Author Topic: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men  (Read 43089 times)

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10880
On the one hand, I'm bewildered by why 18-20 year olds in a university psych class have such strong feelings about this topic, but on the other hand it kind of supports what I have experienced in my own life as a childless married person in the Midwest.

When I got married at 20, people were VERY CONCERNED about my breeding habits. People asked all the time what my plans were for children, what my timeline was, told me that I was wrong for not wanting children, that I would regret it, etc etc etc. This included other 20-somethings - who liked to tell me about their own plans for the future. It was like people had this ideal marriage/family in their heads and my unwillingness to conform to that ideal was a problem.

Then I turned 30 and people started being less concerned. Other 30-somethings casually ask about my family, but they know other people who are child-free, so it's nothing new to them. Older people seem to have gotten uncomfortable for fear that my womb is somehow poisonous and asking about whether or not my eggs are getting fertilized could lead to an unpleasant discussion.  It was almost like being over 30 was less than ideal for having children, so I was no longer shattering their "perfect family" picture, since I didn't fit in it anymore (being an elderly, barren over-30).

It's funny to me because I grew up in Ottawa and all of my high school friends from Canada waited until their 30s to have children or remained childfree. No one from my high school had kids in their early 20s. But in my midwestern state getting married and having children young is more the norm.

Yesterday, my husband was at the doctor and the doctor asked about kids. My husband said he was ambivalent and I didn't want kids, so it wasn't our plan. The doctor's response was, "Well, she has a career instead." That's right, I just filled my joyless womb with accounting. It's as close as I can get to the true happiness of parenthood.
OMG that was funny.  The joyless womb comment.

I grew up in a small town also, and the whole kid thing was big.  Being 8th of 9, I wasn't interested in children, and didn't really like them. I have a couple of older sisters who were the same.

Sister #3 never had kids.
Sibling #6 (also a sister), never had kids.
Sibling #7 (who didn't want kids), got pregnant by accident.  Ended up having the baby, he's a wonderful adult now.  She doesn't regret it.

I got bugged a LOT and it annoyed me.  By around age 35, people just stopped bugging me, it was great.  I had my boys at 36 and 42 (oops).  It took my husband a LONG time to talk me into the first one (we'd been married almost 10 years). 

I didn't really like children, until my friends had kids.  Then I liked my friend's children (for the most part, the ones that weren't assholes).  I still didn't "like kids".  You know, like preschool teachers do.  I came to realize that if I have a connection to the person (parent and kids), well then, it's a human that I can like.

It was important to me.  I have a lot of friends who are still childfree (and as we are now in our late 40s to 50s, going to remain that way).  Most of them are not anti-kid, they are ambivalent.  They are mostly really good with kids, and interact with my kids.  They just didn't want them.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10880
A couple weeks ago one fellow in the group was gone on a Wednesday.  Turned out there were 25" of fresh powder on the mountain, so he and his female "partner" (not sure if they are actually married, despite sitting by him for 2 years...) took the day off and went skiing.

As the three of us looked at each other in slight jealousy/contempt I uttered that 4 letter word "dink".  He regularly jets off to far locales like Puerto Rico, Cuba, etc.  Good for him, but it can be a bit of gut punch for those of us a bit worn down from the inescapable grind of parenthood.

I love my kid, but it can be hard to wonder "what if" with regards to marriage and kids sometimes.  Plenty of doors close, a few others open.  On the whole your life is much more restricted with a wife, and far more so with kids.  The pluses are great too, but it can be hard to keep those in perspective when the grass looks so damn green on the other side of the fence sometimes.
One of the good things about modern society is the way everyone's living longer, healthier lives. I'm sure when your kids are grown you're going to have several decades of travel/skiing/sailing/whatever. If it's not your wife's cup of tea, you can travel without her for a few weeks here and there. I know several older couples who do this.

You can have anything, but you cannot have everything right now. Start a google doc for all your travel hacking research, I'm sure you'll get there eventually. With or without the kids.

I have friends who met while traveling.  They dated (10 years?) while traveling.  Two - or three? - multi-month trips around the world.  Eventually they settled down to live in the same place.  Got married.  Bought a condo.  Had two kids.  Decided that the travel bug could wait (after all, they were in their 40s by now).  After about 4 years of settled-down-hood...hubby quit his job, rented the condo, they are half way through their full year traveling with the kids.  Started in Africa, have been in Asia for the last 4-5 months.  Will come back in time for the older kid to start kindergarten.

Cpa Cat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1692
So maybe you've made some assumptions about who is voting against tax increases for schools and figure it must be all those child-hating childfree people! In truth, demographically speaking, it's probably richer people with kids in good school districts (or private schools) who don't feel there's a problem, and empty nesters who feel they've paid their dues and shouldn't have to do more. Those people probably actually really do comprise enough of the voting population to influence a school taxes vote.

Or it could be normal, child-having couples who believe the school gets quite enough money already, thank you, but pisses it away on mismanagement and stupidity.

This board will lost its shit if someone comes on here saying they are in financial trouble but pay $100/mo for cable, but a school district with a dozen $100k+ administrators that says it needs more tax money or it's going to have to fire a music teacher gets a free pass.

Haha. Ok, point taken. But this thread isn't really about school funding, is it? :)

My point being - "Childless-by-choice" is not a big enough demographic to be influencing any vote, even if they were out there voting en masse against all things kid and future-related. And I wanted to challenge the assumption that they are actually voting that way. That is an example of someone making a biased assumption about the morals of people who are childless-by-choice, and wrongly blaming those people for the outcomes of certain votes.

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10880
So maybe you've made some assumptions about who is voting against tax increases for schools and figure it must be all those child-hating childfree people! In truth, demographically speaking, it's probably richer people with kids in good school districts (or private schools) who don't feel there's a problem, and empty nesters who feel they've paid their dues and shouldn't have to do more. Those people probably actually really do comprise enough of the voting population to influence a school taxes vote.

Or it could be normal, child-having couples who believe the school gets quite enough money already, thank you, but pisses it away on mismanagement and stupidity.

This board will lost its shit if someone comes on here saying they are in financial trouble but pay $100/mo for cable, but a school district with a dozen $100k+ administrators that says it needs more tax money or it's going to have to fire a music teacher gets a free pass.

Considering how many libertarians there are on "this board,"  I think that's a pretty silly generalization.

I rarely see "spend more responsibly" thrown out as an option when it comes to school funding, it's lots of "give them more resources" vs "charter schools and vouchers are good competition"
Huh.  I think most reasonable people agree that all are required.

As a parent, when it comes to giving schools resources, my options are limited.

I have near-zero control over
- how much state funding we get
- how many administrators the district has
- the individual school budget
- how many teachers we are allowed to have
- what the pension obligations are

(I say "near-zero", because I have been known to fill out surveys on what I think the district should do - for example, eliminate the gate-magnet program at one school and kick the students back to their home schools.  I've also written letters.)

What I do have control over (some)
- bond measures to remove mold, asbestos, and deteriorating plumbing and portable classrooms
- fundraising so that my kid can actually have teachers in art, computers, music, science, and PE (which are not covered by district funding).

As a parent who actually has spent time in the classroom and on campus and on the PTA board, I have some insight into what the school and teacher needs are.  However, other board members and I wonder because we aren't privy to the full school budget, or the full district budget.  We get bits and pieces.

WGH

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 128
  • Location: Houston, TX
Quote
I am curious how you came to this conclusion.

Just from everyday interactions with people who don't want children, and feel that society in it's current form is too child centric.  Also from people who frequently vote against increasing taxes in districts with dilapidated school systems.  I don't even think it is ill intentioned most of the time.  I just think people are ill equipped to empathize with people in different circumstances and also are bad at long term thinking. 

The weird part to me about people who say they hate children is that we were once ALL children.  It's an odd thing to hate, and almost seems like a  form of self-loathing.  Being annoyed at immature behavior I totally get.  But HATING kids for just being kids?  That itself is why I think that less people having children fosters a lack of cultural empathy overall.  Not in everyone, but it is something I have definitely observed.

I am sure to be flamed for my above statements, so enjoy.

+ 1

There seems to be very few topics in this country that are universally agreed upon. Supporting the wellbeing of children used to be one of them but now somehow the culture has shifted that even kids are fair game.

Again no issue with folks who don't want to have kids. That's your choice. Just worried about what it means for a society when it is becoming socially acceptable to have such disdain for children....

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6720
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
It can be useful to visit or live in a place where public education and opportunities after your education are far and few between.

In short anything that isn't bolted down disappears. Situations like this also give rise to organized crime IMHO.

"No opportunities to get ahead in the mainstream while following the rules? F*** the rules, I'm making my own rules and getting ahead no matter what..." Then their dysfunction and desperation affects everyone. Hard to fix society once that happens.

We don't want a society like that - do we?

For a preview look to Chicago, northern Mexico, southern Italy, places in the Middle East and Africa - among others.

MonkeyJenga

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8894
  • Location: the woods
I'm still not sure how "people who don't personally want children" and "people who don't want to fund public schools" have become conflated by some folks here.

I don't want kids. I think public schools should be better funded and more efficiently run. I also believe schools should not be funded based on property taxes, which penalizes already struggling communities.

Shit, Betsy Devos has four kids, and girl would be happy if public schools disappeared completely!

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3789
I'm still not sure how "people who don't personally want children" and "people who don't want to fund public schools" have become conflated by some folks here.

I don't want kids. I think public schools should be better funded and more efficiently run. I also believe schools should not be funded based on property taxes, which penalizes already struggling communities.


Exactly.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2606
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Not a flame. But as a childless person, my every day interactions with other childless-by-choice people is that like 90% of them are flaming liberals who frequently vote against their own best financial interests.

It could be the group of people in your immediate area. My experience the last ten years or so has been that people with many children tend to be heavy users of public resources and welfare. That's not to say *all* big families are on welfare-- I personally know at least three that aren't-- but in my neck of the woods food stamps, free day care, and free school lunches are the norm when there are large numbers of kids in the house. Those families are about as far left as you can get without being Communist, because they've got enormous chips on their shoulders about how hard their lives are and how they're barely getting by. Their kids are also signed up at every shoes-for-kids, coats-for-kids, charity school supply program and holiday giving tree program. The result is that the "poor" kids end up with more under the tree than the families where the adults work and limit their reproduction.

Quote
Certainly, we are not a large enough proportion of the population to form a influential voting block. So maybe you've made some assumptions about who is voting against tax increases for schools and figure it must be all those child-hating childfree people! In truth, demographically speaking, it's probably richer people with kids in good school districts (or private schools) who don't feel there's a problem, and empty nesters who feel they've paid their dues and shouldn't have to do more. Those people probably actually really do comprise enough of the voting population to influence a school taxes vote.

The head count is larger than you'd think, probably about 10%. But it's not demographically contiguous and we don't have our act together enough to vote as a bloc.

Edited to add: I probably lost my childfree card when I adopted a teenager out of foster care, however my aversion toward babies remains and my voting habits haven't changed.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2017, 12:44:40 PM by TheGrimSqueaker »

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10880
Quote
Certainly, we are not a large enough proportion of the population to form a influential voting block. So maybe you've made some assumptions about who is voting against tax increases for schools and figure it must be all those child-hating childfree people! In truth, demographically speaking, it's probably richer people with kids in good school districts (or private schools) who don't feel there's a problem, and empty nesters who feel they've paid their dues and shouldn't have to do more. Those people probably actually really do comprise enough of the voting population to influence a school taxes vote.

We just had a couple of large bond measures pass last year.

Of all the people I talked to up to the election, most of the folks who were against the bond measures were:
1.  Old
- We're talking 70+,retired, "we can't keep increasing taxes like this, I'm on a fixed income". 
- I live in CA.  Prop 13 keeps prop taxes low.  Many of these folks live in houses worth well over $1M and pay taxes in the range of $1000 a year.  And they aren't going to go up.  Bond measures temporarily increase their prop taxes.  My heart bleeds that your annual property taxes are going up to $1100.
- Yes most of them have kids and grandkids.
2.  Childfree
- This was really only 1 or 2 people, and also old.  One of whom went to the school down the street from me.  And thinks she should get a prop tax break (ON TOP OF PROP 13) because she didn't have kids.  News flash, you are paying back society for your own education.
3.  Rich
- This is really just one friend, who pays an extra $100k to his mortgage every year, to pay down the principal.

BeautifulDay

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
I don't think choosing not to have children means they hate children.  I can only speak of my own experience of being child free and knowin a number of couples who choose to be child free.  Each one of us made the choice for our own reason and none are the same.  But almost every singe child free person I know has made a significant investment in children in one way or another.  (Teachers, youth workers, volunteers for kids programs,etc.) I admit that my experience is skewed by my life choices.   DH and I, although childfree, have worked with youth most of our adult life.

Also many child free care deeply for our school system and are happy to support it.  I sit on the school district improvement committee and was nominated because of my work with the school district.

Another generalization that I struggle with is that large families are on welfare (GrimSqueaker - I get that your talking about your personal experience and appreciate that you leave room to question this).  Providing for a large family is a challenge that I've seen first hand.  I'm from a family of 10 kids.  Brother has 4. And DH is from a family of 5. These are just a few of the large families I know well, none of which use any kind of welfare.  These families do face significant challenges with affording the American lifestyle.  But so do many smaller families.

I think we are limited by the knowledge of our personal experiences. And should be careful when making generalizations about other people's life choices.

firelight

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070



It worries me that people seem in general less tolerant of children and more critical of parents.  It also worries me that as more and more people opt out of childbearing, they will see investing in the next generation as cumbersome and unnecessary.

Very interesting thread and I agree with the above (though I haven't had any experience with the discussion that followed about school funding vs being childfree). I have a toddler and my workplace is supportive of parents to a certain degree (as in, we can WFH or leave early if kid is sick. But we are still on hook for the work allotted to us, so no burdening co-workers while parents get a free pass). For most part, childfree coworkers are fine with this arrangement but there are a few that pass comments on how many times babies and toddlers get sick. For example, mine goes to a daycare and had a very rough winter. Even though my husband and I equally share the sick days, it still amounted to a day or two every two weeks. Same with other parents.

The childfree co-workers who had a problem with parents caring for kids said they were also taking time off just so they are on par with parents taking time off. As an individual, I'm totally fine with it. You take time off when you need it (like the example of the person in a post above that went skiing mid week). But taking time off just because you want to be in parity with the parents in your team is kind of immature.

Also at work I see that when more and more people in a team are child free, there is less empathy or understanding of parents and the challenges they face. If the team has more parents than non-parents, the team as a whole is more understanding of the challenges parents face. This causes a dilemma for me when I consider my career choices. Instead of choosing a team based on what is right for me and my career interests, I'm forced to choose a team that is pro parents vs choosing a team that is critical of me as a parent and dealing with the comments all the time. This is unfair to parents. I strongly believe bringing up kids is the effort of the entire society and it benefits the society as a whole (yes parents bring up kids for their family's sake but it also benefits society by giving future doctors, engineers and workers). So this new trend of being less interested, tolerant and understanding of kids and families is worrying to me.

Most of my child free friends are amazing. Some don't like kids in general and some just prefer pets to kids. I'm all for it and don't talk much about my kids unless they ask about them specifically. But even they can be judgey about kids and parents they see at malls and work and other public places even though they see and understand the struggles parents in their friends groups face. I don't know the solution or how to get to a point where no one feels taken advantage of or are being asked nosy questions about their child/nonchild status.

bugbaby

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
Everyone makes judgments.  Let's all get over it.

Sent from my KIW-L24 using Tapatalk


Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6651
I'm still not sure how "people who don't personally want children" and "people who don't want to fund public schools" have become conflated by some folks here.

I don't want kids. I think public schools should be better funded and more efficiently run. I also believe schools should not be funded based on property taxes, which penalizes already struggling communities.

Shit, Betsy Devos has four kids, and girl would be happy if public schools disappeared completely!

Yes.  This is just another stigma against and judgement towards Child-free people.  We are clearly all stingy, self-involved misers who don't want to pay for things that don't directly benefit us.  Never mind that as a 40-something child-free person, I fully recognize the value of public schooling and other programs targeted toward kids and families. 

I've opted out of having children, but that doesn't lessen in any way my awareness that supporting future generations is, IMO, a moral obligation of society, and that it is something that absolutely benefits everyone, even those who aren't using the schools for their kids (or the swings at the playground, or the free enrichment programs run a museum or other public entity, or...).  I benefit from public schools, and I support them, and am fine with my money going to them.  (Of course I wish they could be run more efficiently, but I feel the same way about the DMV and the military and the IRS and just about every other public program.)

fredbear

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 170


Certainly, we are not a large enough proportion of the population to form a influential voting block. So maybe you've made some assumptions about who is voting against tax increases for schools and figure it must be all those child-hating childfree people!


I often vote against tax increases for schools.  Don't hate children - bred a few, dote on the grandkids and contribute to their 529s, serve as a juniors coach.   I suppose all the childhaters say that, same as all the racists are baffled when their racism is revealed by people who have never met them.  But setting aside my deep inner motivations, to which I have no particular access, the reasons I offer for doing so are

1) I never met anyone who was learned, or even came across as particularly intelligent, whose attainments could be ascribed to their on-line skills (most of these issues are sold as bringing the classrooms up to Cray-like electronic-access standards); and

2) I don't vote to give more money to school districts where the non-teaching staff (read, administrators; I'm not fussing about custodians) outnumber the teachers.  In our area, this is widely the case.   It is particularly hard for me to understand how refusing to fund more administrators shows hatred of children.  It even - benightedness warning - seems the reverse. 

stoaX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1008
  • Location: South Carolina
  • 'tis nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so


Certainly, we are not a large enough proportion of the population to form a influential voting block. So maybe you've made some assumptions about who is voting against tax increases for schools and figure it must be all those child-hating childfree people!


I often vote against tax increases for schools.  Don't hate children - bred a few, dote on the grandkids and contribute to their 529s, serve as a juniors coach.   I suppose all the childhaters say that, same as all the racists are baffled when their racism is revealed by people who have never met them.  But setting aside my deep inner motivations, to which I have no particular access, the reasons I offer for doing so are

1) I never met anyone who was learned, or even came across as particularly intelligent, whose attainments could be ascribed to their on-line skills (most of these issues are sold as bringing the classrooms up to Cray-like electronic-access standards); and

2) I don't vote to give more money to school districts where the non-teaching staff (read, administrators; I'm not fussing about custodians) outnumber the teachers.  In our area, this is widely the case.   It is particularly hard for me to understand how refusing to fund more administrators shows hatred of children.  It even - benightedness warning - seems the reverse.

And having lived in high property tax places and low property tax places, I didn't see a direct correlation between that and the quality of schools my children attended.   My observations were:  1) high property tax place, good schools.  2) medium property tax place, great schools.  3) low property tax place, good schools.  4) high property tax place, poor schools. 

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Personal property tax is only part of the equation however. Some places have very high property taxes and low school budgets because they have little industrial base. Other locations have a much higher school budget but less of a property tax burden because they also have an industrial base on which to depend for tax revenues. I live in Cook County, IL, and our property taxes are lower than the surrounding counties because of the amount of industry in Cook; I used to live in McHenry county in a comparatively poorer school district and paid much higher (40-50%) property taxes, on a house worth much less.

Miss Unleaded

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 17

I have heard about how CF people are judged my entire life, but only in the media and on the internet. I don't think I've ever actually encountered it in real life. I've had people express mild surprise at my lack of interest in kids, or mild worry that "people like me" don't seem to be having kids and therefore (presumably) the world will eventually be overrun by some less desirable demographic. But no judgement and no 'bingo' statements ("Oh, you'll change your mind when you are older!"). Not ever that I recall.   

It could be that about half my extended family has no kids, and a good portion of my friends don't either.  But most of my best friends have them. 

I wonder if this is unusual?  Or is it just that we all mostly judge other people for all kinds of things, but usually don't mention it unless a pollster asks?

I've experienced plenty of it, from family members and friends as well as relative strangers. Most of it is pretty easy to ignore but it does sometimes sting to be called 'selfish' for being childfree.  Especially when, IMO, it is far more selfish and destructive to the planet to have a child than to not have one.

The worst was from a colleague who developed a fierce dislike of me because I said I didn't like or want children. I apologised for hurting her feelings, but after that everything I did seemed to piss her off and it culminated in her actually trying to start a fist fight with me in the car park after work one day. 

Some people are really invested in other people's reproductive choices.

BoneTree

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 9
I've never been called selfish for choosing not to have children. Some may have thought it, but were never rude enough to say it out loud. I will say that nothing shuts a conversation down faster than a "No" response to the question "So do you have kids?" Not that they necessarily have a negative opinion of the childless - it's just that some people don't often know what else to talk about because everyone at a certain age has kids, right?

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5206
Huh.  I am seeing a lot of stigmatization the other way these days as more and more people opt out of having children.  In fact, this thread drips with it. 

The empathy gap between us "breeders" and the child-free is stark.  Most people I know without children are the first to judge parents for their children's actions with zero understanding of anything.  Also, there is a lot of self-congratulation and back-patting for being "smart" and protecting the environment by not adding to the population.   

I guess it all depends on which side of the fence you stand on.

I've had both. both from family and "well-meaning" strangers should have kids. but I also have gotten the opposite reaction, including one a couple weeks ago, someone I met in another context literally curling his lip at me, that I had two children, (he decided at a young age not to due to environmental reasons). I wanted to joke that I came from a long line of ancestors who had children, but refrained. I think he ended up literally shaking his head at me.

Prairie Stash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1795
I've never been called selfish for choosing not to have children. Some may have thought it, but were never rude enough to say it out loud. I will say that nothing shuts a conversation down faster than a "No" response to the question "So do you have kids?" Not that they necessarily have a negative opinion of the childless - it's just that some people don't often know what else to talk about because everyone at a certain age has kids, right?
Lets say you have a job and 2 young children. You spend 40/168 hours (168 hours/week) working, 56/168 sleeping, 14/168 getting ready and travelling to work and that leaves 58 hours in a week and you haven't cleaned your dwelling or done any other normal task like feed yourself supper. 

Those 2 children probably need to be fed, bathed, played with etc. How many hours per week is normal to spend with a kid? How many hours do you have left over? Its not so much that people don't know what else to talk about; its more to do with child rearing consumes the majority of your non allocated hours. If someone spends 30 hours/week on model trains, they'll probably talk about trains at parties. What else would anyone expect?

The pressure to have kids then comes in because people with children want to extend their social circle to include you. Its hard to relate to a swinging bachelor lifestyle when you have math homework to help with. Its far easier to maintain friendships with other people in similar circumstances. Take a look at anyone's social circle, people with children hang out more with each other. People without tend to go off on adventures with other childless people. Its not personal, its just easier to make play dates than find a babysitter; also its easier to travel to Vegas when you don't have kids to worry about.

In 20 years I'll resume my close friendships with my child less friends. Until then we're still friends but I spend more time with my peers that also have children. Its got noting to do with how great they are, its got everything to do with convenience.

WGH

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 128
  • Location: Houston, TX
I was thinking about this over the weekend and was reminded of why I have the issue of the choosing pets over children argument.

Years ago I worked as a CPS case manager in Arizona. I had a toddler boy on my caseload whose parents had their rights severed. Protocol is to try and find a family member willing to foster the child rather than just enter the foster system. This little boy just so happened to have a childless uncle and aunt. They lived in Scottsdale and had a combined income of over $300k. I met with them and the Uncle was sympathetic as this was his blood nephew. His wife however told me repeatedly that she was very concerned because she had two dogs and was worried that this little boy might mistreat them in some way. The next day after the interview Uncle calls back and says after sleeping on it no they weren't willing to do it.

I was aghast that a younger couple with the financial means would allow their innocent nephew to enter a system most people know is not conducive to success to put it lightly.

So I ask you was this selfish of them? What would you childfree folks do in such a situation? Am I being unfairly judgmental of them and they shouldn't feel obligated or guilted into such a life changing burden?

TheAnonOne

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1753
I was thinking about this over the weekend and was reminded of why I have the issue of the choosing pets over children argument.

Years ago I worked as a CPS case manager in Arizona. I had a toddler boy on my caseload whose parents had their rights severed. Protocol is to try and find a family member willing to foster the child rather than just enter the foster system. This little boy just so happened to have a childless uncle and aunt. They lived in Scottsdale and had a combined income of over $300k. I met with them and the Uncle was sympathetic as this was his blood nephew. His wife however told me repeatedly that she was very concerned because she had two dogs and was worried that this little boy might mistreat them in some way. The next day after the interview Uncle calls back and says after sleeping on it no they weren't willing to do it.

I was aghast that a younger couple with the financial means would allow their innocent nephew to enter a system most people know is not conducive to success to put it lightly.

So I ask you was this selfish of them? What would you childfree folks do in such a situation? Am I being unfairly judgmental of them and they shouldn't feel obligated or guilted into such a life changing burden?
It's not selfish, simply because they made litterally no choice in this at all. This was thrown at them with no provocation.

To say it's selfish is to say that anyone who walks by a bum and doesn't give the dollar in their pocket to said bum is also selfish.

I don't know what I would do, but accepting kids would be tough. I would probably explore other options, other family members, maybe donation of funds to care (one time) but taking on a child, this can mean so many things. Maybe they needed a larger house, maybe they wanted their own kids, maybe they do have dangerous dogs...or maybe they just don't like kids and know they wouldn't be the best caretakers.

All and any reason is valid.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk


exterous

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 174
Also at work I see that when more and more people in a team are child free, there is less empathy or understanding of parents and the challenges they face. If the team has more parents than non-parents, the team as a whole is more understanding of the challenges parents face. This causes a dilemma for me when I consider my career choices. Instead of choosing a team based on what is right for me and my career interests, I'm forced to choose a team that is pro parents vs choosing a team that is critical of me as a parent and dealing with the comments all the time. This is unfair to parents.

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. My wife worked at a place that chose to subsidize family health insurance so that a family of 3 or 4 paid less in healthcare than our family of two. There is plenty of "unfair" to go around but I think its more applicable to say its common to need make choices regarding who to work for\with and decide whether its a good fit for your life and the life decisions you've made.

Quote
I strongly believe bringing up kids is the effort of the entire society and it benefits the society as a whole (yes parents bring up kids for their family's sake but it also benefits society by giving future doctors, engineers and workers). So this new trend of being less interested, tolerant and understanding of kids and families is worrying to me.

In my opinion its not that people are less tolerant and understanding of kids and families but people don't enjoy undisciplined children and 'my special snowflake' parents and that, perhaps the number of those is growing. This is, of course, in no way directed at anyone's parenting here, but merely based off of my interactions with the hundreds of teachers\professors I know through my work, my family and my wife's long time job as a high school teacher. Teachers bemoan how parents used to be partners in education but now when a child isn't doing well its the teacher's fault. If a child gets in trouble its because teachers were targeting the child, are racist or sexist. I've seen questionable public school district mandates pushed by parents because they assume they know whats better than the trained educators. For example a school tried having parents be the decision makers for when their child repeats a grade or not (that didn't turn out well at all.) There are education workshops covering topics like 'how to deal with covering less material now that you are spending more time on classroom management'. Granted the 'kids these days' complaining is nothing new to this world but that doesn't preclude that from actually being the case. Something is rapidly increasing teacher burn out (well likely more than 1 thing) and there are a decent number of indicators from people like Dr. Kindlon and Dr. Sigman (among others) that lends credence to an increase in unruly children and a negative change in parenting
« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 03:07:21 PM by exterous »

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5671
When I was in the process of still deciding whether not having children would be something I would regret, I asked a 60+ year old lady at work who didn't have children whether she regretted the choice. She didn't regret it at all. That was for me good to hear. Also, before it was too late, I have discussed it again with my husband and we deliberately choose to not have children.
I don't envy a lot of parents. As mentioned above, there are lots of parent who are a bit out of control in some situations. They don't seem happy at that. The other thing is that I get stressed enough of my own life as it is and I really cannot imagine having to take care of children, bringing them to school, bringing them to sports clubs, while both parents are working full-time. This is what all almost all of my colleagues do and I don't envy them at all.
I haven't gotten any of these nasty comments from my colleagues. Only some plees from my mother and MIL. Luckily my brother and BIL produced grand children. My mother is still not very happy, because the don't let her baby sit the children. Whatever. Not my concern.

I am 62 and did not have children, by choice. Have 0 regrets.

Have experienced no judgement or disdain. Live in the Midwest. I think my peeps here must not have received the memo that they should have shown me disfavor as bible thumping rednecks. Sometimes  people just refuse to behave according to their program, ya know?

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2606
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
I was aghast that a younger couple with the financial means would allow their innocent nephew to enter a system most people know is not conducive to success to put it lightly.

So I ask you was this selfish of them? What would you childfree folks do in such a situation? Am I being unfairly judgmental of them and they shouldn't feel obligated or guilted into such a life changing burden?

I'd expect them to do exactly what most people WITH children do when asked to foster a relative: refuse. It's far kinder than taking the child in and then having to call a few weeks or a few months later to have the child removed when he or she is acting out in a destructive way that endangers the current inhabitants of the house. That happens a lot in trauma cases, and being removed from one's parents *is* traumatic.

Make no mistake, kinship foster care is still foster care. You've still got round after round of investigation, examination, mandatory training, and repeated invasive questioning by authorities. You've still got to be prepared to open your home for inspection on a moment's notice. You've still got to jump every time a social worker says "frog", and you're still going to live under a microscope. The only person who can do whatever they want to whomever they want is the bio-parent, who is a little tin god as far as the system's concerned. They're permitted to walk all over you, sabotage your relationship with the rest of your extended family, and do whatever they wish in order to get revenge for "you" taking their kid.

Then of course there's the logistics drama. Do you travel for business? Oops: you've got a court date! Better drop everything and reschedule. Are you attending a relative's wedding? Oops: your social worker needs to see the kid now-now-now because it's the end of the month. Oops! Oops! Oops! Oops! Oops! Expect to get jerked around by everyone and his dog, particularly the bio-parents Who Have Rights (which you incidentally don't). Such money as is available is not enough to cover the cost of keeping the kid if you do it right, and it doesn't even come close to repairing the damage that some of the more destructive ones can do to a house and its contents. The upshot of it is that very few normal families can actually function while taking care of a foster kid, unless they rearrange their lives to revolve around Being A Foster Family. It pretty much precludes being a two-career family; one of the partners has to give up his or her job and become a full-time stay-at-home punching bag parent.

The system is set up to encourage and reward professional foster care givers: people who earn a substantial part of their living by taking in foster children. There's an economy of scale. If you have more than three and they are constantly circulating in and out every 7 months or so, all of a sudden you get massive tax deductions and the income starts working out. But you have to get into it as a home based business.

By the time the child welfare authorities get involved in an abuse or neglect case, the recipient of the abuse or neglect is frequently so traumatized and badly socialized that he or she requires expert professional assistance and frequently a far more structured environment than any normal family can provide. The aunt and uncle in your story are not experienced parents, much less highly trained treatment foster care providers. If the child has behavior problems that made animal abuse likely, by the time the authorities come knocking the extended family is generally well aware what the child is or isn't like. Dumping the kid into a home that is not even remotely equipped to meet his or her needs guarantees only one thing: disaster.

The fact the couple in your story have no children in no way makes them different from any other family that realizes they don't have enough space in the lifeboat to take on even one more niece, nephew, cousin, or sibling. What makes them unique is that they were mature enough to recognize it and admit it immediately instead of making the problem worse.

If you (I'm talking about the general "you", not you personally) don't have the wherewithal to provide 24x7 in-person supervision, access to a sizable support system including therapists, counselors, mental health providers, pediatricians, school administrators, and a treatment team, if you're not part of a larger group of people where fostering or adoption is the norm, and if you can't drop everything and respond now-now-now to an emergency several times a day plus driving the child to appointment after appointment (including mandatory meetings with the bio-parents if they still have parental rights), you need to recognize that your life is going to shift to revolve around just such a lifestyle. If that's impossible given your work schedule or other existing responsibilities, you should absolutely not consider fostering or adopting out of foster care.

The selfish thing for the couple to have done would have been to go off on a big ego trip about how they were going to "save" their nephew despite having a household and lifestyle that were most likely not even remotely conducive to raising any child at all, much less one who needs substantial extra help, guidance, and attention due to trauma effects.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2017, 03:36:16 PM by TheGrimSqueaker »

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5671
I was thinking about this over the weekend and was reminded of why I have the issue of the choosing pets over children argument.

Years ago I worked as a CPS case manager in Arizona. I had a toddler boy on my caseload whose parents had their rights severed. Protocol is to try and find a family member willing to foster the child rather than just enter the foster system. This little boy just so happened to have a childless uncle and aunt. They lived in Scottsdale and had a combined income of over $300k. I met with them and the Uncle was sympathetic as this was his blood nephew. His wife however told me repeatedly that she was very concerned because she had two dogs and was worried that this little boy might mistreat them in some way. The next day after the interview Uncle calls back and says after sleeping on it no they weren't willing to do it.

I was aghast that a younger couple with the financial means would allow their innocent nephew to enter a system most people know is not conducive to success to put it lightly.

So I ask you was this selfish of them? What would you childfree folks do in such a situation? Am I being unfairly judgmental of them and they shouldn't feel obligated or guilted into such a life changing burden?

You use the word "selfish" and that is fine, but it's just a label. YOUR label.

As someone who would have recoiled in horror at the thought of taking on a relative's young and (probably)  damaged child, I have these thoughts:

1) think what you want to think of me, that's your right, but I don't have to care nor think your position is valid

2) as a social welfare professional, surely you can appreciate what is best for a child, and recoiling in horror at the idea of adopting him is not in is best interest

3) as mentioned above, it was actually great that this couple made up their minds immediately that they were out of the running, that allowed the kid's case to move forward

3) in general, people who step up to take care of other people's kids are heroes but that aint me

There is someone in my social circle who is exactly my age and who makes me crazy with her bossy, impractical, and just spacey approach to life. She has applied to be parent of offspring belonging to someone in her family and all I can think of is, dear god, that poor child. But at least my friend would

be kind, I guess.

Are you still in the social welfare biz?

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5206
I'm thinking of myself, and say my younger brother or sister had a toddler they couldn't take care if, and I had the means to do so, it wouldn't be a question. But if it was my older brothers child, who has a history of alcohol and drug abusr, I would know I was not up for that. But for my other siblings, they would be that close to my own children. Dogs no contest.

bugbaby

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 386
I'm sure logically one can argue that if you didn't have a part in a decision (sibling's child), then you shouldn't be expected to feel special responsibility or concern for the child's welfare (i.e. choose your dogs over you nephew).   

And some would deny the idea of having special bonds with 'blood' over stranger, or with humans over pets etc..

it seems there's a whole philosophical, political and spiritual underpinning to this whole issue, I don't think we can easily convert those who disagree.

Sent from my KIW-L24 using Tapatalk


golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Location: MA
Quote
Quote from: firelight on April 01, 2017, 10:27:48 PM
Also at work I see that when more and more people in a team are child free, there is less empathy or understanding of parents and the challenges they face. If the team has more parents than non-parents, the team as a whole is more understanding of the challenges parents face. This causes a dilemma for me when I consider my career choices. Instead of choosing a team based on what is right for me and my career interests, I'm forced to choose a team that is pro parents vs choosing a team that is critical of me as a parent and dealing with the comments all the time. This is unfair to parents.

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. My wife worked at a place that chose to subsidize family health insurance so that a family of 3 or 4 paid less in healthcare than our family of two. There is plenty of "unfair" to go around but I think its more applicable to say its common to need make choices regarding who to work for\with and decide whether its a good fit for your life and the life decisions you've made.

Quote
I strongly believe bringing up kids is the effort of the entire society and it benefits the society as a whole (yes parents bring up kids for their family's sake but it also benefits society by giving future doctors, engineers and workers). So this new trend of being less interested, tolerant and understanding of kids and families is worrying to me.

In my opinion its not that people are less tolerant and understanding of kids and families but people don't enjoy undisciplined children and 'my special snowflake' parents and that, perhaps the number of those is growing. This is, of course, in no way directed at anyone's parenting here, but merely based off of my interactions with the hundreds of teachers\professors I know through my work, my family and my wife's long time job as a high school teacher. Teachers bemoan how parents used to be partners in education but now when a child isn't doing well its the teacher's fault. If a child gets in trouble its because teachers were targeting the child, are racist or sexist. I've seen questionable public school district mandates pushed by parents because they assume they know whats better than the trained educators. For example a school tried having parents be the decision makers for when their child repeats a grade or not (that didn't turn out well at all.) There are education workshops covering topics like 'how to deal with covering less material now that you are spending more time on classroom management'. Granted the 'kids these days' complaining is nothing new to this world but that doesn't preclude that from actually being the case. Something is rapidly increasing teacher burn out (well likely more than 1 thing) and there are a decent number of indicators from people like Dr. Kindlon and Dr. Sigman (among others) that lends credence to an increase in unruly children and a negative change in parenting

Thank you for reinforcing every single negative stereotype I have of child-free people in this one post.  You made my point beautifully.  Like I said, you don't have a lot of empathy for people who have children because you have no idea what it is like.  I think this attitude is going to become more and more mainstream as less people have children, and this is going to create a spiral where as society becomes less child centered, it becomes more difficult and burdensome to have children, and we become  like Japan.  Sure, maybe that is the optimal way to bring the population down, just make parenthood so unpleasant that no one wants to do it, but I wonder about the long term consequences of that. 

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3789
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.

WGH

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 128
  • Location: Houston, TX
I was thinking about this over the weekend and was reminded of why I have the issue of the choosing pets over children argument.

Years ago I worked as a CPS case manager in Arizona. I had a toddler boy on my caseload whose parents had their rights severed. Protocol is to try and find a family member willing to foster the child rather than just enter the foster system. This little boy just so happened to have a childless uncle and aunt. They lived in Scottsdale and had a combined income of over $300k. I met with them and the Uncle was sympathetic as this was his blood nephew. His wife however told me repeatedly that she was very concerned because she had two dogs and was worried that this little boy might mistreat them in some way. The next day after the interview Uncle calls back and says after sleeping on it no they weren't willing to do it.

I was aghast that a younger couple with the financial means would allow their innocent nephew to enter a system most people know is not conducive to success to put it lightly.

So I ask you was this selfish of them? What would you childfree folks do in such a situation? Am I being unfairly judgmental of them and they shouldn't feel obligated or guilted into such a life changing burden?

You use the word "selfish" and that is fine, but it's just a label. YOUR label.

As someone who would have recoiled in horror at the thought of taking on a relative's young and (probably)  damaged child, I have these thoughts:

1) think what you want to think of me, that's your right, but I don't have to care nor think your position is valid

2) as a social welfare professional, surely you can appreciate what is best for a child, and recoiling in horror at the idea of adopting him is not in is best interest

3) as mentioned above, it was actually great that this couple made up their minds immediately that they were out of the running, that allowed the kid's case to move forward

3) in general, people who step up to take care of other people's kids are heroes but that aint me

There is someone in my social circle who is exactly my age and who makes me crazy with her bossy, impractical, and just spacey approach to life. She has applied to be parent of offspring belonging to someone in her family and all I can think of is, dear god, that poor child. But at least my friend would be kind, I guess.

Are you still in the social welfare biz?

Hi Iris, I am no longer in social welfare; I applaud those that do that work but it's hard to make a decent living doing it. I've considered after FIRE to get back in and help somehow.

It's just a different mentality I suppose and the people who do social work are probably also those predisposed to be willing to sacrifice and take in a child despite the potential disruption. Back then I did think they were incredibly selfish. These days I understand that people are just wired differently.

My concern is if more and more of society would "recoil in horror" I don't think that speaks well to the level of empathy and willingness for self sacrifice in our culture and then the deeper ramification into how we interact with each other in general. While we all maybe wired differently it is the ability to empathize that helps us break out of our predispositions and consider a different sometimes opposing view. You mentioned the child is probably damaged which is a terribly unfair and stereotypical label to place upon him just because his parents had their rights severed. No where in my anecdote did I state the he had behavioral concerns. Your label is evidence of my concern of the inability we have to break out of our heuristics and utilize empathy.

I probably sound like a judgemental jerk but it saddens me that people's first thought instead of poor kid would be dear God I am not dealing with that!

BoneTree

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 9
I am 62 and did not have children, by choice. Have 0 regrets.

Have experienced no judgement or disdain. Live in the Midwest. I think my peeps here must not have received the memo that they should have shown me disfavor as bible thumping rednecks. Sometimes  people just refuse to behave according to their program, ya know?

I'm 51, no kids and no regrets, too. I also live in the Midwest. I wouldn't change that either. :D
« Last Edit: April 04, 2017, 01:16:54 PM by BoneTree »

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2606
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
It's just a different mentality I suppose and the people who do social work are probably also those predisposed to be willing to sacrifice and take in a child despite the potential disruption. Back then I did think they were incredibly selfish. These days I understand that people are just wired differently.

My concern is if more and more of society would "recoil in horror" I don't think that speaks well to the level of empathy and willingness for self sacrifice in our culture and then the deeper ramification into how we interact with each other in general. While we all maybe wired differently it is the ability to empathize that helps us break out of our predispositions and consider a different sometimes opposing view. You mentioned the child is probably damaged which is a terribly unfair and stereotypical label to place upon him just because his parents had their rights severed. No where in my anecdote did I state the he had behavioral concerns. Your label is evidence of my concern of the inability we have to break out of our heuristics and utilize empathy.

I probably sound like a judgemental jerk but it saddens me that people's first thought instead of poor kid would be dear God I am not dealing with that!

Chances are you've never personally experienced being legally and financially responsible for someone whose needs expand to consume, and then exceed, all available resources. You may never have heard of Reactive Attachment Disorder. If so, good for you.

If you'd had that experience, even once, you'd understand why healthy people recoil in horror.

Most people's first instinct is to help. Then when they get in over their heads, the system that helped create the problem says: "Tee-hee! Joke's on you. You're on your own now!"

The stigma isn't because the kid had parental rights terminated. That's got nothing to do with the kid. However, a child whose parents have had their rights severed doesn't just appear out of nowhere. By the time parental rights are severed, lots of things have happened.

First, the child has been in the system for months or years. Generally the child is adopted by the family that fosters him or her. When that doesn't happen, it's a big red flag and an indication that there's a severe problem, particularly if the child is a toddler or preschooler which is the single most adoptable group. If the fostering family or someone in their immediate network hasn't stepped up, there's generally a big reason why, and yes, it generally does have something to do with the kid.

Second, when a child is first taken into the system the entire extended family knows about it. They are usually fully aware of the reason the child was taken away and they've already tried to help. Of course the criteria for taking a child away from bio-parents are very strict, and by the time a child is abused or neglected enough for the system to get involved, they're generally missing several key developmental milestones. Some of them are biologically human but behave like feral little beasts simply because they haven't been socialized. It's not unusual to see a 4-year-old who is still in diapers 24 hours a day, and who cannot speak.

Finally, the child is a direct link to the bio-parents. Parental rights aren't terminated in a vacuum or for no reason, and frequently the parents are basically defective or even dangerous people.

Recoiling in horror is a self-preservation instinct. If more of society did it, we'd have far fewer enablers of extended family dysfunction.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2606
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Thank you for reinforcing every single negative stereotype I have of child-free people in this one post.  You made my point beautifully.  Like I said, you don't have a lot of empathy for people who have children because you have no idea what it is like.  I think this attitude is going to become more and more mainstream as less people have children, and this is going to create a spiral where as society becomes less child centered, it becomes more difficult and burdensome to have children, and we become  like Japan.  Sure, maybe that is the optimal way to bring the population down, just make parenthood so unpleasant that no one wants to do it, but I wonder about the long term consequences of that.

Hmm. So somebody whose experience is different from yours, who has been on the receiving end of unfair treatment and who is less than thrilled about it, is saying that they don't like being in a situation where other people feel entitled to take from them in order to subsidize their own lifestyle choices. Interestingly, instead of acknowledging the fact that unfairness can cut both ways, you're labeling one set of people as automatically entitled (and who are right to complain about unfair treatment) and another set of people as legitimate targets who, if they complain about unfair treatment directed at them, are "immature", "lacking empathy", or having a character defect because they're not willing to give-give-give to people who "know what it's like".

I freely admit that I don't know what it's like to voluntarily put my hand into a meat grinder and be an amputee as a result. I'd expect it would make my life more difficult. Yet I also don't see why it should give me any claim whatsoever on other people's time and resources.

I wouldn't be so quick to stigmatize childfree people as lacking maturity or empathy simply because they direct their time toward activities that don't involve children. For the most part, the workhorses of not-for-profit work are the ones who don't have kids at home. Charities couldn't survive without them.

hudsoncat

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 359
I was thinking about this over the weekend and was reminded of why I have the issue of the choosing pets over children argument.

...

I was aghast that a younger couple with the financial means would allow their innocent nephew to enter a system most people know is not conducive to success to put it lightly.

So I ask you was this selfish of them? What would you childfree folks do in such a situation? Am I being unfairly judgmental of them and they shouldn't feel obligated or guilted into such a life changing burden?

I think it's hard to ask if someone is being selfish in one sentence while also calling it "a life changing burden" two sentences later.

DH and I are childfree by choice. We are mostly ambivalent to children in our daily lives (don't love 'em, don't hate 'em), but happily support local schools in various ways, are nice to the neighbor children (to the point that we not infrequently entertain them when their folks are feeling overwhelmed by having 5 kids under the age of 7. Yay, multiple sets of twins!), hell, I even volunteer for a local youth program in the summer because I see value in it for young people and our community. I like our nieces and nephews, but certainly spend less time with them than other aunt/uncles (with children).

That said, if a situation arose where one of said nieces or nephews needed to move in with me? I'd hesitate. Because it would be a life changing situation for all involved. DH and I travel extensively for work. My job in particular has a very inconsistent work schedule (most people in my role do not have children, have grown children, or  a spouse with more stable hours. I know from talking to the folks with children, the schedule is a challenge). I do have a dog who would have to be re-homed in the event of a child moving in (I don't consider my dog a child, but I do have pretty strong feelings for her. This would need to be a consideration). I don't tend to 'connect' with children well (okay, I usually do all the non-high children contact roles for the youth program, which is fine! Most people want to work with the kids and I'm happy doing grunt work). Even the nieces and nephews, who seem in general to like me okay, don't particularly consider me a favored aunt. (I am also admittedly awkward around children. The neighbor kids also prefer my husband who they call by first name while still referring to me by Mrs. DH's first name)

Are these considerations (and all the other unnamed ones) selfish? Maybe to some, but every one of those considerations would cause not only accommodations in my life, but also in the child's. As to what we'd do in that situation? Well keeping in mind that each one is different, but we were faced with a similar one once. Luckily there was a family member better suited emotionally (and otherwise) to step in. She was not prepared financially, so DH and I help with the financial piece.

So am I selfish? Sometimes! Does it have anything to do with my choosing to be child-free? I don't think so. I just never had a desire to have a kid(s).
« Last Edit: April 05, 2017, 12:55:15 PM by hudsoncat »

Ebrat

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 239
I had the guy opening my checking account yesterday ask me if we were planning on having kids. When I told him nope, I'm not cut out for it, he proceeded to explain to me how it's something you figure out once you have them. It just comes to you. Yep, glad to hear that you know my personality and abilities better than I do. Maybe I'll pop out a kid or two and just hope that random banker guy was right about figuring it all out.

Spouse and I decided we need to come up with some snappy comebacks that put people in their place in a humorous or friendly way.

(And somewhat off topic, the cultural beliefs about how parenting is innate and something that comes naturally bother me because for a lot of people, that's just not true. Perpetuating the idea that it is true can lead people who are perfectly fine parents to feel like failures because they struggle.)

Cali Nonya

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 514
  • Location: California


I briefly dated a guy who said marriage without children is a like a garden without flowers: useless. I was agog for multiple reasons. We did not date for long.



Slightly off-topic, but this quote made me laugh.  My SO always calls flowers weeds, a garden without vegetables is useless.

jinga nation

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2696
  • Age: 247
  • Location: 'Murica's Dong
I had the guy opening my checking account yesterday ask me if we were planning on having kids. When I told him nope, I'm not cut out for it, he proceeded to explain to me how it's something you figure out once you have them. It just comes to you. Yep, glad to hear that you know my personality and abilities better than I do. Maybe I'll pop out a kid or two and just hope that random banker guy was right about figuring it all out.

Spouse and I decided we need to come up with some snappy comebacks that put people in their place in a humorous or friendly way.

(And somewhat off topic, the cultural beliefs about how parenting is innate and something that comes naturally bother me because for a lot of people, that's just not true. Perpetuating the idea that it is true can lead people who are perfectly fine parents to feel like failures because they struggle.)
Before wife and I decided to dilute the gene pool, we would be constantly be asked if we had kids. When they heard "No" we would have to listen to unsolicited opinions (which make me want to stuff that pie hole with my excrement). My wife's response was "It's hard enough dealing with him (pointing to me) so why would I want copies?" That shut the pie hole fast.
TIL that my wife has sarky Brit humour. Yes, there's a u in there for a reason.
It's the same reason I can't have a dog; I am the dog. But not a kool dawg. Just a cheap mutt.

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5671
I had the guy opening my checking account yesterday ask me if we were planning on having kids. When I told him nope, I'm not cut out for it, he proceeded to explain to me how it's something you figure out once you have them. It just comes to you. Yep, glad to hear that you know my personality and abilities better than I do. Maybe I'll pop out a kid or two and just hope that random banker guy was right about figuring it all out.


You could pop out that tot and when that proved untenable, , take the kid into the bank and find banker guy. Shove kid at him saying "hey this didn't work like you said it would, so here ya go. sorry!"

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Location: MA
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. 

Do you know what I feel when someone judges me for having to leave early to care for a sick child?  Like I literally can't win.  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.

Quote
In my opinion it's not that people are less tolerant and understanding of kids and families but people don't enjoy undisciplined children and 'my special snowflake' parents and that, perhaps the number of those is growing.

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. 

Quote
Hmm. So somebody whose experience is different from yours, who has been on the receiving end of unfair treatment and who is less than thrilled about it, is saying that they don't like being in a situation where other people feel entitled to take from them in order to subsidize their own lifestyle choices. Interestingly, instead of acknowledging the fact that unfairness can cut both ways, you're labeling one set of people as automatically entitled (and who are right to complain about unfair treatment) and another set of people as legitimate targets who, if they complain about unfair treatment directed at them, are "immature", "lacking empathy", or having a character defect because they're not willing to give-give-give to people who "know what it's like".

Again, thank you for proving my point about the lack of empathy so neatly.  Perhaps your sense of what is "unfair treatment" is not correct because they have no idea what they are talking about or are making assumptions based on poor knowledge of the circumstances.    Sure, there are asshole parents, and there are asshole non-parents.  There are people who will take-take-take as you put it, but that goes for child free people too. 

My overall point was that the more people that lack the experience of child rearing, the less understanding they have of what is required.  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.  You can argue if this is a good thing or not, but it isn't the way we evolved to be.  Raising and caring for the next generation of humans is important to our survival and not simply a "lifestyle choice". 

It's funny, but in this thread, the one thing that really has me questioning the empathy of the child free is the weird disconnect in the way you discuss children.  It is like they aren't even human beings to many of you.  They are considered as "hobbies" at best or "repulsive" at the worst.  It is such a bizarre thing that a species could feel this way about their own young, and yourselves. 

mm1970

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10880
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."

I've had this experience with both sides...years where I was the childfree person picking up the slack. 

And now I'm the parent saying "see ya!" (except I was always the one coming in on Sunday when SHTF, while everyone else was out of town/ partying/ hungover/ at the beach.)

Want to know something?  When I was picking up the slack, I got *much* higher raises than everyone else.  When I had my first kid?  They got smaller.  Rightfully so, as I cut my work hours and output from 45 to 40/week.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2606
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
My overall point was that the more people that lack the experience of child rearing, the less understanding they have of what is required.

No, they generally understand exactly what is required, which is why they deliberately decide not to do it. They serve their communities in other ways.

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.  You can argue if this is a good thing or not, but it isn't the way we evolved to be.  Raising and caring for the next generation of humans is important to our survival and not simply a "lifestyle choice". 

Well, when a "village" really does raise a child-- and there are cultures where this still happens-- the villagers whose resources and time are being spent on that kid have the right to a say in how that kid behaves. That's not what's happening in industrial societies these days. The rest of the community has absolutely zero say in whether a child is taught rules or limits. When a parent says "it takes a village", frequently what they mean is "it takes the wallets of all the villagers", who get absolutely zero in return except perhaps an occasional broken window.

You've indicated that when someone covers for you, you reciprocate. Since you're a perceptive person, you have most likely noticed by now that reciprocity is not the norm.

Socially, it's OK for a parent to dump the kids on a neighbor, a sibling, or anyone else who will provide free babysitting or after-school care, sometimes for days at a time. It's OK to take off from work early to attend to a child related emergency; in fact family and medical leave acts exist to protect parents' rights to continue working. But when the child is grown up enough to be taught about cause and effect, parents never seem to go around and say: "Here's the old lady across the street who babysat you when you were little. She just fell and broke her hip, so we're going to rake up her leaves or shovel her walk for her." "Here are the co-workers who covered for me all the time when I had to leave early when you were sick. We're going to bake them a batch of cookies." That simply doesn't happen. The street only goes one way. Grandpa and Grandma are good enough to use as babysitters for years on end, but once they can't see too well and are having trouble getting around, the family's too busy with the children's activities to help them out so they can stay in their own homes. Off to the assisted living center, or worse. I don't know if you've seen the Inheritance Drama thread, but elder abuse and financial exploitation is more common than many people think.

Quote

It's funny, but in this thread, the one thing that really has me questioning the empathy of the child free is the weird disconnect in the way you discuss children.  It is like they aren't even human beings to many of you.  They are considered as "hobbies" at best or "repulsive" at the worst.  It is such a bizarre thing that a species could feel this way about their own young, and yourselves.

When a childfree person describes children in negative terms, by definition they aren't describing their own young.

Generally it's the parents of the children that treat them as hobbies or repulsive burdens. People can't stand to be around their own children and will do anything to get away and to offload the responsibility onto somebody else as soon as the child gets out of the cute dress-up doll stage. The result is a child who never learns to act like the kind of human other people want to be around.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2017, 02:09:45 PM by TheGrimSqueaker »

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3789
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. 

Do you know what I feel when someone judges me for having to leave early to care for a sick child?  Like I literally can't win.  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.

Quote
In my opinion it's not that people are less tolerant and understanding of kids and families but people don't enjoy undisciplined children and 'my special snowflake' parents and that, perhaps the number of those is growing.

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. 

Quote
Hmm. So somebody whose experience is different from yours, who has been on the receiving end of unfair treatment and who is less than thrilled about it, is saying that they don't like being in a situation where other people feel entitled to take from them in order to subsidize their own lifestyle choices. Interestingly, instead of acknowledging the fact that unfairness can cut both ways, you're labeling one set of people as automatically entitled (and who are right to complain about unfair treatment) and another set of people as legitimate targets who, if they complain about unfair treatment directed at them, are "immature", "lacking empathy", or having a character defect because they're not willing to give-give-give to people who "know what it's like".

Again, thank you for proving my point about the lack of empathy so neatly.  Perhaps your sense of what is "unfair treatment" is not correct because they have no idea what they are talking about or are making assumptions based on poor knowledge of the circumstances.    Sure, there are asshole parents, and there are asshole non-parents.  There are people who will take-take-take as you put it, but that goes for child free people too. 

My overall point was that the more people that lack the experience of child rearing, the less understanding they have of what is required.  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.  You can argue if this is a good thing or not, but it isn't the way we evolved to be.  Raising and caring for the next generation of humans is important to our survival and not simply a "lifestyle choice". 

It's funny, but in this thread, the one thing that really has me questioning the empathy of the child free is the weird disconnect in the way you discuss children.  It is like they aren't even human beings to many of you.  They are considered as "hobbies" at best or "repulsive" at the worst.  It is such a bizarre thing that a species could feel this way about their own young, and yourselves.


I realize you were mostly responding to another poster's points,  but I appreciate you elaborating and wanted to engage further.

First bold point: You are totally correct about the real emotional challenges faced by working parents in today's work centered society.  I remember the immense angst over this during the go-go 1980s when all the women were conflicted over going back to work. Now, most women HAVE to work and it creates kind of a no-win situation. My husband (CF by choice) and his supervisor (a parent of 3 kids, including 1 special needs child) have become gun shy of hiring women of young reproductive age when they have equally qualified alternatives available because they've had so many hires whose productivity took a giant nose dive due to demands of small kids. They cannot, of course, ask about reproductive status, but it is a consideration. Given that one of these people is a father with a special needs kid, do you really think they don't empathize with the challenges of parenting?  They DO empathize and they try to work with mothers when they hire them, BUT the work still has to be done by someone.  They want to hire someone who will do the work they are hired for, on the schedule and at the hours they hired them for, so they try to increase the odds they will get a consistently reliable person with a stable schedule.  Reality sucks.

Now, those of us who are childfree are likely to face more challenges than the child-having in terms of care in old age. Presumably, we knew this when we decided not to have kids. I don't think most CF people expect employers to pay us more or pick up all the over time hours or whatever to offset the cost of LTC, etc.  All life decisions have upsides and downsides, and we have to deal with them. People choose to have kids and thereby choose the hardships and the joys that come with that choice, which is great, but I don't really understand why you, golden1, would feel personally slighted because I don't particularly single you out for my sympathy. I mean, of COURSE I sympathize with your parenting challenges, but you [parents] shouldn't get 'special sympathy status' for your choice, just as I shouldn't in my old age.

A kind of comparable situation to parenting is the challenge of caring for aging parents and relatives.  This is something we can also choose to take on or not, and we don't have workplaces well structured to handle those demands, either. It would be great if we could figure out how to balance many of our basic life challenges with the demands of a 2 earner economy.  That includes life-balance, child-care, elder-care, etc.
 

RE: second bolded point.   I don't think this type of snap judgment is merely restricted to CF people who lack empathy. I have several friends with kids of their own who go on regular rants about how OTHER peoples' kids are ill behaved little monsters and how OTHER parents suck nowadays LOL.  Also, there's no denying that parenting styles have changed over time (e.g., parents as authority figures vs. buddies, kids expected to mostly entertain themselves and stay out of adults hair vs. being the center of the household schedule with tons of extracurricular activities, etc.).  Criticism of modern parents might be coming more from those (with and without kids) that favor the less hands-on approach.   

RE: third bolded point.  This point is a good one, in that I can squint and see myself a little bit.  I personally most certainly view kids as people, not hobbies, but I don't particularly want to interact with them. That's not a great skill set of mine (though I was a surprisingly popular babysitter...always in demand by my charges, weirdly). However, that's not the same as hating them or hating parents.  I mean, I'm uninterested in MOST people of all ages LOL.  Anyway, I think we need a better societal answer to support that allows kids to be raised  healthy and safe, for the good of a stable society.  But again, I am strongly committed to fewer people on the planet overall, so I'd like to support those we have while simultaneously finding ways to gradually reduce our reproductive rates.   Yes, that's fighting our mindless evolutionary biology, but we already do that to great extent in society by discouraging lots of activity that occurs in nature that we don't find desirable. That's not self-hating in my view, it's just pragmatic.


firelight

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1070
[quote name="wenchsenior" post=1503653 timestamp=1491423628]

First bold point: You are totally correct about the real emotional challenges faced by working parents in today's work centered society.  I remember the immense angst over this during the go-go 1980s when all the women were conflicted over going back to work. Now, most women HAVE to work and it creates kind of a no-win situation. My husband (CF by choice) and his supervisor (a parent of 3 kids, including 1 special needs child) have become gun shy of hiring women of young reproductive age when they have equally qualified alternatives available because they've had so many hires whose productivity took a giant nose dive due to demands of small kids. They cannot, of course, ask about reproductive status, but it is a consideration. Given that one of these people is a father with a special needs kid, do you really think they don't empathize with the challenges of parenting?  They DO empathize and they try to work with mothers when they hire them, BUT the work still has to be done by someone.  They want to hire someone who will do the work they are hired for, on the schedule and at the hours they hired them for, so they try to increase the odds they will get a consistently reliable person with a stable schedule.  Reality sucks.
[/quote]

This is very very concerning. As a young woman, I already see a number of other young women choosing not to have kids in their 20s and early 30s (unlike a decade or two back) due to school, settling in career (finding a stable one with decent pay and benefits), finding a partner, etc. When they settle and have some breathing space, most are past 35 and need medical help to have kids. Even then it's not successful all the time. Mind you, these people are not CF by choice. So they carry that ache all their lives.

Now all we need is for all women to realize that they'll be passed on for a job or promotion due to having kids and their hard won career without which they can't survive (remember they can't lean on anyone else like the bygone era) would HAVE to take precedence over all their dreams for a child. I'm so proud of how we are evolving as a species. </sarcasm>

That said, this is a very effective way to curb human population - just make odds so hard that only the most wealthy (they have the means to bring up a kid) or the most idiotic (Gubmint/society will take care)can have kids. Everyone else (the thinking population) would realize it's a waste of time to try to beat the odds and would give up. Crush people's dreams and put them in a no-win situation. Way more effective than birth control. Wow!!

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3789
[quote name="wenchsenior" post=1503653 timestamp=1491423628]

First bold point: You are totally correct about the real emotional challenges faced by working parents in today's work centered society.  I remember the immense angst over this during the go-go 1980s when all the women were conflicted over going back to work. Now, most women HAVE to work and it creates kind of a no-win situation. My husband (CF by choice) and his supervisor (a parent of 3 kids, including 1 special needs child) have become gun shy of hiring women of young reproductive age when they have equally qualified alternatives available because they've had so many hires whose productivity took a giant nose dive due to demands of small kids. They cannot, of course, ask about reproductive status, but it is a consideration. Given that one of these people is a father with a special needs kid, do you really think they don't empathize with the challenges of parenting?  They DO empathize and they try to work with mothers when they hire them, BUT the work still has to be done by someone.  They want to hire someone who will do the work they are hired for, on the schedule and at the hours they hired them for, so they try to increase the odds they will get a consistently reliable person with a stable schedule.  Reality sucks.

This is very very concerning. As a young woman, I already see a number of other young women choosing not to have kids in their 20s and early 30s (unlike a decade or two back) due to school, settling in career (finding a stable one with decent pay and benefits), finding a partner, etc. When they settle and have some breathing space, most are past 35 and need medical help to have kids. Even then it's not successful all the time. Mind you, these people are not CF by choice. So they carry that ache all their lives.


[/quote]

Yes, my husband and I have often discussed this challenge as it applies to his female grad students, where the natural anxiety and stress of grad school and job hunting is sometimes exacerbated by their panic over needing to quickly settle and partner up so that child bearing can start.  I think this has gotten more and more stressful in the past couple decades because it seems like more people take longer to get through school (though I'm not positive that's true).

The other trend is for new female faculty hires to start having children ASAP after getting tenure, often getting pregnant two or three years in a row.

The whole set up is just not ideal for sure.  I might not relate at all to the dream of having kids, but I sure can relate to the extent of having one of the 'dreams' that is essential to self identity crushed out by unhelpful timing of certain unexceptional life events. It's very hard to deal with that, esp when you took it for granted as something that would always be there.

Goldielocks

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7062
  • Location: BC

You've indicated that when someone covers for you, you reciprocate. Since you're a perceptive person, you have most likely noticed by now that reciprocity is not the norm.

Socially, it's OK for a parent to dump the kids on a neighbor, a sibling, or anyone else who will provide free babysitting or after-school care, sometimes for days at a time. It's OK to take off from work early to attend to a child related emergency; in fact family and medical leave acts exist to protect parents' rights to continue working. But when the child is grown up enough to be taught about cause and effect, parents never seem to go around and say: "Here's the old lady across the street who babysat you when you were little. She just fell and broke her hip, so we're going to rake up her leaves or shovel her walk for her." "Here are the co-workers who covered for me all the time when I had to leave early when you were sick. We're going to bake them a batch of cookies." That simply doesn't happen. The street only goes one way. Grandpa and Grandma are good enough to use as babysitters for years on end, but once they can't see too well and are having trouble getting around, the family's too busy with the children's activities to help them out so they can stay in their own homes.

Quote


Oh, GS.  You have my deepest sympathy.  I just want to come by, and rake your leaves and give you a hug.  That you live in the type of community that you described, and have seen so much that you have such little faith in humans... it  makes me terribly sad.

I hope that one day you can live in a community like where I have lived, in all my different cities.  I am not saying it is always perfect, but there has always been so much good.    I hope that you do get to experience the good sharing and spontaneous giving that happens in a community, and soon.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2606
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive

You've indicated that when someone covers for you, you reciprocate. Since you're a perceptive person, you have most likely noticed by now that reciprocity is not the norm.

Socially, it's OK for a parent to dump the kids on a neighbor, a sibling, or anyone else who will provide free babysitting or after-school care, sometimes for days at a time. It's OK to take off from work early to attend to a child related emergency; in fact family and medical leave acts exist to protect parents' rights to continue working. But when the child is grown up enough to be taught about cause and effect, parents never seem to go around and say: "Here's the old lady across the street who babysat you when you were little. She just fell and broke her hip, so we're going to rake up her leaves or shovel her walk for her." "Here are the co-workers who covered for me all the time when I had to leave early when you were sick. We're going to bake them a batch of cookies." That simply doesn't happen. The street only goes one way. Grandpa and Grandma are good enough to use as babysitters for years on end, but once they can't see too well and are having trouble getting around, the family's too busy with the children's activities to help them out so they can stay in their own homes.



Oh, GS.  You have my deepest sympathy.  I just want to come by, and rake your leaves and give you a hug.  That you live in the type of community that you described, and have seen so much that you have such little faith in humans... it  makes me terribly sad.

I hope that one day you can live in a community like where I have lived, in all my different cities.  I am not saying it is always perfect, but there has always been so much good.    I hope that you do get to experience the good sharing and spontaneous giving that happens in a community, and soon.

There's good in the world, it's just not part of how most Americans prefer to live their lives. Our societal fixation with the romantic dyad and the nuclear family has been systematically freezing out grandparents, extended family, and the idea of family friends for decades.

I've always found that the optimal number of adults in a household with children is three, provided there are a couple other adults available for occasional help or child care. That's five average adults, total. Very few households have that. They're usually trying to get by with just one adult, maybe two if the parents are still married. The other parent might be in the picture providing labor, money, or both. Or not. That's one reason why parents are so frequently stressed. It's also why the culture has shifted to pressure parents to focus on their children to the exclusion of all other things, and why child dumping and extraction of resources from non-parents is so customary. The nuclear family 1950's style model turned out to have a serious down side.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Location: MA
Quote
This is very very concerning. As a young woman, I already see a number of other young women choosing not to have kids in their 20s and early 30s (unlike a decade or two back) due to school, settling in career (finding a stable one with decent pay and benefits), finding a partner, etc. When they settle and have some breathing space, most are past 35 and need medical help to have kids. Even then it's not successful all the time. Mind you, these people are not CF by choice. So they carry that ache all their lives.

Now all we need is for all women to realize that they'll be passed on for a job or promotion due to having kids and their hard won career without which they can't survive (remember they can't lean on anyone else like the bygone era) would HAVE to take precedence over all their dreams for a child. I'm so proud of how we are evolving as a species. </sarcasm>

That said, this is a very effective way to curb human population - just make odds so hard that only the most wealthy (they have the means to bring up a kid) or the most idiotic (Gubmint/society will take care)can have kids. Everyone else (the thinking population) would realize it's a waste of time to try to beat the odds and would give up. Crush people's dreams and put them in a no-win situation. Way more effective than birth control. Wow!!

Excellent points.  It really seems that we have engineered modern society to make having a family as difficult as possible.  And I will admit that as miserable as it can be at times, it is very effective in lowering birth rates if you are in a certain demographic.  I see basically two types of large families now, ones where you have one high earner and one SAHM, or people who are right at or below the poverty line.   

I always say that the best way to lower birth rates is to educate women and bring up the standard of living in a society to where you know that you have a near certainty that all your children will survive to adulthood. 

Cpa Cat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1692
I was aghast that a younger couple with the financial means would allow their innocent nephew to enter a system most people know is not conducive to success to put it lightly.

So I ask you was this selfish of them? What would you childfree folks do in such a situation? Am I being unfairly judgmental of them and they shouldn't feel obligated or guilted into such a life changing burden?

We had a similar situation in our family - F-ed up situation, kids (twins) bouncing around between family members and the system, bio-parents were not raising them. They were 4 years old, and we had a discussion about whether or not to step up. We knew that if their home situation didn't stabilize, then they were basically doomed, but we could essentially swoop in and remove them from the dysfunction. We were basically the couple you discussed - high income, a house that had space, stable, living in a great school district, with no kids of our own to interfere.

As others have mentioned, these situations don't happen in a vacuum. We had the exact concerns about our pets that your example had. We knew that the boy had previous incidences of mild animal-harm, and we'd be concerned about him having any unsupervised access to our cats. Also, just because the bio-parent's rights have been terminated does not mean their access to your family has been terminated. And not just them - their parents, their other siblings, their grandparents - are all part of the probably-dysfunctional family that yielded the current situation. We felt that if we adopted the kids, we'd basically have to leave the state and cut off contact in order to actually "save" the kids from those people. One of us would have to become a full-time parent in order to offer an adequate therapeutic environment for a couple of neglected kids (people are fond of telling me I'll feel maternal when it's my own kids - what about when it's a couple of troubled kids that aren't mine? Should I expect my cold, empty womb to fill with joy then?).

Maybe it would have worked out great. But we said no. And we made that decision within 24 hours. It's been about 10 years, and predictably enough, the kids are not thriving, successful teenagers. We do occasionally have the "Did we make the right choice?" discussion - but even now, we think the answer is probably yes - it was the right choice for us.

The situation might be different if it were different orphaned kids from a different side of the family, but we can't really know unless faced with the decision.

 

Wow, a phone plan for fifteen bucks!