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

[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.