Mommy Madness Redux

[ciroccoj]

OK, well, this is probably going to piss some people off. Sorry, guys.

A few days ago I posted a link from snarkhunter's lj, to an article called Mommy Madness. And I said that I had a bunch of stuff to say about it. And then linaelyn posted a link to it, along with her own reaction to the article, much of which I agreed with - except that I thought the article was also saying many of the exact same things linaelyn was, and at the time, she didn't ;)

For those who have no idea what I'm talking about, here's the link to linaelyn's post (and the brouhaha intense discussion that exploded ensued following it ;)

http://www.livejournal.com/users/linaelyn/822756.html


First off: funny thing - medee6040 posted a comment to my earlier post, as "the token child-free person here" - but actually, looking at my flist, I see ::counting:: two parents (including one step-parent in that count); 20 non-parents (7 of whom have defined themselves as very much life-long childfree by choice - and most of the others are pretty sure they'll never want kids either); and 8 'don't know' (6 of which I'm almost 100% certain are non-parents and childfree). So I'd say it's more like I'm the token parent, in a sea of non-parents ;)

Here's the thing. I'm down with that childfreedom thang. I really, really am. I do not believe everybody - or even most people - should have children. I do not believe that a woman (or man, for that matter) has to have children in order to have a life/make a contribution to society/get good karma/have status. I believe too many people have children just because of peer societal pressure, even though, if they really thought about it, they would realize that children are not for them.

I do not believe childfree folks are selfish. I do not believe they all hate children. I believe many are singularly self-aware folks who have the courage to make an unpopular life-choice because they know themselves and know that they will be far, far happier not spending a huge chunk of their adult lives at the mercy of demanding, annoying, and exhausting little beings.

I also believe that having a kid is a huge responsibility, and that the bulk of that responsibility must be borne by the parents. They are the ones who brought this being to life; they are the ones who should take care of it and nurture it to adulthood. That means making sacrifices - eg, realizing that expensive trips, lots of free time, professional advancement, late night parties, an immaculate house, various hobbies – most of that will have to go the way of the dodo until the child is ready to leave the nest.

However.

I was a lot more adamant about all of the above before law school, and before lj. Through law school and lj I've gained a... more nuanced look at childfreedom, which has frankly left me speechless several times. I've seen virulent hatred of children. Burning resentment of parents and children. A concept of children as nothing but parasites, parents as nothing but freeloaders, dragging society down with no positive contribution whatsoever. Typical statements I've heard/seen in the last couple of years:

"Oh, so we're supposed to pay more taxes so some woman can have 'affordable child care' - why should we have to raise her brats? She's the one who had them! She can damn well pay for them herself!"

"Why the hell don't airlines just ban all kids under 5?"

"Would it be that difficult for the supermarkets to declare just a couple of hours of the day child-free?"

So... if you reproduce, you should be grateful to get any financial assistance, stay put, and do your grocery shopping at a time when your 'brats' won't cause anyone else five minutes of inconvenience by squalling. Because what you've done, in choosing to reproduce, is so unnecessary to humanity and so selfish that you should just go hide in a hole until your brats can no longer inconvenience society as a whole.

We don't need more people in this world - in fact, we need many, many less. And children are annoying, and take up space, and yell, and are rude, and it's hard sometimes to understand why any of the tax dollars and resources of non-parents should go towards helping to feed, educate, take care of, and cover for parents and their children.

But when I see this outright hatred, absolute dismissal of children and parents, blanket statements regarding the utter uselessness of parenting as an institution... well, damn.

We may not need as many children as we have on the planet, but the fact is, we do need some. It would be nice if we could just transfer millions of the poor of the Third World to North America and Europe, educate them to become doctors, nurses, factory workers, and small business owners, and all live happily ever after until some time in the distant future when it became actually necessary to replenish human stocks before we all died out. But we all know that's not going to happen. In the meantime, if we're going to continue as a society and as a species, somebody needs to bring up the next generation. Not just for their own benefit, but also for the benefit of those who despise them.

The fact is, some day, when you are old, somebody (actually, several somebodies) will have to take care of you. Now I've heard variations on the theme "You're having a kid, they'll take care of you, but nobody's going to take care of me. I'll have to do that all on my own. So why should my money go towards your brats, who are only gonna benefit you and not me?"

I'm sure there are people out there who have kids so that somebody will take care of them when they get old - after all, people have kids for all kinds of stupid reasons. But I personally don't know one single solitary parent who thinks of their child as a personal resource for the future. On the contrary, most of us worry about our old age because we're so bloody broke feeding our kids and paying for day care and contributing to education funds that there's nothing left to go into retirement funds for ourselves. And we do not expect our kids to support us - in fact, eventually ending up as a burden on our children is a nightmare for most parents I know. I know it was for my mother.

So someday we'll all be in nursing homes. Childfree folks may not have the comfort of knowing that if they become penniless, eventually their kids will take them on (an assumption that I would sure as hell not be willing to make) but they will have had (on average) more money to contribute to their own retirement. They will (on average) be at nicer nursing homes. Parents will (on average) be at crappier nursing homes. And both groups will be taken care of by doctors and nurses and orderlies, and partly subsidized by the rest of the taxpayers. Even though the non-parents did not raise one single solitary one of those doctors or nurses or taxpayers.

I commented in the discussion on linaelyn's lj, "... I don't think [childfree people] are selfish just because they will some day be elderly and will be taken care of by a generation of doctors and nurses and taxpayers that they did not help to raise. It would be nice if they didn't call me selfish for choosing to raise them."

It would be really nice if parenting was not seen as something that either (a) everybody has to do whether they want to or not, or (b) the supremely selfish act of burdening society with totally unnecessary parasites. It would be really nice if parenting was seen as a valid life-choice, something that is of personal emotional benefit to parents and eventual social benefit to the rest of society, and we could respect each other's choices and not feel the need to tear each other down at every opportunity.

Sorry, guys. I try to be supportive of childfreedom, but frankly the hatred and disdain for parenting, and the anti-child attitude of society in general and law school/lj in particular, has left me feeling rather defensive on this topic.

Comments

[bear.livejournal.com]

It would be really nice if parenting was not seen as something that either (a) everybody has to do whether they want to or not, or (b) the supremely selfish act of burdening society with totally unnecessary parasites.

YES.

Also, by way of defending myself (and consequently, your classmates), please believe that some of us aren't out there trying to make your life difficult. We just don't *know*. I'm three weeks from twenty-six and have pretty much just gotten the hang of building a support system from absolutely nothing and have finally figured out how to balance school and the rest of my life in a way that is mentally healthy. I'm a full-time student. I don't have a husband. I don't have kids. Things about a parent's schedule *just* *don't* *occur* to me, not because I hate parents or think children are evil, but because I *don't* *know*.

Many of my friends are married, but only one or two have a child. I haven't gotten to the point in my life yet where I automatically know all of the parent scheduling stuff that is second nature to you by now, because I haven't really had to deal with it yet. It doesn't mean that I want to make my life difficult for my friends who have kids -- just that I have absolutely no frame of reference whatsoever. So yeah, some of your classmates *are* probably asshats, but while parents can remember what it was like not to have children, those of us without can't really grasp what it's like to *have* them and need to be reminded when the occasion arises.

(Um. That was a more-defensive-sounding-than-I-intended way of saying that if my attidute toward parents/parenting has ever made you uncomfortable, I apologize -- rest assured it comes from ignorance, not malice.)

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

please believe that some of us aren't out there trying to make your life difficult. We just don't *know*.
Oh, I believe it, for the most part, and have very little problem with this stuff when it only stems from ignorance. IMHO, ignorance and self-centredness is the birthright of every single member of the human family, and it has a long and glorious history that is truly inspiring to behold ;)

It doesn't bother me when things are scheduled/arranged a certain way because that's what fits the majority of people - which means, in law school, non-parents. What I do mind is when any kind of concession to parents is seen as catering to their every need - when the one of the only needs for change that is not acceptable is one that has to do with children.

EG: you have a group of four people, and you want to book a meeting. How about 10AM, says somebody. Three heads nod, one person says, "No way, man. I don't even get up before 11." OK, try again. How about 1PM? Sure, say three people - and one says "My soap's on then." (BTW, this is not made up example). OK... everyone has class until 6PM - how about 7PM? Three heads nod, one person says, "Um... I don't know if I can get a babysitter by then..." Not-so-discreet eye rolls accompany this, and "Well, that's the only time the rest of us can make it" is the response.

Multiply that by way too many eye rolls, way too many snide "She pulling the parent pity card again?" comments [about, BTW, a woman who had only missed class twice - in sharp contrast to most of our classmates, who regularly missed due to socially acceptable hangovers]... and it's a pattern not so much of ignorance as of callous dismissal.

That was a more-defensive-sounding-than-I-intended way of saying that if my attidute toward parents/parenting has ever made you uncomfortable, I apologize
Can't think of any examples, actually - I think just about everything parental that has annoyed you also annoys me ;)

[bandgeek.livejournal.com]

Hmm ... yeah, I can definitely see people getting angry over this one.

I consider myself a childfree person at the moment -- not in that I don't have children, but in that I don't really plan on having any. Since I'm only 19, and at my age, it isn't usually much of a revelation to tell people I don't have any children. ;) And since I've got all these career plans, etc., and because I'm not even certain I'll get married to a man, I'm not really planning on having kids. But who knows what'll happen in 10 years.

And although I'm one of the childfree bunch, I really do like kids. I want to spoil other people's kids. I'm good at it. :)

Welfare policy here used to be that qualifying families would receive another $500 (or so) a month for each child born. While it's important that these children be supported, what happened was that poor mothers would essentially become government-subsidized baby factories -- popping out little ones constantly, not to pay the bills, but to have another $500 a month for drugs and who knows what else. And with each additional child, it became increasingly unlikely that those mothers were likely to put the kids in daycare and go get a job. So in the 90s, Clinton changed the policy. Now, the extra $500/child only applies to the first three, and the system places more focus on job training. It's a rough deal, yes, but for those irresponsible parents who continue to bring into the world children that they cannot properly support, I think this was the right decision. And I realize that this opinion may make me unpopular. ;)

For people who can support their kids, well, I'm all for it. I just don't want to raise them myself -- and I don't imagine that many of those solvent parents particularly want me to, either. *g*

[bear.livejournal.com]

It's a rough deal, yes, but for those irresponsible parents who continue to bring into the world children that they cannot properly support, I think this was the right decision.

Ah, the "irresponsible" single welfare mothers. Who frequently did not finish high school or are functionally illiterate, which keeps them from finding well-paying jobs because not only are they not qualified. And even if they were qualified, the jobs worth having are all in the outer-ring suburbs an hour's commute from their home (where, by the way, the cost of living is too high for them to move). Who, if they *do* find a job, find that the minimum wage pay from McDonalds is not enough to feed, clothe, and house themselves and their kid(s). Whose WIC/food stamps does not cover necessities like personal care products or clothing. Who, when they do get paid, face additional deductions from their paychecks because they don't have a bank account (not enough money to start one) so they have to get their checks cashed at check-cashing stores, which take a cut of the check. Or who, when they can't make it 'til payday, get payday loans at exorbitant rates of interest. Who face a waiting period of up to *two years* (in Cleveland, anyway) to get into government housing, which is usually little better than a box on the side of the road. Who have to jump through so many hoops and wade through so much red tape in order to get government assistance that there is no time left to find a job or to work. Who have no access to affordable childcare. Whose Medicare does not cover vision or dental care (nor birth control, I believe). Who, if they become pregnant and don't want to keep the baby, have no real access to abortions. Who face the constant threat of Child and Family Services taking away their children. Who only have meaningful access to these "benefits" if they live in urban areas where these agencies actually exist and are accessible rather than in one of the dozen or so rural counties with few services and no public transportation system whatsoever.

"Rough deal" is a bit of an understatement.

[bear.livejournal.com]

Sorry -- this came out sounding rather more inflammatory than I intended. I should note that I wasn't aware of most of this stuff until I took poverty law, which really opened my eyes to the realities of being very poor (the check-cashing thing is something that never entered my mind before). I also didn't realize how insane the Medicare/Medicaid/TANF/WIC requirements are until I started wading through them -- I can't imagine trying to do so as a single mom with no place to stay and no idea what she's going to feed her kids tonight.

[daf9.livejournal.com]

I agree that the current welfare system is a lose-lose situation for everybody but how would you resolve it? (Personally as a taxpayer if I'm going to pay someone to raise a child I would prefer to pay someone who is not going to raise a child to believe that dropping out of school to raise children is a career plan.)

[bear.livejournal.com]

I'm not quite sure what you want me to say -- I doubt that there is one plan that will magically cure all our ills, and if I had one I'd be running for office with that as a platform.

That said, I'd start with education. Make a commitment to creating (and funding -- ESPECIALLY funding) excellent public schools. Include sex ed -- REAL sex ed, not abstinence-only -- in the curriculum, and free condoms in the nurse's office. Provide child care during the day for students with kids so they don't have to make the choice between caring for their children and finishing high school.

Regulation of storefront check-cashing and loan establishments, which are not subject to the usury restrictions that banks face. Federal tax incentives to businesses that create jobs in economically depressed areas. Eliminate the $90,000 income cap on Social Security contributions. Ditch the Bush tax plan. Overhaul the pharmaceutical industry so that poor people not forced to choose between paying their rent and buying their medicine.

...of course, all of that is easier said than done.

[daf9.livejournal.com]

I think those are good ideas. Easier said than done as you say but they would certainly be a start.

[snarkhunter.livejournal.com]

I would prefer to pay someone who is not going to raise a child to believe that dropping out of school to raise children is a career plan

No offense, but way to blame the sins of the parent on the child.

There probably are some mothers who raise their kids with that belief, but to generalize about an entire class of women (and men) and their children is rather hideous.

Let me give you an example: Daughter of a teenaged bride who married after her junior year of high school. High-school educated parents who worked as a store clerk and a mechanic when she was born. Sister to a high-school dropout (much to his parents' dismay) who earns a good living.

She's me, and I'm two years away from my PhD.

[daf9.livejournal.com]

My comment was obviously unclear. I meant I didn't want to perpetuate the idea that young girls should grow up thinking that the government would pay them to raise children. I have nothing but respect for people who work to the best of their abilities to support themselves and their children, regardless of their level of education.

[tudorlady.livejournal.com]

Well - try being a poor childless person. What you get is bupkes multiplied. You are eligible for jack shit. I know. It's happened to me.

Getting on disability (as I am discovering) is, at the minimum, a two to five year process. Even then, I'll qualify for very little because - guess what? - I don't have children.

As a single, childless person with no income, if you try to get health care, you get shown the door. If you announce "I'm pregnant" - it's a very different story, believe me.

[jenniferjames.livejournal.com]

::BIGHUGS::

As you know, I adore children and am only 'childfree' because I have not found a man worthy to father my children. =)

I try to be supportive of childfreedom, but frankly the hatred and disdain for parenting, and the anti-child attitude of society in general... has left me feeling rather defensive on this topic.

Word. I guess I don't understand why it has to be an 'us vs. them' thing anyway. There are pros and cons to both choices.

"Can't we all just get along?"

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

::BIGHUGS::
::hugs back::

"Can't we all just get along?"
::chuckle:: I debated writing that in myself, actually ;)

[tudorlady.livejournal.com]

Okay, point of information, Jen...

You're childless. Childfree is pretty narrowly construed (I knew that would make you laugh!). It means that you've actively *chosen* not to have or raise children, and are doing anything you possibly can to prevent it.

So, someone can't be 'childfree for now'. It's a pretty big decision. Just like choosing to have children. (And you, snookums... are gonna be a hella mom one of these days, if that's what's in the cards for you.)

[daf9.livejournal.com]

You can toss me in the "likes kids, never really wanted any of her own" bin. I don't think it should be a them or us situation either but as long as raising children imposes demands on both those who have chosen to do it and on society's onlookers to the process, I think there's going to be some resentment on both sides.

[(Anonymous)]

Why must we always apologize in advance for our well-written, educated opinions possibly pissing people off? That makes it sound like we are ashamed of having that opinion, and I know you aren't, Jim. So don't apologize.

So I will now say, I'm sorry if anyone reading this believes that my about-to-be-stated opinion is offensive to them, because I'm not setting out to offend, but if you are offended, then too bad for you. Hopefully my opinion will open a crack in that closed mind of yours.

I never thought I'd be a parent; I just never felt like I'd finished growing up myself. It wasn't that I didn't want to, I just couldn't fathom the responsibility, and never bothered imagining I'd ever be financially ready, much less emotionally so. Then I slowly realized that I could wait forever and never feel ready, that I finally did have the secure job, the savings, the (mortgaged) big enough house and the supportive husband. The right frame of mind wasn't something I'd just switch on one day, it was something I'd developed so slowly I didn't notice. It would be a wonderful world if every entry into parenthood was this well-prepared. I have new and profound respect for all the people who become parents without being so ready. Of course, I also have new and profound respect for all the parents who have twins. To think I once thought that would be nice, to get both desired kids out of the way in one pregnancy. Hoo boy.

Anyways, every person is probably generally aware of if they'd make a good parent or not. It's an equally responsible thing for those who believe it wouldn't suit them, to not have children. What I don't understand is why it's so difficult for each side to respect the choice of the other?

It would be a very nice thing if society were more supportive of children and parenting. That village to raise a child thing is true, and the whole village benefits, even the ones who never have kids. Motherhood isn’t supposed to be a lonely isolated thing; we evolved to be surrounded by our family and friends to help out and it’s only in the last century that we’ve been so drained going against evolution. I’d love to see a completely subsidized day care attached to every workplace, and in every neighbourhood, to segue children from infancy to school age so parents could balance child-rearing and earning money the way that worked best for them. I felt that way before becoming a parent because even though my taxes would be paying for it, same as with education, because this is the system that paid for ME when I was a child. Even childfree people can’t argue with not paying education taxes when they don’t have children, it’s like paying back what you got 25 years ago.

I could comment more, but I'd mostly be echoing Jim, and I don't have that kind of time!

Alison (http://wibberley.blogspot.com//)

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

So don't apologize.
Sorry. Oops, there I go again.

Motherhood isn't supposed to be a lonely isolated thing; we evolved to be surrounded by our family and friends to help out and it's only in the last century that we've been so drained going against evolution.
Yeah, no kidding. And I don't know about you, but one thing I remember very clearly in Kingston was that it got awfully lonely being a non-native-Kingstonite parent sometimes. I tried to get a babysitting co-op up at one point in time, and it went nowhere because almost all the moms I knew said, "Good idea! Of course, I don't need it - my mom lives five minutes away, she's always happy to take the kids whenever I need a break."

Even childfree people can't argue with not paying education taxes when they don't have children, it's like paying back what you got 25 years ago.
Yes, they can argue with it, and many do. Because that was then, and this is now, and back then it was somebody else's money that went towards their education, and now it's their own money and that makes all the difference in the world.

Somebody in linaelyn's comments discussion said they knew a woman who believed her money shouldn't go to other people's kids even though she had a grown child who was educated in the public school system. The fact that other people helped her and her kid out with their tax dollars back then? Irrelevant.

[jessebee.livejournal.com]

I guess I don't understand why it has to be an 'us vs. them' thing anyway. There are pros and cons to both choices.

Are there ever. As somebody who married into a large family but chose not to add to the mob, I get to see those pros and cons on a regular basis. I have nothing but the highest, highest regard for folks like you who chose to have kids and are doing one damn fine job of raising them. You are doing a job I could never begin to do. On the other side of the fence, though, after a day of interacting with my sister-in-law's brood, or a day of dealing with the screaming "anything they want to do is FINE!" ones who come into my store, I can kinda see where the more virulent CFs are springing from, as well. I don't agree with them, but I see where they are coming from.

There must be a middle ground, somewhere....

[snarkhunter.livejournal.com]

So...what part of that was meant to be offensive?

I'm not childfree. I'm just single and not ready for the kids I definitely want some day. I hope to raise those kids to be decent human beings, even if they're little trolls (as I was, from time to time, even though I knew better) in public. And I cannot imagine judging someone for choosing not to contribute to our population growth.

(Oddly enough, maybe b/c most of my friends aren't big on having kids, I always feel apologetic for my desire to have a few of my own.)

I, too, have seen and been shocked by the more virulent side of some CFs, and I, too, have seen five-year-old brats being ignored/encouraged by their parents as they "express their ickle selves" by behaving like little monsters in a public forum.

And I look at both and say, "Chill." I agree with dear jenniferjames--why can't we all just get along?

(Incidentally, I've seen a couple of articles lately that histrionically shout about the decline of the birthrate, and how it's fallen below replaceable levels...in Europe. Apparently, people are freaked out that we're going...die...out...? Or maybe they're just afraid that the human race will have slightly darker skin if the White Folks of Western Europe and the US don't start breeding like rabbits. Ugh.)

[daf9.livejournal.com]

And I look at both and say, "Chill." I agree with dear jenniferjames--why can't we all just get along?


My hypothesis is that at least part of the problem is that some people can't distinguish between someone saying "Your choice isn't right for me " and someone saying "Your choice isn't right for you".

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

My hypothesis is that at least part of the problem is that some people can't distinguish between someone saying "Your choice isn't right for me " and someone saying "Your choice isn't right for you".

My hypothesis is that some people believe "your choice isn't right for me" automatically means "your choice isn't right for you either."

I have no problem with people who don't want to have children. It's when their words and actions impact on me and my children, because of their opinion that I shouldn't have children, that I get bothered by their attitudes/actions.

[daf9.livejournal.com]

My hypothesis is that some people believe "your choice isn't right for me" automatically means "your choice isn't right for you either."


You're absolutely right! I left out half of the problem.

[jessebee.livejournal.com]

So...what part of that was meant to be offensive?

None of it, and I will beg your pardon if it came across as such.

And I cannot imagine judging someone for choosing not to contribute to our population growth.

You should meet my in-laws. I've been judged on that criteria for fifteen years now.

[snarkhunter.livejournal.com]

Well, I was using "meant to be" in the non-intentional way--meaning, "What part of that would people find offensive?" not "what part of that did you intend to be offensive?"

A friend of mine, btw, has in-laws like that. Ugh.

[jessebee.livejournal.com]

Aaahh, gotcha. My apologies for over-reacting, then. ::bows:: I fear that over the years I've grown a bit too defensive about the "not having kids" thing. Mea culpa.

And my sincere condolences to your friend. ;-)

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

I always feel apologetic for my desire to have a few of my own.)
Yeah, same here, especially with people my own age or younger. It seems to be partly a generational thing - people of my parents' generation bemoan the fact that all these "selfish" young folks are not providing them with grandchildren, and people of my generation wonder why on earth anybody would want to have kids when there's so many people clogging up the planet already.

I've seen a couple of articles lately that histrionically shout about the decline of the birthrate, and how it's fallen below replaceable levels...in Europe
Oh, I know!! It's insane! Every time I read one of those, I think they have a good point in that if the European/NA population isn't replaced, Europe/NA is going to hit some serious organizational problems soon, but... ever hear of Africa? Asia? South America? If we're so bloody scared that in 20 years there won't be anybody working the factories and staffing the hospitals and running the nursing homes, we should import more people. Millions would jump at the chance to start a new life in the developed world, and would contribute a hell of a lot to it.

But I guess the image of Europe/NA society breaking down in twenty years because there's too many people in nursing homes and not enough able-bodied young people working is not nearly as scary as the image of Europe/NA working just fine, but looking a couple shades darker.

People are idiots, yo.

[tudorlady.livejournal.com]

And I cannot imagine judging someone for choosing not to contribute to our population growth.

If you'd like to experience this, just mention that you have no interest whatsoever in kids in a roomful of "average" people who happen to be parents. Or, try this: Refuse to attend a baby shower due to lack of interest. Or, don't coo at a kid that the parent is all but sticking in your face and wanting you to admire. You don't need to do anything overt, just refuse to participate.

I don't wish that on you. It's not pleasant. Ugly things will be said about you.

[tudorlady.livejournal.com]

I'm going to be composing a response to this later.

I'm one of the most CF people you'll ever know.

On the other hand, I just might nail my response to the door of the preschool. (Don't worry, you'll agree with 98% of it!)

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

(Don't worry, you'll agree with 98% of it!)

::chuckle:: Yeah, probably - I generally do ;)

Part 1 of 2

[tudorlady.livejournal.com]

First off: funny thing - medee6040 posted a comment to my earlier post, as "the token child-free person here" - but actually, looking at my flist, I see ::counting:: two parents (including one step-parent in that count); 20 non-parents (7 of whom have defined themselves as very much life-long childfree by choice - and most of the others are pretty sure they'll never want kids either); and 8 'don't know' (6 of which I'm almost 100% certain are non-parents and childfree). So I'd say it's more like I'm the token parent, in a sea of non-parents ;)

Muy malo. I’m so used to being the lone ranger except in certain groups of my friends.

Like I said, I’m the most CF person anyone is likely to meet. I’m utterly indifferent to the entire subject of kids or anything, really to do with them. I’m just not interested. I don’t hate them. There are a lot of things in this world I have no interest in whatsoever. I feel the same way about casino gambling and NASCAR, incidentally. (Okay, I really don’t like ferrets. Now that is probably going to get me in some trouble.)

Except…

That I am constantly looked down upon for this choice in my life. Not by everyone, but certainly a vast majority of people. Why? Because having kids is the default. Frequently the first question a new acquaintance asks is “Do you have kids?” If you say “No, it’s just not for me,” Be ready for The Look. Followed by The Questions and Comments.
I’ve been told the following:
“You’ll change your mind someday, and you’ll be sorry.”
“People who don’t have kids don’t make any contribution to society.”
“You’ll die old and lonely.”
“That’s unnatural. How can you not just love little babies?”
“You’re not a real woman.”
“Are you a lesbian?”
“You’re just saying that because you haven’t grown up yet!”
“You’ll never find a man who’ll take you with an attitude like that.”
“People like you make me sick. You’re so selfish. You spend all of your money on yourselves!”
“What do you do with all of your time? Aren’t you bored?”
“You don’t understand what Real Love is.”
“Until you’ve had kids, you’ll never know what life is all about. I pity you.”
“That goes against the will of God.”
“Why do you HATE CHILDREN?” (n.b., I never said that!)
“It’s a woman’s duty to have children.”
“You’re just bitter because no one will have you.”
“What an empty life you must lead.”

Imagine someone saying something like that to you. Not just once or twice in your life, but whenever it happens to come up.

That’s the short selection. Don’t believe me? Try it sometime.

If parents think there’s an anti-parent sentiment out there, well, all I can say is – welcome to what it looks like from here. If you’ve ever worked in a place where the unofficial but very real policy is that parents get first pick of vacation dates and get “extra” sick days without being written up… that’s just a taste of it. If parents played by the rules like everyone else (some of them do, but it’s not particularly common), this wouldn’t even be an issue. But the truth of it is, the parent card trumps anything in our deck. It’s a given that it's fine if someone regularly takes off early to pick up from day care – but if I want to take the afternoon off to go ice-skating (expecting childed co-workers to cover for me) – or even a doctor’s appointment, for fuck’s sake – I get the stink-eye. Now, if I had to take my kid to the doctor… well, that’s different. See what I mean? My life is meaningless. I get reminded of that in many small ways daily.

Re: Part 1 of 2

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

There are a lot of things in this world I have no interest in whatsoever. I feel the same way about casino gambling and NASCAR
::chuckling:: good one :)

Because having kids is the default
... I think it is overall, but it also really depends on your social surroundings/generation. Plenty of people my age are only just now deciding to maybe start a family. Most of the people I grew up with are still not interested, and many have declared childfreedom to be their life choice. As they're quickly running out of time to have them (I'm 34) I'd tend to believe they're serious ;)

"You’ll change your mind someday, and you’ll be sorry."
Not as sorry as if you'd had kids and then changed your mind and realized you didn't want them after all.

“People who don’t have kids don’t make any contribution to society.”
There's got to be some statistical comeback here, about how much childfree folk contribute financially at the very least, seeing as how most (women, at least) are able to climb a little higher in their fields and get paid somewhat more - and don't have it siphoned off in day care and diapers and college tuition.

Not to mention contributing through volunteering and other non-tangibles.

If parents think there’s an anti-parent sentiment out there, well, all I can say is – welcome to what it looks like from here.
There's both. I think the underlying lesson here is, people are jerks.

the parent card trumps anything in our deck
I really, really think it depends where you are. It may trump anything else in many (or rather, most) workplaces, but it also dooms you in many other situations. Including situations where you'd think it would be an asset to have children. One school I did a placement in had an unofficial policy of never hiring parents of young (ie, under 15) children, no matter what their work habits or reliability were like, because "how can you be a good teacher if you've got children of your own to take care of?"

Re: Part 1 of 2

[tudorlady.livejournal.com]

Oh, good! I thought the thing about not liking ferrets was what was going to get my ass in hot water! ::looks around nervously::

I am a bit surprised about the school's hiring bias, but I can also see the reason behind it - it's one of those places where staff attendance is absolutely critical. If you were to work in an insurance company secretarial pool, or someplace equally bland, that's staffed with women in their 20s/30s and early 40s, I guarantee you'd see a lot of them playing the parent card. Often, with women in their 40s, it's the grandparent card - they're raising their kids' kids because their kid has sodded off to parts unknown.

I've seen too many varying attitudes in different places with regard to women in professional staff - from 'wouldn't even know she has kids' to 'completely unreliable and constantly fobs work off on everyone else' being par for the course. Usually, there are varying degrees of this, and varying degrees of tolerance for the latter.

...Then, of course, there's the story I heard from someone whose classmate brought her very ill toddler *quadruplets* (i.e., they had some stage of either bronchitis and *pneumonia*, as the mother explained to all of them) to. a. university. lecture. The prof did not send her home. Half of the XY portion of the class spent time cooing over them, the other half recoiled in horror. As you can guess, nothing got done that day. I'll have to track down that story - it was a real trainwreck.

Part 2 of 2

[tudorlady.livejournal.com]

I also believe that having a kid is a huge responsibility, and that the bulk of that responsibility must be borne by the parents.

My personal experience here puts you in the distinct minority. You are one of about three people with kids that I know who actually GETS IT. Because of people like you, I don’t make blanket statements about parents or kids. Unlike a lot of CFs, I don’t feel a need to express my anger by using a lot of creative, insulting names for parents and children. “Breeder” is about as far as it goes, but I hear parents calling breeders that as well. Besides, the whole ugly name calling thing is so fucking adolescent, and they give CFs a bad name. I’ve called more than a few on it. Most of the ill-mannered CFs are very young and have just discovered the whole concept – they’re suddenly in a place where it’s okay to express an unpopular opionion. They go overboard. Most of them mellow out and eventually realize that there are better ways to get our point across when it needs to be gotten across. The rest were assholes in the first place, they just happened to have not gotten knocked up.

There are ugly CFs out there. But we’re dwarfed in sheer number by rude, inadequate parents who expect us to kiss their asses on a daily basis. The kind of people who give all parents a bad name.

It would be really nice if parenting was not seen as something that either (a) everybody has to do whether they want to or not, or (b) the supremely selfish act of burdening society with totally unnecessary parasites. It would be really nice if parenting was seen as a valid life-choice, something that is of personal emotional benefit to parents and eventual social benefit to the rest of society, and we could respect each other's choices and not feel the need to tear each other down at every opportunity.

Being respected for what we are is what we want too. But the fact is that the culture on this continent is such that CF people are considered to be noncontributing drones. We just want our lives to mean as much as yours. I don’t mind my taxes paying for benefits to parents as long as there were equal benefits made available to me (parity in social services when needed, equal taxation, equal treatment in the workplace, for instance). I’d like some respect for having done a responsible thing with my life.

Same things, really.

Re: Part 2 of 2

[officerjudy.livejournal.com]

::bows down to medee6040, the CF goddess::

Re: Part 2 of 2

[officerjudy.livejournal.com]

“You’ll die old and lonely.”

This one always gets me. Because having children often means jack shit in this regard - the kids often fuck off once they're grown, leaving mom and dad to wither away in a retirement/long-term care home. Where many of them are lucky if their children visit JUST ON SPECIAL OCCASIONS.

Re: Part 2 of 2

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

This one always gets me. Because having children often means jack shit in this regard
Oh god, yeah, no kidding.

I remember listening to a couple of friends of mine talking about how they'd never have children themselves, because none of the reasons for having children applied to them. Like, for example, they didn't care about carrying on their family name. And they didn't need to have a child so somebody would love them. And they were going to save up for their retirement, so they wouldn't need a child to take care of them.

...the fuck? Who has kids for those reasons? I thought to myself. That's insane!

... and then I thought about a lot of parents I know. And realized that no, it wasn't ridiculous, people do it all the time :(

Re: Part 2 of 2

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

The rest were assholes in the first place, they just happened to have not gotten knocked up.
LOL!

I’d like some respect for having done a responsible thing with my life.
Me too :)

[sangerin.livejournal.com]

I was going to post about this to my LJ today, although somehow your post had skidded past my consciousness up until now.

Anyway - posting here instead.

I'm assuming you've got me in the "pretty sure they'll never want kids" group, and most of the time, you'd be right. And in this country, there are legal as well as biological impediments, quite apart from time factors, career factors, and all that jazz. I may not be "pretty sure I'll never want kids", but I am pretty sure I'll never have kids.

But it's become more and more a political thing these days. It's partially because the whole "abortion debate" has been brought back up again this last month, and so we've had people writing opinion articles about the joys of parenthood and the boredom of parenthood and this, that and the other. And then today, the wife of the man who, more than most, I consider my Mentor, certainly of the last year or so, wrote an article that was beautiful in and of itself, but still left me wanting to scream. Because from my perspective, right at the moment, all I see is "you have the wrong approach to living". And not only am I getting it from the government, from society at large (this is my problem with Desperate Housewives, and I still don't see it as being popular because it's ironic: I see it being popular because it's a 1950s fantasy)... but I'm getting it from people like Clare.

And there really are reasons this should have been in my own journal and not in yours, and I'm sorry! (Heh, add that to the various apologies floating around...)

And in case you're interested, Clare's article is here.