Author Topic: Moral Outrage and the Stigmatization of Voluntarily Childfree Women and Men  (Read 43216 times)

Prairie Stash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1795
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 ;)

Ann

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 295
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. 

stoaX

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

woopwoop

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 346
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"

Linea_Norway

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8577
  • Location: Norway
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.

exterous

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 174
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.

kelvin

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 124
  • Location: Ottawa, ON
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.

farmerj

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 76
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.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2017, 03:20:20 PM by farmerj »

farmerj

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 76
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.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2017, 03:28:43 PM by farmerj »

markbike528CBX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1907
  • Location: the Everbrown part of the Evergreen State (WA)
.....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.  :-)

kite

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
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. 

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3799
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.

briesas

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 59
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).

Slee_stack

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 876
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?



libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1395

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.
 

AMandM

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1684
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.

11ducks

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 573
  • Location: Duckville, Australia
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

MonkeyJenga

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8894
  • Location: the woods
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.

Mezzie

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 816
    • Mezzie Learns
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.

Helvegen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 569
  • Location: PNW
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)_/¯

Goldielocks

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

jinga nation

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2708
  • Age: 247
  • Location: 'Murica's Dong
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/

Ann

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 295
. . . . 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. 



MMMaybe

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 390
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.


KodeBlue

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 212
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.

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6803
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
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.

MsSindy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Philly Burbs
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)

WGH

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 128
  • Location: Houston, TX

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. 

recklesslysober

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 489
  • Age: 36
  • Location: BC, Canada

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.

ringer707

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 311
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?

redbird

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 546
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.

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Land of Entrapment
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.

Slee_stack

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 876
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.



Slinky

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 103
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Wisconsin

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?

kite

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 906
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. 

Goldielocks

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

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2376
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
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.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2017, 01:03:30 AM by Cressida »

golden1

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

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1644
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Land of Entrapment
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.

Linea_Norway

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8577
  • Location: Norway
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.


golden1

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

pbkmaine

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8927
  • Age: 67
  • Location: The Villages, Florida
No flaming here. I wouldn't have a child just to feel more empathy either, though.

Cpa Cat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1692
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.

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3799
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. 

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
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.

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3799
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.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3770
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
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"

MgoSam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3684
  • Location: Minnesota
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.

Ann

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 295
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.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2017, 09:50:50 AM by Ann »

Ksmama10

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 2
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.
« Last Edit: March 31, 2017, 02:51:48 PM by Ksmama10 »