create one of those fucked-up souls who goes through life hating themselves and hating everything. ...y'know, another me. I'd rather the people with no character flaws do the impossible job of creating new people. (Not new bodies. Anyone can do that. New people, ideally without emotional damage.)
Though I do feel irritation at people who don't pay attention to their kids and raise them to be the sort of hellions that grow up to be horrid adults (surprise, the parents are often just as obnoxious), the sort of strident hate that people equate with "childfree" is not the whole story. These are the PeTAs / Jerry Falwells of the group. They are shrill and make the rest of us look bad, and by no means represent everyone.
It's that I don't like obnoxious people. Even if they're young. We're expected to think the Junior League of Obnoxious People are kyoooooooot and pwecious just because they're short and young, but... no. Sorry. You don't get a pass from me to be obnoxious just because you're new at it. In those cases I will blame the parents, not the kid, but I still, sorry, don't like the kid.
That's one half of the twofold resentment people tend to carry. The other is the "You're worthless to your family/spouse unless you crank out the kids" mentality, which basically devalues you as a person, in my opinion. Not that having kids is devaluing, not in the slightest. But saying that you are worthless/defective/deficient unless you do x is horrible, no matter what x is.
done now.
amen, kitfisto!
re: childless vs. childfree, in my mind at least "childless" are those folks who want but don't have/can't have children; "childfree" are those folks who choose not to have children.
i think the two words are a good way to differentiate in a quick way.
Just thought I would post these twoarticles (first from the Southern Baptists, second from National Review) on the deliberate selfishness of childfree folks. The second article is more indirect, but talks about the natural purposes of sexuality in ways that indict childfree folks as a step along the way to gay marriage and other horrors. *rolls eyes*
Some of the childfree activist folks are pretty bad (Wurwilf is dead on with the PETA analogy), but the crankitude about the childfree here, as annoying as it might be, is nothing compared to the folks who believe the stuff in the two articles I linked.
"every child a wanted child" should be more than just a fantasyYES!
and every dog/cat/pet wanted, also
Clever Rock-and-Roll is Precious Jade, indeed, Invoke.
Way to go, Wolof and Invoke. The world needs more loving parents. (You don't have to have a baby to be a loving parent, and having a baby doesn't automatically make you a loving parent.)
You guys wanna discuss something? Well discuss THIS:
I believe manditory contraception should be introduced at age 11 and not revoked until a person has been proven to be emotionally and financially able to care for a child.
/sproglover
I ♥ GramMa.
I believe manditory contraception should be introduced at age 11 and not revoked until a person has been proven to be emotionally and financially able to care for a child.
That is a damned good idea. I only wish most countries would be forward-looking enough to see that. Asking teenagers not to experiment in sex when every single medium around them is steeped in it (adverts, MTV, movies, TV, music etc...), is like asking a dog not to root through the trash when you've put him in a garbage yard.
Humans are not dogs, true; but I think humans are just as vulnerable to their baser instincts at times.
/derailing rant
Let me get this straight. You *approve* of the state regulating and controlling the reproductive rights of its citizens? Even to the extreme of denying that right to those it deems unfit to be parents?
Scary.
...you trust most people to make responsible and intelligent decisions? That's also scary.
There's no simple way out of it, which is why it's a problem.
I am extremely uncomfortable with giving the State the universal power to regulate reproductive rights. However, having had a couple o' bio-kids, and then going through the adoption process, I can say that there is something very good about going through the hoops. Everyone would gain something if prior to having a child, they took the time to answer along with their partner questions such as: why you want a kid, how you plan to raise that kid, what your plans for punishment are, what role religion plays in your life, where you plan to house the child, and who is the designated guardian of the child if you should both die.
We both grew more than expected by answering the questions. Happily, we are very much on the same page about the answers. Others ... not so much. Perhaps those people and their children-in-potential shouldn't go ahead until they work those issues out in a satisfactory way.
Now, the State forcing that option, no. Maybe there could be an incentive though. Tax exemptions for people who do it, cheaper state college, something. Carrot rather than stick.
the fact is that when you chose to have children, no one hounds you with questions, concerns, and outright denials of the validity of your decision. (well, I would, but I am obnoxious that way.)
Annoying thing number one about every one of these sites I've perused is people saying "I'm just asking for people to respect my decisions" and then displaying utter respect for others. Calling children sprogs, mothers moos, talking smack about "breeders" and "spawning..." Yes, you certainly have a lot to teach me about respecting the opinions of others. Am I the only one who gets the feeling that 99% of this venom basically begins and ends with the fact that these individuals are being mercilessly hounded by their family members? Listen, I'm real sorry gramma won't stop busting your chops about makin' babies but it's NOT my problem.
personally find the desire to have children UTTERLY foreign, incomprehensible and sickening
the other thing that annoys me about a lot of the child-free types is they act like they're seizing some kind of moral high ground in their decision not to contribute to overpopulation or whatever, when in fact they just don't want kids. Which is fine, great, super, superb, I wish everybody who didn't truly want children would decide thusly - but get off the high horse about saving the planet. Its not the REAL reason you aren't having children.
Late coming back, but yeah, I was kidding about the firing people with kids, sorry.
I don't work in HR, I'm in marketing :D
bwahahahahhahahahahahahahahaa!!!
and yes, I have kids. Young "Beastie" Rabban and little Feyd-Rautha! Such scamps they are.
But in general, I'm sort of surprised that this thread has generated so much discussion? People who want kids have kids, people who don't, don't; grandmothers and ignoramuses on both sides ask idiot questions - it's not exactly a media-alertable thing. If some of you don't want to have kids? None of my beeswax. If I have kids and take care of them properly? None of your beeswax. Casting aspersions on the other side for making the choice says more about the caster than the castee, I think.
Having just read this on Mefi today, I now absolutely worship Wolof and invoke! Hope I haven't stepped on either one's toes by linking that, but...
Something to remember is that sites like these aren't general sites and exist as a venting place for the like-minded. Given the level of frustration that a lot of folks have on this issue, I think that's understandable. Being not like-minded and going to the site and being offended is really just not right: in a sense, you weren't invited and they weren't talking to you, they were talking to themselves.
On the other hand, when these strong, angry sentiments are expressed to the general population, like here, then the childfree are out-of-line, I think. Because, as nanojath says, they may have a rightful grudge against grandma and National Review, but probably not against all parents and all people that don't see things your way.
path, the bucket-of-water story is true. My Chinese teacher in secondary school (born in Beijing yonks ago), told us it was customary in villages to have a bucket of water next to the birthing bed. If the child was a girl, the midwife would just drop her into the bucket.
I am sure glad my great-grandparents decided to emigrate to Singapore. One of my great-grandads had six daughters, most of whom might not have survived back in China.
While I do adore children and admire anyone who has the courage and fortitude to have them, I also sympathise with my friends who have married but choose to remain childless. More than just the tedium of handling repetitive questioning, there is a strong implication by family and friends that a couple who doesn't want children is somehow abnormal, wrong in the head.
I don't think that either position of having or not-having children is morally superior; however, many child-free couples do have their reasons and justifications, which may come across as defensive or as holier-than-thou in the delivery. Or perhaps some do genuinely think their decision not to beget offspring is a moral decision, rendering them superior to 'breeders'. I wouldn't know. But I'd like to think that by-and-large, most people who choose rationally to remain without children, do not feel that parents are somehow morally or intellectually inferior beings.
...her Chinese name HuiYao...
What a lovely little girl, invoke!
It's a provocative argument that males be snipped and their semen fridged so that they couldn't unintentionally impregnate someone.
Carl Djerassi, one of the fellas who can claim to have made the birth control pill, has proposed to do just that, with the US army as a test case.
It's interesting, the notion that men could stop causing unwanted pregnancy, yet still impregnate. It sure would stop a lot of worry on women's part; it would eradicate abortion. But it's just a starting point for a debate - I don't know any feminists who would welcome government intrusion into reproduction this way.
There's lots of rights we deny children. I think there should be a reversible sterilization procedure done at birth, reversed at maturity (if the person so chooses) or with parental consent earlier.
I personally find the desire to have children UTTERLY foreign, incomprehensible and sickening, but I keep my big mouth shut around my friends/family who have kids or plan to spawn.by no means do I think that people who want/have children are evil or misguided or anything like that. Just keep 'em away from me as much as possible
Comfortable with those comments? Well, let's try a little substitution, shall we?
I personally find the thought of two men having sex with each other UTTERLY foreign, incomprehensible and sickening, but I keep my big mouth shut around any of my friends/family who might be shirt-lifters ..by no means do I think that gay men are evil or misguided or anything like that. Just keep 'em away from me as much as possible ..
Happy with that? Let's face it, this is prejudice, and equally unacceptable whether directed against 'breeders' or gays or any other group that the speaker happens to dislike. What is particularly offensive is the assumption, on the part of the prejudiced person, that the rest of us should be grateful to them for their tolerance in not parading their prejudice in public.
I don't want to prolong this ill-tempered discussion, but I think it's a pity that no one, so far, has tried to explain why having a child is worthwhile. It is worthwhile not simply because it contributes to the survival of the human race, or because it contributes another productive pair of hands to the economy. It is worthwhile because it deepens your capacity for love. Because it gives you the awesome responsibility of looking after an utterly helpless and dependent person, and somehow, miraculously, enables you to find new resources within yourself, resources you never knew you had, in order to bear that responsibility. Because it forces you to look -- really look -- at another human being, and pay them your full attention. Because it is astonishing to watch the development of language in a child. Because it is humbling to be the recipient of a child's unconditional love. Because it teaches you what it is to be human.
Daniel Mendelsohn puts this better than I can in his remarkable book The Elusive Embrace, which I strongly recommend:
Everything in the world is new to a baby, and because you have to explain everything to a child, it all becomes new to you, too. Babies force you to confront the most basic things -- things you're likely to have taken more or less for granted most of your adult life, things like the moon or a door -- and make you really see them again. In so doing, they also make you into authors: things only live and become real in your descriptions of them. This is a baby's gift to you. Even when I am at home, alone at night, in my apartment in New York, I find myself looking out the window, scanning the sky for the moon's familiar face.
(I should add that Mendelsohn is a childless gay man, writing here about his godchild. I think he displays a sympathy and sensitivity which puts to shame some of the ignorant comments in this thread.)
Well said, SlightlyFoxed. I like to think I have taught my children well, but only lately have come to realize that they have taught me far more.
I don't want to prolong this ill-tempered discussion, but I think it's a pity that no one, so far, has tried to explain why having a child is worthwhile.
Sorry if I'm oblivious, but this discussion seemed pretty friendly considering the volatility of the topic.
As for not explaining why having children is worthwhile, that's sort of beside the point. EVERYONE knows that having children is worthwhile. I know it, and I'm not planning to have children. In fact it's so obvious and so reinforced in our culture, that those of us choosing to not have children are frequently looked upon as freaks. And that is the point, however shrill-ly expressed, of oopsiforgottohaveababy.com. People choosing to not have kids sometimes get tired of being interrogated and belittled because of their choice.
I personally get tired of how the U.S. claims to value children, yet cuts funding to education, Head Start and programs that help people get out of poverty. I think it's disgusting that people spend thousands of dollars on fertility treatments and end up with sextuplets, when there are adoptable kids who need good homes. I think it's revolting that we're afraid to teach kids about birth control. Every child should definitely be a wanted child, but this country isn't doing anything to make that wish a reality. There's a saying from an Icelandic or Finnish writer, can't remember her name, but it's something to the effect of, "it's no sin to not want to have children in a world that doesn't value children."
As for Medusa's description of the "foreign, incomprehensible and sickening" concept of having children: some people, myself included, are rather creeped out by the idea of being pregnant. My sister and two sisters-in-law, with five adored girls between the three of them, all hated being pregnant. Especially one sister-in-law, who spent the last trimester of both pregnancies in hospital because she was so ill. Lucille Ball described giving birth as sneezing a honey-glazed ham out of your nostril. Somewomen don't get the whole miracle of childbirth feeling. For some, pregnancy is at best a gross inconvenience with a spectacular payoff at the end. That doesn't make them frigid monsters who won't bond with their children.
This is honestly how I feel and I don't mean to anger or offend you. Thank you for the book suggestion.
/not planning to have kids, can't afford to anyway, may adopt if that changes, lurves my nieces to bits
Because it teaches you what it is to be human.
with all due respect, it's the comments like that that infuriate so many childfree folks.
we don't know/will never learn "what it is to be human" because we don't have children?
nope, i gotta strongly disagree with that one. i am no less human than you, i feel love just as deeply as anyone, thank you very much.
(and i find this discussion fascinating and even-tempered...)
Or, let's try this:
I personally find the thought of cheering for the New York Yankees UTTERLY foreign, incomprehensible and sickening, but I keep my big mouth shut around any of my friends/family who might be Yankee fans.
by no means do I think that Yankee fans are evil or misguided or anything like that. Just keep 'em away from me as much as possible.
I don't believe all prejudices are equal in terms of weight and social acceptance/non-acceptance.
Yeah, bad example, but you get my point.
The discussion here is civil, the linked website less so. Sure having/not having kids is fine. But the idea that childless adults are somehow discriminated against because they have to pay for schools, etc. (not an idea anyone on this thread has endorsed) is callous and selfish, and seems to be gaining currency. NPR and the Chronicle of Higher Ed have both recently run pieces full of quotes from childless adults about how tough their lives are, carrying the slack for those of who wave our baby pictures and slip out the door at 3.
That said, I had no idea of the rude comments that childless adults have to put up with, and I am sorry to hear of that.
kmellis: gets my hackles up probably from an instinctive desire to protect children
I can dig it. I get weirdly protective whenever I'm around any visibly pregnant woman. It's a strange feeling, and I'm sure could get annoying were I to let my feelings manifest themselves too overtly. The biological imperative is strong.
The funniest thing is, everyone keeps saying that childfree people are discriminated against - then say the reason they don't have kids is that it's easier to be promoted/kiss ass at a job/whatever without ever having kids.
Like all else in life, it's a trade-off.
it is a tradeoff, mel. we childfree folks are able to dedicate ourselves more fully to the careers we are passionate about HOWEVER, if i had a dime for every time a boss said to me, "could you please cover this because so-and-so's kid is sick" or "because so-and-so is at their kid's recital" or "because so-and-so's childcare fell through today." arg!!!
don't get me wrong, i'm happy to fill in for COWORKERS who are sick, have doc's appts etc. but their kids' recitals? that's taking it a little far.
But SideDish, when promotion or downsizing decisions get made, I bet the child-free employees come out on top.
I've had tons of grief from employers because I take a sick day when one of my kids is sick...or because I can't get in until 9:20 because I have to drop my kids off at school. I'm sure my career has suffered because I've put my children at a higher priority than my job. I think it's made worse by the fact that I'm male, and it's expected that I should have a wife to take care of my kids for me.
And I hope you're not suggesting that your co-workers shouldn't go to their kids' recitals. Nothing is more important to a child than seeing their parents in the audience.
but why the heck can't these day-care places schedule their recitals IN THE EVENINGS? that's just ridiculous, to think of all the thousands of people who have to scramble around to be there, and those of us who have to cover their responsibilities.
I don't know about day care centres, but I know that here in Ontario, public schools have stopped scheduling events in the evenings because the teachers' unions decided their members would no longer work extended hours for extra-curricular activities. Believe me, I'd prefer not to have to take time off because, as a contract employee, I don't get paid leave, and lose pay every time I take time off for my kids.
In many ways, people who don't have kids have a much more convenient life. It bothers me when they complain that it's not convenient enough.
the "picking up extra work" issue isn't about convenience, i think it's about fairness. as i said, i am more than happy to fill in for coworkers who are sick, have their own outside appts, etc.; it's the filling in because of their kids that strikes many of us as unfair.
5{ m sorry if I infuriated you, but I stand by my previous comment. It's not a question of having children vs. not having children -- but if you have never spent much time in the company of the very young, then a whole dimension of human experience will be closed to you. If you have never spent much time in the company of the very old, then I would say exactly the same.
Sorry, my last comment was accidentally truncated. It should begin: 'SideDish, I'm sorry if I infuriated you ..'
if you have never spent much time in the company of the very young
see, that's just it. each side of this debate assumes a lot about the other.
for instance: just because i don't have children doesn't mean i haven't spent a lot of time in their presence. ditto for old folks. i've spent plenty of time with young brothers and sisters, assorted other small relatives and children of friends, and volunteered in a hospital alongside many old patients. (i've helped people die, if that somehow counts in your book as "knows what it is to be human.")
to presume that a child must be mine, and i must observe him/her growing up, for me to "know what it is to be human" ... well, as you said, i stand by my previous comment. i *strongly* disagree with that.
(p.s. 5{m is SideDish in computerese? wow! cool!)
or perhaps 5{m is "I'm." either way, cool!
and here's a chubby little kitten in case you are becoming perturbed by my semi-human point of view.
:-D
I'm perfectly happy to let whole dimensions of human experience escape me.
It would be entirely too easy to make an insulting comparison, so I won't.
oh, come on goetter!
SideDish: Co-workers take time off for illness, funerals, car repairs, lawyers appointments, hangovers, to wait for the cable-TV service guy, vacations, snowstorms, and sometimes just because they don't feel like going to work. What is it about parental responsibilities that you find particularly unfair?
SideDish, please can we be friends? I don't think I assume or presume any of the things you think I assume or presume. In fact I don't think we really disagree. It wasn't you I was aiming at; it was Medusa and Debaser whose comments seemed to me to be lacking in the milk of human kindness. But now that I have read my daughter a bedtime story, tucked her up in bed, gone downstairs and poured myself a gin-and-tonic, I feel at peace with the entire world. *flings arms round SideDish, spills gin-and-tonic on carpet*
because all those things are for themselves, as opposed to for another person. i'd also get peeved if i had to fill in for a coworker who had to wait for his brother's cable guy.
we'll have to agree to disagree because, as i said, one side will never understand the other.
it's like one person saying, "i love pizza!" and the other saying, "oh, god, i can't stand pizza." they'll never come to grips with the other's opinions.
and PLEASE don't get all irate and scream about not comparing children to pizza. everyone knows children aren't edible.
(i have a friend who says, "i love children. i just never could finish a whole one." heh.)
thanks slightly, i love hugs! because, as you know, i am childless, thus i have no small arms to wrap around me. hee hee...
What drives me crazy is that workplaces can't seem to arrange fair time off policies. I don't care if it's your kids recital, your pet parakeet's birthday or a long-overdue mental health day - there should be fair and equitable solutions that allow you to take time away from your job that do not overburden your fellow cow-workers.
Isn't that what management is paid to do?
SideDish, I'm not the irate screaming type. Just a friendly discussion :)
I'm also not the hugging type, unless I've had a few, but in your case I'll make an exception {}.
What Space Kitty said. It shouldn't be the reason for the time off that's the problem, rather it's the job of the employee taking the time off to arrange things in advance, or the employer to have measures in place to cope with an absence.
I'm with tracicle and Space Kitty. On the other hand, when management fails in its job of arranging things, and/or when it's an emergency that management couldn't possibly anticipate (which does happen), I'm never going to like being told that any kind of kid-related emergency is more important than any kind of non-kid emergency. What this tends to mean in real life is "my needs are more important than yours", which is a statement that this thread shows is annoying to parents and childfree alike.
There is a name for people who use their kids to prioritize what they want in front of what everybody else wants. It is not "parent", though; it's "selfish jerk". I know some parents who behave that way, and they were selfish jerks before they had kids. Just like the kid-hating childfree folks give all childfree people a bad name, selfish jerks with kids give parents a bad name to childfree folks.
I'm never going to like being told that any kind of kid-related emergency is more important than any kind of non-kid emergency
You're damn right a kid-related emergency is more important than anything you've got.
Aww, your baby is so ... gulp ... cute, fish tick!
Pity about the contusion. It was a fall from a bike, honest!
Sorry you had to cover for me last week when I went to my son's school play, SideDish. To make it up to you, he will be the doctor who replaces your hip 40 years from now. Are we square?
What drives me crazy is that workplaces can't seem to arrange fair time off policies.
As a former manager with 50+ employees (most of whom had kids), helping to arrange time off for employees and dealing with unexpected time off was part of the job. My policy was if you wanted a day off for some personal reason, you--the employee--needed to find coverage in advance. And if it was an emergency or a short-notice call-off, I always told the employee that some things were more important than the job and that we'd cover them. In return, that gratitude usually made its way back and that employee would eventually cover someone else's shift somewhere down the line.
Sure, it wasn't a perfect system (there were abusers), but for the most part everyone--childless or not--helped out when needed.
Damn, I miss those people.
rocket88: To you.
LarryC: Really? And what if it turns out your kid is the drunk driver that wipes out my parents?
The interesting thing is that you really can't legally make employees "find coverage in advance" for child related medical stuff, at least not if you are in more than a tiny workplace. In the U.S., the FMLA laws force the issue. That doesn't mean they shouldn't try, or that the (ick) "corporate culture" can't encourage them to do so, it just means you can't force them to do that.
Rocket88, thanks for making my point for me.
It is worthwhile because it deepens your capacity for love.Because it teaches you what it is to be human.
There will more than likely be a whole wealth of experiences I'll never try out in my lifetime. Will they make me more or less human? I don't see how not having a child makes me more or less capable of love or being human. Any time I feel something for another being shows my capacity for love and I think its rather rude and prejudicial to suggest only those who have kids have the capacity to be human or feel emotion for another. There are people in my life I would die for who are not genetically related to me. Is that not the capacity to love and think/love/feel beyond yourself? Why does having a child make this somehow more relevant? Having a child wont teach you to be human; living life, interacting with others, helping others teaches us that.
This view bothers me. I just spent a year of my time taking care of a 90+ year old women who didn't know who I was anymore due to dementia. I visited her every day, made sure she was getting proper care, spent time with her, made sure her needs were met no matter what. If I had to sacrifice time doing something else I would - to help her. I wasn't even related to her. I have spent the better part of my life in the pursuit of helping others. Yet by your standard I'm not human and can't have a deeper sense of love because I don't have a child of my own. Sorry but what a load of equine excrement.
What bothers me about the whole idea (being one who doesn't want children) is those friends who have looked down their noses at me for not having a child. My decision is the most selfless thing I could do, yet I have friends who have used getting pregnant for the most selfish reasons imaginable - keep a guy, get a guy etc. I have seen women get pregnant in order to keep/get welfare benefits. I have seen some VERY selfish acts in the name of baby making and the resultant effects (abuse etc) from it. But somehow that's ok but my choice isn't.
ps: If this seems a bit snarky it just might be. Since reading those comments a few hours ago I have been fuming and this is the nicest version of what I wrote.
Oh, and LarryC, sorry I couldn't cover you during your kid's school play because I already had a doctor's appointment scheduled. I'm sure that your failure to attend his school play will be the single thing in his life that makes the difference between him becoming the doctor that replaces SideDish's hip and the drunk driver that wipes out rodgerd's parents.
Itchy, you're the type of manager the world needs!
Hmmm...the boy does like the NyQuill a little too much, come to think of it. But my point, that children are an investment in all of our futures, remains. This is why we have public schools.
Because it teaches you what it is to be human.
I've been typing out snarky rejoinders to this sentence for twenty minutes, because it's just so needlessly reductive and arrogant. But, fuck it. The assholery speaks for itself.
Mmm... I wonder what Florence Nightingale, Gandhi and Mother Teresa (just to pick some cliched examples) have to say about that. By the lights of that statement, they're not human either.
Note that that assertion isn't exclusive. There may be many other things that "teach you what it is to be human" besides having children.
beeza, goofyfoot, Alnedra: I'm afraid you've misunderstood my meaning. Is it really so hard to understand? Let me try again.
What I said was that having a baby teaches you what it is to be human. Of course that does not mean that childless people are necessarily less than human; that would be absurd. (You may have noticed, if you bothered to read my comment through to the end, that I singled out a childless gay man, Daniel Mendelsohn, for particular praise.)
But this I do believe: that if you have never spent much time in the company of small children -- whether your own children, or your siblings, or other people's children -- then your understanding of humanity will be incomplete. If you find that upsetting, then I'm sorry, but I can't help it; I believe it with all my heart.
I am not suggesting that having children makes you a morally superior being; again, that would be absurd. But I don't think it is possible to remain untouched by the experience of watching a small child learning to express emotion, learning to talk, learning to read. It forces you to reconsider many of your deepest assumptions -- about language, about character, about behaviour, about the nature/nurture debate. And that reconsideration can -- if you allow it to -- flow into your moral life, and affect your moral judgements.
It could be argued that in modern Western society, having children has replaced marriage/cohabitation as the principal rite de passage marking the transition from youth to adulthood (or, if you prefer, from youth to middle age). This has a number of unfortunate consequences. One consequence can be seen in discussions like this -- where people tend to feel that there is a vast gulf separating those with children from those without, almost as if they belonged to two separate tribes. Another consequence is that childless people often have very little contact with children; it is possible, to an extent which would have astonished people in earlier centuries, to live your adult life and hardly ever meet a child. That is a loss; and perhaps we, as a society, need to be more aware of it.
(kmellis: thanks for seeing the point. Is there a name for this particular fallacy? -- I mean, the "a implies b, therefore not-a implies not-b" fallacy? I suppose the classic example would be "having a lot of money makes people happy, therefore people can't be happy unless they have a lot of money". But the fallacy here is the same: "having a baby teaches you what it is to be human, therefore you can't know what it is to be human unless you have a baby". It's not the fallacy of the undistributed middle, is it? -- or is it?)
Rocket88, thanks for making my point for me.
OK, immlass, give me an example of something that comes close to a child-related emergency.
Pets? Adult family members? Spouse? Because I've had all those too, and believe me, they don't come close.
And that doesn't make me a "selfish jerk", as you say. I *would* be a selfish jerk if I thought that my child's needs are more important than someone else's child's needs, but that's not what I'm saying here, is it?
Is there a name for this particular fallacy?
"Denying the antecedent," maybe?
Rocket88, that's just bullshit. And that's why childfree people think that some parents are selfish jerks.
If my husband had a sudden illness that resulted in a rush to the hospital, hell yes that would be as important as your kid. If my mother, whose only child I am and who has nobody else in the world to turn to if she were hurt or ill, needed me, hell yes that's as important as your kid. My husband will tell you that getting me to a doctor when the intermittent condition I have--the one that will ultimately blind me if it's not treated quickly--occurs is as important as your kid's emergency. Maybe not to you, but to me or to him, yes.
And when you tell me that it can't possibly be as important, knowing nothing about me or my circumstances, I have the choice between being boggled at your ignorance or disgusted at your selfishness.
My needs are important to me, just like yours are important to you. Not getting that point is the essence of selfish jerkdom. And insisting that society be set up to accommodate your needs and your needs only is the essence of actively being a selfish jerk.
Broader society doesn't give a damn about either of our needs.
And while yes, the future of the species is important, let's face it: any single child, no matter how loved by its parents, is not important to the future of the species. It's children in the broad abstract, en masse, that keep the species going, not your little darling angel in particular. It's horrible to have happen and to contemplate, but kids die every day and the world goes on and the species continues.
LarryC, seriously, the likelihood that the kid you're raising really will replace my hip someday is low. While I'm happy to support kids with school taxes and the like, and I wouldn't dream of complaining if you needed to take a sick child to the hospital, when you ask me to work extra to cover for your attendance at your kid's recital, that is a favor between you and me, the adults, and the kid factor is only a small thumb on the scale of who owes what and how happy I am to do it.
A lot of dual-income parents want to give as much time and affection to their kids as they got when they grew up in a house with stay-at-home parents. While their goals are admirable, they may not be realistic. This is a time of socioeconomic anxiety, when people feel like their kid's chance to maintain or improve their station in life depends on getting the best of everything, including both emotional nuturance and purchasable advantage (private school, special activities, extra lessons, etc.). I can see that to finance that, you'd often need two working parents. But realistically, you also make a choice about how to arrange your life. Time spent earning money is not time spent with kids. You get 22,000 days, as the Moody Blues once said, and it's up to you how to spend it.
Employers don't care about your personal life; they care about paying for what gets done. If you need a lot of time off, whether it's for kids, health reasons, grad school, or anything else, you're going to suffer in your career compared to type A people who put their career first. This is not a parent-vs.-childfree issue; I know both parents and childfree folks on both sides of the divide.
What the childfree people bitch about here is wanting to have cake and eat it too. It's not about a choice to have kids; it's about an insistence that what they want, not even need, comes before everything else that everybody else is doing. If you want to spend time with your kids, do so. I love spending time with my nieces and nephews, and with my friends' kids. But you can't realistically expect to tell everyone else that everything your kid "needs" (for broad values of need) comes before anything else without meeting resistance from your boss, your colleagues (with and without kids) or the world in general.
And if you want to change the way employment is structured to address the broader problem, I'm behind you. But framing it in terms of kids only is not going to get me on the bandwagon.
this is a really interesting thread, isn't it? i'd like to thank everyone for expressing some very intense opinions in a well-reasoned, kind-hearted and even-handed manner. bananas for all!
the choices we make, and the feelings that drive those choices, are what create our unique lives. understanding so many different lives is, for me at least, a great part of what mofi is about.
hugs to all, the parents and the childfree and the childless -- and the children! :-D
I read the statement within the context of the whole post and the thread in general. What bothered me about the statement was the premise, 'having a child teaches you to be human' ergo not having a child means your incapable of learning to be human (or less human). To have someone with a child tell me I am somehow less of a human for not wanting/having a child is insulting. I don't think you realize how insulting it is to be judged on the level of humanity based on whether you participate in one aspect of life. To say that the way to learn about or experience unconditional love, think outside of yourself, to give of yourself freely is by having a child is ... well I dunno ... absurd/ridiculous/illogical? That in order to experience life you must have a child. The kinds of arguments I've had before about why I should have a child run along a similar vein and this view is not unique to this thread.
To argue that is the only way to learn about nature vs nuture, evolution of language, behaviour is absurd. I don't need to have a child to learn those things, I'm not that shallow. In fact I learned a lot about children from babysitting and being around other peoples children. I don't need my own to learn those things. In fact babysitting taught me there is a 50/50 chance of having a demon child from hell or a little angel (I could tell you some horror stories about some children, running the full spectrum of socio-economic backgrounds). That there are times that you wish the damn baby would STFU and go away because it has been crying for 4 hours straight and no matter what you do it wont stop crying. Come to think of it that was the last time I babysat and the beginning of my internal debate about whether I was capable of having them myself.
No matter how reasonable I try to be about what was written I can't get past the idea I am somehow less than someone else because I don't have mini-me's running rampant over the planet to teach me what it means to be human. I read everything you wrote SlightlyFoxed I still wasn't convinced that is why I posted. Your further elaboration still didn't convince me about what you meant vs what you wrote
*shudders at the thought of mini beeza's running rampant*
beeza, you sound like you've given the issue as much thought as i have. back in my early 30s i sat down and thought, OK, now or never. i read books on pregnancy and childrearing. i opened my mind and heart to the idea.
and you know something? i felt awful. and couldn't figure out why. just anxious and sullen. then i suddenly realized, i felt that way because i was actually trying to figure out *what was wrong with me, because i DIDN'T want children.*
i mean, EVERYONE wants children (i thought) -- that's what humans do, they reproduce.
and in a flash i occurred to me: nope, not me. i just do not want children. no interest in it. not one maternal gene in my body.
suddenly, just as quickly, my anxious sadness passed, and a deep contentment sank in. and i've never let go of that contentment. childfree.
i think what a lot of the childfree folks in this thread are saying is, parents are taken seriously in our society. they are valued for contributing the next generation. the childfree are more often seen as "selfish" or "foolish and shortsighted" ("who will take care of you in your old age?") or just downright weird.
good friends of mine got married about 10 years ago. about a week after the wedding i was talking to the groom and said, "you know, i live such a happy, full life without children. i have freedom to travel the world, to leisurely enjoy culture and arts, i'm surrounded by friends and beauty and calmness. you should at least consider that option, to be without children."
his reaction, verbatim: "ARE YOU CRAZY???"
What I said was that having a baby teaches you what it is to be human.
Which is what, exactly? To be a reproducer? Isn't there more to being human than making other humans? Does an animal that doesn't have a litter never learn what it is to be an animal?
...if you have never spent much time in the company of small children -- whether your own children, or your siblings, or other people's children -- then your understanding of humanity will be incomplete.
No, my understanding of small children will be incomplete, which is no great loss to me. Plus, I can fill in the gaps by watching America's Funniest Home Videos.
immlass: To (hopefully) all parents, their children's needs are paramount to everything else. To non-parents, the most important needs are probably their spouse's or significant other's.
You seem to consider that first statement to be an indication of selfish jerkishness, while personally subscribing to the second.
I never said my kids' needs should be important to anyone else...I don't expect them to be. But, as a parent, if a coworker had to take time off because of their children, I would understand and help out if I could, because I've been there myself and I know why they're doing it. Maybe you have to be a parent to understand. (Not meant as snark).
Now a story...when my daughter was in junior kidergarten (age 4) her class had a Christmas concert on a weekday afternoon. I took time off work to go see it. There was a class of about 25 4-year-olds, singing away and smiling and waving at their parents in the audience. On little boy caught my eye because he was frantically searching the crowd, all the while still singing, and craning his neck to see to the back row. Eventually he realized that there was nobody there, and he stopped singing. He still stayed up there in his place on stage, but I could see the tears running down his cheeks. It absolutely broke my heart, and I swore then that my kids would never find themselves in that situation.
Now who is the selfish jerk? Me for taking a few hours off work and making someone cover for me?
Now who is the selfish jerk? Me for taking a few hours off work and making someone cover for me?
No, me - I stole your stapler while you were away from the office. Take THAT, bitchpants!
Excuse me, I think you have my stapler. /Milton
That's a heartbreaking story, rocket.
"hugs to all, the parents and the childfree and the childless --
and the children! :-D"
Thanks, SideDish! Banana daiquiri for you, and hugs for everybody!
I never said my kids' needs should be important to anyone else...I don't expect them to be.
This is the key statement that separates the jerks from the non-jerks. Once you understand that, we're good.
I don't want little four-year-olds crying. My ex tells a similar sad story about how his mother always made his sister's swim meets but didn't make his when he was in high school. My own father had to fly back from overseas to attend my high school graduation and missed a number of the associated ceremonies because he flew in and out so quickly because of his job-related travel. (This is how I know for a fact that kids will not die if their parents miss things. I have been the child whose daddy wasn't there.)
In an ideal world, no kid should *ever* have to tell those stories. Kudos to you for saying that you'll never let it happen to your kid, and for supporting other parents who are keeping their own kids from crying.
What I'm getting at is that asking other people to support you in keeping your kids from crying is not a right. It's a favor you're asking other people to do for you. Just like it's a favor for you to do it for another parent when you could be home with your kids, it's a favor for me to be doing it when there are other things I could be doing. Sometimes I'm not busy, and I'm glad to help out. Sometimes it's a problem and I have to say I'm sorry. Am I a selfish jerk because I have to go to the doctor for a long-scheduled appointment instead of covering for you while you attend your kid's recital? Or because I can't stay late because I've committed myself to go help my 70-year-old mother do tasks she can't do for herself any more?
Assuming it's never a problem for me to help because I couldn't possibly have anything important to do because I don't have kids--that's the selfish thing. I'm not saying you personally assume that, but I bet every childfree person who's reading this far has had someone make that assumption at least once. It's not the request for help that most of us begrudge. It's the assumption that people are owed that help because they have kids, particularly when it's accompanied by a refusal to help out with other people's non-child-related needs.
I'm with SideDish and Mojo_Jojo: peace and love and hugs for everybody, and may everybody's boss help them take the time they need for whatever reasons they need it.
Immlass: One addition to your statement about parents working to give kids the "extras." If you look at the statistics (and I can vouch for them, being in the right class) the "extras" a lot of working parents are working for include food, shelter, clothing, and transportation. Not much in the way of fancy schools and iPods or PCs for the kiddies. When Mom's making minimum wage and Dad's lucky to be getting twelve bucks an hour, it's tough to raise two little ones. So why have kids if you're that financially strapped? Well, it's a choice. And thank Dogs we got it, baby.
You child-free-and-lovin'-it girls and guys might want to pause a moment to think about the fact that you are only the third generation or so to actually HAVE the option to remain childless.(Gals especially, raise your hands and say AMEN) Safe, affordable, reliable, widespread contraception is a fairly recent development. You're lucky in living both in this era, and in the country you're a citizen of. More than half the world's women don't have access to contraceptives. Social acceptance in first world countries of childless couples is more common now than it was even twenty years ago, with the exception of a few religions that push reproduction right along with redemption. You're always going to be fighting an uphill battle--being childless is an intellectual choice; reproduction is hardwired into the critter. There are a few things common to living creatures: ingestion, excretion, reproduction, death. The Shakers were nice folks, but there's a reason they're no longer with us.
It will be interesting to see if the human race can step out of the natural population boom and bust cycle that occurs with other species. Finite amount of space, limited resources--gettin' scary here folks.
It's children in the broad abstract, en masse, that keep the species going, not your little darling angel in particular
There's probably not a parent in the room that didn't wince a bit at this, but you're right. As far as the species goes, it isn't any particular individual that has value, but the only individuals that ARE of value are the young and those involved in reproduction. That means you, and I, (being past child-bearing) are both outta the lifeboat.
Me ♥ sensilble horses.
Not intending to be contrary just to do so (also a response to SideDishes comments) but I disagree that wanting children is hard wired. Think sex is hard-wired but not reproduction. Chicken and the egg debate - not sure. Reproduction isn't hard-wired into me. I've never had that desire. No matter how many times I imagined being a mother, it just didn't inspire me to become one. Being around children didn't give me that desire, witnessing a birth sure didn't. Neither did seeing countless friends be pregnant. Meeting my SO didn't either. Maybe I'm a freak of nature because I don't feel the urge to reproduce. Maybe not. I agonized for a long time over not having this feeling and like SideDish realized one day it was ok to be this way. The debates I had with myself weren't over overpopulation, famine, pollution - it was about coming to terms with the idea I wasn't somehow less of a human because I didn't want this for myself. It wasn't an intellectual decision to avoid child rearing, it just was. I don't understand women who go gaga over babies - I really don't - the behaviour is completely foreign to me. I have a friend who sees other peoples babies and she wants more of her own. I don't get it.
What interests me about humans is this trap we set up for males and females. Men are supposed to grunt and work and women are supposed to nurture and care for others. I'm an exception. So are others in this thread. I see that trap here in many ways. I think for some it is very hard to understand how you could not have this urge. Sort of like trying to understand how an asexual couldn't want sex.
Women in third world countries may not have access to modern contraceptives but alternate forms of contraceptives have been around for men and women for over 4,000 years and even in modern times alternatives are used (in Australia some use candy wrappers as an example).
Dear beeza, I'm not trying to pick a quarrel with you, I just wish you would read what I actually wrote, instead of taking issue with things I never said.
To have someone with a child tell me I am somehow less of a human for not wanting/having a child is insulting.
I agree, it is deeply insulting. But I never said it.
To argue that is the only way to learn about nature vs nurture, evolution of language, behaviour, is absurd.
I agree, it is absurd. But I never said it.
Your further elaboration didn't convince me about what you meant vs what you wrote.
Please pay me the compliment of believing that I do actually mean what I say. I will pay you the same compliment in return.
I'm afraid this illustrates what I find most frustrating about Internet discussions: that there are, apparently, many highly intelligent, articulate and eloquent people who are wholly incapable of careful reading or logical reasoning.
SideDish: I'm glad you find this a well-reasoned and kind-hearted thread, but having been told that I'm a rude and arrogant asshole, and that my opinions are horseshit, I must beg to differ. (Yes, I know, this is mild by Internet standards, but I still think it is uncharitable, and it will certainly make me hesitate before participating in a MoFi discussion again.)
This thread has been an eye-opener for me. There are clearly many people for whom this is a deeply painful and emotive subject -- and who simply cannot believe that it is possible for me to affirm the value of childraising without seeking to relegate childless people to the status of second-class citizens. I find this attitude almost incomprehensible, but I have to accept that it exists. I can only repeat what I said before, that the 'two tribes' mentality -- which draws a clear line of demarcation between people with children and people without -- is a deeply unhealthy one, no matter which side of the divide you happen to be standing on.
I'll quote you directly, then. Here's what you said.
[N]o one, so far, has tried to explain why having a child is worthwhile. [...] Because it teaches you what it is to be human.
I do not need to be "taught" what it is to be human. Furthermore, I distrust formulations that imply my incompleteness or inadequacy without some measure imposed from without: childrearing, Christian redemption, psychoanalysis... whatever. It is reductive, and it appears arrogant because of its assumptions about and projections onto the audience. If you got that -- greater understanding of humanity, improved moral sense, better ability to whip egg whites into soft peaks -- out of your relationship with your child, then that's wonderful. However, I am unlikely to do so. (I do not find Mendelsohn's broody burblings convincing.)
None of this would be particularly controversial were you not aligning yourself with such an overwhelming social norm. The following transformation merely sounds monomaniacal:
No one, so far, has tried to explain why completing a marathon is worthwhile.... Because it teaches you what it is to be human. .... If you have never spent much time in the company of the fatigued and anoxic, then a whole dimension of human experience will be closed to you.
But this I do believe: that if you have never spent much time in the company of athletes -- whether your own family, or amateurs, or elites, or masters -- then your understanding of humanity will be incomplete. If you find that upsetting, then I'm sorry, but I can't help it; I believe it with all my heart. I am not suggesting that copmleting a marathon makes you a morally superior being; again, that would be absurd. But I don't think it is possible to remain untouched by the experience [...]. It forces you to reconsider many of your deepest assumptions -- about language, about character, about behaviour, about the nature/nurture debate. And that reconsideration can -- if you allow it to -- flow into your moral life, and affect your moral judgements.
Sounds a bit hyperbolic but otherwise uncontroversial, right? But that's about it, to my eyes. Only nobody's judging you socially irresponsible for eschewing the ankle damage of a 26 mile footrace.
in Australia some use candy wrappers
*blinks*
um... any particular candy wrappers? baby ruths? snickers? my, that's odd.
slightlyfoxed: yup, this is a very intensely felt issue. i had no clue we'd get this far into it; all i did was post what i thought was a silly web site.
but debate is always good. it makes us all re-examine long-held beliefs and (i hope) exposes us to why others hold equally passionate though totally opposite beliefs.
as i said before, at least for me, my main complaint is this: i feel as if society does not value me (a childfree adult) as much as it values parents and children.
we're constantly told to "think of the children," bombarded with "family values" and reminded that the world depends upon the little ones, here in the states we're even starting to be restricted in what we see and here "for the sake of the children." i understand all that. sometimes disagree, but understand.
but childfree persons make their own important contributions to the *here and now*. through my journalism, i strive to help readers understand the world around them. i feel deep down that is my calling, that's the reason i'm here. life is incredibly complex, and i try to help readers make a bit more sense of it.
having a child has to be a top priority with all parents -- the ONLY priority, in some cases. i couldn't see shifting my priority from helping millions of people understand what is happening around them, to concentrating all my attention on one individual.
does that make any sense? hope so.
and slightly, please don't give up on this discussion. i think a lot of people are learning a lot from it.
>>see and here
and of course that should be "see and hear," but i've only had half a cup of coffee so far...
I gotta step in and defend SlightlyFoxed here...for what SF actually said, not for your interpretation of it.
Having and raising a child is an experience that is unique, with resulting psychological and emotional benefits that can't be duplicated.
That shouldn't be insulting to anyone. Just replace "Having and raising a child" with a myriad of other phrases and it remains a valid statement: "Falling in love", Travelling to exotic countries", "Reading classic novels", "Having a near-death experience", etc. Just beacause you're getting grief from your grandmother about not having kids, don't take your frustrations out on SF for pointing out that parenthood has benefits.
I can tell you from experience that those benefits do exist, and I *have* been taught more about what it means to be human than I would have if I didn't have children. Does that mean I think choosing to be child-free is wrong? Definitely not. I respect that decision 100%. As, I'm sure, does SlightlyFoxed.
in that context, yes, having a child is *one of many of the experiences* that teaches you what it is to be human. i think we could all agree that is fair to say.
i think some may be reading slightly's remark as having a child is *the* experience that teaches you what it is to be human -- and thus the strong reactions.
To have someone with a child tell me I am somehow less of a human for not wanting/having a child is insulting.
I agree, it is deeply insulting. But I never said it.
No, but you implied it by stating:
"Because it teaches you what it is to be human."
Don't you see it? You never said a baby can teach you. You stated it categorically. Of course there are other ways to learn/be taught how to be human but you never said that. Instead you reinforced the initial sentence by saying:
What I said was that having a baby teaches you what it is to be human.
Sure I could think outside the box and add a bunch of my own clarifications about what you wrote and not post but I don't know you so I'm going to question the intent of what is said. Just as others have. Its why I said:
Your further elaboration still didn't convince me about what you meant vs what you wrote
---
Trust me this thread has been very well tempered. In all honesty my initial response was a hearty screw you. THAT would be ill-tempered. I ranted at the walls, my cat, my SO for about 2 hours. Then I sat down and wrote something constructive. I'm not completely convinced but I think because so many have pointed out the ridiculousness of, "Because it teaches you what it is to be human" you think the thread has been ill tempered. Or because people have views opposed to yours that this thread is ill-tempered. I really don't know because I've never debated with you before. I have deeply held beliefs, just as you do, and being of the opinionated Canadian variety I'll express them. I only commented after you tried explaining your position to SideDish - what you said didn't clarify the initial statement further in my mind. I would have been quite content to just let it drop but I didn't see further clarification I saw further re-enforcement of the initial idea. I really haven't seen anyone troll, flame bait or otherwise reduce the level of discourse by turning this into an Internet version of a bar fight. I've seen some very intelligent people disagree with various people over what has been said here. To me its exciting and gets me thinking, nothing wrong with having strong feelings about an issue and I wont walk away from this hating anyone for disagreeing with me.
You see this as "tribes" but it isn't. You can only make it two camps is another person agrees. I certainly don't - never have. In my life it has never been an 'us vs them' the 'haves and have nots' and truth be told I have found people with children generally do this comparison more than I ever have.
---
SideDish try The Hall of Contraception for the candy bar reference. The museum collection has travelled to other locations and has been in existence since the mid 1960's. Oooo worthy of a FPP or too touchy after this discussion?
thanks beeza, cool link! when i had to replace my IUD after 10 years, i saved the original one and tacked it up on my bulletin board. every so often i bow to it. that tiny item enabled me to live the life of my choosing for a whole decade. hurray!
Beeza: go for it! Very interesting site.
alternate forms of contraceptives have been around for men and women for over 4,000 years and even in modern times alternatives are used (in Australia some use candy wrappers as an example)
If I may repeat myself: Safe, affordable, reliable, widespread contraception is a fairly recent development
Reproduction isn't hard-wired into me
I bet you don't rely on a Butterfingers wrapper or a wadding of moss, either. On the one hand, I really wish there were a male contraceptive as easy and reliable as the pill is for most women. It would certainly eliminate that set of men that whine, "She trapped me." On the other hand, I feel it's of the utmost importance that a woman control her own reproductive destiny, and I hope that further development into better and better methods for women occurs.
Bear with me while I stumble through a few thoughts on reproduction as hardwiring. I think I'm going to keep on maintaining that position, even though I find it a tad hard to defend. Would you agree that a sexual drive is hardwired? In some cases, sex drive is wired alternately, resulting in homo-, bi- or other sexual behaviors or a lack of interest. Nature's model animal appears to be a male and a female engaging in sex and producing offspring. We appear to be the only species that intellectually connects the sexual act with reproduction. Females of other species can fail to carry to term, reject, or abandon their young, but in the majority of cases there appears to be a failure in the physical mechanisms--not enough hormones, whatever. In other cases, it appears that parenting is a learned thing, and that animals that haven't been socialized properly actually don't know how to relate to their young--this can range from indifference, to fear, to anger, to inappropriate handling--holding upside down, etc. In another species, a female animal's failure to reproduce could be due to a "low maternal instinct" whatever that is--maybe low hormones, maybe not "enough mothering." But human beings have this crazy brain that throws a whole 'nother monkey wrench into the works.
We're animals, so things can go wrong physically or with our socialization, but we're not JUST animals, so we can manipulate ideas and stand back to reflect. We get these metaphors going and talk about germination and the birth of ideas. We can bring forth a new nation: conceived in liberty .... We can create and recreate mentally and physically. We can make art, music, literature, grow grass or breed cats. Psychology books talk about the wellspring of creativity being the sexual/reproductive drive subliminated or enhanced. Socialogists and cultural anthropologists speak of altruism, bonding behaviors, kinship rules, "the selfish gene" all of which seem to go back to that "primary bond." Humans are both reproducers and producers--we create in many ways. And this is good.
The part that isn't so great is that we also devise these rules that don't make sense. Drive 55 mph. Don't wear white after summer's over. Black shoes, black purse. Women must have children to be "fulfilled." Pu-leeeze. If you're having children to "fulfill" you, you're doing it for the wrong reason/going to be sadly disillusioned.
The great thing about being human is that we have this brain we can make decisions with--decisions such as whether or not to have kids. The horrible thing about being human is this brain that questions the decisions we make--is it right for me to have kids, is it wrong for me not to want them? Having kids is ONE of the many, many important things a person can do in this life. And that's because we have a choice, because there is safe, affordable, reliable contraception. Mostly. For now. Unless you're not old enough to get it easily. And you're really horny. ....
Are there any other animals for whom sex and reproduction are as separate as they are for humans? For most (all?) non-parthenogenic others, when the female is ready to produce ova, the male is ready to donate sperm, and there's a drive which gets them together in one way or another. And that drive has (had?) to be a survival characteristic. Is part of the problem that it takes so many years to raise a human child?
So, here we are. Our sex drive doesn't depend on the oestrus cycle, it can be part of a one-time relationship or part of bonding for long term ones. It's the same for homosexual couplings. All sex seems to be allowed for us.
So, did some sort of natural selection change bring this about? And, is it a biological advantage that not all of us reproduce, even if some of our best and brightest choose not to do so? Is it a biological advantage that we pair up for the long or short term, or settle in whatever larger groups? Would we have overpopulated much sooner without the sex-not-equal-to-reproduction choice and without our ability to come up with primitive means of contraception some thousands of years ago?
So, if it's all allowed, why would we become emotional when someone has a different life style? I can understand what those of you said about the wonderfulness of raising a child. I can also understand what those of you said about the wonderfulness of having none. But there are larger issues which could be discussed which might help us find a way around the emotional stand-offs which have surfaced.
I tried a google search to find some interesting links, but my attempts didn't work.
Path: Great questions. I have a sneaking suspicion that these are the questions that are being researched/argued about in many disciplines.*
*better/brighter/more educated minds than mine
Like every piece of art, music, literature, and drama ever made.
It's too bad that the sentiment "it teaches you to be human" is so provocative. It seems to me that a generous reading of it would be that it's not exclusive (other things teach one to be human) and almost certainly true. Well, as with anything else, I don't know that it teaches anyone anything that they're not willing to learn; but I'm hard pressed to come up with very many comparable life-changing experiences. I say this as someone who's never had children.
There's a variety of things relating to parenthood that I imagine are transformative; but the first thing that comes to mind, and the thing that I would think the childfree would have at least some empathy with, is love.
Plato argues that it is "better" to be the lover than the beloved because the act of loving is soul-nourishing, so to speak. Real, true, deep love can break the bonds of solipsism, make us really and truly feel the world larger than ourselves. I imagine that many or most of us that are childfree have loved another person in such a way—our partner(s) or even perhaps some of our closest friends.
I guess that for many people having a child forces this experience, instincts sweeping aside at least a portion of our natural selfishness. I can't help but think that many, many people would not know how to be selfless in even the least way if it weren't for their having children.
I don't doubt that a large number of parents fail to become better people after becoming parents. And I certainly don't doubt that there aren't many other ways to learn most of these lessons. Indeed, perhaps some other ways are better—having a near-death experience can be a profound, life-changing event but you don't see me advocating it!
People sometimes make assumptions that they ought not make, and those assumptions are sometimes offensive to others. I can imagine someone making a similar kind of claim about traveling in foreign lands, that "it teaches you about people". I can imagine that the person making that claim may (or may not) believe that it's possible to learn about people otherwise. I can imagine, likewise, a non-traveling listener taking offense at the implication that they don't "understand people".
I think it's best to be generous in such situations. We each have a few life-changing experiences that, for us, we find indispensable. We cannot imagine being who we are without having experienced them. When we believe those experiences have made us better people, it's hard for us to understand how we could have gotten here without going through there. And so we speak carelessly, but almost certainly without ill-will.
I can imagine someone making a similar kind of claim about traveling in foreign lands, that "it teaches you about people".
Oh, it surely do. You can learn a lot by becoming a foreigner for a while.
*goes to foreign land to become parent*
Only six sleeps to go!
And so we speak carelessly, but almost certainly without ill-will.
Good point, absolutely.
i hesitate to throw gasoline on this fire, but with the most recent, very well-reasoned and calm comments, perhaps now is the time to bring up something that has always puzzled me. and i'm posting this out of a genuine curiosity, not to further enrage anyone.
obviously having children is a life-changing, awe-inspiring, wonderful experience -- as some would say, the most important and "human" experience of a lifetime.
then why do so many parents create a child, then three months later return to the workplace, leaving the child to be raised by others?
in my mind, that's an impossible connection: life's best experience, so i'll leave it to someone else.
and i don't buy the whole "you need two incomes to live" argument. one of my best friends in kansas city was a stay-at-home mother of four raising her kids on her husband's salary -- and print reporters ain't paid that much in the midwest, they top out around $40K-$50K.
the younger two were still at home, the older two went to private school.
their home was basic but nice. nobody had i-pods or fancy computers. but they lived well.
and my friend always said it enraged her to hear women say they couldn't get along on one salary, because she was living proof it could indeed be done.
so that's what i'm wondering about. why, if bearing and raising a child is so awe-inspiring, do most people walk away from it within three months, leaving strangers to raise their kids?
SideDish, in all honesty I don't understand that either. I know people that do it and I'm always puzzled. I have the time of my life being at home with my son (that is, on most days!) and it would be a shame for me to miss out on that.
Maybe I'm lucky because #2 does indeed earn enough for me to stay home with our (soon to be) two kids. But I'd like to think that we wouldn't have had kids if we weren't in a place where I could do that. I do know that we plan to have no more than two because our income wouldn't stretch that far, and probably my patience wouldn't either. ;)
So, in effect, I wholeheartedly agree with SideDish. Again.
Interesting question, SideDish. I'll take a second stab - maybe some people like life with fancy things and believe that part of the excellent experience of having chidren is providing them with the fancier things in life?
It seems misguided, especially for very young kids who maybe can't even enjoy those things. But in a long-range view parents could see providing for a kid's future as an important part of child-rearing work.
This is without even getting into the many complexities of career and child-raising that people can face. I'll stay out of that because having neither kid nor career it would just involve more guessing on my part.
PY, no kid *or* career? sounds like THAT'S the life. heh.
yeah i guess there are degrees of "nice things in life." my friend with the four kids lived in a large but modest home in not the prettiest of neighborhoods. they drove an old car that was dependable and paid for but, again, nothing nice to look at. each of the kids wore the other's hand-me-downs (luckily, two boys and two girls). and i'd give my outgrown clothing to my pal so she could have some cool funky styles once in a while.
but her priority (as it should be, IMHO) was to be at home with her kids. and they were all quite happy for it!
I don't think it's always about having the best in life. I think I would work even if I had children because I know myself, and that I would want to be doing something outside the house (I get depressed otherwise - had this week off, so much I was going to do, and didn't). The ideal would be a work you could bring your kids to, but that doesn't exist much anymore (alternative high schools aside - we all loved the baby that belonged to our art teacher and his wife who worked in the office).
It's also about breaking gender roles - still people tend to assume the mother will stay home, and look askance at fathers who do. If one parent can afford to and wants to be home, that's wonderful for them, but I hate when people suggest that the mother is the automatic choice.
But I don't think it's a big deal to the child if neither does - they can just go to be babysat by someone like my mother (who did in-home daycare for years). Hopefully, it's not a stranger, but someone you get to know (my friend's parents attended her babysitter's wedding, and she was a flower-girl). Also, spending part of the day at someone else's house and learning different rules is good for kids - teaches them to share, and to get perspective (though of course I never did, because I was always at my house).
But then, while I think having children is very rewarding, I don't think it's necessarily the most important thing in life, so I guess I'm not really the sort of person the question was directed at.
Just to add - the only loss for the working parent is to themself. I know my mother, who worked at home when we were little, regrets that she has to work such long hours to pay the bills now that she is raising my neice. She minds that she is missing so much of her childhood.
I had no idea this thread was still going.
I'll try to be civil. How must it be the wife's priority to stay home with the kids? You may have noticed that some of the strongest supporters of having children in this thread were men. At the very least, why is it so odd to think women would want to go back to work, without questioning why men go back to work? Clearly, someone has to work to make money. No family can survive on no income. So obviously, someone has to sacrifice time. That alone is a reason for at least one of the parents to be able to think having children is absolute awe-inspiring and yet still leave them to daycare, etc, which invalidates your point.
As well, one can rear one's children and still work. There are many more than eight hours in the day. There's part-time work and flex hours and lots of options. I plan to have several kids. I also am in my eighth year of post-secondary education and I plan on doing something with it. I would like to stay home with my kids for a little while, but I also want to work. I have nothing against stay-at-home moms (or dads), but it's not for all of us. I will love my kids just as much as anyone else, I assure you of that, but I know that if I stay home with them for too long, I won't be happy. It has nothing to do with wanting fancy things - we're not that type of people - but wanting to work in my field, do exciting intellectual things, etc.
As someone said upthread, it's only recently that women have been able to choose, reliably, not to have children due to birth control (and also societal rules changing). We also finally came around to realizing that women didn't have to just be baby machines in the sense that no matter what they did before getting pregnant, they had to now be locked into child-rearing 24/7. I am very, very glad that women now have both options - either to stay home, or to go back to their careers. I am frankly totally frustrated by women who suggest that the career option is wrong - what have we women been fighting for?
Finally, it's an unfair question for many, many people in our society. Your friend who makes $40K/year is lucky. Not everyone makes that much money. If Dad has a minimum-wage job, then Mom probably needs to get a job too. So long as they can still devote time and affection to their children, I don't see a problem with this.
I suppose that wasn't as civil as it could be, but that post really ticked me right off. On preview: ah, jb was much more civil. Sorry about that.
livii, that's OK, i understand where you're coming from and i think you're quite civil.
but my question was more along the lines of, if this is such a life-altering, awe-inspiring, primal human experience, why are so many mothers *and* fathers eager to return to the workplace? why do they turn their children over to strangers? why do they say they have to work because being at home would "drive them crazy"?
i've worked with oodles of moms and dads with babies. i'm not saying moms should stay home, a dad home would be just as fine. but it seems to me that one parent at home is a necessity.
what i don't understand is, if indeed this is such an attractive, mysterious, lovely experience, then why do so many parents i've spoken with say the same thing: "it's great being home with my baby, but i couldn't wait to get back to work!"
HUH???
(again, truly curious, not angry or trying to be uncivil...)
SideDish: so, if both parents work, they're not honest about their commitment to having children? I would suggest that both parents have worked outside of the child rearing job, at least in some (maybe most?) segments of society, since the dawn of human time.
If modern parent have the economic freedom, and the the desire for one of them to stay home, that's good. But if both find satisfaction in working, or need to have two incomes to support the family, it's all good. Children are amazingly resourceful and adaptive.
And, why do you assume that the children are left to strangers to raise? It could be relatives, or a care situation that lasts for years, where good relationships develop. It could be argued that giving children a broader social situation could help them.
And, it still is "an attractive, mysterious, lovely experience" for those who want it. Working parent still get to help their chldren develop and have enormous influence on how they do. The parent/child bonding thing still happens, and the pleasures of helping one's child have fun, learn important values, succeed, etc., are not lost to working parents. It's not like they put the children entirely out for foster parenting till they're grown.
I get the feeling that you're so annoyed by the pressure put on people who don't want children by "breeders" that you've gone overboard.
but it seems to me that one parent at home is a necessity.
Not a necessity...kids do fine as long as they get proper attention from their parent(s) when they *are* home. Two-income families aren't neglecting their children. They're not choosing money,career,new cars, etc over their kids. It's the parents who ignore their kids after they get home from work who are a problem.
As a father, I'd love to be with my kids all day, but I'm a single-income, single-parent (part-time, at least), so I don't have the option.
>>I get the feeling that you're so annoyed by the pressure put on people who don't want children by "breeders" that you've gone overboard.
no no no, that's not it at all. i'm just intellectually curious as to how parents can describe having children as so very important and primal and deep and awe-inspiring -- as slightlyfoxed said, it teaches "what it means to be human" -- but then are so eager to get back into the workplace just three months after a birth.
let me find another way to phrase this, because i don't want anyone to misunderstand. i'm not saying i'm angry that parents return to the workplace (although, myself, i do believe it's best for at least one parent to raise their children). i'm just baffled as to how they can proclaim parenthood to be such an overwhelming thing, and yet they prefer to come back to the office as soon as possible.
there. does that make sense? what i'm asking, i mean?
SideDish; I think I expressed some of how parents describe having children as "so very important and primal and deep and awe-inspiring", even if they choose to find other ways to reach their potential in the bigger world. Your beliefs regarding who should raise children have as much credibilty as those who say that that those who don't want to have children are somehow not quite right. Really, the tone is the same.
You seem to want to make it either/or. It isn't that way. You claim claim intellectual curiosity, but your comments seem pretty judgemental, just like the "you need to have children" opinions are. Saying "just baffled as to how they can proclaim parenthood to be such an overwhelming thing, and yet they prefer to come back to the office as soon as possible" really unfairly denegrates the choices parents have to make. I'm not saying that you should have to make the same choices, but you really shouldn't be so eager to claim authority on a life style you've chosen not to experience.
although, myself, i do believe it's best for at least one parent to raise their children
Why? Based on what? Please elaborate, because as path said, it comes across as judgemental, and insulting to parents who work. You're saying they're not doing what's best for their children.
I thnk perhaps the answer to your question is that working doesn't nullify the experience and responsibilties of being a parent. And you almost certainly know this instinctively: imagine being a stay-at-home parent, imagine being a working parent, and think of your own experience not being a parent at all. Which is the working parent more like: the stay at home parent or you?
Sidedish: The reason parents are so grateful to get back to work is that parenthood IS overwhelming. When you work a job, even if your boss has you on call with a beeper, you still can walk OUT the door and shut it behind you. Can't do it as a parent. Pick up a humor book on parenting and see what they laugh at: yup, there you are, stuck in a land where everyone's under three feet and picks their nose, and when you're not washing dirty hands and faces, you're changing/wiping butts, washing crayon marks off the wall, cleaning up spilt juice and trying to keep one kid from killing the other. Basically, the job description calls for a four-armed insomniac saint with eyes in the back of the head. If you can't laugh, you want to cry or throw things. People who love their jobs are happy to go home. People who love their kids are happy to go to work. It's a change. It's a challenge. It's a different set of rewards.
A few thoughts on WHY a mom might want to work:
I was a stay-at-home mom for all four of my kids. I was on call 24/7, CEO and president of the organization. I did childcare, cooking, cleaning, budget and finance, teaching, gardening, repair, you name it. I had to specialize in infant care, pre-school ed, elementary development, and teenage psychology. I had to be a self-starter and to find my own rewards. I didn't get paid. I don't have retirement after my 20 years, and I don't HAVE a resume.
I'm a little bit bitter, because for the last 30 years, I've felt pretty devalued, thank you very much. What's the first question you ask someone you meet at a party? Where do you work/what do you do? Ever notice how the conversation gets dies or gets a bit sticky when the woman says, "I'm a housewife and mother." Booor-innng. If you think there's a bit of a social stigma on working childless females, try saying you're a housewife and mother. BUT, because I've been around tired toddlers and cranky children, I know how to coax a bored little person into having fun at a party and we can talk about YOUR real job instead.
Actually, I'm a lot bitter--take job interviews. "What is your experience?" If I say I've been a wife and mother, I'm pathetic. If I tell them the set of skills needed to be a good wife and mother (on a budget of 20K/yr)they think I'm being amusing. "What about your PAID experience?" Try going out into the job market at age 40 with no job history and see what kind of jobs there are and who is willing to hire you.
On the one hand: No pay, no retirement, no resume. And, if you do it right, you work your way out of a job.
On the other hand: Four kids, all graduated high school, three with further education; no felonies; one married, two divorced; all employed; two with families; and all productive, thinking members of society.
Since the kids left home, I've had some ok jobs and one great one. I'd be a lot more sour in outlook if I had never had a chance to see if I could handle an executive assistant position. I can. I did. And I got a very nice bonus when I left. (The job went to Italy and I declined to go with it.) So you could say I've my shot and gave it up.
My present position is CEO and president, again. GramMa's resume was good enough to get hired as a sitter for three of the grandkiddlings, and I may be picking up the fourth one after Christmas. HIRED--yes, I expect to be paid for it. If they'd pay someone else, they might as well pay someone who they KNOW they can trust. Of course, they get a relative's discount. ;)
Livii's comment on income was spot on. ...$40K/year is lucky. Not everyone makes that much money. I had a couple links I'd googled and was going to put some info up on average income, wealth distribution, single/double income homes, etc, but one of the dang pdf files dumped my link and I had to close out. Ya'll can practice your google-fu, if you like. Monkeys tend to forget they're not a random selection of our society. Monkeys are fairly middle class--even our young Monks going to school and starving in garrets see it as a temporary and short-term necessity. I would be willing to bet my barrel of banana peels that the average income here is 10-15K higher than the average US income.
Rocket88: As a father, I'd love to be with my kids all day ... I don't have the option.
I hear you, Rocket, and you speak with my husband's words. My husband has his own bitterness to contend with--he feels he missed a lot of his kids growing up by having to be the breadwinner. I see him with our grandkids, and say, "You should know ___ about raising kids, we had four." He'll just look at me, and then I remember. He wasn't with them like I was.
The IDEAL would be if mom and pop had the same job, each working 25-30 hours a week on a flex schedule while the kids were young. As the kids get into school, the job and be 30-40 hours a week each, and when they've left home, you have two full-time employees with great jobs, eventual great retirement, and/or great resumes. Childless folks would be on a faster career track since they would be full time and wouldn't have to worry about covering for parents.
Oh wait, that wouldn't work. Corporations aren't here to benefit the people that work for them, and society isn't going to bend just to help its members.
Well, that certainly was long-winded!
BlueHorse - that certainly would be ideal, having job sharing. I have heard of a few academics doing that, and that in one field where it works well, but it's still rare. Actually, even if I were childless, I think I would work 1/2 as much for 1/2 the pay. Getting by on less money isn't so bad (done it my whole life) - and the more time you have the better.
Why does the sentence bother me? Because it was definitive and only relating to child bearing/rearing. As I said before the 'it' pissed me off. There was no 'can' or 'may' or 'perhaps' in that sentence. To say that the only way to experience selflessness/love/etc is by having a child is unreasonable (bear with me while I finish the thought). Many people have children and abuse them, torture them, abandon them, kill them. One of the initial thoughts I had about that sentence was female babies being killed for being female but males were left untouched. I started to think of munchausen's by proxy (someone who intentionally makes their kid sick in order to get attention), of women who have had children only to kill them for whatever twisted reason and then have another and do it all over again.
Some view having kids as benign as eating or excreting and don't/won't learn from the experience of giving birth and raising the child. I have witnessed one woman who had a child only to keep her welfare benefits. Her son was about to reach the magic age of 10 and when he did it meant social services would force her to find work. To get around this she had a second child to keep the benefits and to avoid working - I shit you not. Having a baby will teach what is like to be pregnant (if your female) but it wont teach you anything else unless you choose to learn more. In all honesty it may be a life altering positive experience for some but its not true for all. I have the belief if your going to experience the positive aspects of child rearing you will already have the capacity within you to do so. For me it's like trying to argue that a
psychopath (basically someone who is guiltless and loveless) will learn to be selfless/care for others/love by merely having a child and raising it. It wont. Does this clarify why I had a problem with the sentence/idea/concept?
re contraceptives: I was thinking more along the lines of linen condoms and ones made of sheep gut (I believe) and women who abstain from sex during the time in their cycle when pregnancy would most likely occur, beeswax diaphrams etc I should have written what I thought rather than just think it - sorry.
ps: I'll dig up some juicy history on contraception and post it to the front page. SideDish one women took a 14K gold IUD from her husbands pharmacy and had it turned into a
charm for her bracelet ... lol
IUD charm! i love it!
>>be so eager to claim authority on a life style you've chosen not to experience.
nope, path, i never claimed that -- just the opposite. i covered parenthood and especially childcare are issues back at the kansas city star, mainly because i was so interested in it and other reporters didn't seem to realize the importance (early '90s).
i was always fascinated by the reader response i received, very passionate on both sides of the issue (office moms vs. home moms). especially after the story about the study that said a baby doesn't need its parents to thrive, it just needs a caring adult. any caring adult.
but, no, i never claimed any authority. and it's something i've always been curious about, the duality of behavior: women craving having a child, then tearing themselves away but so eager to return to the workplace.
it remains a mystery to me, that's all.
i understand that it doesn't have to be either/or, that women can "have it all." but what i've never understood is, if parenthood is as satisfying as they insist, why return to work?
i also understand about the financial aspects. but we did a story back in kansas city in which three stay-at-home parents opened up their budgets to us to show that even if only one parent works, and doesn't make very much money, it is still possible to live on one salary and have one parent at home with the kids. that was controversial but we felt that their voices also deserved to be heard.
path, you sound upset, i hope that's not the case. it's a very emotional issue. but to me, a never-ending source of fascination.
(oh, an aside on "having it all." back in my early 30s when i was solidifying my decision to remain child-free, i asked my mother if she thought i should have kids: "no way. you have a great, full life and a wonderful career. no." that's pretty powerful stuff when your mom tells you that!)
>>yet they prefer to come back to the office as soon as possible" really unfairly denegrates the choices parents have to make
one more point: i'm not talking about the parents who absolutely must return to work. i'm talking about parents like my friend, whose husband is a highly paid cardiologist, who returned to work after three months THANKING GOD that she didn't have to stay home one more day -- and in the next breath describing parenthood as a wonderful experience. huh?
I
One addition to your statement about parents working to give kids the "extras." If you look at the statistics (and I can vouch for them, being in the right class) the "extras" a lot of working parents are working for include food, shelter, clothing, and transportation.
Oh, yeah, we're (almost) all a bunch of spoiled yuppies. No question about that. But, honestly, people who are working hard to make ends meet generally aren't the ones worrying hard about whether they're going to leave work an hour early to make Muffy's piano recital for the Nth time this semester.
And to amend something I said earlier in light of some well-considered comments later in the thread: I don't want four-year-olds crying, but I think I learned a valuable lesson by not having my parents available to attend my every concert/recital/play/etc. when I was in jr. high/high school: I learned that my parents were people with their own desires, needs, and responsibilities.
My mother gave up working to be home with me. I wish she'd kept working because I don't think she was very happy. It wasn't a money issue; it was an issue about her being happy and fulfilled. I wish my dad had been home more, but I think he had a very exciting and fulfilling life. That was their tradeoff, which they were lucky to make.
(And yes, I know I'm lucky that I have the option to stay childfree without being a nun or other celibate. Since I'd have died in childhood from infections if I'd been born before penicillin, I don't really think it's a big issue. ;)
...and "Sprog" is a diminutive of "Sproggin", in Celtic/British mythology a small mischievous pixie or sprite.
According to the Concise Scots Dictionary, a sprog/sprug/sproug is a child's term for the house-sparrow. Also applied to a bright but undersized boy.
Online: Sprog seems to be current UK slang for a baby or small child.
Anglo-Irish sprog refers to a recruit.
Couldn't find anything online or on my bookshelvews related to sproggin or sprog in folklore or mythology (but I had fun looking.
Have to wonder if sprog = pixie or sprite is a new/NewAge coinage?
/Department of the Oblique Angle: Sprog is the Danish word for language. As in danske sprog.
I stand corrected! :)
You may be seated.
Kim: welcome to Monkeyfilter. I do hope you'll stay for the discussion and fun. We have a strange, but wonderful combination of both.
I know this is an old thread, but I stumbled upon it and thought I would post a little something... As someone who for a while thought I just wasn't into having kids (even though I liked them well enough), I can definitely find humor (dark as it may be) in the website linked to. And while I have now decided to actually pursue having a family, I can still relate to that feeling of being in the minority, of having assumptions (generally wrong) made about you, and of sometimes feeling very annoyed with all the 'regular' people and the thoughtless way they talk about your family situation (or lack thereof). Although I have no fertility problems, I have decided (for various humanitarian and other reasons) to adopt, and get many strange looks when I tell people this. Just like they can't conceive (ha ha) of someone wanting to remain childless, they also can't comprehend someone who would want a child without doing it 'the old fashioned way'. Oh well. Sometimes I get mad at their ignorance but usually I end up feeling a bit smugly superior at my own openness of mind. ;-)
In spite of my desires to have children, I'm beginning to really understand the frustration those who choose to be child-free go through. A couple very close to me is getting married soon and has already decided not to have children. When I tell people this I get the same response 99% of the time - "Oh, they say that now, but once they get a little older.." and I politely tell them, no, they say that now because they have always said that and always will say that. It AMAZES me how many people continue with "Yeah, but you never know. They could always change their minds." No, really, I DO KNOW, THEY WILL NEVER CHANGE THEIR MINDS. Why is that so difficult for people to accept? I swear, people will go back and forth on this with me a half dozen times until I get fed up and change the subject.
Nothing wrong with adopting. Best thing I ever did, by quite some distance.
I believe that children are our future Teach them well and let them lead the way