The Money Mustache Community

Around the Internet => Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy => Topic started by: Bumperpuff on March 20, 2017, 01:33:40 PM

Title: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Bumperpuff on March 20, 2017, 01:33:40 PM
I thought this sort of fit the antimustachianbill, apparently you need children to be a happy and fulfilled person.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-016-0606-1
"Extending past research, voluntarily childfree targets elicited significantly greater moral outrage than did targets with two children. My findings were not qualified by targets’ gender. Moral outrage mediated the effect of target parenthood status on perceived fulfillment. Collectively, these findings offer the first known empirical evidence of perceptions of parenthood as a moral imperative.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Slee_stack on March 20, 2017, 01:55:02 PM
TL;DR  Does this mean the population as a whole view childless couples as more immoral than those with children?
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Goldielocks on March 20, 2017, 02:00:11 PM
TL;DR  Does this mean the population as a whole view childless couples as more immoral than those with children?

More likely, that those that have children tend to have their moral outrage tempered a bit in comparison. 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: marty998 on March 20, 2017, 02:23:28 PM
I wonder if the outrage stems from jealousy of non-parents escaping the insanity of childcare fees while their offspring-burdened friends suffer that horrendous drain on their wages :)
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: MgoSam on March 20, 2017, 02:38:51 PM
Speaking from experience I do feel like some of the outrage given to CF people is jealousy as they don't have childcare expenses nor the lack of sleep and stress that comes with having children, but that is just a small factor.

I believe that many parents feel like it is a "duty" for healthy and financially secure couples to have kids, and for them to refuse to do so is "selfish," for whatever reason. I know couples that are white that are told by their families and friends that they have to have kids because otherwise there will be too many colored people in the US...though of course the family members chose their wording so as to not appear racist.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: WhiteTrashCash on March 20, 2017, 03:16:48 PM
They can be morally outraged. I will wave at them while sitting on top of my giant pile of money like Scrooge McDuck.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: I'm a red panda on March 20, 2017, 03:31:30 PM
Without asking (or maybe they do?) how does one determine if someone is voluntarily childless?  A lot of the childless people I know are not there by choice.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: mustachepungoeshere on March 20, 2017, 04:06:39 PM
Speaking from experience I do feel like some of the outrage given to CF people is jealousy as they don't have childcare expenses nor the lack of sleep and stress that comes with having children, but that is just a small factor.

I cop this from one set of close friends. Well, the wife mainly.

Me: Oh our old fridge died and we had to buy a new one*. There goes the savings goal for this month.
Her: Try having kids. Then you'd never be able to save any money!
Me (mentally): Try not buying Disney-branded mandarins. Then you might be able to cut down your $400/week grocery budget...



*This just happened. It was the second-hand fridge we bought eight years ago. Replacing it lowered our projected savings for the month by 20 per cent.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: JustGettingStarted1980 on March 20, 2017, 04:16:28 PM
I thought this sort of fit the antimustachianbill, apparently you need children to be a happy and fulfilled person.
Not quite.

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


This says it all!

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

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

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

Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: BayAreaFrugal on March 20, 2017, 04:26:24 PM
Speaking from experience I do feel like some of the outrage given to CF people is jealousy as they don't have childcare expenses nor the lack of sleep and stress that comes with having children, but that is just a small factor.

I cop this from one set of close friends. Well, the wife mainly.

Me: Oh our old fridge died and we had to buy a new one*. There goes the savings goal for this month.
Her: Try having kids. Then you'd never be able to save any money!
Me (mentally): Try not buying Disney-branded mandarins. Then you might be able to cut down your $400/week grocery budget...



*This just happened. It was the second-hand fridge we bought eight years ago. Replacing it lowered our projected savings for the month by 20 per cent.

Goodness, I have a child AND recently replaced a broken fridge without having to take out a loan or sign up for payments. Must be some crazy voodoo magic.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Just Joe on March 20, 2017, 04:42:37 PM
Is this a different flavor of the same disapproval when we (collectively) don't spend wildly like our peers? We aren't making the same choices so we are suspect?
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: bobechs on March 20, 2017, 04:53:12 PM
an old, old psychology department joke:

Q: Why do they use undergraduates for so many experiments?

A: Well, they are cheap and, unlike rats, you don't get attached to them.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Squirrel away on March 21, 2017, 06:02:04 AM
They can be morally outraged. I will wave at them while sitting on top of my giant pile of money like Scrooge McDuck.

LOL!:)
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Metric Mouse on March 21, 2017, 06:24:35 AM
an old, old psychology department joke:

Q: Why do they use undergraduates for so many experiments?

A: Well, they are cheap and, unlike rats, you don't get attached to them.
I hadn't heard that one. Funny.

This says it all!

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

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

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

While I think your statements clearly say more about your own biases than about those of the class, there is a well-documented issue of polling college freshmen. While useful for spotting trends over time, single studies such as this suffer from issues of sample selection - college freshman tend to be more liberal and more risk-taking than the American population at large, among other well-documented trends.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: WildJager on March 21, 2017, 08:30:46 AM
I thought this sort of fit the antimustachianbill, apparently you need children to be a happy and fulfilled person.
Not quite.

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


This says it all!

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

The psychology students weren't the targets evaluated, they were doing the evaluation of randomly selected married targets to gather data.

Quote
In a between-subjects experiment, 197 undergraduates (147 women, 49 men, 1 participant with missing gender data) from a large U.S. Midwestern urban university were randomly assigned to evaluate a male or female married target who had chosen to have zero or two children. Participants completed measures of the target’s perceived psychological fulfillment and their affective reactions to the target.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: golden1 on March 21, 2017, 09:46:27 AM
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.   
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: BlueMR2 on March 21, 2017, 10:07:18 AM
I believe that many parents feel like it is a "duty" for healthy and financially secure couples to have kids, and for them to refuse to do so is "selfish," for whatever reason.

I've heard that before and I can't even begin to comprehend it.  To me it's the ultimate selfish act to *have* children.  Causing another life to have to suffer through this evil world is unthinkable for me.  I'm still mad at my parents for doing that to me.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Slee_stack on March 21, 2017, 02:13:50 PM
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.   
You sound outraged yourself.  +1 to the study results!  :D
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Chris22 on March 21, 2017, 02:20:27 PM
I believe that many parents feel like it is a "duty" for healthy and financially secure couples to have kids, and for them to refuse to do so is "selfish," for whatever reason.

I've heard that before and I can't even begin to comprehend it.  To me it's the ultimate selfish act to *have* children.  Causing another life to have to suffer through this evil world is unthinkable for me.  I'm still mad at my parents for doing that to me.

You, ah, should probably be talking to a professional about that...
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: kelvin on March 21, 2017, 02:21:03 PM
Without asking (or maybe they do?) how does one determine if someone is voluntarily childless?  A lot of the childless people I know are not there by choice.
Listen for if they use the term "childfree" vs. "childless".

I have asked once or twice, but usually with a disclaimer "this is a personal question, you don't have to answer if I'm making you uncomfortable".
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: stoaX on March 21, 2017, 02:49:03 PM
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.

My kids were adopted.  Should I be a smug self congratulator for not adding to the population or should I boast about having done my unselfish duty of becoming a parent?  I don't know which side of the fence I'm on!   :)
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Cassie on March 21, 2017, 02:55:36 PM
People need to make what is the best choice for them.  Having children is a lot of work and a lifetime commitment in many ways.  YOu always worry about your kids much more then anyone else on the planet. I had 3 kids and am glad I did. My 3 adult sons are choosing not to have kids and I am fine with that.  People that get talked into having kids are probably not very good parents.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: WGH on March 21, 2017, 03:13:15 PM
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.

+1

I also see a rather disturbing trend of the childless extolling the virtues of their "fur babies" instead of having children due to the lack of neediness, responsibility, etc. that a human requries rather than a pet.

It's sad to me that people seem to be opting for a far lesser version of joy and companionship because kids are viewed as just too much of an inconvenience....
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: stoaX on March 21, 2017, 03:22:51 PM


+1

I also see a rather disturbing trend of the childless extolling the virtues of their "fur babies" instead of having children due to the lack of neediness, responsibility, etc. that a human requries rather than a pet.

It's sad to me that people seem to be opting for a far lesser version of joy and companionship because kids are viewed as just too much of an inconvenience....

Yeah, but if times ever get really tough I can roast and eat my "fur baby".
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on March 21, 2017, 03:35:36 PM
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.

+1

I also see a rather disturbing trend of the childless extolling the virtues of their "fur babies" instead of having children due to the lack of neediness, responsibility, etc. that a human requries rather than a pet.

It's sad to me that people seem to be opting for a far lesser version of joy and companionship because kids are viewed as just too much of an inconvenience....

Having tried both, I prefer the pet experience.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: mustachepungoeshere on March 21, 2017, 03:57:17 PM
Having tried both, I prefer the pet experience.

My mum has told me on more than one occasion that she should have just stuck with dogs.

I'm not scarred by it, she's been a terrific mother. And if I'm really good, she takes me walkies.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Slinky on March 21, 2017, 04:35:53 PM
Quote
The study found that married people that do not have children are perceived to be less fulfilled than those with children.

It's sad to me that people seem to be opting for a far lesser version of joy and companionship because kids are viewed as just too much of an inconvenience....

Study seems to hold up so far.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: golden1 on March 22, 2017, 07:17:29 AM
Quote
My kids were adopted.  Should I be a smug self congratulator for not adding to the population or should I boast about having done my unselfish duty of becoming a parent?  I don't know which side of the fence I'm on!   :)

Nope.  You win and are untouchable. 

My point is that there is that people are going to judge you no matter what you do.  Make peace with that, and be happy with the choice you made.  Stop trying to justify your lives by criticizing others choices (and yes, I see the irony of that statement since I am in the shame and comedy section of the forum). 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: starjay on March 22, 2017, 11:11:31 AM
Speaking from experience I do feel like some of the outrage given to CF people is jealousy as they don't have childcare expenses nor the lack of sleep and stress that comes with having children, but that is just a small factor.

I believe that many parents feel like it is a "duty" for healthy and financially secure couples to have kids, and for them to refuse to do so is "selfish," for whatever reason. I know couples that are white that are told by their families and friends that they have to have kids because otherwise there will be too many colored people in the US...though of course the family members chose their wording so as to not appear racist.

You've summed up much of my life experience with your comment. Sometime in my early 20s I realized that getting married and having kids was optional, and I could choose one or both or neither. I have heard SO MANY TIMES how selfish I am not to birth a kid, how selfish I am not to contribute my pretty/smart/creative genes to the gene pool, how selfish I am to deny my parents grandchildren (I'm an only child). How I'm one of the problems with our country because I'm not contributing to the birth rate. Not even my medical issues, for folks who know about them, dissuade this commentary. It's incredible.

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.

Another gem of an ex said it was his/my "moral duty" to have white babies to buffer against all the non-white people immigrating to the US and having children. It's the closest I've ever come as an adult to punching someone. That was 12ish years ago, and I'm mad all over again just thinking about it.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: MgoSam on March 22, 2017, 11:18:00 AM
Speaking from experience I do feel like some of the outrage given to CF people is jealousy as they don't have childcare expenses nor the lack of sleep and stress that comes with having children, but that is just a small factor.

I believe that many parents feel like it is a "duty" for healthy and financially secure couples to have kids, and for them to refuse to do so is "selfish," for whatever reason. I know couples that are white that are told by their families and friends that they have to have kids because otherwise there will be too many colored people in the US...though of course the family members chose their wording so as to not appear racist.

You've summed up much of my life experience with your comment. Sometime in my early 20s I realized that getting married and having kids was optional, and I could choose one or both or neither. I have heard SO MANY TIMES how selfish I am not to birth a kid, how selfish I am not to contribute my pretty/smart/creative genes to the gene pool, how selfish I am to deny my parents grandchildren (I'm an only child). How I'm one of the problems with our country because I'm not contributing to the birth rate. Not even my medical issues, for folks who know about them, dissuade this commentary. It's incredible.

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.

Another gem of an ex said it was his/my "moral duty" to have white babies to buffer against all the non-white people immigrating to the US and having children. It's the closest I've ever come as an adult to punching someone. That was 12ish years ago, and I'm mad all over again just thinking about it.

I'm very sorry to hear this. As a guy I hear some of this from my family and can brush it off. I imagine it would be far harsher to women and I've heard just what you've said from multiple CF women I know.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: MgoSam on March 22, 2017, 11:20:41 AM
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.

+1

I also see a rather disturbing trend of the childless extolling the virtues of their "fur babies" instead of having children due to the lack of neediness, responsibility, etc. that a human requries rather than a pet.

It's sad to me that people seem to be opting for a far lesser version of joy and companionship because kids are viewed as just too much of an inconvenience....

It's sad in general that some people spend their time imagining the motivations of people they know little about.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: starjay on March 22, 2017, 11:38:11 AM
Speaking from experience I do feel like some of the outrage given to CF people is jealousy as they don't have childcare expenses nor the lack of sleep and stress that comes with having children, but that is just a small factor.

I believe that many parents feel like it is a "duty" for healthy and financially secure couples to have kids, and for them to refuse to do so is "selfish," for whatever reason. I know couples that are white that are told by their families and friends that they have to have kids because otherwise there will be too many colored people in the US...though of course the family members chose their wording so as to not appear racist.

You've summed up much of my life experience with your comment. Sometime in my early 20s I realized that getting married and having kids was optional, and I could choose one or both or neither. I have heard SO MANY TIMES how selfish I am not to birth a kid, how selfish I am not to contribute my pretty/smart/creative genes to the gene pool, how selfish I am to deny my parents grandchildren (I'm an only child). How I'm one of the problems with our country because I'm not contributing to the birth rate. Not even my medical issues, for folks who know about them, dissuade this commentary. It's incredible.

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.

Another gem of an ex said it was his/my "moral duty" to have white babies to buffer against all the non-white people immigrating to the US and having children. It's the closest I've ever come as an adult to punching someone. That was 12ish years ago, and I'm mad all over again just thinking about it.

I'm very sorry to hear this. As a guy I hear some of this from my family and can brush it off. I imagine it would be far harsher to women and I've heard just what you've said from multiple CF women I know.

I appreciate the sentiment. Thank you. At this point, I'm mostly immune to the unsolicited commentary on my lack of children. What breaks my heart is that my friends who have been suffering through miscarriages and, in a couple of cases, children who lived less than an hour, have to hear this garbage too. Because well-meaning noseypants think it's perfectly okay to tell a couple they barely know: Why don't you have kids? You'd make such good parents! You're successful, smart, attractive! You should have kids. Meanwhile, my friends are barely keeping it together because they're still grieving the loss they've just suffered.

Basically, I think people should just keep their mouth shut about other people's childed/notchilded status.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: recklesslysober on March 22, 2017, 11:59:55 AM
I finally got my tubes out after about 10 years of research/multiple doctors and "You'll change your mind." and "You're too young to make that decision." I've heard every rationalization in the book, but my stock answers usually end the conversation pretty quick. :)



 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: moof on March 22, 2017, 03:31:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Maenad on March 22, 2017, 03:48:24 PM
There seemed to be more moral outrage back in the late 90s when I got my tubes tied at 24 years old, but these days, I don't know. I've ejected the critics from my life and have a group of friends that are supportive of each other regardless of our parent/non-parent status. I'm happy with my life and see no reason to poke fun at someone else for making a different choice. I don't need everyone to be like me in order to be "right".

That being said, my friends all made their decisions with much thought. I'm still critical of people who have kids without acknowledging the extra burdens they've placed on themselves (which they then complain about).

I'm also not very patient with other CF people who use terms like "furbabies". They're not children. They are animals - completely different interactions, despite also being a creature that is your responsibility to take care of.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: wenchsenior on March 22, 2017, 04:29:27 PM
There seemed to be more moral outrage back in the late 90s when I got my tubes tied at 24 years old, but these days, I don't know. I've ejected the critics from my life and have a group of friends that are supportive of each other regardless of our parent/non-parent status. I'm happy with my life and see no reason to poke fun at someone else for making a different choice. I don't need everyone to be like me in order to be "right".

That being said, my friends all made their decisions with much thought. I'm still critical of people who have kids without acknowledging the extra burdens they've placed on themselves (which they then complain about).

I'm also not very patient with other CF people who use terms like "furbabies". They're not children. They are animals - completely different interactions, despite also being a creature that is your responsibility to take care of.

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?
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Slee_stack on March 23, 2017, 09:45:50 AM
I suppose its natural for everyone to want to self-justify their choices.

I know I do (but I do admit to some bad ones too!).

Are parents really concerned with the CF just 'missing out' on the joy of children?

Maybe all 'smart' parents are truly noble and working to prevent Idiocracy down the road. 

If so, I applaud you, but will have to remain 'selfish' and not have kids.  I don't necessarily hate kids, but I don't like them.  I refuse to make myself (and a kid) miserable in that respect just for the future 'greater good'.

I will try to do something positive (or multiple positive things) before I die, so please don't cast me into hell just yet.





Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Chris22 on March 23, 2017, 09:54:40 AM
If so, I applaud you, but will have to remain 'selfish' and not have kids.  I don't necessarily hate kids, but I don't like them.  I refuse to make myself (and a kid) miserable in that respect just for the future 'greater good'.

I also hate kids.  Almost all of them.  Except my own who (in my eyes) is the greatest person on earth.  Same with grandparents; I hate old people, but my grandma is (was) just the best.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Freckles080808 on March 23, 2017, 10:05:12 AM
The other day I read a comment saying that childless/childfree couples should get less retirement benefit seeing as they have contributed less to society in their lifetime.

Personally, I don't have the energy for moral outrage, it just makes me sad. You can be a GREAT person. Work hard, be a good spouse/friend/family member/colleague, pay your taxes, donate your money and time to charity, take care of yourself so that you don't put any unnecessary burden on the NHS, don't spit, don't own a car, recycle...* and people will STILL think you're not worthy.

I take the opinion of my friend (who has two kids): Kids are HARD. Don't have a kid unless you really REALLY want one because it is HARD.

Imagine being raised by parents who didn't want you. I don't want to do that to a kid.

I used to be horrified by people having 4 or 5 (or more) kids. Then I read about how actually it really doesn't matter - wish I still had the article. You want none? Have none. You want 4? Have 4. Teach people to treat each other and the planet with respect and it will be fine. No need for judgement.

*fear not, I have plenty of annoying habits that prevent me from being an insufferable goody-two-shoes.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Slee_stack on March 23, 2017, 10:32:30 AM
If so, I applaud you, but will have to remain 'selfish' and not have kids.  I don't necessarily hate kids, but I don't like them.  I refuse to make myself (and a kid) miserable in that respect just for the future 'greater good'.

I also hate kids.  Almost all of them.  Except my own who (in my eyes) is the greatest person on earth.  Same with grandparents; I hate old people, but my grandma is (was) just the best.
If this is a subtle suggestion that a person will make an exception with their own kid, I find it a very questionable one to make.  I don't doubt it would happen (as an exception), but the downsides of being wrong are pretty steep aren't they?

.....Hey Frank, you'll really love a dog if you get one of your own!  Hmmm.  Maybe.  But I think I would wager that Frank, who regularly talks about punting dogs, might not suddenly become the model dog owner.


I have three nephews and one niece.  All of them are VERY nice, respectful, kind, and cute children.  I still have zero interest in being around them.  If I have a choice, I avoid them.  Sorry, but not sorry.  I was even asked to be a guardian...in the event...  I declined.  I know, I'm evil.  Hell and all...  Or, I actually may know myself a little...

Its possible that some parents may have a hard time accepting that others might not share their view that having a kid is 'magical'.  And no, its not a religious 'miracle' either.  Its precisely the opposite.  This world-view is part of the problem isn't it?  My way or the highway?  It also might feed into the study results.  Raging true believers and all that.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on March 23, 2017, 11:05:01 AM
The other day I read a comment saying that childless/childfree couples should get less retirement benefit seeing as they have contributed less to society in their lifetime.

Personally, I don't have the energy for moral outrage, it just makes me sad. You can be a GREAT person. Work hard, be a good spouse/friend/family member/colleague, pay your taxes, donate your money and time to charity, take care of yourself so that you don't put any unnecessary burden on the NHS, don't spit, don't own a car, recycle...* and people will STILL think you're not worthy.

I take the opinion of my friend (who has two kids): Kids are HARD. Don't have a kid unless you really REALLY want one because it is HARD.

Imagine being raised by parents who didn't want you. I don't want to do that to a kid.

I used to be horrified by people having 4 or 5 (or more) kids. Then I read about how actually it really doesn't matter - wish I still had the article. You want none? Have none. You want 4? Have 4. Teach people to treat each other and the planet with respect and it will be fine. No need for judgement.

*fear not, I have plenty of annoying habits that prevent me from being an insufferable goody-two-shoes.

And yet, astoundingly, when it comes to actually getting work done with a charitable venture, it's chiefly the people who don't have kids who get off their asses and contribute time and effort.

Once people spawn, their focus narrows. (As it should; kids take time and attention and they should be a high priority for their parents.) The effect of this is that such charitable effort as they perform tends to have a direct benefit to themselves or to their offspring. They volunteer in youth sports for their kids, the PTA, and so on. This leaves almost nothing for environmental, animal, medical, disaster relief, arts, science, or poverty relief. People who are raising kids disappear from that kind of charitable scene completely unless they, or their kids, are directly impacted. They may not ever reappear, or if they do it will be after the kids are grown. Volunteer-wise they're good for occasional efforts but extremely unreliable long-term.

Childfree people have been, and most likely will always continue to be, the backbone of charitable ventures worldwide. There's a reason, for example, why the Roman Catholic Church requires its full-time priests and nuns to not marry or have kids of their own: it interferes with the 24x7 service-to-humanity lifestyle.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: wenchsenior on March 23, 2017, 11:16:55 AM
If so, I applaud you, but will have to remain 'selfish' and not have kids.  I don't necessarily hate kids, but I don't like them.  I refuse to make myself (and a kid) miserable in that respect just for the future 'greater good'.

I also hate kids.  Almost all of them.  Except my own who (in my eyes) is the greatest person on earth.  Same with grandparents; I hate old people, but my grandma is (was) just the best.
If this is a subtle suggestion that a person will make an exception with their own kid, I find it a very questionable one to make.  I don't doubt it would happen (as an exception), but the downsides of being wrong are pretty steep aren't they?

.....Hey Frank, you'll really love a dog if you get one of your own!  Hmmm.  Maybe.  But I think I would wager that Frank, who regularly talks about punting dogs, might not suddenly become the model dog owner.


I have three nephews and one niece.  All of them are VERY nice, respectful, kind, and cute children.  I still have zero interest in being around them.  If I have a choice, I avoid them.  Sorry, but not sorry.  I was even asked to be a guardian...in the event...  I declined.  I know, I'm evil.  Hell and all...  Or, I actually may know myself a little...

Its possible that some parents may have a hard time accepting that others might not share their view that having a kid is 'magical'.  And no, its not a religious 'miracle' either.  Its precisely the opposite.  This world-view is part of the problem isn't it?  My way or the highway?  It also might feed into the study results.  Raging true believers and all that.

I find it weird also that in a world full of people, all of those people having unique personalities and interests, that the idea that some of us just ARE NOT INTERESTED in kids or the experience of parenting is surprising.

I mean, there's TONS of things that I'm not interested in experiencing that other people love, ranging from  hobbies to lifestyle choices: Stock car racing.  Being an economist. Traveling to China.  Escargot.  Learning German. Being in an open marriage.

Then there's things I have tried, and am fine with or indifferent to, but would be completely fine never doing again in my life: Owning a dog. Taking care of babies  or really even seeing any. Conversing with children up to about age 14.  Cheese.  Living in Texas. Being single.  My current editing job. Interacting with much of my extended family (note: NOT the same thing as wishing them ill).

Then things I actually really enjoy, but that I have given up or could give up without suffering real depression or feeling my essential self is compromised: Roller coasters.  Horseback riding. Acting as a financial educator to friends and family that ask for help. Watching NFL football.  Travel to Europe, Australia, Costa Rica.  Interacting with an extended social circle of friends. Conversing with teenagers when they aren't in a snit (which admittedly is rare).

Then there's things I LOVE, persistently and passionately, that are fundamental to my personality. These things will always take priority over the other three categories: Being married to my current partner.  My relationships with a handful of friends and family members.  Conversing with smart well-educated adults.  Wildlife and wildlife research.  Gardening and plant research.  Science in general. Being around water.  Reading a good book. Etc. 

Everyone is actually like this.  Peoples' enjoyment of kids and parenting is probably on broad bell curve, and probably further subdivides by age/stage of child raising.  I mean, how many parents love their kids but hate parenting them as teens?   I have one friend who was a great mother, but who felt zero active love for her daughter until the kid became a toddler.  She just has NO interest in babies at all. She conscientiously took care of her baby in terms of physical contact, comfort, feeding, etc, because she knew it was important for the child's well being. Once the kid began developing verbal and motor skills, she gradually fell in love with it. By the time the kid was 3 or 4, she was fully emotionally engaged.  But she knew after that that should stick to having only the one child.

People are all different. Most have at least some interest in kids, but many don't. It's only recently that women even had the option to consider whether they were interested or not.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: MgoSam on March 23, 2017, 11:48:03 AM


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 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'm glad to hear that you haven't been judged in person. I can say that I have, and I'm a youngish (29) male that is single, I can't imagine how things would be different were I married or a female. Of course I come from an Indian family so it's full of people that sincerely believe that I would be happier if I stopped having independent thoughts and just did what I was told (ie, allow my mother to go to India and bring me back a wife who I will then promptly impregnate multiple times).
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Cpa Cat on March 23, 2017, 12:15:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Just Joe on March 23, 2017, 12:38:30 PM
All it takes for me is seeing one of those unhappy parents with an unhappy child having a public meltdown - especially if the parent is not handling it well. There are ALOT of people who would have been better off avoiding parenthood. They'd have more freedom and more money for it. Maybe better adjusted adults for it. I imagine some of them would be happier for it too. Besides the world is a crowded place already.

DW and I both wanted children and were successful - eventually. We both adore being parents but are also eagerly an empty nest so we can regain our freedom to come and go. We got very little help from the extended family with watching our children so someday it'll be nice to pack and bag and head out of town on short notice. We have days when DW and I look at each other and wonder aloud (in private) what being CF would have been like. In the long run it will have been worth it for us though.

Enjoy your choice. You have my support whatever that is. If you choose kids, be a good, patient parent always improving their communication game with the child.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Cassie on March 23, 2017, 12:41:58 PM
My sister always knew she did not want kids. She is now 71 so back then it was considered very odd and received lots of negative comments.  However, she ended up being a fantastic aunt to my 3 boys. She would take them places and do things with them and even babysit for me.  She is not a kid person but these kids were her nephews so it was different. I also see nothing wrong with people having furbabies instead. I now have 4 of them.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: yachi on March 23, 2017, 12:55:37 PM


+1

I also see a rather disturbing trend of the childless extolling the virtues of their "fur babies" instead of having children due to the lack of neediness, responsibility, etc. that a human requries rather than a pet.

It's sad to me that people seem to be opting for a far lesser version of joy and companionship because kids are viewed as just too much of an inconvenience....

Yeah, but if times ever get really tough I can roast and eat my "fur baby".

Could you?  My grandparents had a goat that the kids named, and when it came time to eat it, they couldn't bring themselves to eat.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: stoaX on March 23, 2017, 01:04:03 PM


+1

I also see a rather disturbing trend of the childless extolling the virtues of their "fur babies" instead of having children due to the lack of neediness, responsibility, etc. that a human requries rather than a pet.

It's sad to me that people seem to be opting for a far lesser version of joy and companionship because kids are viewed as just too much of an inconvenience....

Yeah, but if times ever get really tough I can roast and eat my "fur baby".

Could you?  My grandparents had a goat that the kids named, and when it came time to eat it, they couldn't bring themselves to eat.

Probably not.  I assume goat tastes better than dog so if they couldn't eat the goat, it would be even harder with an old stringy dog...
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: iwasjustwondering on March 23, 2017, 01:21:19 PM
I don't have moral outrage toward people who don't want children.  If you don't want them, then for God's sake, don't have them.  My fiancé and I also (sometimes veagerly) looking forward to empty nesthood, when we'll feel more free to pick up and head to an island to get out of the cold.  I have had sole custody of my kids since they were toddlers, and it get tiring sometimes.

Having said that (you knew there was a "having said that" coming), I get so much joy from simply knowing my kids.  They constantly surprise me with the amazing people they are.  The honor and the pleasure is all mine.  If anyone is selfish, it's me for having them.

Like I said, I don't feel outrage toward non-parents, but if someone actively dislikes children, then I know, based on experience, that I am really likely to dislike that person once I get to know him or her.  If you can look at a baby and think, "yuck", then you're not for me.

Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on March 23, 2017, 01:25:30 PM


+1

I also see a rather disturbing trend of the childless extolling the virtues of their "fur babies" instead of having children due to the lack of neediness, responsibility, etc. that a human requries rather than a pet.

It's sad to me that people seem to be opting for a far lesser version of joy and companionship because kids are viewed as just too much of an inconvenience....

Yeah, but if times ever get really tough I can roast and eat my "fur baby".

Could you?  My grandparents had a goat that the kids named, and when it came time to eat it, they couldn't bring themselves to eat.

I've gleefully slaughtered meat birds (stupidest birds around and no personality) but have only ever killed a laying hen to put her out of her misery when she was critically injured. The laying hen devastated me. The meat birds, whom I did not name and whom I actively disliked, were delicious.

My little doggie... no, I'd rather starve and let her eat my decaying body. I *need* the doggie. I've felt the same way about pets I've bonded with in the past.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Prairie Stash on March 23, 2017, 01:48:28 PM
I thought this sort of fit the antimustachianbill, apparently you need children to be a happy and fulfilled person.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-016-0606-1
"Extending past research, voluntarily childfree targets elicited significantly greater moral outrage than did targets with two children. My findings were not qualified by targets’ gender. Moral outrage mediated the effect of target parenthood status on perceived fulfillment. Collectively, these findings offer the first known empirical evidence of perceptions of parenthood as a moral imperative.
Midwestern, are they heavily religious there? Isn't the church a big proponent of having children?

Having children has long been taught as consistent with moral virtues. Just think where you would be if your ancestors had been child free ;)
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Ann on March 23, 2017, 01:55:42 PM
I really don't understand people who claim those who don't want to have children are selfish, horrible people.  If you truly think that, then what is your end game?  Encouraging more selfish, horrible people to reproduce and raise children?

I do live in the Bible Belt but  I have not had someone tell me I "should" have children or that I am selfish for not having any. 

And I don't understand why people tout "it will be different if it is your own".  How many "dead-beat Dads" are out there?  It is more socially acceptable to leave your kid and shirk any support of them if you are a man (on a scale -- men who do this are dead-beat-dads; women who do this are monsters).  Don't have children unless you want them and are willing to go through the joy/hell of raising them.

I really like kids.  I just don't want any of my own.  I think would eventually, but by the time I would be mentally ready for it (like, 60 or something) I will not only be infertile but just not able to physically kept up (so no adoption).

And I am glad other people are having children.  When I am old, I want there to be doctors, police men, electricians, farmers and everything else. 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: stoaX on March 23, 2017, 02:05:08 PM
I thought this sort of fit the antimustachianbill, apparently you need children to be a happy and fulfilled person.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-016-0606-1
"Extending past research, voluntarily childfree targets elicited significantly greater moral outrage than did targets with two children. My findings were not qualified by targets’ gender. Moral outrage mediated the effect of target parenthood status on perceived fulfillment. Collectively, these findings offer the first known empirical evidence of perceptions of parenthood as a moral imperative.
Midwestern, are they heavily religious there? Isn't the church a big proponent of having children?

Having children has long been taught as consistent with moral virtues. Just think where you would be if your ancestors had been child free ;)

The mid-west is a huge swath of the United States so I doubt they deviate much from national norms in terms of religiosity.  And the article mentioned it was an "urban" school.  So that makes me think of Chicago, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Madison WI, etc...  Not exactly bastions of conservatism.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: woopwoop on March 23, 2017, 03:00:26 PM
And I don't understand why people tout "it will be different if it is your own".
I don't think it's "touting" per se, it's just the truth. I hate baby monsters. Little kids, blech. Teenagers are tolerable. But my little baboo is... well, she's mine. It is different when it's yours. Like, if I peed myself laughing, that would be okay. If someone else peed on me, AUUUUGHHH! Yes, I'm comparing babies to excretions.

Quote
I really like kids.  I just don't want any of my own. 
That's awesome and our world would probably be better if there were more people like you. I'm on the side of "it's selfish to have kids, like it's selfish to eat the last donut in the box, but I'm hungry so gimme dat donut om nom nom"
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Linea_Norway on March 24, 2017, 05:52:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: exterous on March 24, 2017, 07:07:47 AM
Living in a midwestern city with a large University I can't say I've encountered much expressed moral outrage and stigmatization because my wife and I aren't having kids. Perhaps that is because people typically keep those thought to themselves so I usually only hear about it online. For example I learned today on MMM that my life is much less fulfilling because we are not having children. Who knew?

We got married young so we got bombarded with questions about when we were having kids and the typical response of 'You'll change your minds'. Honestly I always though it was a bit amusing as relatives are basically asking 'So when are you guys going to have lots and lots of sex?' but the questions have tapered off after 11 years of marriage.

We do occasionally hear about how we are missing out but I sometimes wonder if parents are trying to convince themselves of that as its typically uttered while we are at someone's house for a last dinner before we head off to spend 2 weeks in Bavaria or hike New Zealand mountains and glaciers. Meanwhile male children are in the process of nosily destroying their house trying to pummel each other into submission with whatever furniture or toy is nearby or they are trying to unravel the web of deception their daughters have woven trying to crush each other emotionally.

I certainly don't begrudge them their decision and have no doubt there are many aspects of having children they find fulfilling. For us we get enough joy and fulfillment out of our travels, interacting and learning about new cultures and our volunteer work at home.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: kelvin on March 24, 2017, 07:36:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: farmerj on March 24, 2017, 03:07:03 PM
Consider the following model. There are two societies: Dinktopia, where it is a grave breach of etiquette to comment on anyone's lack of children, and Fertilia, where little old ladies will constantly offer to "set you up with girl from old country, she have squint but wide child-bearing hips", a place where the moment you graduated from high school your mother took down all your pictures and replaced them with empty frames wherein she can place pictures of her future grandchildren. Once you get around to having them. Not that she's not getting older or anything, and really, is a chance to cuddle with a grandchild too much to ask?

30% of Dinktopians embrace the childfree life, 70% have children.

In the absence of social pressure, 30% of Fertilians would be naturally childfree as well. But there's a *lot* of social pressure. 20% of those who would otherwise be cheerful with a house full of cats (20% of 30% = 6% of the entire population) succumb to the constant cultural drumbeat and make babies.

In ~eleven generations, there are twice as many Fertiles as Dinktopians, even leaving aside the effect of cultural pressure on people who were probably going to have children anyway, but have them a little bit sooner, or a little more often. Fertilians move to Dinktopia and take over. The end.

In other words, I just don't see social pressure to have children going away. At least, not for long - the Shakers managed it for a while, after all. It is all incredibly annoying for people who don't want children, and worse for those who do, but can't, but it's not going away.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: farmerj on March 24, 2017, 03:18:11 PM
If it helps, here's another way to look at it: that co-worker, who occasionally says the equivalent of "hey, babies are neat, you should think about having some". She think so highly of you that she would like copies of you -- blurry ones to be sure, but copies never the less -- to stay in existence long after you, yourself, are gone.

Someone who thinks you're a terrible person is probably not going to suggest that you reproduce.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: markbike528CBX on March 24, 2017, 04:22:19 PM
.....Someone who thinks you're a terrible person is probably not going to suggest that you reproduce.
That same someone may invite you to self-fertilize and thereby confuse you on their thinking.  :-)
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: kite on March 24, 2017, 05:31:25 PM
Most of the world doesn't give a rat's ass whether or not you have children.  Your mother might.  But nobody else gives a fiddler's fart. 
The stigmatization is from talking about your "childfree" wonderfulness.  The Athiest who talks about his athiesm is the same kind of PITA.  In the vein of Neil Degrasse Tyson, when you don't collect stamps, you don't talk about not collecting stamps. 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: wenchsenior on March 24, 2017, 05:49:52 PM
Most of the world doesn't give a rat's ass whether or not you have children.  Your mother might.  But nobody else gives a fiddler's fart. 
The stigmatization is from talking about your "childfree" wonderfulness.  The Athiest who talks about his athiesm is the same kind of PITA.  In the vein of Neil Degrasse Tyson, when you don't collect stamps, you don't talk about not collecting stamps.

I'm not necessarily arguing your point, but it is equally true that parents love to talk endlessly about their wonderful children and that is equally tiresome after a point, unless you are someone with a vested emotional interest in their offspring.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: briesas on March 24, 2017, 07:24:05 PM
I live in an super-liberal, medium-size Midwestern town with a top ten research university -- and work on campus. I've been told several times by a very highly placed administrator (in the #2 rank) that during state budget contractions circa 2001, the institution I work for let single, childless women go over women with children -- because the single, childless women had no family to support and it would be easier for them to lose their jobs. This same administrator -- who makes over 100K a year (and his wife makes about 60K) says he has hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt (backwards on their mortgage at age 62, credit cards, Parent PLUS loans) and he will never be out of debt while he is alive because his children cost him so much (and no, I don't think it was his kids that put him in debt, I think it was his choices about not budgeting that put him in debt).
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Slee_stack on March 24, 2017, 07:38:01 PM
Most of the world doesn't give a rat's ass whether or not you have children.  Your mother might.  But nobody else gives a fiddler's fart. 
The stigmatization is from talking about your "childfree" wonderfulness.  The Athiest who talks about his athiesm is the same kind of PITA.  In the vein of Neil Degrasse Tyson, when you don't collect stamps, you don't talk about not collecting stamps.
Most of the world doesn't give a rats ass about most everything.

That doesn't preclude having a discussion just because.

I haven't personally been a victim of raging breeders.  I have had family and peer pressure over the years, but nothing remotely motivating.

The article states that the CF are generally viewed with more outrage.

You, yourself, seem to support this study.  Why are you outraged that folks are discussing the advantages of each camp?


Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: libertarian4321 on March 24, 2017, 10:32:48 PM

I also see a rather disturbing trend of the childless extolling the virtues of their "fur babies" instead of having children due to the lack of neediness, responsibility, etc. that a human requries rather than a pet.

It's sad to me that people seem to be opting for a far lesser version of joy and companionship because kids are viewed as just too much of an inconvenience....

Lesser version of joy?

Having a molar removed brings me more "joy" than spending a similar amount of time with children.

We are child free because we, frankly, can't stand most children until they hit the age of 25 or so.

Well, that and the fact that it was easy to become multi-millionaires because we didn't have to pay for all those diapers, cell phones, and whatever else the "little darlins' " demand these days.

Children stress me out.  Just about all of them. 

Dogs do not.  They have the opposite effect.
 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: AMandM on March 25, 2017, 09:31:53 PM
Basically, I think people should just keep their mouth shut about other people's childed/notchilded status.

Hear, hear!

For whatever aspect--for the presence or absence of kids, for the small or large number of them, for the distribution of ages and sexes, whether you want to praise or condemn... just shut up. You don't know the whole story, you are not in a position to judge for good or for ill, and it's none of your business anyway.  Plus, guess what, expressing your opinion has a zero percent chance of changing anyone's mind on this.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: 11ducks on March 25, 2017, 11:36:00 PM
Basically, I think people should just keep their mouth shut about other people's childed/notchilded status.

Hear, hear!

For whatever aspect--for the presence or absence of kids, for the small or large number of them, for the distribution of ages and sexes, whether you want to praise or condemn... just shut up. You don't know the whole story, you are not in a position to judge for good or for ill, and it's none of your business anyway.  Plus, guess what, expressing your opinion has a zero percent chance of changing anyone's mind on this.

X100. Or at least, post it in the off topic forum
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: MonkeyJenga on March 26, 2017, 01:34:19 AM
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.

I don't get many comments, but the next time I do, I'm going to say that I filled my joyless womb with Excel spreadsheets.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Mezzie on March 26, 2017, 05:35:36 AM
Despite never having wanted to have kids, getting my tubes tied was a huge ordeal. I kept being refused because I was "too young" and was "going to change my mind." Ugh. I finally got it done when I was 33.

I avoid the term "childfree" as it sounds obnoxiously judgmental to me. I love kids; I just don't want my own. I also don't say "childless" as that sounds like I'm missing out, and I'm not. The only neutral response I've found is "We don't have/want kids." My students are generally the only ones who pry after that, and I just tell them I rent 150 kids/day, so I need a break when I get home. :p

I am very interested in fostering teenagers; that might be a post-retirement thing I do.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Helvegen on March 26, 2017, 05:04:41 PM
People are going to bitch about your breeding preferences no matter what you do.

I have one kid. Apparently to some people, that's a terrible, lonely number. How can you just have one? I'd hate to not have a sibling and my kids would too, etc, etc.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Goldielocks on March 27, 2017, 12:16:37 AM
People are going to bitch about your breeding preferences no matter what you do.

I have one kid. Apparently to some people, that's a terrible, lonely number. How can you just have one? I'd hate to not have a sibling and my kids would too, etc, etc.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

After having two, I have discovered that having more than one is primarily for the parents' benefit.   There are pros and cons to being a singleton for the kid.   What is the benefit? 

"When you have two, you have proof that it was not your fault."
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: jinga nation on March 27, 2017, 06:12:35 AM
In the vein of Neil Degrasse Tyson, when you don't collect stamps, you don't talk about not collecting stamps.
Here's what NdGT said earlier this year:
Quote
“The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you,” deGrasse Tyson said. “It doesn’t give a rat’s ass how your five senses interact with this world.”
http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/were-not-just-making-sht-up-neil-degrasse-tyson-slaughters-anti-science-crank-at-press-event/
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Ann on March 27, 2017, 06:23:26 AM
. . . . In the vein of Neil Degrasse Tyson, when you don't collect stamps, you don't talk about not collecting stamps.
This is the MMM boards - specifically the Antimustachian Wall of Shame and Comedy.  We talk about NOT collecting  cars/luxury times/debt  all. the. time. 


Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: MMMaybe on March 27, 2017, 06:38:14 AM
Oh people with children can be such entitled assholes. I do agree that people really do disapprove if you don't have kids. Some of the zingers we have heard/had said to us:

I don't know what I did with my time before my children were born (i.e. What the f*ck do you do all day)

Oh I'm a mom so I can do x, y or z more efficiently/prioritise/multitask than you. (There is this idea that parenthood bestows wisdom and the rest of us, stagger through life cluelessly)

I need x or y (usually particular working schedules or holiday days off) because of the kids. (No, thats OK, we don't ever want to enjoy festive occasions or summer holidays...)

One female UK politician to Theresa May (UK PM), noted that as a mom, she had more of a stake in the future than Theresa May (unable to have children) did. Ouch.

Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: KodeBlue on March 27, 2017, 07:02:44 AM
As a gay man I used to be immune to this crap, but not anymore. Now that same sex marriage is legal, same sex couples get the "you two should adopt" line. No one is safe.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Just Joe on March 27, 2017, 08:21:29 AM
I avoid discussion about any random thing I "should" do these days. The advice is often flawed.

Apparently our car is too old, my wardrobe lacks variety, I need a haircut, and I need to lose some weight. Only DW is allowed to have big opinions about my life. ;)

We had children x2. This morn the youngest tested all of our patience. He may have even overdrawn on future patience. j/k

(Not a happy morning person after an irregular night of sleep. He finally got it together). 

I hear an empty nest can be really nice.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: MsSindy on March 27, 2017, 11:21:42 AM
We do not have children.  Other than my MILs heavy sighs of disappoint in the beginning, we have never encountered rude or inappropriate comments - Maybe it's my demeanor.... (or I have resting bitch face and people are scared of me??!!)   I have never had a strong desire to be around kids, but when I am, I enjoy myself (mostly).  But I also know that I can give them back!  There's a big difference between hanging out with a kid(s) for a few hours and having them 24/7.

People often mistake that people without children must be super career-oriented - also, not necessarily true.  It's just a job.  I don't want to work any extra overtime.  And yes, I need to get home too - I have a life and commitments, it just doesn't revolve around children.

Also, parents, if you're speaking to someone who does not have children, please limit the time.  Unless we're related, we have a hard time remembering your kids gender, ages, achievements, etc..... and really don't care about all the details that your 7 year old won his wrestling match.  I know you're super proud, but after about 3 min of hearing about it, it loses its cuteness.  Cool if you want to mention it when I ask 'how was your weekend', but honestly, I don't want the play-by-play, or how the ref was wrong, or how the team is so awesome, the team politics..and on and on.  (sorry, this conversation was fresh...and I really tried to be polite... but I can only hear about peoples' kids' achievement in short bursts..... I just lose interest/patience)
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: WGH on March 28, 2017, 10:32:25 AM

I also see a rather disturbing trend of the childless extolling the virtues of their "fur babies" instead of having children due to the lack of neediness, responsibility, etc. that a human requries rather than a pet.

It's sad to me that people seem to be opting for a far lesser version of joy and companionship because kids are viewed as just too much of an inconvenience....

Lesser version of joy?

Having a molar removed brings me more "joy" than spending a similar amount of time with children.

We are child free because we, frankly, can't stand most children until they hit the age of 25 or so.

Well, that and the fact that it was easy to become multi-millionaires because we didn't have to pay for all those diapers, cell phones, and whatever else the "little darlins' " demand these days.

Children stress me out.  Just about all of them. 

Dogs do not.  They have the opposite effect.

Just to continue the discussion and because I am a PITA devil's advocate.... :)

Children are stressful not only because of the work involved but because they are willfull, have their own likely exasperating difference in viewpoints and will judge you, challenge you and call you out. Dogs do not. However the joy derives from the challenge. Any parent will tell you of the handful of times their child said something or did something that absolutely floored them. Yesterday my daughter got her jewelry making set out and made me a DAD.BFF necklace as a suprise. Nearly had me in tears. A fur baby could never reach that pinnacle of joy. Ever. But yes there will be an offset. I had to spend an hour helping her with her homework, neogitate how many bites of dinner before dessert, preside over bathtime, referee arguments with her brother etc. That stress and inconvenience is the price you pay for a more enriching relationship of a child versus a pet.  But if the goal appears to have as little stress as possible heck let's dump the dog and just watch TV all day. Television doesn't need to be fed or bathed or taken for walks; it doesn't poop in the house or have expensive vet bills so it must be superior to a dog right?

I have no qualms about people wanting to be childless. I do not think it makes you selfish or a bad person. We are a deeply divided country on many issues that IMHO stems from a lack of empathy and a desire to understand the viewpoints of others. My concern with this attitude about children stress me out and I can't stand them while pets do not so they are better is the deeper ramification of our tolerance and lack of patience towards our fellow human beings in general. 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: recklesslysober on March 28, 2017, 10:44:03 AM

I also see a rather disturbing trend of the childless extolling the virtues of their "fur babies" instead of having children due to the lack of neediness, responsibility, etc. that a human requries rather than a pet.

It's sad to me that people seem to be opting for a far lesser version of joy and companionship because kids are viewed as just too much of an inconvenience....

Lesser version of joy?

Having a molar removed brings me more "joy" than spending a similar amount of time with children.

We are child free because we, frankly, can't stand most children until they hit the age of 25 or so.

Well, that and the fact that it was easy to become multi-millionaires because we didn't have to pay for all those diapers, cell phones, and whatever else the "little darlins' " demand these days.

Children stress me out.  Just about all of them. 

Dogs do not.  They have the opposite effect.

Just to continue the discussion and because I am a PITA devil's advocate.... :)

Children are stressful not only because of the work involved but because they are willfull, have their own likely exasperating difference in viewpoints and will judge you, challenge you and call you out. Dogs do not. However the joy derives from the challenge. Any parent will tell you of the handful of times their child said something or did something that absolutely floored them. Yesterday my daughter got her jewelry making set out and made me a DAD.BFF necklace as a suprise. Nearly had me in tears. A fur baby could never reach that pinnacle of joy. Ever. But yes there will be an offset. I had to spend an hour helping her with her homework, neogitate how many bites of dinner before dessert, preside over bathtime, referee arguments with her brother etc. That stress and inconvenience is the price you pay for a more enriching relationship of a child versus a pet.  But if the goal appears to have as little stress as possible heck let's dump the dog and just watch TV all day. Television doesn't need to be fed or bathed or taken for walks; it doesn't poop in the house or have expensive vet bills so it must be superior to a dog right?

I have no qualms about people wanting to be childless. I do not think it makes you selfish or a bad person. We are a deeply divided country on many issues that IMHO stems from a lack of empathy and a desire to understand the viewpoints of others. My concern with this attitude about children stress me out and I can't stand them while pets do not so they are better is the deeper ramification of our tolerance and lack of patience towards our fellow human beings in general. 

Joy is subjective. Isn't there a disconnect between pointing out a general lack of empathy and understanding and then not empathizing with or understanding someone who would not find joy in raising children? I find joy in many challenging things, but raising a child is not one of them.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: ringer707 on March 28, 2017, 11:29:05 AM
DH and I have never wanted children. We got married about two years ago (been together ten years). His boss knows we don't want children. After we got married, she said "I just don't understand, I mean you got married and now it's like what is there left to do?" Uhh... live? What? I don't even understand this. Literally live our lives together as married couple on a daily basis?
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: redbird on March 28, 2017, 12:06:59 PM
I've never felt stigmatized for not having children. Rather, as a woman, I've felt like a few people in the past have not taken my decision seriously. It would also make certain co-workers assume things.

Scenario 1
Co-worker: Are you OK? You don't seem well today.
Me: Not feeling too good. Think I got a stomach bug.
Co-worker: Are you pregnant?

(Note that I am thin, so it's not the gaining weight, you look like you might be pregnant mistake. Which is dumb too. Have seen women who gained some weight being asked if they were pregnant before.)

Scenario 2
Co-worker: Do you have any kids?
Me: Nope.
Co-worker: When are you going to have some?
Me: I don't plan to.
Co-worker: Why not?
Me: I grew up in a large family. I kinda "did my time" already, you know? I was basically second mom.
Co-worker: You'll change your mind or an accident will happen and you'll have some. Everyone does!

I found these things really insulting/annoying. I never knew how to respond. The thing was - it was always women who brought up these conversations. My male co-workers would usually not ask, and if they did, it would just go "Do you have kids? No? OK" and then conversation would go to another topic. I think this is why generally friend-co-workers were either male (with or without children) or women without children. I didn't mind if the women with children talked about their children, I just didn't like it when they would say things like the above to me.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Inaya on March 28, 2017, 12:28:02 PM
Children are stressful not only because of the work involved but because they are willfull, have their own likely exasperating difference in viewpoints and will judge you, challenge you and call you out. Dogs do not. However the joy derives from the challenge. 
I have a cat. She's plenty good at all of the above. Especially judging. Training her is very challenging and requires both negotiation and patience, but it is also fulfilling for both of us. And every so often, she does surprise me with unexpected gestures of affection usually reserved for my husband--and it melts my heart every time. But that's me, because I bond very strongly with my pets. Some people don't and that's them. I'm not going to try to convince them to get a cat and train it for the challenge of it. If they wanted a cat, they'd get one. If I wanted, a kid I'd get one. It is nobody's place to tell anyone what they should/should not/will/will not derive joy or enrichment from. (I'm saying this in the general sense, not to you in particular.)

I have no qualms about people wanting to be childless. I do not think it makes you selfish or a bad person. We are a deeply divided country on many issues that IMHO stems from a lack of empathy and a desire to understand the viewpoints of others. My concern with this attitude about children stress me out and I can't stand them while pets do not so they are better is the deeper ramification of our tolerance and lack of patience towards our fellow human beings in general.
The key is there's (for the most part) an unspoken "for me": Children stress me out and I can't stand them while pets do not so they are better for me. I doubt that most people who choose pets over children mean to imply that pets are always going to be the best choice for everyone no matter what. They are simply making the choice that is best for themselves. They are not making that choice for you or at you or to spite you. Plus, I am sure there are plenty of folks who chose pets but like children just fine.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Slee_stack on March 28, 2017, 02:11:29 PM
Maybe we can replace the 'moral outrage' part with 'feel sad for them because they OBVIOUSLY are missing out' .

That sounds nicer and it also would imply that the CF aren't necessarily viewed as evil... just ignorant.  Sounds like progress!

Bummer though because that means I have to find a kid for myself pronto! 

I was OK with being a little 'morally corrupt' but I definitely don't want to miss out on the Joy!

Admittedly, I am worrying how DW will take this news.  Wish me luck!  This might not end well...


Poking fun... I don't think anyone here is intentionally judging anybody.


Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Slinky on March 28, 2017, 03:52:52 PM

I also see a rather disturbing trend of the childless extolling the virtues of their "fur babies" instead of having children due to the lack of neediness, responsibility, etc. that a human requries rather than a pet.

It's sad to me that people seem to be opting for a far lesser version of joy and companionship because kids are viewed as just too much of an inconvenience....

Lesser version of joy?

Having a molar removed brings me more "joy" than spending a similar amount of time with children.

We are child free because we, frankly, can't stand most children until they hit the age of 25 or so.

Well, that and the fact that it was easy to become multi-millionaires because we didn't have to pay for all those diapers, cell phones, and whatever else the "little darlins' " demand these days.

Children stress me out.  Just about all of them. 

Dogs do not.  They have the opposite effect.

Just to continue the discussion and because I am a PITA devil's advocate.... :)

Children are stressful not only because of the work involved but because they are willfull, have their own likely exasperating difference in viewpoints and will judge you, challenge you and call you out. Dogs do not. However the joy derives from the challenge. Any parent will tell you of the handful of times their child said something or did something that absolutely floored them. Yesterday my daughter got her jewelry making set out and made me a DAD.BFF necklace as a suprise. Nearly had me in tears. A fur baby could never reach that pinnacle of joy. Ever. But yes there will be an offset. I had to spend an hour helping her with her homework, neogitate how many bites of dinner before dessert, preside over bathtime, referee arguments with her brother etc. That stress and inconvenience is the price you pay for a more enriching relationship of a child versus a pet.  But if the goal appears to have as little stress as possible heck let's dump the dog and just watch TV all day. Television doesn't need to be fed or bathed or taken for walks; it doesn't poop in the house or have expensive vet bills so it must be superior to a dog right?

I have no qualms about people wanting to be childless. I do not think it makes you selfish or a bad person. We are a deeply divided country on many issues that IMHO stems from a lack of empathy and a desire to understand the viewpoints of others. My concern with this attitude about children stress me out and I can't stand them while pets do not so they are better is the deeper ramification of our tolerance and lack of patience towards our fellow human beings in general.

Alright, devil's advocate right back:

Quote
That stress and inconvenience is the price you pay for a more enriching relationship of a child versus a pet.

Quote
My concern with this attitude about children stress me out and I can't stand them while pets do not so they are better is the deeper ramification of our tolerance and lack of patience towards our fellow human beings in general.

Or! They just don't wish to pay that price. Personally, I don't want to run a marathon. The reward doesn't seem worth the effort. It sounds hard and stressful and not fun. I do not like running. Other people disagree. This is fine. Why is it not equally fine in regards to children?
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: kite on March 28, 2017, 07:26:09 PM
Most of the world doesn't give a rat's ass whether or not you have children.  Your mother might.  But nobody else gives a fiddler's fart. 
The stigmatization is from talking about your "childfree" wonderfulness.  The Athiest who talks about his athiesm is the same kind of PITA.  In the vein of Neil Degrasse Tyson, when you don't collect stamps, you don't talk about not collecting stamps.
Most of the world doesn't give a rats ass about most everything.

That doesn't preclude having a discussion just because.

I haven't personally been a victim of raging breeders.  I have had family and peer pressure over the years, but nothing remotely motivating.

The article states that the CF are generally viewed with more outrage.

You, yourself, seem to support this study.  Why are you outraged that folks are discussing the advantages of each camp?

No outrage.
I'm suspicious of all psychology and sociology studies.  Particularly this one about stigma, which is entirely subjective.  A person may feel stigma when what they are getting is actually indifference.  A neighbor, colleague, classmate or extended family member may ask, not realizing that is is an impolite question.  But stigmatize? I think it's overblown.  If anything, your town is relieved that you aren't sending a quiver full through the school district.  "Come here and breed" is listed nowhere on the "Welcome to ________" sign in any country.   
In developing countries, growing old without children who will care for you is actually devastating.  There is real shunning and isolation of those who are infertile. 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Goldielocks on March 29, 2017, 09:33:53 PM
Children are stressful not only because of the work involved but because they are willfull, have their own likely exasperating difference in viewpoints and will judge you, challenge you and call you out. Dogs do not. However the joy derives from the challenge. 
I have a cat. She's plenty good at all of the above. Especially judging. Training her is very challenging and requires both negotiation and patience, but it is also fulfilling for both of us. And every so often, she does surprise me with unexpected gestures of affection usually reserved for my husband--and it melts my heart every time. But that's me, because I bond very strongly with my pets. Some people don't and that's them. I'm not going to try to convince them to get a cat and train it for the challenge of it. If they wanted a cat, they'd get one. If I wanted, a kid I'd get one. It is nobody's place to tell anyone what they should/should not/will/will not derive joy or enrichment from. (I'm saying this in the general sense, not to you in particular.)

I have no qualms about people wanting to be childless. I do not think it makes you selfish or a bad person. We are a deeply divided country on many issues that IMHO stems from a lack of empathy and a desire to understand the viewpoints of others. My concern with this attitude about children stress me out and I can't stand them while pets do not so they are better is the deeper ramification of our tolerance and lack of patience towards our fellow human beings in general.


There is an obvious difference -- I can squirt the cat with the water bottle to get her to comply.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Cressida on March 30, 2017, 12:59:37 AM
The other day I read a comment saying that childless/childfree couples should get less retirement benefit seeing as they have contributed less to society in their lifetime.

So, I don't have kids, and I think people should have kids or not have kids as they please. There's no moral authority in either decision.

That said: The comment referenced in the quote is fantastically stupid. Humans contribute to society when they're able-bodied adults, and they're a burden on society when they're very young or old. This is equally true of every human. So if you beget a human who's a contributor and a burden in the same proportions that you are, you haven't "contributed" anything to society - you've maintained the status quo, same as if you had no kids at all. People don't have kids for the greater good - they have kids for their own families, and that's fine.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: golden1 on March 30, 2017, 12:20:47 PM
I have thought a lot about this thread, and about the trends of industrialized countries where people are having fewer or no children, and even as a breeder, I think this is generally a positive thing in the short term.  I do wonder about what happens though, both culturally and economically when the replacement rate becomes negative.  I suppose we have some examples of that with Japan (I think they were at 1.3 children per woman at last check) and urban China with the one child policy working its way through the population. 

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. 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Inaya on March 30, 2017, 02:11:05 PM
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.


I am curious how you came to this conclusion. Sure, kids aren't for me (they're terrifying), but I also know that the future depends on making sure the next generations are healthy, happy, and educated. Many people were strongly in favor of Sanders' education reforms, myself included, even if it means paying more taxes.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Linea_Norway on March 31, 2017, 01:54:34 AM
I have thought a lot about this thread, and about the trends of industrialized countries where people are having fewer or no children, and even as a breeder, I think this is generally a positive thing in the short term.  I do wonder about what happens though, both culturally and economically when the replacement rate becomes negative.  I suppose we have some examples of that with Japan (I think they were at 1.3 children per woman at last check) and urban China with the one child policy working its way through the population. 


I guess this either increase immigration or accelerate the build of robots. Eventually we will need fewer people to do the jobs and fewer people need to be born on the planet. This is good for ensuring enough food for everyone and for reducing CO2 emissions. But I suppose we will end up being less socially active this way. And how our pensions will be insured, I'm not sure.

Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: golden1 on March 31, 2017, 07:01:55 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: pbkmaine on March 31, 2017, 07:21:47 AM
No flaming here. I wouldn't have a child just to feel more empathy either, though.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Cpa Cat on March 31, 2017, 07:33:03 AM
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. 


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.

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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: wenchsenior on March 31, 2017, 08:54:07 AM
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. 


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.

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.

Pretty much what Cpa cat said.  The people voting to lower their taxes and privatize public schools are often conservatives (though of course liberals will probably just as frequently choose private schools if they can afford them). The question is: do people who tend to vote conservative have more kids, on average, than people who vote liberal? And how are those tendencies related, if at all? I'm not sure about those things....does anyone have any data on this?

As a personal matter, I don't hate kids and I don't like kids particularly either, as a group.  I disliked kids in general MORE when I was a child myself. I had a few close friends, but mostly I found children silly, tribal, and kind of mean.  Presumably I was also silly, tribal, and mean as a kid, but I wouldn't have noticed that, would I?  I wanted to hang out with grown ups!  As an adult I found out lots of adults are also silly, tribal, and mean (including myself sometimes LOL).  So essentially, it turns out I'm just not a people-oriented person in general.   However, if I had to pick between interacting with a group of unknown kids and interacting with a group of unknown adults, I'd automatically pick adults. Possibly I'd regret it.  If I had accidentally had children of my own, I expect I would have loved them intensely while still finding other peoples' children tiresome.

It is true that in the long term I'm much more concerned and emotionally involved with welfare of other life on the plant than humans (who seem to be a species with the staying power of cockroaches...we aren't in danger of going anywhere).  So I feel concern for kids growing up in poverty, but not as much as I feel for wildlife species going extinct. That doesn't mean I feel no empathy or concern for the plight of kids/people, or wish them harm in general, but it does mean that I am not very sympathetic to people who have more than 2 kids on purpose and then whine about how hard or expensive it is to raise them.

I want our global human population to shrink, so naturally I am not in support of people having tons of kids. However, given that kids don't choose to be born, and given that societies in economic melt down tend to be even worse for natural resources than stable societies, I certainly want to be sure that kids are safe, fed, properly cared for and loved, have access to health care and education/jobs, etc.  I believe gov't should play a big role in that (exactly how and how much is open to debate). 

To sum up, I wish like hell that there were fewer people on the planet, and that people would stop breeding so much. BUT (at least so far...though recent political events are severely trying my patience in this area) I am strongly in favor of personally chipping in to make sure those people that are here have a decent life and that reducing our populations is done in a slow and stable way to reduce societal upheaval. So I vote to raise my own taxes because I think American society is falling short in this regard. 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Chris22 on March 31, 2017, 09:19:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: wenchsenior on March 31, 2017, 09:22:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Chris22 on March 31, 2017, 09:28:52 AM
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"
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: MgoSam on March 31, 2017, 09:31:35 AM
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"

Yeah I too hate how the choices always seem to come to down picking between a douche and a turd.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Ann on March 31, 2017, 09:43:38 AM
Yeah, it may be the group of people you are interacting with are childless and don't want to pay school taxes. In my personal experience, it is people who have children but want to home school or send to private school who don't want to aid the school district and other children (who are not goin to the same school/home school group/ activities as their own kid) in general.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Ksmama10 on March 31, 2017, 09:58:09 AM
Yeah, it may be the group of people you are interacting with are childless and don't want to pay school taxes. In my personal experience, it is people who have children but want to home school or send to private school who don't want to aid the school district and other children (who are not goin to the same school/home school group/ activities as their own kid) in general.

As a retired home educator, I have heard a lot of talk about vouchers and such. Most of us deplore the waste of money in the public system, and we joke amongst ourselves about what we'd do with $$$$ per child, but in reality, we really don't want government money.. because with that money would come strings and interventions. The very reason most opt to educate their children themselves is to be able to tailor the curriculum to suit their child's needs. Somebody on a board somewhere doesn't know best for MY kid. I can't speak for those who opt for private schools; we didn't go that route.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: mm1970 on March 31, 2017, 10:14:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: mm1970 on March 31, 2017, 10:19:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Cpa Cat on March 31, 2017, 10:26:59 AM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: mm1970 on March 31, 2017, 10:29:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: WGH on March 31, 2017, 11:05:51 AM
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....
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Just Joe on March 31, 2017, 12:28:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: MonkeyJenga on March 31, 2017, 11:26:16 PM
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!
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: wenchsenior on April 01, 2017, 10:55:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on April 01, 2017, 12:42:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: mm1970 on April 01, 2017, 04:49:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: BeautifulDay on April 01, 2017, 04:56:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: firelight on April 01, 2017, 10:27:48 PM



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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: bugbaby on April 01, 2017, 11:49:19 PM
Everyone makes judgments.  Let's all get over it.

Sent from my KIW-L24 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Villanelle on April 02, 2017, 12:32:13 AM
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.)
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: fredbear on April 02, 2017, 03:35:37 PM


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. 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: stoaX on April 02, 2017, 04:00:42 PM


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. 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Chris22 on April 02, 2017, 04:58:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Miss Unleaded on April 03, 2017, 02:13:38 AM

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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: BoneTree on April 03, 2017, 09:28:42 AM
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?
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: partgypsy on April 03, 2017, 01:54:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Prairie Stash on April 03, 2017, 02:22:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: WGH on April 03, 2017, 02:27:19 PM
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?
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: TheAnonOne on April 03, 2017, 02:47:51 PM
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

Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: exterous on April 03, 2017, 02:57:47 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
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: iris lily on April 03, 2017, 03:08:42 PM
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?
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on April 03, 2017, 03:22:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: iris lily on April 03, 2017, 03:43:04 PM
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?
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: partgypsy on April 03, 2017, 07:45:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: bugbaby on April 04, 2017, 06:55:25 AM
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

Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: golden1 on April 04, 2017, 09:56:11 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: wenchsenior on April 04, 2017, 10:03:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: WGH on April 04, 2017, 11:41:15 AM
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!
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: BoneTree on April 04, 2017, 12:20:08 PM
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
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on April 04, 2017, 12:35:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on April 04, 2017, 02:50:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: hudsoncat on April 04, 2017, 03:22:44 PM
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).
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Ebrat on April 05, 2017, 08:12:24 AM
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.)
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Cali Nonya on April 05, 2017, 08:37:53 AM


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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: jinga nation on April 05, 2017, 11:28:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: iris lily on April 05, 2017, 11:29:05 AM
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!"
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: golden1 on April 05, 2017, 12:38:48 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: mm1970 on April 05, 2017, 01:25:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on April 05, 2017, 02:03:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: wenchsenior on April 05, 2017, 02:20:28 PM
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.

Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: firelight on April 06, 2017, 07:38:32 AM
[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!!
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: wenchsenior on April 06, 2017, 07:55:02 AM
[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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Goldielocks on April 07, 2017, 12:26:34 AM

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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on April 07, 2017, 07:47:45 AM

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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: golden1 on April 07, 2017, 08:09:48 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Cpa Cat on April 08, 2017, 07:41:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: exterous on April 12, 2017, 08:08:36 PM
Quote
I enjoy your posts, golden1, but seriously WTF are you responding to here?  What lack of empathy? That post was totally reasonable and not overtly hostile to kids and parents in general.  It pointed out some very real issues that seem to be happening with some parents in recent decades.  It didn't condemn all kids or all parents.  I feel like you are reacting to imaginary things in this thread.

What imaginary things?  I'll parse through it.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I sit here typing this I am struck by how much time I have expended trying to substantiate at least a tiny amount of experience on the matter. In contrast a parent is automatically accepted as possessing a wealth of knowledge and experience without any expended effort in determining their involvement or effectiveness in their child's raising. That feeling is not germane to this conversation but probably says something (although I'm not sure what)
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: The Money Monk on May 08, 2017, 12:27:40 AM
Almost every group of people is self righteous about their lifestyle. If they didn't think it was the 'right' way to live, they probably wouldn't be doing it. I don't think that the pro-children group is any better or worse in this regard.

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

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




Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: former player on May 08, 2017, 06:21:51 AM
I've been part of a team where, as the only childless employee, they always wanted me to pick up the slack. "Hey this needs to be done by tomorrow but we all have kids so we're leaving and need you to stay late to finish it." Do more work for the same pay just because I don't have kids? Hard pass.

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

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

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

Now, if there is a true emergency, that's one thing.  I'm not saying someone should stay at work if their kid has had to go to hospital and there is no other parent available - unless the job is a safety-critical one that can't be covered (in which case the safety plan at work needs to cover that contingency).  But the routine "my kid barfed at daycare so I have to go pick him/her up" is something that a parent needs to plan for rather than expect their employer or colleagues to put that back-up plan in place for them.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Scandium on May 08, 2017, 07:47:16 AM
Most of the world doesn't give a rat's ass whether or not you have children.  Your mother might.  But nobody else gives a fiddler's fart. 
The stigmatization is from talking about your "childfree" wonderfulness.  The Athiest who talks about his athiesm is the same kind of PITA.  In the vein of Neil Degrasse Tyson, when you don't collect stamps, you don't talk about not collecting stamps.

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

Tried to fix this for you. People talk about, and value, the choices they've made. They are scared by and desperately disparage other life choices, since if those people are happy it could mean they life choice is wrong. This goes for everything. Humans are [pathetically fragile emotional beings.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: zhelud on May 08, 2017, 08:04:41 AM
Another perspective-
At a previous job, the biggest takers of unplanned leave in my office were two childless colleagues who had to take care of elderly/sick parents. Hospitalizations, dementia crises, etc. But my parent colleagues and I were happy to cover for them, since we understood that sometimes life just happens, and it is not always possible to have a "backup plan" for when your mom falls down the stairs or your dad wanders into traffic (or when your kid barfs at daycare, either.)
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: former player on May 08, 2017, 08:17:39 AM
Another perspective-
At a previous job, the biggest takers of unplanned leave in my office were two childless colleagues who had to take care of elderly/sick parents. Hospitalizations, dementia crises, etc. But my parent colleagues and I were happy to cover for them, since we understood that sometimes life just happens, and it is not always possible to have a "backup plan" for when your mom falls down the stairs or your dad wanders into traffic (or when your kid barfs at daycare, either.)
It is entirely possible to have backup plans for all of those circumstances, it's just a question of who does the organising of it and who pays for it - the employee, or the employer and his other employees.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: zhelud on May 08, 2017, 08:48:58 AM
Another perspective-
At a previous job, the biggest takers of unplanned leave in my office were two childless colleagues who had to take care of elderly/sick parents. Hospitalizations, dementia crises, etc. But my parent colleagues and I were happy to cover for them, since we understood that sometimes life just happens, and it is not always possible to have a "backup plan" for when your mom falls down the stairs or your dad wanders into traffic (or when your kid barfs at daycare, either.)
It is entirely possible to have backup plans for all of those circumstances, it's just a question of who does the organising of it and who pays for it - the employee, or the employer and his other employees.
I would be really curious to know how you have arranged, in your life, to have someone on call all the time to deal with sick children or sick parents.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: former player on May 08, 2017, 09:02:30 AM
Another perspective-
At a previous job, the biggest takers of unplanned leave in my office were two childless colleagues who had to take care of elderly/sick parents. Hospitalizations, dementia crises, etc. But my parent colleagues and I were happy to cover for them, since we understood that sometimes life just happens, and it is not always possible to have a "backup plan" for when your mom falls down the stairs or your dad wanders into traffic (or when your kid barfs at daycare, either.)
It is entirely possible to have backup plans for all of those circumstances, it's just a question of who does the organising of it and who pays for it - the employee, or the employer and his other employees.
I would be really curious to know how you have arranged, in your life, to have someone on call all the time to deal with sick children or sick parents.
1. Family, friendship and community networks.

2. Money.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: pbkmaine on May 08, 2017, 09:09:42 AM
You know, I have not gotten a lot of this. I had some rather minor peer pressure to have kids until I turned 40, then that stopped. Maybe it's because I am a stepparent, a job I really enjoy because to me it's all of the fun and none of the guilt? Maybe because it's quite obvious I have no maternal instincts? What I have gotten is stories from people who did have children, and have mixed feelings about the experience. I am a safe person to tell these stories to.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Chris22 on May 08, 2017, 10:29:44 AM
Tried to fix this for you. People talk about, and value, the choices they've made. They are scared by and desperately disparage other life choices, since if those people are happy it could mean they life choice is wrong. This goes for everything. Humans are [pathetically fragile emotional beings.

[looks at what forum this was posted in.  Coughs discreetly]
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Scandium on May 08, 2017, 10:33:25 AM
Tried to fix this for you. People talk about, and value, the choices they've made. They are scared by and desperately disparage other life choices, since if those people are happy it could mean they life choice is wrong. This goes for everything. Humans are [pathetically fragile emotional beings.

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

Oooh yes. It's at play as much here as everywhere else. People just want other people to do what they do, because why would you not..? Reason that apart from some investment discussion I mostly stay away from discussions here.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: firelight on May 08, 2017, 11:27:53 AM
Another perspective-
At a previous job, the biggest takers of unplanned leave in my office were two childless colleagues who had to take care of elderly/sick parents. Hospitalizations, dementia crises, etc. But my parent colleagues and I were happy to cover for them, since we understood that sometimes life just happens, and it is not always possible to have a "backup plan" for when your mom falls down the stairs or your dad wanders into traffic (or when your kid barfs at daycare, either.)
It is entirely possible to have backup plans for all of those circumstances, it's just a question of who does the organising of it and who pays for it - the employee, or the employer and his other employees.
I would be really curious to know how you have arranged, in your life, to have someone on call all the time to deal with sick children or sick parents.
I would love to know this too. I have reliable daycare, family that can help if push comes to a shove (but they are working 9-6 as well) and have good babysitters (who need at least a day's notice). I'm willing to throw reasonable amount of money towards this as well.

How can I plan for a kid that gets sick and needs to be picked up from daycare within half an hour, shown to the doctor and soothed? Should I keep a nanny on standby 24*7 (would cost $3000 per month - I pay less than that for the daycare I send her to every month) for the rare afternoons kid gets sick (once a month maybe)? If you have a reasonable solution that doesn't expect others (grandparents/others who are free and willing and able to drop everything and tend to sick kid or elderly) to pick up the responsibility, I'm all ears. Otherwise, it squarely falls in the 'theoretically possible but practically not' category.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: mm1970 on May 08, 2017, 12:41:17 PM
Another perspective-
At a previous job, the biggest takers of unplanned leave in my office were two childless colleagues who had to take care of elderly/sick parents. Hospitalizations, dementia crises, etc. But my parent colleagues and I were happy to cover for them, since we understood that sometimes life just happens, and it is not always possible to have a "backup plan" for when your mom falls down the stairs or your dad wanders into traffic (or when your kid barfs at daycare, either.)
It is entirely possible to have backup plans for all of those circumstances, it's just a question of who does the organising of it and who pays for it - the employee, or the employer and his other employees.
I would be really curious to know how you have arranged, in your life, to have someone on call all the time to deal with sick children or sick parents.
I would love to know this too. I have reliable daycare, family that can help if push comes to a shove (but they are working 9-6 as well) and have good babysitters (who need at least a day's notice). I'm willing to throw reasonable amount of money towards this as well.

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

Jumping on this same line of conversation...

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

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

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

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

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

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

I mean, that's what PTO is for.

In any event, any employer who doesn't realize this is pretty shitty.  I leave early or work from home to deal with kids.  My hubby and I split those duties, really.  I've worked late and long hours when my boss or coworkers were sick, on vacation, recovering from surgery, or traveling.  Yes, there are many days that a last minute 4:10 meeting isn't going to happen.  And no, I cannot call in either.  But there were also dozens of weekends with power outages when I was the *only* engineer dragging my ass in to work on a Sunday, to help qualify all of the equipment when it got back on line.  Everyone else was hungover.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Chris22 on May 08, 2017, 01:08:38 PM
Part of being a salaried employee means that when shit goes sideways at work, you are expected to stay and deal with it. 

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

You need BOTH sides of that equation for the salaried "deal" to work.  If the scale gets tilted too far one way or another, then the employer or employer needs to re-evaluate the relationship, but as long as shit doesn't go too sideways too often, it shouldn't be a big deal.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Goldielocks on May 08, 2017, 11:44:58 PM
RE: Sick kids.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Ok -- I am so glad the kids are teenagers now!  Having a moderately sick kid able to stay home on their own is amazing!
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Villanelle on May 09, 2017, 12:45:15 AM

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

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


This says it all!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not so arrogant as to assume my life choices are the Right Choices.  They are right for me, but I can look at many of my friends with kids and know that they would be deeply unfulfilled if they were not parents.  It's pretty easy for me to see and acknowledge that the right life for me is not the right life for them.   I wouldn't assume people with kids are jealous or miserable, and it would be nice if people didn't assume those without kids are selfish, unfulfilled, and don't really know what love is. 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: former player on May 09, 2017, 01:33:10 AM
One of the points I would have liked people to recognise is that everyone does always have a back-up plan for things going south with a kid.  But what doesn't always seem to be recognised is that if they don't put that plan in place themselves then their back-up plan is to leave their normal work obligations behind in favour of the kid.  In this case they are then relying on their employer to put that back-up plan in place - to allow a late arrival, or an early exit, or working from home.  Which is fine for you and your employer if your employer has given you the sort of job where that is possible and is prepared to deal with it as part of the cost of employing you. 

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

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

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

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

Not everyone is salaried with an understanding employer who is prepared to cover their employee's child emergencies.  If you are on an hourly wage, or you work in a call centre with every metric measured down to the time you spend in the toilet, or you are on the line in a manufacturing plant, or you are in a safety critical job in the medical field or one of the emergency services, this happy, salaried, desk job give and take attitude isn't available to you.  If its not, you need your family, friends and community networks to pick up the slack for you or you are out of a job.  This is one of the big restrictions on mobility for many poorer families - if you don't have the money to pay for professional backup, you have to stick around where your networks are.  Which means not moving across the country for that better paid job (or any job).
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: mm1970 on May 09, 2017, 09:32:27 AM
Quote
Of course, your employer's solution might be to pass that cost on to one of his other employees, who is expected to pick up the slack.  If those other employees are childless and don't get equivalent perks at the job, it would be fairly natural for resentment to ensue.   It is better for the employee with the kids not to burden either their employer or their fellow employees unless necessary, which means making arrangements for themselves which limit the occasions they have to call in those favours.  It might be expensive, and it might mean putting effort into creating the networks which mean people helping each other out, but neither of those are reasons not to do it: it is part of the cost of having kids, just as putting money and effort into maintenance is part of the cost of owning property.

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

Whatever, long story short got a new boss inserted from outside the company (old boss got promoted).  Within 6 months new boss laid off the jerk when he realized that my group was doing 75% of his work.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: MrsPete on May 09, 2017, 11:56:15 AM
The stigmatization is from talking about your "childfree" wonderfulness. 
The Athiest who talks about his athiesm is the same kind of PITA.
Yep, this.  If you've decided you don't like something, yet you drone on and on about it, you come off as negative.  No one likes that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Just Joe on May 09, 2017, 12:06:15 PM
Part of being a salaried employee means that when shit goes sideways at work, you are expected to stay and deal with it. 

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

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

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

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

Old coworker and I and many others left that place over the years. Good work, lousy managers. 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Chris22 on May 09, 2017, 01:11:26 PM
Part of being a salaried employee means that when shit goes sideways at work, you are expected to stay and deal with it. 

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

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

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

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

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

I've had no problem telling my boss "if you're going to watch the clock, so am I" meaning that there will be no more staying late to do stuff, no responding to emails after hours, etc etc.  I will be happy to sit at my desk from 8AM to 5PM every day, no more no less (lunch aside) BUT we'd both be happier if sometimes I left at 2PM and sometime I left at 8PM or worked an hour after I got home.  No one has ever given me a hard time after that speech.  But I've worked for mostly reasonable people. 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: mm1970 on May 09, 2017, 01:19:25 PM
Part of being a salaried employee means that when shit goes sideways at work, you are expected to stay and deal with it. 

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, new VP decides to reorganize.  I find out that I've been reorganized/ reassigned (along with everyone else) while on FMLA at home with my 9 month old baby, who had just had surgery.  Found out by email, new org chart in power point.  No "hey, I'm thinking of changing things around". 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: charis on May 09, 2017, 02:29:56 PM
One of the points I would have liked people to recognise is that everyone does always have a back-up plan for things going south with a kid.  But what doesn't always seem to be recognised is that if they don't put that plan in place themselves then their back-up plan is to leave their normal work obligations behind in favour of the kid.  In this case they are then relying on their employer to put that back-up plan in place - to allow a late arrival, or an early exit, or working from home.  Which is fine for you and your employer if your employer has given you the sort of job where that is possible and is prepared to deal with it as part of the cost of employing you. 

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

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

Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Maenad on May 10, 2017, 12:57:40 PM
In all fairness, I know a ton of people who -- when they were young -- said they didn't want children, then changed their minds for various reasons.  I can understand why a doctor is not really open to shutting down your choices at a young age.

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

My cousin announced her pregnancy shortly after I had my tubal (we were both 24 at the time). It definitely shut down family criticism when we pointed out that we're either both mature enough to make this decision, or not.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: zhelud on May 10, 2017, 01:13:59 PM
Another perspective-
At a previous job, the biggest takers of unplanned leave in my office were two childless colleagues who had to take care of elderly/sick parents. Hospitalizations, dementia crises, etc. But my parent colleagues and I were happy to cover for them, since we understood that sometimes life just happens, and it is not always possible to have a "backup plan" for when your mom falls down the stairs or your dad wanders into traffic (or when your kid barfs at daycare, either.)
It is entirely possible to have backup plans for all of those circumstances, it's just a question of who does the organising of it and who pays for it - the employee, or the employer and his other employees.
I would be really curious to know how you have arranged, in your life, to have someone on call all the time to deal with sick children or sick parents.
1. Family, friendship and community networks.

2. Money.
Looking for specifics here. Your cousin or neighbor is on call to pick up the kid who is barfing?  You have a paid caregiver to sit with your mom in the hospital? 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: former player on May 11, 2017, 10:20:38 AM
One of the points I would have liked people to recognise is that everyone does always have a back-up plan for things going south with a kid.  But what doesn't always seem to be recognised is that if they don't put that plan in place themselves then their back-up plan is to leave their normal work obligations behind in favour of the kid.  In this case they are then relying on their employer to put that back-up plan in place - to allow a late arrival, or an early exit, or working from home.  Which is fine for you and your employer if your employer has given you the sort of job where that is possible and is prepared to deal with it as part of the cost of employing you. 

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

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

Looking for specifics here. Your cousin or neighbor is on call to pick up the kid who is barfing?  You have a paid caregiver to sit with your mom in the hospital?
Yes, in essence.  You build your social networks so that you have many different people (family, friends, neighbours, au pair, babysitter, emergency nanny, college kid given accommodation in return for occasional help with kids) who can cover for you in emergencies.  A solid social and economic network is the equivalent of a large amount of money in the bank.  If the only people you know are people like yourself who have exactly the same issues as you then your social networks are impoverished and need to be worked on monthly the way you work on putting money into your retirement accounts monthly.  And just as with retirement accounts, the people who build their social and economic networks from early in their adult lives tend to have the largest, most diverse and most successful social funds on which to call when needed.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Ann on May 11, 2017, 10:44:02 AM
I think it is unrealistic for parents to have a whole crew of other people to do their parenting for them.  I don't have a problem with parents having emergencies they have to handle. 

What I have heard people complaining about is for group work to land on the childless worker because they don't have that "extra" obligation in life.  Hopefully those people ended up recognized and promoted / financially rewarded more than their coworkers.  Personally, I haven't been in that situation.  It is unfair that employers should expect after-hours obligations.   There isn't an easy answer.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: zhelud on May 11, 2017, 12:09:23 PM
One of the points I would have liked people to recognise is that everyone does always have a back-up plan for things going south with a kid.  But what doesn't always seem to be recognised is that if they don't put that plan in place themselves then their back-up plan is to leave their normal work obligations behind in favour of the kid.  In this case they are then relying on their employer to put that back-up plan in place - to allow a late arrival, or an early exit, or working from home.  Which is fine for you and your employer if your employer has given you the sort of job where that is possible and is prepared to deal with it as part of the cost of employing you. 

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

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

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

I had the same ideas as you before I had kids. It all sounds great in theory but...
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: charis on May 11, 2017, 12:24:48 PM
One of the points I would have liked people to recognise is that everyone does always have a back-up plan for things going south with a kid.  But what doesn't always seem to be recognised is that if they don't put that plan in place themselves then their back-up plan is to leave their normal work obligations behind in favour of the kid.  In this case they are then relying on their employer to put that back-up plan in place - to allow a late arrival, or an early exit, or working from home.  Which is fine for you and your employer if your employer has given you the sort of job where that is possible and is prepared to deal with it as part of the cost of employing you. 

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

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

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

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

I don't understand your point about employer back-up care, that's not the issue being debated.  The question is whether it's possible for a parent to have back-up care to the degree that they would NEVER have to leave work in an emergency.  I think that is an impossibility in the context of being responsible for a child's life.  It may be possible to pay a team of adults to be on-call to step in an assume that responsibility at a moment's notice, but it's ridiculous to suggest that more than a small fraction of people could do this.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: former player on May 11, 2017, 01:43:05 PM
Since you have not provided any specific examples of how you have been able to use your social networks to care for a dependent in an emergency, I can only assume that you do not actually have any dependents and don't really have much experience with this.

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

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

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


I don't understand your point about employer back-up care, that's not the issue being debated.  The question is whether it's possible for a parent to have back-up care to the degree that they would NEVER have to leave work in an emergency.  I think that is an impossibility in the context of being responsible for a child's life.  It may be possible to pay a team of adults to be on-call to step in an assume that responsibility at a moment's notice, but it's ridiculous to suggest that more than a small fraction of people could do this.
I'm not saying that employers provide the back-up care for the child.  I am saying that when an employee leaves because of an emergency with a child, then the employer is enabling that employee to leave by providing back-ups at work which prevent that employee leaving at short notice becoming an emergency for the place of employment.  It is in that sense that the employer is providing the back-up - they have to provide, at their own expense, the flexibility and redundancy in their work systems and numbers of people they employ that makes leaving at short notice possible without bringing the business to a grinding halt.  (Sometimes the burden of providing that flexibility falls on other employees, of course.)   This backup provided by employers is too often invisible to the parent with the emergency but all too obvious to the employer and the other employees.  And it is a level of privilege just to have that sort of employment, and many people don't.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: charis on May 11, 2017, 02:54:15 PM
Since you have not provided any specific examples of how you have been able to use your social networks to care for a dependent in an emergency, I can only assume that you do not actually have any dependents and don't really have much experience with this.

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

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

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


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

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

The bolded portion is indicative of either your bias or your ignorance.  If you are a parent, then you know that no parent wants to incur the wrath of coworkers or an employer by leaving work to deal with an emergency.   It's not a choice in many instances.  And you cannot possibly judge the adequacy of one's network based on whether they have to attend to a sick child.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Trudie on May 11, 2017, 03:10:09 PM
My husband and I are childless by choice.  We considered it, and at different times were in different places with it, but came to this conclusion.  It is a good choice for us.

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

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

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

Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: former player on May 11, 2017, 03:10:41 PM
Two reiterations of what I had thought were relatively simple and uncontestable points, but then I'm giving up.

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

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

That is all I've been saying.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Scortius on May 11, 2017, 03:53:27 PM
My husband and I are childless by choice.  We considered it, and at different times were in different places with it, but came to this conclusion.  It is a good choice for us.

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

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

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

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

Now, that's not to say I regret having children.  Our situation right now is difficult, but I fully expect things to improve significantly over the next several years as my wife finds her feet again and my children become a little more independent and less clingy (and dare I say it, boring... there's only so many times you can read the same Sandra Boynton book before passing out).  Plus, you can't put a price on watching these tiny blobs grow into intelligent and independent people with their own personalities.  It's a life experience I want to be a part of, but the initial sacrifice it requires is surprising even when you're expecting it.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Inaya on May 11, 2017, 11:45:23 PM
My husband and I are childless by choice.  We considered it, and at different times were in different places with it, but came to this conclusion.  It is a good choice for us.

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

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

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

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

Now, that's not to say I regret having children.  Our situation right now is difficult, but I fully expect things to improve significantly over the next several years as my wife finds her feet again and my children become a little more independent and less clingy (and dare I say it, boring... there's only so many times you can read the same Sandra Boynton book before passing out).  Plus, you can't put a price on watching these tiny blobs grow into intelligent and independent people with their own personalities.  It's a life experience I want to be a part of, but the initial sacrifice it requires is surprising even when you're expecting it.
Thank you for sharing this.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Villanelle on May 12, 2017, 12:03:32 AM
As an employee, I don't recall ever batting an eye when Susie called in sick because Susie, Jr. was ill, or if she took her vacation time to attend the Little League championship game or kindergarden graduation.  We all got PTO, and it never really occured to me to care how some else used that time which was granted to them by our employer.

What very much did bother to me (and very much did happen) was the 3 hour lunches to attend a school event, or bailing an hour before work was out to get to the spelling bee, or that kind of thing.  This was *not* PTO, and it was *not* a privilege granted non-parents.  (When going to my husband's Navy promotion ceremony, for example, I was gone during lunch for 2 hours and was required to take an hour of vacation time.)  And because of the nature of my work, this did affect me, because it wasn't just them not getting their work done.  It was me and my coworkers fielding phone calls, processing urgent paperwork, etc.  For the other parents in the group, it may have evened out.  They covered for Susie, Jr's kindergarden graduation and Susie the elder covered for their son's school play.  But I didn't get that free time off for my personal stuff, because it was considered exactly that--personal stuff.  And that was what vacation time was for.  And that's the part that absolutely did bother me.  I suppose it's more about my employer than the parent-employes, however.  Except the person making these decision was a parent and very much took advantage of the parent-exception she created. 
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Linea_Norway on May 12, 2017, 12:32:32 AM
As an employee, I don't recall ever batting an eye when Susie called in sick because Susie, Jr. was ill, or if she took her vacation time to attend the Little League championship game or kindergarden graduation.  We all got PTO, and it never really occured to me to care how some else used that time which was granted to them by our employer.

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

My company, as most companies in Norway, has "flexitime", which means you can clock out early some day and work late some other day, as long as the average is the contracted number of hours. You can also save up time and take a day off later.
Parents have by law the right to take 10! paid days off each when their children are sick. And they can take some paid days off when jr. is going to kindergarten for the first time. Any other school events are to be taken off by their own flexitime, which is reasonable. All in all this gives pretty decent working conditions for parents. Although some parents say that 10 paid off-days for sick children hardly are enough, because they are sick all the time.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Just Joe on May 12, 2017, 09:15:06 AM
My husband and I are childless by choice.  We considered it, and at different times were in different places with it, but came to this conclusion.  It is a good choice for us.

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

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

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

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

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

Hang in there. Its worth it. The freedom will return. I remember that time. The wonder of the baby wore off and they were still very dependent on us. Time was consumed like juice in a sippy cup. We have a tween and a teen now and they are so much more interesting to hang out with now. We enjoyed the baby stage and we're enjoying this period now too.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: cloudsail on May 12, 2017, 01:57:01 PM
My husband and I are childless by choice.  We considered it, and at different times were in different places with it, but came to this conclusion.  It is a good choice for us.

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

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

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

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

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

Well said. Well said indeed.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Inaya on May 17, 2017, 09:48:23 AM
Now apparently having pets instead of kids is not just immoral, it's a psychiatric disorder. https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/09/pets-instead-kids-considered-psychiatric-disorder/  Also, apparently it's a "waste" of "parental instincts" to love my cat, and it's a "sick and disturbing charade." God forbid I deprive my parents grandchildren because I have enough self-awareness to realize that children aren't for me. Sick and disturbed millennials like me just need to hurry up and make real babies (as opposed to "replacement babies" as he calls pets) regardless of our preparedness or desire to do so. We're all just joyless and dead inside otherwise.



Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Just Joe on May 17, 2017, 02:57:58 PM
I really didn't like that article. His tone or something.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: TheGrimSqueaker on May 19, 2017, 08:55:21 AM
Now apparently having pets instead of kids is not just immoral, it's a psychiatric disorder. https://thefederalist.com/2017/05/09/pets-instead-kids-considered-psychiatric-disorder/  Also, apparently it's a "waste" of "parental instincts" to love my cat, and it's a "sick and disturbing charade." God forbid I deprive my parents grandchildren because I have enough self-awareness to realize that children aren't for me. Sick and disturbed millennials like me just need to hurry up and make real babies (as opposed to "replacement babies" as he calls pets) regardless of our preparedness or desire to do so. We're all just joyless and dead inside otherwise.

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

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

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

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

Returning to the example of animals instead of children, I fail to see how keeping a pet reduces a person's ability to hold down a job or maintain a healthy relationship with other human beings. With the exception of animal hoarders (why do people never complain about child hoarders, I wonder?) pet owners aren't any more unreliable or dishonest than the average person. Keeping a pet instead of a human simply doesn't meet the criteria of pathology. Nor does it cause people to withdraw. Even a severe allergy sufferer who cannot visit a pet owner's home can still work with the pet owner or socialize with him or her outside the home. There are indeed people who take pet ownership to an extreme, however there are a few salient benefits that pets provide. First, they actually give love, respect, and loyalty in exchange for the care their owners provide. Second, they absolutely never grow up to be buybullbangers.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Cali Nonya on June 02, 2017, 07:59:34 PM
Wow, I obviously live under a rock and don't venture out much into outside world.  I was curious about GrimSqueakers response, so I had to check out the article. 
...
...
...
Then I had to google if that really was a "real" publication and I wasn't reading some troll page like the onion.
:O

Time to go crawl back under my rock.  Thank you GrimSqueaker and Inaya for shining a little light down here.  I think I'll stay under my rock though.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Kimera757 on June 03, 2017, 05:17:32 AM
Quote
The economy of scale, thrifty shopping, buying things used, and having a spouse willing to stay home and care for the kids drastically cuts childrearing costs.

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

In the 21st century, that's a fairly ridiculous thing to say. A middle-class earning spouse can more than pay for childcare.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Cali Nonya on June 16, 2017, 12:37:06 PM
Well this keeps popping back on my "new replies list".

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

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

This made me wonder about these two cases:
1) Extroverted and child-free:  Is your extroversion making your choices more visible hence get more negative feed-back?
2) Introverted (both parents) with children:  Does your introversion impact the options you have for assistance?
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Lia-Aimee on June 16, 2017, 06:00:07 PM
I judge a very specific type of childfree people (and I'm not a parent.)

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

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

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

Have such a dislike of children that you use derogatory names for them and their parents, refuse to let children into your house, instantly drop close friends and family members when they have children, and put the absolute maximum effort into avoiding children? This is either a mental health disorder or akin to racism or ableism.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: wenchsenior on June 16, 2017, 06:10:44 PM
I judge a very specific type of childfree people (and I'm not a parent.)

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

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

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

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

Just like I've never encountered anti-CF prejudice in real life, I've never encountered this in real life either. Only online.  Maybe I actually know a ton of both types of jerks, but they are just SUPER SEKRIT about it.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: RosieTR on June 16, 2017, 09:56:31 PM
Someone talked about snappy comebacks, so I thought I'd share a story.
DH and I were relatively newly married, maybe for about 2 years, in our early 30s or so, when his oldest brother knocked up his wife. Soon-to-be ex wife, as it were. This was a surprise since 1) she was 38 and 2) had promised her and my MIL that she would "get an abortion if she ever got pregnant, do NOT expect grandkids, etc". Well, they separated and then when the baby was maybe 3 months old, she had to take a road trip that brought her to the area. So, MIL and FIL, DH and me, and her and infant are all at some shitty breakfast buffet place, making small talk. She then turns to me and asks "are you guys having kids?" I say "no, we're not". She smugly answers "well, you never know..." I even more smugly answer "I work in reproductive biology, and there is a 99.9% chance I DO know."

Honestly, except for a few people who do go on and on about their children's lives like they are celebrities and I'm a low-level paparazzi, I like hearing about people's children's antics. Usually I leave the conversation with a moment of gratitude for not having children! And it doesn't have to be something unpleasant such as the recounting of a night of vomiting. Even someone describing their preparations for their child's wedding or kindergarten graduation makes me thankful I don't have to go through that. Obviously for them, it's an exciting, fulfilling experience and it's good they had children so they could experience that. Obviously for me, even the supposedly pleasant parts do not seem that great so it's good I did not have children because that would suck for all involved.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: pbkmaine on June 17, 2017, 06:04:29 AM
I never had the desire to have children, but I do very much enjoy them. There is something thrilling when a little hand takes yours to show you something or climbs up on your lap with a book. It's fortunate I feel that way: DH has 7 grandchildren.
Title: Re: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men
Post by: Fire2025 on June 17, 2017, 07:29:20 AM
I never had the desire to have children, but I do very much enjoy them. There is something thrilling when a little hand takes yours to show you something or climbs up on your lap with a book. It's fortunate I feel that way: DH has 7 grandchildren.

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

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

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