![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Mommy Madness Redux
OK, well, this is probably going to piss some people off. Sorry, guys.
A few days ago I posted a link from![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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 tolinaelyn'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 ofpeer 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 onlinaelyn'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.
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 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
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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2005-02-19 05:04 pm (UTC)(link)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//)
no subject
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