Author Topic: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men  (Read 43093 times)

exterous

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 174
Quote
I enjoy your posts, golden1, but seriously WTF are you responding to here?  What lack of empathy? That post was totally reasonable and not overtly hostile to kids and parents in general.  It pointed out some very real issues that seem to be happening with some parents in recent decades.  It didn't condemn all kids or all parents.  I feel like you are reacting to imaginary things in this thread.

What imaginary things?  I'll parse through it.

Quote
And to counter your anecdote I've been part of a team where, as the only childless employee, they always wanted me to pick up the slack. "Hey this needs to be done by tomorrow but we all have kids so we're leaving and need you to stay late to finish it." Do more work for the same pay just because I don't have kids? Hard pass.

This is EXACTLY the lack of empathy I was talking about upthread.  Yep, I have certainly had to leave early to do something kid related.  Kids get sick, things happen.  I try my damned hardest to NOT have someone "pick up my slack" and if I need someone to cover for me, I will return the favor.  And I have covered for other people at work for other NON-kid related emergancies because that is what decent people do in order to get the work done while still taking care of what needs to be taken care of.  I am sorry your experience was so different.

I fail to see how countering your anecdotal evidence with anecdotal evidence of my own shows a lack of empathy. You claimed your treatment was 'unfair' - why am I not allowed to make similar claims without such accusations? I do think its great that you return the favor but I'm reasonably sure I didn't work with you at the company in question so how you would handle a situation is not analogous to my experience

Quote
I am stuck between a child who clearly needs me, and a work environment that is more concerned about what I can do for them in that moment.  It is a horrible, horrible feeling.


There are some truly unfortunate companies out there to work for as a great many companies view employees as a replaceable cog and under the banner of "What have you done for me today?". There are many conditions that can make an employer undesirable to work for and I think many of us have experienced that in one way or another. It's certainly stressful and can put a strain on the whole family. After experiencing more than a few of those I've made active choices to earn less in exchange for a better lifestyle and balance. I understand that this is easier said than done (and it certainly took a while in my case) but an uncaring workplace isn't generally a symptom of an anti-child viewpoint but more of a 'money\company above all else' mentality. That doesn't preclude it from being the case ever but its hard to make an overall justification for it.

Quote
My eyes almost fell out of my head from the rolling it did when I read that.  It isn't imaginary, but the same tripe the people bring out about how this generation of parents is horrible when they have exactly zero experience or first hand knowledge.   I am particularly sensitive to this because I have a special needs child, and I can sense the judgement rolling off people in waves.  Maybe that kid is undisciplined, or maybe that kid is autistic and having a meltdown.  You simply have no idea.  It seems like something someone would say to make themselves feel better about their choices.

I think you may have stopped reading my post at some point. Not only did I support my post with the work of child psychologists but I noted that much of my post is based on what I have experienced first hand. Much of the rest is informed by people with decades of experience with tens of thousands of children. It's unfortunate you jumped to "You simply have no idea" without considering what my post means. Schools, and by extension their employees, do tend to know where a child falls on the autistic spectrum as it is often spelled out for them. A very close friend of ours is the Department Head for Special Education at a large public school where she partnered with my wife for a number of programs and classes over many years. It might be easier to brush off my comments as uninformed but that doesn't mean the assumption is correct.

Quote
Remember the whole "It takes a village" thing?  Part of what makes child rearing challenging currently is that our culture is very individualistic where child rearing and bearing is assumed to be the sole responsibility of the parents.
 

I would put forth that part of this is a response to parental interactions. I have been in a good number of situations where constructive suggestions by experienced professionals were offered and it was met with "How dare you tell me how to raise my child." Since you seem resistant to the idea that someone without children has any idea how to handle children I would only say that much of the time  the people on the receiving end of the indignation are people who have decades of experience and children of their own. Obviously that reaction doesn't happen every time but there is decent support that the number of parents who are closing themselves off from the village is on the rise. I would point to more work by child psychologists on the matter but the last ones I included evicted no posted reaction so I'm not sure there is much point.

Quote
Raising and caring for the next generation of humans is important to our survival and not simply a "lifestyle choice".

Species wide you would be correct. However, given the rapid increase in population growth I don't think we're remotely close to the tipping point where this changes from being a choice to a matter of species survival.

Quote
It is such a bizarre thing that a species could feel this way about their own young, and yourselves.

This strikes me as an ironic statement given your comments about the lack of empathy.

As I sit here typing this I am struck by how much time I have expended trying to substantiate at least a tiny amount of experience on the matter. In contrast a parent is automatically accepted as possessing a wealth of knowledge and experience without any expended effort in determining their involvement or effectiveness in their child's raising. That feeling is not germane to this conversation but probably says something (although I'm not sure what)
« Last Edit: April 12, 2017, 08:19:12 PM by exterous »

The Money Monk

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 619
  • Location: Nevada
Almost every group of people is self righteous about their lifestyle. If they didn't think it was the 'right' way to live, they probably wouldn't be doing it. I don't think that the pro-children group is any better or worse in this regard.

I see plenty of bitterness in this thread from the other side too, getting insulted simply because other people  think you should have kids. Just let it go. Who cares if other people think you are doing it wrong?

If you find your self constantly getting harassed about the issue by friends or family, stop spending your limited life hours around them.





former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8826
  • Location: Avalon
I've been part of a team where, as the only childless employee, they always wanted me to pick up the slack. "Hey this needs to be done by tomorrow but we all have kids so we're leaving and need you to stay late to finish it." Do more work for the same pay just because I don't have kids? Hard pass.

Yep, I have certainly had to leave early to do something kid related.  Kids get sick, things happen.  I try my damned hardest to NOT have someone "pick up my slack" and if I need someone to cover for me, I will return the favor.  And I have covered for other people at work for other NON-kid related emergancies because that is what decent people do in order to get the work done while still taking care of what needs to be taken care of.  I am sorry your experience was so different.

I am stuck between a child who clearly needs me, and a work environment that is more concerned about what I can do for them in that moment.  It is a horrible, horrible feeling.

I've picked out these quotes because I can see both sides.  But: if you have a child, you are responsible for making arrangements for him/her not just when things are going well but also when things are not going well.  Kids get sick, that's a given.  It is the parent's responsibility to make back-up arrangements for when the kid gets sick which are not just "I'm going to run out on my obligations to my employer because I've failed to make proper back-up arrangements for my child being sick".

Now, if there is a true emergency, that's one thing.  I'm not saying someone should stay at work if their kid has had to go to hospital and there is no other parent available - unless the job is a safety-critical one that can't be covered (in which case the safety plan at work needs to cover that contingency).  But the routine "my kid barfed at daycare so I have to go pick him/her up" is something that a parent needs to plan for rather than expect their employer or colleagues to put that back-up plan in place for them.

Scandium

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2827
  • Location: EastCoast
Most of the world doesn't give a rat's ass whether or not you have children.  Your mother might.  But nobody else gives a fiddler's fart. 
The stigmatization is from talking about your "childfree" wonderfulness.  The Athiest who talks about his athiesm is the same kind of PITA.  In the vein of Neil Degrasse Tyson, when you don't collect stamps, you don't talk about not collecting stamps.

I'm not necessarily arguing your point, but it is equally true that parents people love to talk endlessly about their wonderful children themselves and that is equally tiresome after a point, unless you are someone with a vested emotional interest in their offspring their shrink.

Tried to fix this for you. People talk about, and value, the choices they've made. They are scared by and desperately disparage other life choices, since if those people are happy it could mean they life choice is wrong. This goes for everything. Humans are [pathetically fragile emotional beings.

zhelud

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 243
Another perspective-
At a previous job, the biggest takers of unplanned leave in my office were two childless colleagues who had to take care of elderly/sick parents. Hospitalizations, dementia crises, etc. But my parent colleagues and I were happy to cover for them, since we understood that sometimes life just happens, and it is not always possible to have a "backup plan" for when your mom falls down the stairs or your dad wanders into traffic (or when your kid barfs at daycare, either.)

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8826
  • Location: Avalon
Another perspective-
At a previous job, the biggest takers of unplanned leave in my office were two childless colleagues who had to take care of elderly/sick parents. Hospitalizations, dementia crises, etc. But my parent colleagues and I were happy to cover for them, since we understood that sometimes life just happens, and it is not always possible to have a "backup plan" for when your mom falls down the stairs or your dad wanders into traffic (or when your kid barfs at daycare, either.)
It is entirely possible to have backup plans for all of those circumstances, it's just a question of who does the organising of it and who pays for it - the employee, or the employer and his other employees.

zhelud

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 243
Another perspective-
At a previous job, the biggest takers of unplanned leave in my office were two childless colleagues who had to take care of elderly/sick parents. Hospitalizations, dementia crises, etc. But my parent colleagues and I were happy to cover for them, since we understood that sometimes life just happens, and it is not always possible to have a "backup plan" for when your mom falls down the stairs or your dad wanders into traffic (or when your kid barfs at daycare, either.)
It is entirely possible to have backup plans for all of those circumstances, it's just a question of who does the organising of it and who pays for it - the employee, or the employer and his other employees.
I would be really curious to know how you have arranged, in your life, to have someone on call all the time to deal with sick children or sick parents.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8826
  • Location: Avalon
Another perspective-
At a previous job, the biggest takers of unplanned leave in my office were two childless colleagues who had to take care of elderly/sick parents. Hospitalizations, dementia crises, etc. But my parent colleagues and I were happy to cover for them, since we understood that sometimes life just happens, and it is not always possible to have a "backup plan" for when your mom falls down the stairs or your dad wanders into traffic (or when your kid barfs at daycare, either.)
It is entirely possible to have backup plans for all of those circumstances, it's just a question of who does the organising of it and who pays for it - the employee, or the employer and his other employees.
I would be really curious to know how you have arranged, in your life, to have someone on call all the time to deal with sick children or sick parents.
1. Family, friendship and community networks.

2. Money.

pbkmaine

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8927
  • Age: 67
  • Location: The Villages, Florida
You know, I have not gotten a lot of this. I had some rather minor peer pressure to have kids until I turned 40, then that stopped. Maybe it's because I am a stepparent, a job I really enjoy because to me it's all of the fun and none of the guilt? Maybe because it's quite obvious I have no maternal instincts? What I have gotten is stories from people who did have children, and have mixed feelings about the experience. I am a safe person to tell these stories to.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Tried to fix this for you. People talk about, and value, the choices they've made. They are scared by and desperately disparage other life choices, since if those people are happy it could mean they life choice is wrong. This goes for everything. Humans are [pathetically fragile emotional beings.

[looks at what forum this was posted in.  Coughs discreetly]

Scandium

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2827
  • Location: EastCoast
Tried to fix this for you. People talk about, and value, the choices they've made. They are scared by and desperately disparage other life choices, since if those people are happy it could mean they life choice is wrong. This goes for everything. Humans are [pathetically fragile emotional beings.

[looks at what forum this was posted in.  Coughs discreetly]

Oooh yes. It's at play as much here as everywhere else. People just want other people to do what they do, because why would you not..? Reason that apart from some investment discussion I mostly stay away from discussions here.

firelight

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
Another perspective-
At a previous job, the biggest takers of unplanned leave in my office were two childless colleagues who had to take care of elderly/sick parents. Hospitalizations, dementia crises, etc. But my parent colleagues and I were happy to cover for them, since we understood that sometimes life just happens, and it is not always possible to have a "backup plan" for when your mom falls down the stairs or your dad wanders into traffic (or when your kid barfs at daycare, either.)
It is entirely possible to have backup plans for all of those circumstances, it's just a question of who does the organising of it and who pays for it - the employee, or the employer and his other employees.
I would be really curious to know how you have arranged, in your life, to have someone on call all the time to deal with sick children or sick parents.
I would love to know this too. I have reliable daycare, family that can help if push comes to a shove (but they are working 9-6 as well) and have good babysitters (who need at least a day's notice). I'm willing to throw reasonable amount of money towards this as well.

How can I plan for a kid that gets sick and needs to be picked up from daycare within half an hour, shown to the doctor and soothed? Should I keep a nanny on standby 24*7 (would cost $3000 per month - I pay less than that for the daycare I send her to every month) for the rare afternoons kid gets sick (once a month maybe)? If you have a reasonable solution that doesn't expect others (grandparents/others who are free and willing and able to drop everything and tend to sick kid or elderly) to pick up the responsibility, I'm all ears. Otherwise, it squarely falls in the 'theoretically possible but practically not' category.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
Another perspective-
At a previous job, the biggest takers of unplanned leave in my office were two childless colleagues who had to take care of elderly/sick parents. Hospitalizations, dementia crises, etc. But my parent colleagues and I were happy to cover for them, since we understood that sometimes life just happens, and it is not always possible to have a "backup plan" for when your mom falls down the stairs or your dad wanders into traffic (or when your kid barfs at daycare, either.)
It is entirely possible to have backup plans for all of those circumstances, it's just a question of who does the organising of it and who pays for it - the employee, or the employer and his other employees.
I would be really curious to know how you have arranged, in your life, to have someone on call all the time to deal with sick children or sick parents.
I would love to know this too. I have reliable daycare, family that can help if push comes to a shove (but they are working 9-6 as well) and have good babysitters (who need at least a day's notice). I'm willing to throw reasonable amount of money towards this as well.

How can I plan for a kid that gets sick and needs to be picked up from daycare within half an hour, shown to the doctor and soothed? Should I keep a nanny on standby 24*7 (would cost $3000 per month - I pay less than that for the daycare I send her to every month) for the rare afternoons kid gets sick (once a month maybe)? If you have a reasonable solution that doesn't expect others (grandparents/others who are free and willing and able to drop everything and tend to sick kid or elderly) to pick up the responsibility, I'm all ears. Otherwise, it squarely falls in the 'theoretically possible but practically not' category.
Quote
It is the parent's responsibility to make back-up arrangements for when the kid gets sick which are not just "I'm going to run out on my obligations to my employer because I've failed to make proper back-up arrangements for my child being sick".

Jumping on this same line of conversation...

Honestly, the ability to have a "back up plan" is going to vary extremely widely based on your circumstances - what you do, where you live, and where your family lives.

It's incredibly naive to think that *anyone* can make those "back up plans".

I do not live anywhere near my family.  My parents are dead.  I have some friends, but the vast majority of them have full time jobs. 

One day, an acquaintance of mine (who now, 10 years later, is my boss) asked me "what is your back up plan if your kid is sick?"  (See, my spouse and I work full time.  His spouse and he also work full time.  It was a legitimate question/ probe, looking for solutions.)

I laughed at him.  I said "it's mommy or daddy.  GOOD LUCK finding someone willing to watch your SICK KID last minute. If it's not grandma, it's not happening. First of all, if you have any friends who are SAHP, the LAST thing they want is a sick kid in their house, it doesn't matter HOW MUCH you pay them.  Secondly "drop in" daycares or emergency nannies for sick children, are not "a thing" here.

I find that a lot of people are just naive.  They have a SAHP or have never had kids. I had a coworker, long before I had kids, leave work early one day because his entire family (wife and 3 kids) were incredibly ill.  Like, mom was unable to care for herself, much less the 3 kids under 8.  The boss (no kids) says "HIS PRIORITY IS TO BE HERE!!"  I just gave him "the look" and said, "you going to go take care of his SICK KIDS?"

I mean, that's what PTO is for.

In any event, any employer who doesn't realize this is pretty shitty.  I leave early or work from home to deal with kids.  My hubby and I split those duties, really.  I've worked late and long hours when my boss or coworkers were sick, on vacation, recovering from surgery, or traveling.  Yes, there are many days that a last minute 4:10 meeting isn't going to happen.  And no, I cannot call in either.  But there were also dozens of weekends with power outages when I was the *only* engineer dragging my ass in to work on a Sunday, to help qualify all of the equipment when it got back on line.  Everyone else was hungover.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Part of being a salaried employee means that when shit goes sideways at work, you are expected to stay and deal with it. 

The other side of it is that occasionally when shit goes sideways at home, you have to leave and deal with it. 

You need BOTH sides of that equation for the salaried "deal" to work.  If the scale gets tilted too far one way or another, then the employer or employer needs to re-evaluate the relationship, but as long as shit doesn't go too sideways too often, it shouldn't be a big deal.

Goldielocks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7062
  • Location: BC
RE: Sick kids.

One problem is when it is always the same parent that takes time off for the "sick kid" thing.   It is not too bad if there are two parents who alternate.

I do agree that there is no great solution, when grandparents are not close by...  none of the standard daycare options can have parents at work all the time...

A)  Daycare -- has great backup coverage if the daycare person is sick, herself, but then your kids get sick more and small tummy upsets or lice making the rounds, means not work for you today.. because of their very stringent policy.   Oh, and if your kids starts to be the one that bites or hits, he's out.

B)  In-home daycare -- if the provider gets sick (we had one who had morning sickness while pregnant and was too often sick), or if your kid is slightly sick and they have a strict policy, you can be out of luck.   This one has less days of refusal for kids' mild sickness or other issues (the day home can adapt to it better), but they have weird black out days for vacation and school holiday, or weird pick up and drop off time limits.

C)  Personal Nanny -- the best option, but also without coverage for sick days (but most nannies rarely call in sick).  Most expensive.   You do need to figure out vacation days well in advance, to hopefully match your own vacation days or spring break / summer camp days. (not always possible if nanny plans to fly home to visit family during february -- our challenge).

And all of this doesn't even cover time off work for doctor and dentist appointments.   That can be 5 half days/yr right there, for typical kid.  Plus one parent / school recital thing that the only schedule in the daytime...


Ok -- I am so glad the kids are teenagers now!  Having a moderately sick kid able to stay home on their own is amazing!

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6657

I thought this sort of fit the antimustachianbill, apparently you need children to be a happy and fulfilled person.
Not quite.

The study found that married people that do not have children are perceived to be less fulfilled than those with children. Additionally, study participants exhibited moral outrage that marred people would not have children as well. However, it is important to note that the study participants were "introductory psychology students at a large U.S. Midwestern university" so several biases are likely at play as well.


This says it all!

"Introductory psychology students at a large U.S. Midwestern university". What a terrible polling population for just about anything!

I'm going to make my own awful assumptions here based on the fact that I once was young (alas...)

-18-19 years old
-Thinks they are hot to trot
-Taking mandatory basic psychology course ("do I really have to take this class for my business degree") to complete their "social sciences" requirement
-Picked psychology because it seemed easier
-"I'm here, and I'm in college, so obviously my parents were better people for having made and raised me"
-Midwestern US sounds alot like "bible belt" to me

This could be the University of Minnesota... home of the prestigious twins study, and nothing close to Bible Belt. 

I will speak only for myself.  I have kids.  And it wasn't until I had kids that I understood just how much my parents loved me. For me, that understanding was something that could only come through the experience of having my own kids.  I don't know if what I'm describing is considered "fulfillment" but it seems to be in the ballpark.  And if that is true for me, it's possible it could be true for other people. 

P.S. I've never been jealous of child-free couples.  I'm hearing a lot of folks in this thread say some version of, "Well, the couples with kids must be jealous..." WTF??   What if we extended that same argument to consumerism?   "Well, those frugal people must just be jealous of my yacht..."  Can't we just believe different things without being jealous of each other? :)

IDK.  I have people with kids tell me on a semi-regular basis how lucky I am because of X, Y or Z.  You're so lucky you only have to buy 2 plane tickets when you travel.  You're so lucky you can go out without having to worry about finding and pay a sitter.  You're so lucky that you can sleep in on a Saturday without little people who wake you up and need you.  Etc.  I'm not sure they are jealous overall, but I'm not sure what else to call those moments.  And I always find them weird.  First, it has nothing to do with luck.  It has to do with choices and birth control.  (To me knowledge, none of these are people who actually wanted to be child-free and then ended up with an accidental pregnancy.  And even then, there are still choices involved in ending up as a parent.)  Second, I would certainly hope that none of them would exchange sleeping until 9 (or noon) for their little kids.  It's probably just frustration in that moment, but it definitely comes across as envy.  And that's based on their words, not on any assumptions I make about what they wish they had.

I'm not so arrogant as to assume my life choices are the Right Choices.  They are right for me, but I can look at many of my friends with kids and know that they would be deeply unfulfilled if they were not parents.  It's pretty easy for me to see and acknowledge that the right life for me is not the right life for them.   I wouldn't assume people with kids are jealous or miserable, and it would be nice if people didn't assume those without kids are selfish, unfulfilled, and don't really know what love is. 

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8826
  • Location: Avalon
One of the points I would have liked people to recognise is that everyone does always have a back-up plan for things going south with a kid.  But what doesn't always seem to be recognised is that if they don't put that plan in place themselves then their back-up plan is to leave their normal work obligations behind in favour of the kid.  In this case they are then relying on their employer to put that back-up plan in place - to allow a late arrival, or an early exit, or working from home.  Which is fine for you and your employer if your employer has given you the sort of job where that is possible and is prepared to deal with it as part of the cost of employing you. 

Of course, your employer's solution might be to pass that cost on to one of his other employees, who is expected to pick up the slack.  If those other employees are childless and don't get equivalent perks at the job, it would be fairly natural for resentment to ensue.   It is better for the employee with the kids not to burden either their employer or their fellow employees unless necessary, which means making arrangements for themselves which limit the occasions they have to call in those favours.  It might be expensive, and it might mean putting effort into creating the networks which mean people helping each other out, but neither of those are reasons not to do it: it is part of the cost of having kids, just as putting money and effort into maintenance is part of the cost of owning property.

Part of being a salaried employee means that when shit goes sideways at work, you are expected to stay and deal with it. 

The other side of it is that occasionally when shit goes sideways at home, you have to leave and deal with it. 

You need BOTH sides of that equation for the salaried "deal" to work.  If the scale gets tilted too far one way or another, then the employer or employer needs to re-evaluate the relationship, but as long as shit doesn't go too sideways too often, it shouldn't be a big deal.
Also, assumption of privilege, much?

Not everyone is salaried with an understanding employer who is prepared to cover their employee's child emergencies.  If you are on an hourly wage, or you work in a call centre with every metric measured down to the time you spend in the toilet, or you are on the line in a manufacturing plant, or you are in a safety critical job in the medical field or one of the emergency services, this happy, salaried, desk job give and take attitude isn't available to you.  If its not, you need your family, friends and community networks to pick up the slack for you or you are out of a job.  This is one of the big restrictions on mobility for many poorer families - if you don't have the money to pay for professional backup, you have to stick around where your networks are.  Which means not moving across the country for that better paid job (or any job).

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
Quote
Of course, your employer's solution might be to pass that cost on to one of his other employees, who is expected to pick up the slack.  If those other employees are childless and don't get equivalent perks at the job, it would be fairly natural for resentment to ensue.   It is better for the employee with the kids not to burden either their employer or their fellow employees unless necessary, which means making arrangements for themselves which limit the occasions they have to call in those favours.  It might be expensive, and it might mean putting effort into creating the networks which mean people helping each other out, but neither of those are reasons not to do it: it is part of the cost of having kids, just as putting money and effort into maintenance is part of the cost of owning property.

In addition to all my coworkers getting the same "perks" (though maybe they don't consider working half days from home while recovering from back surgery to be a "perk")... generally I find that the people "picking up the slack" get bigger raises.  Assuming that they get as much accomplished.  (I have worked with people who worked far longer hours than me - 50-60 to my 38-40, but got a lot less accomplished.  Usually that is also a factor.  One man - who probably didn't often work with women, would LOUDLY announce when I was leaving at 4 pm on Friday - but strangely, ONLY when the boss was in earshot.  Eventually, I said "sorry Ernie, that I can get more done in 35 hours than you get done in 50".  I also eventually pointed it out to the boss.  For a couple of months, he paid attention, noticed the habit, and had a talk with the guy. Who was "super apologetic".

Whatever, long story short got a new boss inserted from outside the company (old boss got promoted).  Within 6 months new boss laid off the jerk when he realized that my group was doing 75% of his work.

MrsPete

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3505
The stigmatization is from talking about your "childfree" wonderfulness. 
The Athiest who talks about his athiesm is the same kind of PITA.
Yep, this.  If you've decided you don't like something, yet you drone on and on about it, you come off as negative.  No one likes that.

Talking about the children you have is different.  You're discussing something that IS in your life, something around which your life revolves.  Talking about something you've opted NOT to include in your life is a drag.  To tie this into the main theme of this board, you could say that frugality is kind of the same.  People like to talk about the movie they just saw, the restaurant they visited last weekend, the vacation they took recently ... it's not as much fun to listen to someone discuss how much money they've saved by not having cable, by not going to restaurants, by not taking vacations.  Negatives aren't as much fun to discuss. 

Having said that, it's polite to consider your audience:  Your mom will probably love to hear about her grandchildren's antics, whereas your co-workers may not enjoy them on a regular basis. 

I haven't personally been a victim of raging breeders. 
Okay, see, that's just rude.  If you throw around terms like this in real life, I understand why people react negatively. 

Despite never having wanted to have kids, getting my tubes tied was a huge ordeal. I kept being refused because I was "too young" and was "going to change my mind." Ugh. I finally got it done when I was 33.
In all fairness, I know a ton of people who -- when they were young -- said they didn't want children, then changed their minds for various reasons.  I can understand why a doctor is not really open to shutting down your choices at a young age.  You can always use birth control, which is cheap and highly effective when used properly, but tubals can't always be reversed. 

Incidentally, I toyed with the idea of having a tubal ligation when my second child was born -- I was late 20s -- and the doctor's rule was that my husband and I both had to sign paperwork 30 days in advance (no last minute decisions, which I can understand).  I didn't have the surgery.  Later I had some "female problems" and ended up having the tubal along with some other surgery ... because I was past 40, no questions about waiting, no notorized signature from my husband.  I did think that was a bit hypocritical ... what wasn't acceptable at 20-something was acceptable at 40. 

Shit, Betsy Devos has four kids, and girl would be happy if public schools disappeared completely!
Regardless of how you feel about public schools, they are in the process of disappearing right now.  We've experienced massive changes in the last decade; primarily, a very big slice of our high-socio-economic status kids are leaving for charter schools, online schools, or homeschools.  The result is that the public school population is shifting downward in terms of ability, achievement, and parental support.  This is not good for society, as our weakest children are receiving less and less from public schools.

Almost every group of people is self righteous about their lifestyle. If they didn't think it was the 'right' way to live, they probably wouldn't be doing it. I don't think that the pro-children group is any better or worse in this regard.
Eh, I think "self righteous" is too strong a word.  I have children, and they've been the best part of my life -- the "right choice" -- and as a result, on some level, I don't quite "get" why everyone wouldn't want these wonderful experiences ... but does that mean I think someone else should make the same choices or that I look down on other people because they made different choices?  No. 

I also think some people are quite thin-skinned about anything short of throwing a parade for their choices.  Don't take other people's opinions too seriously. 


 
« Last Edit: May 09, 2017, 12:06:15 PM by MrsPete »

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6721
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Part of being a salaried employee means that when shit goes sideways at work, you are expected to stay and deal with it. 

The other side of it is that occasionally when shit goes sideways at home, you have to leave and deal with it. 

You need BOTH sides of that equation for the salaried "deal" to work.  If the scale gets tilted too far one way or another, then the employer or employer needs to re-evaluate the relationship, but as long as shit doesn't go too sideways too often, it shouldn't be a big deal.

I knew of a coworker at a previous job whose manager gave him a massive headache about being present during the coworker's wife's surgery. Wasn't going to let the coworker be with her at the hospital. The manager was mostly just flexing his "muscles".

This folks is how some are driven to flip out and hurt people in a workplace violence situation.

Old coworker and I and many others left that place over the years. Good work, lousy managers. 

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Part of being a salaried employee means that when shit goes sideways at work, you are expected to stay and deal with it. 

The other side of it is that occasionally when shit goes sideways at home, you have to leave and deal with it. 

You need BOTH sides of that equation for the salaried "deal" to work.  If the scale gets tilted too far one way or another, then the employer or employer needs to re-evaluate the relationship, but as long as shit doesn't go too sideways too often, it shouldn't be a big deal.

I knew of a coworker at a previous job whose manager gave him a massive headache about being present during the coworker's wife's surgery. Wasn't going to let the coworker be with her at the hospital. The manager was mostly just flexing his "muscles".

This folks is how some are driven to flip out and hurt people in a workplace violence situation.

Old coworker and I and many others left that place over the years. Good work, lousy managers.

I've had no problem telling my boss "if you're going to watch the clock, so am I" meaning that there will be no more staying late to do stuff, no responding to emails after hours, etc etc.  I will be happy to sit at my desk from 8AM to 5PM every day, no more no less (lunch aside) BUT we'd both be happier if sometimes I left at 2PM and sometime I left at 8PM or worked an hour after I got home.  No one has ever given me a hard time after that speech.  But I've worked for mostly reasonable people. 

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10881
Part of being a salaried employee means that when shit goes sideways at work, you are expected to stay and deal with it. 

The other side of it is that occasionally when shit goes sideways at home, you have to leave and deal with it. 

You need BOTH sides of that equation for the salaried "deal" to work.  If the scale gets tilted too far one way or another, then the employer or employer needs to re-evaluate the relationship, but as long as shit doesn't go too sideways too often, it shouldn't be a big deal.

I knew of a coworker at a previous job whose manager gave him a massive headache about being present during the coworker's wife's surgery. Wasn't going to let the coworker be with her at the hospital. The manager was mostly just flexing his "muscles".

This folks is how some are driven to flip out and hurt people in a workplace violence situation.

Old coworker and I and many others left that place over the years. Good work, lousy managers.
I had a really horrible manager for awhile (the new manager mentioned above? Who laid off the jerk.  He was a great guy.  HE got a new boss/ VP who was so horrible he bailed, took 2 people with him, left the remaining 7 of us to work directly for the VP.  Told the VP to just make me the manager, ha ! Like that was going to happen.)

Anyway, new VP decides to reorganize.  I find out that I've been reorganized/ reassigned (along with everyone else) while on FMLA at home with my 9 month old baby, who had just had surgery.  Found out by email, new org chart in power point.  No "hey, I'm thinking of changing things around". 

charis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
One of the points I would have liked people to recognise is that everyone does always have a back-up plan for things going south with a kid.  But what doesn't always seem to be recognised is that if they don't put that plan in place themselves then their back-up plan is to leave their normal work obligations behind in favour of the kid.  In this case they are then relying on their employer to put that back-up plan in place - to allow a late arrival, or an early exit, or working from home.  Which is fine for you and your employer if your employer has given you the sort of job where that is possible and is prepared to deal with it as part of the cost of employing you. 

As it was already pointed out, a constant back-up plan is virtually impossible if you don't have someone "on-call" every day (which would be extraordinarily difficult for the average person) .  Even then, even if you paid/had someone on call at all times, that person might not be able to go pick up your barfing kid at school with 30 minutes notice.  You are IT, as the parent.  I have a fairly large circle of relatives, some retired, and friends.  Most of them cannot be my back up plan for a suddenly sick kid being sent home from school.  They are at work, out of town, in class, sick themselves, taking care of their own kids who they want to keep healthy, etc, etc. 

Money is only relevant to this scenario if you have someone available to pay. Drop in daycare doesn't take sick kids.  Babysitters and nannies need notice, even if they are available.  Maybe an emergency babysitting service would work, but you can't/wouldn't send a stranger to pick your kid up from school.   I brought my sick kid into work once or twice - most people don't have that luxury.


Maenad

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 643
  • Location: Minneapolis 'burbs
In all fairness, I know a ton of people who -- when they were young -- said they didn't want children, then changed their minds for various reasons.  I can understand why a doctor is not really open to shutting down your choices at a young age.

While this is true, if a 24-year-old walks into her Ob/Gyn and says she wants to have kids, how often is she talked out of it? How many pregnant 24-year-olds are old they're making a mistake, or they'll change their minds? I understand doctors not wanting to deal with any kind of malpractice risk, but why is it the doctor's responsibility to second-guess an adult? How does the doctor "know better"?

My cousin announced her pregnancy shortly after I had my tubal (we were both 24 at the time). It definitely shut down family criticism when we pointed out that we're either both mature enough to make this decision, or not.

zhelud

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 243
Another perspective-
At a previous job, the biggest takers of unplanned leave in my office were two childless colleagues who had to take care of elderly/sick parents. Hospitalizations, dementia crises, etc. But my parent colleagues and I were happy to cover for them, since we understood that sometimes life just happens, and it is not always possible to have a "backup plan" for when your mom falls down the stairs or your dad wanders into traffic (or when your kid barfs at daycare, either.)
It is entirely possible to have backup plans for all of those circumstances, it's just a question of who does the organising of it and who pays for it - the employee, or the employer and his other employees.
I would be really curious to know how you have arranged, in your life, to have someone on call all the time to deal with sick children or sick parents.
1. Family, friendship and community networks.

2. Money.
Looking for specifics here. Your cousin or neighbor is on call to pick up the kid who is barfing?  You have a paid caregiver to sit with your mom in the hospital? 

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8826
  • Location: Avalon
One of the points I would have liked people to recognise is that everyone does always have a back-up plan for things going south with a kid.  But what doesn't always seem to be recognised is that if they don't put that plan in place themselves then their back-up plan is to leave their normal work obligations behind in favour of the kid.  In this case they are then relying on their employer to put that back-up plan in place - to allow a late arrival, or an early exit, or working from home.  Which is fine for you and your employer if your employer has given you the sort of job where that is possible and is prepared to deal with it as part of the cost of employing you. 

As it was already pointed out, a constant back-up plan is virtually impossible if you don't have someone "on-call" every day (which would be extraordinarily difficult for the average person) .  Even then, even if you paid/had someone on call at all times, that person might not be able to go pick up your barfing kid at school with 30 minutes notice.  You are IT, as the parent.  I have a fairly large circle of relatives, some retired, and friends.  Most of them cannot be my back up plan for a suddenly sick kid being sent home from school.  They are at work, out of town, in class, sick themselves, taking care of their own kids who they want to keep healthy, etc, etc. 

Money is only relevant to this scenario if you have someone available to pay. Drop in daycare doesn't take sick kids.  Babysitters and nannies need notice, even if they are available.  Maybe an emergency babysitting service would work, but you can't/wouldn't send a stranger to pick your kid up from school.   I brought my sick kid into work once or twice - most people don't have that luxury.
You are making my point for me, which is that you do have a constant back-up plan and that it is your employer.

Looking for specifics here. Your cousin or neighbor is on call to pick up the kid who is barfing?  You have a paid caregiver to sit with your mom in the hospital?
Yes, in essence.  You build your social networks so that you have many different people (family, friends, neighbours, au pair, babysitter, emergency nanny, college kid given accommodation in return for occasional help with kids) who can cover for you in emergencies.  A solid social and economic network is the equivalent of a large amount of money in the bank.  If the only people you know are people like yourself who have exactly the same issues as you then your social networks are impoverished and need to be worked on monthly the way you work on putting money into your retirement accounts monthly.  And just as with retirement accounts, the people who build their social and economic networks from early in their adult lives tend to have the largest, most diverse and most successful social funds on which to call when needed.

Ann

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 295
I think it is unrealistic for parents to have a whole crew of other people to do their parenting for them.  I don't have a problem with parents having emergencies they have to handle. 

What I have heard people complaining about is for group work to land on the childless worker because they don't have that "extra" obligation in life.  Hopefully those people ended up recognized and promoted / financially rewarded more than their coworkers.  Personally, I haven't been in that situation.  It is unfair that employers should expect after-hours obligations.   There isn't an easy answer.

zhelud

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 243
One of the points I would have liked people to recognise is that everyone does always have a back-up plan for things going south with a kid.  But what doesn't always seem to be recognised is that if they don't put that plan in place themselves then their back-up plan is to leave their normal work obligations behind in favour of the kid.  In this case they are then relying on their employer to put that back-up plan in place - to allow a late arrival, or an early exit, or working from home.  Which is fine for you and your employer if your employer has given you the sort of job where that is possible and is prepared to deal with it as part of the cost of employing you. 

As it was already pointed out, a constant back-up plan is virtually impossible if you don't have someone "on-call" every day (which would be extraordinarily difficult for the average person) .  Even then, even if you paid/had someone on call at all times, that person might not be able to go pick up your barfing kid at school with 30 minutes notice.  You are IT, as the parent.  I have a fairly large circle of relatives, some retired, and friends.  Most of them cannot be my back up plan for a suddenly sick kid being sent home from school.  They are at work, out of town, in class, sick themselves, taking care of their own kids who they want to keep healthy, etc, etc. 

Money is only relevant to this scenario if you have someone available to pay. Drop in daycare doesn't take sick kids.  Babysitters and nannies need notice, even if they are available.  Maybe an emergency babysitting service would work, but you can't/wouldn't send a stranger to pick your kid up from school.   I brought my sick kid into work once or twice - most people don't have that luxury.
You are making my point for me, which is that you do have a constant back-up plan and that it is your employer.

Looking for specifics here. Your cousin or neighbor is on call to pick up the kid who is barfing?  You have a paid caregiver to sit with your mom in the hospital?
Yes, in essence.  You build your social networks so that you have many different people (family, friends, neighbours, au pair, babysitter, emergency nanny, college kid given accommodation in return for occasional help with kids) who can cover for you in emergencies.  A solid social and economic network is the equivalent of a large amount of money in the bank.  If the only people you know are people like yourself who have exactly the same issues as you then your social networks are impoverished and need to be worked on monthly the way you work on putting money into your retirement accounts monthly.  And just as with retirement accounts, the people who build their social and economic networks from early in their adult lives tend to have the largest, most diverse and most successful social funds on which to call when needed.
Since you have not provided any specific examples of how you have been able to use your social networks to care for a dependent in an emergency, I can only assume that you do not actually have any dependents and don't really have much experience with this.

I had the same ideas as you before I had kids. It all sounds great in theory but...

charis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
One of the points I would have liked people to recognise is that everyone does always have a back-up plan for things going south with a kid.  But what doesn't always seem to be recognised is that if they don't put that plan in place themselves then their back-up plan is to leave their normal work obligations behind in favour of the kid.  In this case they are then relying on their employer to put that back-up plan in place - to allow a late arrival, or an early exit, or working from home.  Which is fine for you and your employer if your employer has given you the sort of job where that is possible and is prepared to deal with it as part of the cost of employing you. 

As it was already pointed out, a constant back-up plan is virtually impossible if you don't have someone "on-call" every day (which would be extraordinarily difficult for the average person) .  Even then, even if you paid/had someone on call at all times, that person might not be able to go pick up your barfing kid at school with 30 minutes notice.  You are IT, as the parent.  I have a fairly large circle of relatives, some retired, and friends.  Most of them cannot be my back up plan for a suddenly sick kid being sent home from school.  They are at work, out of town, in class, sick themselves, taking care of their own kids who they want to keep healthy, etc, etc. 

Money is only relevant to this scenario if you have someone available to pay. Drop in daycare doesn't take sick kids.  Babysitters and nannies need notice, even if they are available.  Maybe an emergency babysitting service would work, but you can't/wouldn't send a stranger to pick your kid up from school.   I brought my sick kid into work once or twice - most people don't have that luxury.
You are making my point for me, which is that you do have a constant back-up plan and that it is your employer.

Looking for specifics here. Your cousin or neighbor is on call to pick up the kid who is barfing?  You have a paid caregiver to sit with your mom in the hospital?
Yes, in essence.  You build your social networks so that you have many different people (family, friends, neighbours, au pair, babysitter, emergency nanny, college kid given accommodation in return for occasional help with kids) who can cover for you in emergencies.  A solid social and economic network is the equivalent of a large amount of money in the bank.  If the only people you know are people like yourself who have exactly the same issues as you then your social networks are impoverished and need to be worked on monthly the way you work on putting money into your retirement accounts monthly.  And just as with retirement accounts, the people who build their social and economic networks from early in their adult lives tend to have the largest, most diverse and most successful social funds on which to call when needed.

Sorry, this is not based in reality.  I have large social network that makes it unlikely that I would have to miss work due to a child's illness, so I am pretty well situated.  However, an emergency scenario, one in which you do not have notice (hence the emergency) is not simply solved by a "solid social and economic network."  It makes back up care more likely, but not necessarily.  Plus it doesn't take into account situation-specific factors that require the presence of a parent or guardian.  That's life.   

I don't understand your point about employer back-up care, that's not the issue being debated.  The question is whether it's possible for a parent to have back-up care to the degree that they would NEVER have to leave work in an emergency.  I think that is an impossibility in the context of being responsible for a child's life.  It may be possible to pay a team of adults to be on-call to step in an assume that responsibility at a moment's notice, but it's ridiculous to suggest that more than a small fraction of people could do this.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8826
  • Location: Avalon
Since you have not provided any specific examples of how you have been able to use your social networks to care for a dependent in an emergency, I can only assume that you do not actually have any dependents and don't really have much experience with this.

I had the same ideas as you before I had kids. It all sounds great in theory but...
Have I had dependents who have had emergencies and sometimes had to find cover for those emergencies and other times had to leave what I was doing to cover those emergencies?  Yes.  Please don't make assumptions, you know what is said about assumptions.

Sorry, this is not based in reality.  I have large social network that makes it unlikely that I would have to miss work due to a child's illness, so I am pretty well situated.  However, an emergency scenario, one in which you do not have notice (hence the emergency) is not simply solved by a "solid social and economic network."  It makes back up care more likely, but not necessarily.  Plus it doesn't take into account situation-specific factors that require the presence of a parent or guardian.  That's life. 

This kind of social network to deal with things like a child's illness is exactly what I have been trying to talk about.   It's mutual, of course: sometimes one person helps out another, othertimes it works in reverse.   Some people have these networks, others don't and end up breaking other commitments for every non-emergency that requires a change in the primary care arrangements.  It's better, and as valuable or more valuable than earning money, to put a lot of effort into developing these supportive networks.  That actually applies whether one has dependents or not, but of course they are even more vital if one does have dependents.


I don't understand your point about employer back-up care, that's not the issue being debated.  The question is whether it's possible for a parent to have back-up care to the degree that they would NEVER have to leave work in an emergency.  I think that is an impossibility in the context of being responsible for a child's life.  It may be possible to pay a team of adults to be on-call to step in an assume that responsibility at a moment's notice, but it's ridiculous to suggest that more than a small fraction of people could do this.
I'm not saying that employers provide the back-up care for the child.  I am saying that when an employee leaves because of an emergency with a child, then the employer is enabling that employee to leave by providing back-ups at work which prevent that employee leaving at short notice becoming an emergency for the place of employment.  It is in that sense that the employer is providing the back-up - they have to provide, at their own expense, the flexibility and redundancy in their work systems and numbers of people they employ that makes leaving at short notice possible without bringing the business to a grinding halt.  (Sometimes the burden of providing that flexibility falls on other employees, of course.)   This backup provided by employers is too often invisible to the parent with the emergency but all too obvious to the employer and the other employees.  And it is a level of privilege just to have that sort of employment, and many people don't.

charis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
Since you have not provided any specific examples of how you have been able to use your social networks to care for a dependent in an emergency, I can only assume that you do not actually have any dependents and don't really have much experience with this.

I had the same ideas as you before I had kids. It all sounds great in theory but...
Have I had dependents who have had emergencies and sometimes had to find cover for those emergencies and other times had to leave what I was doing to cover those emergencies?  Yes.  Please don't make assumptions, you know what is said about assumptions.

Sorry, this is not based in reality.  I have large social network that makes it unlikely that I would have to miss work due to a child's illness, so I am pretty well situated.  However, an emergency scenario, one in which you do not have notice (hence the emergency) is not simply solved by a "solid social and economic network."  It makes back up care more likely, but not necessarily.  Plus it doesn't take into account situation-specific factors that require the presence of a parent or guardian.  That's life. 

This kind of social network to deal with things like a child's illness is exactly what I have been trying to talk about.   It's mutual, of course: sometimes one person helps out another, othertimes it works in reverse.   Some people have these networks, others don't and end up breaking other commitments for every non-emergency that requires a change in the primary care arrangements.  It's better, and as valuable or more valuable than earning money, to put a lot of effort into developing these supportive networks.  That actually applies whether one has dependents or not, but of course they are even more vital if one does have dependents.


I don't understand your point about employer back-up care, that's not the issue being debated.  The question is whether it's possible for a parent to have back-up care to the degree that they would NEVER have to leave work in an emergency.  I think that is an impossibility in the context of being responsible for a child's life.  It may be possible to pay a team of adults to be on-call to step in an assume that responsibility at a moment's notice, but it's ridiculous to suggest that more than a small fraction of people could do this.
I'm not saying that employers provide the back-up care for the child.  I am saying that when an employee leaves because of an emergency with a child, then the employer is enabling that employee to leave by providing back-ups at work which prevent that employee leaving at short notice becoming an emergency for the place of employment.  It is in that sense that the employer is providing the back-up - they have to provide, at their own expense, the flexibility and redundancy in their work systems and numbers of people they employ that makes leaving at short notice possible without bringing the business to a grinding halt.  (Sometimes the burden of providing that flexibility falls on other employees, of course.)   This backup provided by employers is too often invisible to the parent with the emergency but all too obvious to the employer and the other employees.  And it is a level of privilege just to have that sort of employment, and many people don't.

I understood what you meant about employer back up care.  And I reiterate my earlier point that it is not the issue being debated.  You go on and on about setting up a social network, which everyone is trying to tell you is not a meaningful response.  Even a fantastic social network, as I have, cannot center around every emergency situation that may pop up in my child's life.  A social network does not resolve the issue of notice - which the lack thereof is a quintessential element of an emergency - and the requirement of the presence of a parent or guardian.

The bolded portion is indicative of either your bias or your ignorance.  If you are a parent, then you know that no parent wants to incur the wrath of coworkers or an employer by leaving work to deal with an emergency.   It's not a choice in many instances.  And you cannot possibly judge the adequacy of one's network based on whether they have to attend to a sick child.

Trudie

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2106
My husband and I are childless by choice.  We considered it, and at different times were in different places with it, but came to this conclusion.  It is a good choice for us.

Are we unfulfilled?  Sure.  Are people with kids unfulfilled?  You bet.  I think it has more to do with our expectations -- in general -- than with our choice to have or not have children.  Most people would be reluctant to ponder their life without kids if they have them.  Most people won't say, "Gee, I'm really sorry I had kids!"  But some people feel that way, I assure you, it's just that you can't un-parent like you can divorce or reverse other decisions in your life.  I think it's normal to feel that (in the same way I wake up some days and think, "Gee, I'd really like to NOT be married this week!").

Anyway, and I can only speak for myself, I think my fulfillment at this point in my life mid-40s is much greater because we didn't have children.  And I am making this statement in my own personal contextIt is not a blanket statement intended for everyone.  I don't miss the emotional, financial, and physical strains of parenting -- especially when I see what my siblings have gone through.  I cringe when people make moral judgements about it, but there are some who would say being childless or limiting the number of children you have is the moral choice for our strained planet and its limited resources (but that was not our reason).

One thing I can say is that I think as all of us get older we go through phases where we ponder "generativity."  What are we going to leave behind for the next generation -- whether that's our kids or -- in our case -- causes we believe in, the environment, or the people we've loved and cared for during our lives (including nephews who received additional motherly and fatherly care from us).  I think that's a natural feeling, regardless of your parenting status.


former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8826
  • Location: Avalon
Two reiterations of what I had thought were relatively simple and uncontestable points, but then I'm giving up.

1.  Some parents (no you, of course, or anyone else on this forum) don't have plans in place for non-emergency situations involving their kids.  Or rather, every incident which isn't their usual routine is an "emergency" because they have nothing in place to deal with anything other than everything being fine.  So a kid staying at home for a week with a cold or a temperature, becomes an "emergency".  There are people who don't have the networks to cover those situations which are neither their usual routine nor true "I've just had a phone call that my kid is in hospital" emergencies.  Have you really never come across parents like that?  I have.

2.  When there is a "my kid is in hospital" phone call, some people have the choice between going to the kid and keeping their job.  If you can go to the hospital without making that choice, it is because your work permits it, and has made arrangements to cover it.  That is a level of privilege some people don't have.

That is all I've been saying.

Scortius

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 475
My husband and I are childless by choice.  We considered it, and at different times were in different places with it, but came to this conclusion.  It is a good choice for us.

Are we unfulfilled?  Sure.  Are people with kids unfulfilled?  You bet.  I think it has more to do with our expectations -- in general -- than with our choice to have or not have children.  Most people would be reluctant to ponder their life without kids if they have them.  Most people won't say, "Gee, I'm really sorry I had kids!"  But some people feel that way, I assure you, it's just that you can't un-parent like you can divorce or reverse other decisions in your life.  I think it's normal to feel that (in the same way I wake up some days and think, "Gee, I'd really like to NOT be married this week!").

Anyway, and I can only speak for myself, I think my fulfillment at this point in my life mid-40s is much greater because we didn't have children.  And I am making this statement in my own personal contextIt is not a blanket statement intended for everyone.  I don't miss the emotional, financial, and physical strains of parenting -- especially when I see what my siblings have gone through.  I cringe when people make moral judgements about it, but there are some who would say being childless or limiting the number of children you have is the moral choice for our strained planet and its limited resources (but that was not our reason).

One thing I can say is that I think as all of us get older we go through phases where we ponder "generativity."  What are we going to leave behind for the next generation -- whether that's our kids or -- in our case -- causes we believe in, the environment, or the people we've loved and cared for during our lives (including nephews who received additional motherly and fatherly care from us).  I think that's a natural feeling, regardless of your parenting status.

Meh, I have two kids, 4 and 1.  They have made our life really fucking difficult.  It's hard to even imagine what life was like before, but I do remember being more happy.  I don't say this to whine, we made the choice and knew to some extent what that commitment meant (as much as you can without actually going through it).  But, it sure is hard some times to think about what our life would be like had we continued.  My wife and I would both personally be in a much better place.  Thus, I make it a point never to begrudge anyone who says they don't want kids.  If that's your choice, great for you, I completely understand.

Now, that's not to say I regret having children.  Our situation right now is difficult, but I fully expect things to improve significantly over the next several years as my wife finds her feet again and my children become a little more independent and less clingy (and dare I say it, boring... there's only so many times you can read the same Sandra Boynton book before passing out).  Plus, you can't put a price on watching these tiny blobs grow into intelligent and independent people with their own personalities.  It's a life experience I want to be a part of, but the initial sacrifice it requires is surprising even when you're expecting it.

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Land of Entrapment
My husband and I are childless by choice.  We considered it, and at different times were in different places with it, but came to this conclusion.  It is a good choice for us.

Are we unfulfilled?  Sure.  Are people with kids unfulfilled?  You bet.  I think it has more to do with our expectations -- in general -- than with our choice to have or not have children.  Most people would be reluctant to ponder their life without kids if they have them.  Most people won't say, "Gee, I'm really sorry I had kids!"  But some people feel that way, I assure you, it's just that you can't un-parent like you can divorce or reverse other decisions in your life.  I think it's normal to feel that (in the same way I wake up some days and think, "Gee, I'd really like to NOT be married this week!").

Anyway, and I can only speak for myself, I think my fulfillment at this point in my life mid-40s is much greater because we didn't have children.  And I am making this statement in my own personal contextIt is not a blanket statement intended for everyone.  I don't miss the emotional, financial, and physical strains of parenting -- especially when I see what my siblings have gone through.  I cringe when people make moral judgements about it, but there are some who would say being childless or limiting the number of children you have is the moral choice for our strained planet and its limited resources (but that was not our reason).

One thing I can say is that I think as all of us get older we go through phases where we ponder "generativity."  What are we going to leave behind for the next generation -- whether that's our kids or -- in our case -- causes we believe in, the environment, or the people we've loved and cared for during our lives (including nephews who received additional motherly and fatherly care from us).  I think that's a natural feeling, regardless of your parenting status.

Meh, I have two kids, 4 and 1.  They have made our life really fucking difficult.  It's hard to even imagine what life was like before, but I do remember being more happy.  I don't say this to whine, we made the choice and knew to some extent what that commitment meant (as much as you can without actually going through it).  But, it sure is hard some times to think about what our life would be like had we continued.  My wife and I would both personally be in a much better place.  Thus, I make it a point never to begrudge anyone who says they don't want kids.  If that's your choice, great for you, I completely understand.

Now, that's not to say I regret having children.  Our situation right now is difficult, but I fully expect things to improve significantly over the next several years as my wife finds her feet again and my children become a little more independent and less clingy (and dare I say it, boring... there's only so many times you can read the same Sandra Boynton book before passing out).  Plus, you can't put a price on watching these tiny blobs grow into intelligent and independent people with their own personalities.  It's a life experience I want to be a part of, but the initial sacrifice it requires is surprising even when you're expecting it.
Thank you for sharing this.

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6657
As an employee, I don't recall ever batting an eye when Susie called in sick because Susie, Jr. was ill, or if she took her vacation time to attend the Little League championship game or kindergarden graduation.  We all got PTO, and it never really occured to me to care how some else used that time which was granted to them by our employer.

What very much did bother to me (and very much did happen) was the 3 hour lunches to attend a school event, or bailing an hour before work was out to get to the spelling bee, or that kind of thing.  This was *not* PTO, and it was *not* a privilege granted non-parents.  (When going to my husband's Navy promotion ceremony, for example, I was gone during lunch for 2 hours and was required to take an hour of vacation time.)  And because of the nature of my work, this did affect me, because it wasn't just them not getting their work done.  It was me and my coworkers fielding phone calls, processing urgent paperwork, etc.  For the other parents in the group, it may have evened out.  They covered for Susie, Jr's kindergarden graduation and Susie the elder covered for their son's school play.  But I didn't get that free time off for my personal stuff, because it was considered exactly that--personal stuff.  And that was what vacation time was for.  And that's the part that absolutely did bother me.  I suppose it's more about my employer than the parent-employes, however.  Except the person making these decision was a parent and very much took advantage of the parent-exception she created. 

Linea_Norway

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8569
  • Location: Norway
As an employee, I don't recall ever batting an eye when Susie called in sick because Susie, Jr. was ill, or if she took her vacation time to attend the Little League championship game or kindergarden graduation.  We all got PTO, and it never really occured to me to care how some else used that time which was granted to them by our employer.

What very much did bother to me (and very much did happen) was the 3 hour lunches to attend a school event, or bailing an hour before work was out to get to the spelling bee, or that kind of thing.  This was *not* PTO, and it was *not* a privilege granted non-parents.  (When going to my husband's Navy promotion ceremony, for example, I was gone during lunch for 2 hours and was required to take an hour of vacation time.)  And because of the nature of my work, this did affect me, because it wasn't just them not getting their work done.  It was me and my coworkers fielding phone calls, processing urgent paperwork, etc.  For the other parents in the group, it may have evened out.  They covered for Susie, Jr's kindergarden graduation and Susie the elder covered for their son's school play.  But I didn't get that free time off for my personal stuff, because it was considered exactly that--personal stuff.  And that was what vacation time was for.  And that's the part that absolutely did bother me.  I suppose it's more about my employer than the parent-employes, however.  Except the person making these decision was a parent and very much took advantage of the parent-exception she created.

My company, as most companies in Norway, has "flexitime", which means you can clock out early some day and work late some other day, as long as the average is the contracted number of hours. You can also save up time and take a day off later.
Parents have by law the right to take 10! paid days off each when their children are sick. And they can take some paid days off when jr. is going to kindergarten for the first time. Any other school events are to be taken off by their own flexitime, which is reasonable. All in all this gives pretty decent working conditions for parents. Although some parents say that 10 paid off-days for sick children hardly are enough, because they are sick all the time.

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6721
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
My husband and I are childless by choice.  We considered it, and at different times were in different places with it, but came to this conclusion.  It is a good choice for us.

Are we unfulfilled?  Sure.  Are people with kids unfulfilled?  You bet.  I think it has more to do with our expectations -- in general -- than with our choice to have or not have children.  Most people would be reluctant to ponder their life without kids if they have them.  Most people won't say, "Gee, I'm really sorry I had kids!"  But some people feel that way, I assure you, it's just that you can't un-parent like you can divorce or reverse other decisions in your life.  I think it's normal to feel that (in the same way I wake up some days and think, "Gee, I'd really like to NOT be married this week!").

Anyway, and I can only speak for myself, I think my fulfillment at this point in my life mid-40s is much greater because we didn't have children.  And I am making this statement in my own personal contextIt is not a blanket statement intended for everyone.  I don't miss the emotional, financial, and physical strains of parenting -- especially when I see what my siblings have gone through.  I cringe when people make moral judgements about it, but there are some who would say being childless or limiting the number of children you have is the moral choice for our strained planet and its limited resources (but that was not our reason).

One thing I can say is that I think as all of us get older we go through phases where we ponder "generativity."  What are we going to leave behind for the next generation -- whether that's our kids or -- in our case -- causes we believe in, the environment, or the people we've loved and cared for during our lives (including nephews who received additional motherly and fatherly care from us).  I think that's a natural feeling, regardless of your parenting status.

Meh, I have two kids, 4 and 1.  They have made our life really fucking difficult.  It's hard to even imagine what life was like before, but I do remember being more happy.  I don't say this to whine, we made the choice and knew to some extent what that commitment meant (as much as you can without actually going through it).  But, it sure is hard some times to think about what our life would be like had we continued.  My wife and I would both personally be in a much better place.  Thus, I make it a point never to begrudge anyone who says they don't want kids.  If that's your choice, great for you, I completely understand.

Now, that's not to say I regret having children.  Our situation right now is difficult, but I fully expect things to improve significantly over the next several years as my wife finds her feet again and my children become a little more independent and less clingy (and dare I say it, boring... there's only so many times you can read the same Sandra Boynton book before passing out).  Plus, you can't put a price on watching these tiny blobs grow into intelligent and independent people with their own personalities.  It's a life experience I want to be a part of, but the initial sacrifice it requires is surprising even when you're expecting it.
Thank you for sharing this.

Hang in there. Its worth it. The freedom will return. I remember that time. The wonder of the baby wore off and they were still very dependent on us. Time was consumed like juice in a sippy cup. We have a tween and a teen now and they are so much more interesting to hang out with now. We enjoyed the baby stage and we're enjoying this period now too.

cloudsail

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 556
My husband and I are childless by choice.  We considered it, and at different times were in different places with it, but came to this conclusion.  It is a good choice for us.

Are we unfulfilled?  Sure.  Are people with kids unfulfilled?  You bet.  I think it has more to do with our expectations -- in general -- than with our choice to have or not have children.  Most people would be reluctant to ponder their life without kids if they have them.  Most people won't say, "Gee, I'm really sorry I had kids!"  But some people feel that way, I assure you, it's just that you can't un-parent like you can divorce or reverse other decisions in your life.  I think it's normal to feel that (in the same way I wake up some days and think, "Gee, I'd really like to NOT be married this week!").

Anyway, and I can only speak for myself, I think my fulfillment at this point in my life mid-40s is much greater because we didn't have children.  And I am making this statement in my own personal contextIt is not a blanket statement intended for everyone.  I don't miss the emotional, financial, and physical strains of parenting -- especially when I see what my siblings have gone through.  I cringe when people make moral judgements about it, but there are some who would say being childless or limiting the number of children you have is the moral choice for our strained planet and its limited resources (but that was not our reason).

One thing I can say is that I think as all of us get older we go through phases where we ponder "generativity."  What are we going to leave behind for the next generation -- whether that's our kids or -- in our case -- causes we believe in, the environment, or the people we've loved and cared for during our lives (including nephews who received additional motherly and fatherly care from us).  I think that's a natural feeling, regardless of your parenting status.

Meh, I have two kids, 4 and 1.  They have made our life really fucking difficult.  It's hard to even imagine what life was like before, but I do remember being more happy.  I don't say this to whine, we made the choice and knew to some extent what that commitment meant (as much as you can without actually going through it).  But, it sure is hard some times to think about what our life would be like had we continued.  My wife and I would both personally be in a much better place.  Thus, I make it a point never to begrudge anyone who says they don't want kids.  If that's your choice, great for you, I completely understand.

Now, that's not to say I regret having children.  Our situation right now is difficult, but I fully expect things to improve significantly over the next several years as my wife finds her feet again and my children become a little more independent and less clingy (and dare I say it, boring... there's only so many times you can read the same Sandra Boynton book before passing out).  Plus, you can't put a price on watching these tiny blobs grow into intelligent and independent people with their own personalities.  It's a life experience I want to be a part of, but the initial sacrifice it requires is surprising even when you're expecting it.

Well said. Well said indeed.

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Land of Entrapment
Now apparently having pets instead of kids is not just immoral, it's a psychiatric disorder. https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/09/pets-instead-kids-considered-psychiatric-disorder/  Also, apparently it's a "waste" of "parental instincts" to love my cat, and it's a "sick and disturbing charade." God forbid I deprive my parents grandchildren because I have enough self-awareness to realize that children aren't for me. Sick and disturbed millennials like me just need to hurry up and make real babies (as opposed to "replacement babies" as he calls pets) regardless of our preparedness or desire to do so. We're all just joyless and dead inside otherwise.




Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6721
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
I really didn't like that article. His tone or something.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2606
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Now apparently having pets instead of kids is not just immoral, it's a psychiatric disorder. https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/09/pets-instead-kids-considered-psychiatric-disorder/  Also, apparently it's a "waste" of "parental instincts" to love my cat, and it's a "sick and disturbing charade." God forbid I deprive my parents grandchildren because I have enough self-awareness to realize that children aren't for me. Sick and disturbed millennials like me just need to hurry up and make real babies (as opposed to "replacement babies" as he calls pets) regardless of our preparedness or desire to do so. We're all just joyless and dead inside otherwise.

This writer doesn't have any actual credentials in the field of psychology or psychiatry, he's just a contributor to a buybullbanger publication. I invented that word, by the way. "Buybullbangers" are people who buy into more than just a philosophy or set of rules that they believe should govern their own lives: they buy into the load of bullshit which tells them they've got the right or even the obligation to try to control how other people run their lives. So not only do they buy the bull, they go out and bang on other people verbally, physically, and legally in order to bully them into making the lifestyle choices that advance the buybullbanger's agenda, generally at the expense of the other individual. When the buybullbanger is acting in the name of religion (and this one is), bashing and ridiculing people who exercise their freedom in a way that doesn't align with the author's own prejudices. In the not too distant past, similar articles were written about people who were homosexual, or women who wanted to work rather than stay in the house, or men who did not wish to serve in the armed forces.

Accusing someone of having a psychiatric disorder in order to bully them into advancing one's agenda is an old, old manipulation tactic. Sadly, it's a kind of fallacious logic that has never really been addressed by members of the profession. Never once have the organizing bodies responsible for licensure and standard-setting bothered to even try to deter their members from using their professional credentials as a club to bully people into making life choices that advance the professional's personal agenda. This is one of the reasons psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, and counselors are often not taken seriously by society at large. It's also one of the reasons crackpot "alternative" methods and philosophies find so many adherents.

The simple fact is that the spectrum of human behavior is very broad. If you look in an abnormal psychology textbook and find descriptions of a variety of different disorders, it's very easy to think: "Hey, I do that! Maybe I'm <fill in the blank>." It's easier still to point to different disorders and notice that the behavioral descriptions match people you know. But the criteria for an actual mental disorder is that the disorder significantly disrupts a person's lifestyle to the point where he or she can't function in society by performing basic self-care, holding down a job, staying out of jail, and maintaining healthy relationships with other human beings.

Consider for example the "spendypants" phenomenon. We all know spendypants people or else we wouldn't be on this forum. But there's a huge difference between someone who participates in the earn-to-spend lifestyle (who does something besides seeking financial independence) and someone whose out of control shopping or gambling behavior drives the family into bankruptcy, breaks up their marriage, inspires them to embezzle money from work, or costs them the family home. A person who continues to over-shop or gamble after experiencing serious negative consequences has a pathological problem: the kind for which they might actually seek or accept help, and the kind for which other people can reasonably be expected to distance themselves from that individual or even reject him or her entirely because they cannot or will not tolerate the individual's negative behavior or the fallout from it.

Returning to the example of animals instead of children, I fail to see how keeping a pet reduces a person's ability to hold down a job or maintain a healthy relationship with other human beings. With the exception of animal hoarders (why do people never complain about child hoarders, I wonder?) pet owners aren't any more unreliable or dishonest than the average person. Keeping a pet instead of a human simply doesn't meet the criteria of pathology. Nor does it cause people to withdraw. Even a severe allergy sufferer who cannot visit a pet owner's home can still work with the pet owner or socialize with him or her outside the home. There are indeed people who take pet ownership to an extreme, however there are a few salient benefits that pets provide. First, they actually give love, respect, and loyalty in exchange for the care their owners provide. Second, they absolutely never grow up to be buybullbangers.

Cali Nonya

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 514
  • Location: California
Wow, I obviously live under a rock and don't venture out much into outside world.  I was curious about GrimSqueakers response, so I had to check out the article. 
...
...
...
Then I had to google if that really was a "real" publication and I wasn't reading some troll page like the onion.
:O

Time to go crawl back under my rock.  Thank you GrimSqueaker and Inaya for shining a little light down here.  I think I'll stay under my rock though.

Kimera757

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 99
Quote
The economy of scale, thrifty shopping, buying things used, and having a spouse willing to stay home and care for the kids drastically cuts childrearing costs.

Maybe it's not a troll publication, but a troll could have sneaked in and wrote an article for them.

In the 21st century, that's a fairly ridiculous thing to say. A middle-class earning spouse can more than pay for childcare.

Cali Nonya

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 514
  • Location: California
Well this keeps popping back on my "new replies list".

So I was distracting myself for a moment and read through some of these replies, and I have to admit as an analyst, one thing jumped out at me today.  There is a sort of assumed extroverted quality being applied to parents.  Mostly due to the assumption that parents will have networks of people (family, friends, caregivers, etc).

I myself fall into the category of willingly childless and very introverted.  In general those two go pretty well together, I don't like children, but basically I don't like people.  So you know, avoiding the whole thing.  As a general introvert, I pick up slack for co-worked as required but I don't get asked for additional favors, because well I avoid people, so I also don't ever ASK for favors.

This made me wonder about these two cases:
1) Extroverted and child-free:  Is your extroversion making your choices more visible hence get more negative feed-back?
2) Introverted (both parents) with children:  Does your introversion impact the options you have for assistance?

Lia-Aimee

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 117
I judge a very specific type of childfree people (and I'm not a parent.)

Don't want to have kids? Great! Only people who REALLY want children should have them, we're overpopulated enough as it is.

Don't care to be on planes, at restaurants, and at events with small children? I'm sure even many parents would agree. 

Get a bit frustrated when you're visiting with a parent friend and the kid keeps interrupting, or gets their sticky hands on your slacks, or tries to go through your purse? Fair.

Have such a dislike of children that you use derogatory names for them and their parents, refuse to let children into your house, instantly drop close friends and family members when they have children, and put the absolute maximum effort into avoiding children? This is either a mental health disorder or akin to racism or ableism.

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3791
I judge a very specific type of childfree people (and I'm not a parent.)

Don't want to have kids? Great! Only people who REALLY want children should have them, we're overpopulated enough as it is.

Don't care to be on planes, at restaurants, and at events with small children? I'm sure even many parents would agree. 

Get a bit frustrated when you're visiting with a parent friend and the kid keeps interrupting, or gets their sticky hands on your slacks, or tries to go through your purse? Fair.

Have such a dislike of children that you use derogatory names for them and their parents, refuse to let children into your house, instantly drop close friends and family members when they have children, and put the absolute maximum effort into avoiding children? This is either a mental health disorder or akin to racism or ableism.

Just like I've never encountered anti-CF prejudice in real life, I've never encountered this in real life either. Only online.  Maybe I actually know a ton of both types of jerks, but they are just SUPER SEKRIT about it.

RosieTR

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 394
  • Location: Northern CO
Someone talked about snappy comebacks, so I thought I'd share a story.
DH and I were relatively newly married, maybe for about 2 years, in our early 30s or so, when his oldest brother knocked up his wife. Soon-to-be ex wife, as it were. This was a surprise since 1) she was 38 and 2) had promised her and my MIL that she would "get an abortion if she ever got pregnant, do NOT expect grandkids, etc". Well, they separated and then when the baby was maybe 3 months old, she had to take a road trip that brought her to the area. So, MIL and FIL, DH and me, and her and infant are all at some shitty breakfast buffet place, making small talk. She then turns to me and asks "are you guys having kids?" I say "no, we're not". She smugly answers "well, you never know..." I even more smugly answer "I work in reproductive biology, and there is a 99.9% chance I DO know."

Honestly, except for a few people who do go on and on about their children's lives like they are celebrities and I'm a low-level paparazzi, I like hearing about people's children's antics. Usually I leave the conversation with a moment of gratitude for not having children! And it doesn't have to be something unpleasant such as the recounting of a night of vomiting. Even someone describing their preparations for their child's wedding or kindergarten graduation makes me thankful I don't have to go through that. Obviously for them, it's an exciting, fulfilling experience and it's good they had children so they could experience that. Obviously for me, even the supposedly pleasant parts do not seem that great so it's good I did not have children because that would suck for all involved.

pbkmaine

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8927
  • Age: 67
  • Location: The Villages, Florida
I never had the desire to have children, but I do very much enjoy them. There is something thrilling when a little hand takes yours to show you something or climbs up on your lap with a book. It's fortunate I feel that way: DH has 7 grandchildren.

Fire2025

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 302
  • Location: LA LA Land
I never had the desire to have children, but I do very much enjoy them. There is something thrilling when a little hand takes yours to show you something or climbs up on your lap with a book. It's fortunate I feel that way: DH has 7 grandchildren.

I'm in this camp.  I really like kids, I just never had any desire for one of my own.

I've been called selfish by family and strangers, but it never really effected me because I feel happy and fine with my choice.

Not to reopen the work thing...but I work for a big corp and they offer parents an extra 40 hours a year off and emergency daycare, that goes to their house to babysit sick kids, there is a cost, but supposedly it's cheap.  Our office also lets all the parents go home early on Halloween.  I've always considered this a great thing.  I feel like it speaks to a good work/life balance corp culture.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!