![[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.
Part 1 of 2
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
::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
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.