Childfree is anti-natalism and anti-natalism is bigotry

[mswas]

In this thread, Ethical Implications of Remaining Childless By Choice (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=544295) we discussed whether or not it's acceptable to remain childless by choice. The overwhelming answer, unanimous it seems to me is that yes, it's perfectly acceptable to remain childless by choice. I don't see anyone taking an anti-choice position in that thread.

However...what I do see is straight up derogatory bigotry from the childfree set, who think that terms like, 'cult of the child', or 'breeders' are acceptable terms. Now, this only applies to people who use the term, 'childfree', which is in and of itself an ideological assertion in the way the mere choice not to have children isn't. Some people just don't have kids. Other people turn a negative choice, a decision NOT to do something, into a primary feature of their identity. As such they must then show fealty to the ideology by expressing mockery and derision for those who did not adhere to that choice.

I constantly hear of childfree people complaining about the lack of validation for their choices, and how annoying it is that people find the decision bemusing. I have known people who dismiss the value of remaining childless by choice. So I won't pretend they don't exist, but I have not had any interaction with them in relative proportion to the vitriole I see expressed so casually by the childfree set.

It doesn't matter to me whether or not a 'childfree' sort values my decision to have children. But why the hostility? Why are we subjected to a well developed lexicon of derogatory slang developed to describe the people doing the work of continuing the species? Why is it that people assume that the default amongst parents are shitty parents? Referring to the majority of parents as being the ones that let their kids run free and play with toys off the shelf, who let their kids scream their heads off in restaurants are the norm, is the same as saying that the average black person is lazy and shiftless. It's the same sort of bigotry, making everyone responsible for the worst of behaviors.

Now, my daughter has been the kid screaming on the plane, she has been the one screaming in the restaurant, and I wasn't always handling it the best. But the reality is that parenthood like any profession has a learning curve. And whenever kids are at their youngest and brattiest is when the parents are still noobs. 1 and 2 year olds have screaming fits when and where they want to. They are not in control over their emotions. And guess what? Neither is the parent. But most parents do care about your enjoyment of your dinner. You don't notice the parents who take the kid out BEFORE the screaming fit, precisely because they took them out. So you judge them only by the parent who was either apathetic to the screaming, or who just didn't get the problem handled in time.

Also, at one point YOU were the screaming brat. At some point YOU were a child. Some 'Breeder' raised YOU. Just like my daughter, who is a real person, you were a real person.

Now, I don't expect a medal for being a parent. Being a parent is it's own reward, and it comes with very, very heavy costs, which whether you like it or not you are expected by society to bear. And that makes sense. But it speaks to me of a very crass culture, a culture that is anti-life in general, when you see people who are openly derogatory of the profession of parenting in general.

There is no profession on Earth that is more essenital to the advancement of society than the parent. Parents train the next generation, they teach them how not to shit on the sidewalk. They teach them how to play baseball and help them with their chemistry homework. Without parents, the human race ends. So while, you shouldn't respect someone just for being a parent, I do believe the ethical position is to have a healthy respect for the job of parenting because parenting is the ONLY thing that keeps humanity alive. We breed sexually, and as of right now, we all die.

Anti-Natalist bigotry should not be considered to be something that is simply, OK. It's highly rude. I do fear a culture where anti-natalism is considered ok, and normal. Nothing good can come of it.

The VHEMT is an extremist organization unworthy of respect. Ok, so you're a nihilist who has no respect for human life and likes to anthopomorphize the biosphere to such an insane degree that it is more valuable than the entire human race. I get it, go ahead put a bullet in your own head, remove yourself from suffering, but taking the entire race with you is not a respectable position. While we can tolerate it in society so long as it is powerless, it should be held up as an example of anti-social misanthropy and not as an equally valid point of view.

[StoutHearted]

As I said in the other thread, there is always another side. For every person who hates children for being children, there is someone who hates childfree people for not having children. The type of bigotry I've faced from parents includes: being told that when I'm ready to grow up, I'll have children; being called selfish for not having kids, being told that all "Real" women want children; being told I don't deserve family heirlooms. That's just a little bit of the rude things that have been said to me.

But I'm not going to label all parents as clueless bigots because of a few dunderheads. So I'd expect that any rational person would extend the same courtesy and not say that all childfree people are frothing-at-the-mouth babyhaters.

For every childless person giving you the fisheye about your screaming child in public, there's a parent thinking "Now, if that were my child..." Some of the most judgmental people on parenting that I've seen are parents themselves. But when you're concentrating on handling a chaotic situation, you're not exactly quizzing frustrated onlookers about their parenting status, right?

What it comes down to is that there are jerks in this world, and they come in all sorts of lifestyles.

[suranyi]

What I've found is that there is a strong streak of misanthropy in the blog writings of the "childfree". In other words, they hate kids, but they don't much like people of any age.

[Beware of Doug]

I'm CBC myself. I don't get the hardcore folk, though. I like babies, and occasionally older, unusually grown-up kids, but have no desire to have one of my own and especially not to raise them in a society I consider dehumanizing to all but the most fortunate children.

[Bryan Ekers]

Oooh, coming out against bigotry. Easy, tiger. The Man won't like it.

[MeanOldLady]

Also, at one point YOU were the screaming brat. At some point YOU were a child.
Referring to the majority of parents as being the ones that let their kids run free and play with toys off the shelf, who let their kids scream their heads off in restaurants are the norm, is the same as saying that the average black person is lazy and shiftless. It's the same sort of bigotry, making everyone responsible for the worst of behaviors.So is this typical behavior, or isn't it?

[Beware of Doug]

A question occurs to me: Am I misanthropic to hate society, or only the people living in it?

I think people are generally pretty okay until they are influenced by things like groups, trends, and mass psychology.

My impression of the angry childfree stereotype is that those folk are often just pissed off at human nature itself.

[TurboNuke]

In this thread, [url=http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=544295]
There is no profession on Earth that is more essenital to the advancement of society than the parent. Parents train the next generation, they teach them how not to shit on the sidewalk. They teach them how to play baseball and help them with their chemistry homework. Without parents, the human race ends. So while, you shouldn't respect someone just for being a parent, I do believe the ethical position is to have a healthy respect for the job of parenting because parenting is the ONLY thing that keeps humanity alive. We breed sexually, and as of right now, we all die.



This ego right here is why there is a backlash against parents.

My wife can't have children. We have been accused of being selfish for not having children.

Also, I do help raise your children. I pay taxes.

But, one thing that has changed is I dont have any input on hwo you raise your kids. People can no longer correct children in public do to worries about being sued.

Cant elaborate. On Saurfang.

[RickJay]

A question occurs to me: Am I misanthropic to hate society, or only the people living in it?
It's a bit OT, but do you actually hate society? If so, why the heck are you on the Internet? Why aren't you living in the woods?

[mswas]

So is this typical behavior, or isn't it?

Getting squirrely is definitely typical of a child's behavior yes.

Any other elementary questions you need answers for?

StoutHearted I am making a distinction between people who don't want children and people who are 'childfree'. IE, I have friends who simply don't have kids and don't really want them, and go about their lives normally. Then there are the fanatics, and almost everyone I know who likes the term 'childfree' falls into this category. They are the ones most likely to use the negative anti-natalist terms. And I don't think it's a minority of 'childfree' who behave like this. Childfree as far as I can tell is a code-word for anti-natalist bigot. Just because they seem to really like the derogatory jokes and give each other a wink and a nod in debates whenever someone makes some kind of anti-natalist zinger.

I'm very sorry that people are mean to you because of your choices. I know people that don't want kids. I have older friends who do not have kids, and I think it's the height of rudeness and conceit to question those choices, because you never know why someone made such a choice. It's not so much the desire to remain childless that bothers me. It's condescending and insulting tone spoken as if it is some sort of lifestyle choice I should accept. I accept your choice to remain without children, but I don't think it justifies a rude misanthropy.

[mswas]

This ego right here is why there is a backlash against parents.

What ego? It's simply a fact. Without people breeding the human race goes extinct. Simple fact, not a value judgment.

My wife can't have children. We have been accused of being selfish for not having children.

That's unfortunate. I am sorry you have faced bigotry.

Also, I do help raise your children. I pay taxes.

I appreciate your support in raising my children. *tips hat*

But, one thing that has changed is I dont have any input on hwo you raise your kids. People can no longer correct children in public do to worries about being sued.

That's not true. You can't correct the child physically, but you can SAY something. I've calmed kids down with the disapproving 'Daddy Stare'. No one has ever been sued for telling kids in a restaurant to quit horsing around. In my experience, the parents who will jump to their kids defense when it is obviously the kids who are being obnoxious brats, are the exception not the rule, the dozens of pit threads to the contrary not withstanding. If you HIT my kid we'd probably both be in serious trouble, because I'd likely put you in the hospital for it, but on a regular basis other parents help with kids on the playground, keep them from running out into the street and whatnot.

[Cat Whisperer]

I self-identify as childfree. For me to self-identify as childless would be inaccurate, because childless indicates that I'm lacking something I actually want. I have zero interest in children, and zero interest in having children of my own - does that sound like someone who is childless (i.e. less a child)? If you wouldn't mind taking the time to read that sentence carefully, you'll note that I am making NO judgements on anyone else and their choices - I'm just talking about me.

OP, you're making a lot of assumptions, and I don't think they're especially accurate. You have an idea in your head what the label "childfree" means, but as a childfree person, I don't think you understand it very well at all. You seem to be taking a stance similar to what Fundamentalist Christians often take - they consider themselves oppressed if they aren't given the freedom to oppress others. You seem to be taking it as a personal insult if not everyone feels the same way about children as you do.

I saw this happening in the other thread, and I'd like to address it now - if someone self-identifies a certain way, it is rude to continue to refer to them with a different title than the one they choose for themselves.

[mswas]

I self-identify as childfree. For me to self-identify as childless would be inaccurate, because childless indicates that I'm lacking something I actually want. I have zero interest in children, and zero interest in having children of my own - does that sound like someone who is childless (i.e. less a child)? If you wouldn't mind taking the time to read that sentence carefully, you'll note that I am making NO judgements on anyone else and their choices - I'm just talking about me.

The bolded is exactly why I see this as a form of ideology and not merely a choice. Childless implies no such thing. It's simply the way English is constructed.

OP, you're making a lot of assumptions, and I don't think they're especially accurate. You have an idea in your head what the label "childfree" means, but as a childfree person, I don't think you understand it very well at all. You seem to be taking a stance similar to what Fundamentalist Christians often take - they consider themselves oppressed if they aren't given the freedom to oppress others. You seem to be taking it as a personal insult if not everyone feels the same way about children as you do.

I am just going by the fact that every person I've met who likes the term 'childfree' is either an open anti-natalist bigot, or gives such bigotry a wink and a nudge as you did in the other thread when jackmanii was making bigotted jokes.

I think comparing you to a fundie Christian is more apt. No one is oppressing you and you're the only one claiming oppression. I didn't say I was a victim of oppression, only that a certain vulgar bigotry should be called out as vulgar bigotry. Oppression is being FORCED to have children by being raped. Being harangued by idiotic busy-bodies about your choice not to have children is not oppression.

I saw this happening in the other thread, and I'd like to address it now - if someone self-identifies a certain way, it is rude to continue to refer to them with a different title than the one they choose for themselves.

Well childless is descriptive of the state of not having children. Childfree is an ideological stance. It's important to make the distinction.

[Rune]

This ego right here is why there is a backlash against parents.What ego? I find it to be quite evident that nothing on Earth is more important than raising the next generation.

People can no longer correct children in public do to worries about being sued.Why on Earth not? I do that all the time. The last thing children need is for grown up to act in a manner that is always shying conflict. Although I have found it easier after I had my own children, since it does take some amount of hands on practise to learn how to handle children in a constructive way. So perhaps that is what is your problem.

[Lord Ashtar]

You can't correct the child physically, but you can SAY something. I've calmed kids down with the disapproving 'Daddy Stare'. No one has ever been sued for telling kids in a restaurant to quit horsing around.

I'm not a parent yet, but I've done this a time or two myself. Occasionally I'll see a kid sitting in a shopping cart throwing a fit because mommy won't buy them something. I just give them my stern 1000 yard stare and most of the time they just stop. I'll never lay my hands on someone else's child, but I see no reason not to shame them into better behavior.

[Der Trihs]

What ego? I find it to be quite evident that nothing on Earth is more important than raising the next generation.Or perhaps we should bow down before farmers instead, without whom we'd starve. Or perhaps it should be plants we revere, since we'd suffocate without them. Or gravity, which keeps us from drifting into space and dying in vacuum.

The point? "Necessary for survival" isn't the same as "worthy of respect and admiration". You can be a parent and be a complete idiot and slimeball; there's nothing impressive about doing what any mammalian species can pull off.

[mswas]

Or perhaps we should bow down before farmers instead, without whom we'd starve. Or perhaps it should be plants we revere, since we'd suffocate without them. Or gravity, which keeps us from drifting into space and dying in vacuum.

The point? "Necessary for survival" isn't the same as "worthy of respect and admiration". You can be a parent and be a complete idiot and slimeball; there's nothing impressive about doing what any mammalian species can pull off.

But the only people claiming some sort of 'worship' are the people who have a chip on their shoulder. No parents ask or require 'worship'. That this accusation is consistently thrown out tells a lot about the ideological leanings of the speaker.

[Der Trihs]

But the only people claiming some sort of 'worship' are the people who have a chip on their shoulder. No parents ask or require 'worship'. Says the person who calls not having children "bigotry".

Parents in our society constantly demand exaggerated respect and deference. They demand that all of society follow their rules, that everyone give their opinions respect just because they have a child, talk about how they are superior beings, and sneer at those who don't have children like they were vermin.

[mswas]

Says the person who calls not having children "bigotry".

Except I never said that or even anything that can be reasonably misconstrued as saying that.

Parents in our society constantly demand exaggerated respect and deference. They demand that all of society follow their rules, that everyone give their opinions respect just because they have a child, talk about how they are superior beings, and sneer at those who don't have children like they were vermin.

This is nonsense. But the perfect illustration of what I am talking. A completely and wholly irrational belief in persecution used to justify the hatred of a group.

[Cat Fight]

Well childless is descriptive of the state of not having children. Childfree is an ideological stance. It's important to make the distinction.

I'm neither here nor there on children (they seem like a tremendous amount of work and I'd like parents to have all the resources they need to do the best job possible, but those who insist I have some of my own seem to be motivated more out of spite – misery loves company – than the kindness of their hearts), but I suppose 'childless' could be interpreted in the same way as 'godless.' You're missing something that, by default, should be in your life.

All in all, I don't really think there's a winner in the smug parents vs. nihilist child-free debate (or, my favorite, the child-hater who, by some stroke of luck/torn condom, got stuck with a kid and had their eyes opened to the awesomeness of reproduction and their incomparably bright, unique offspring). There will always be parents who molest/beat/neglect the children they have because they were too stupid to figure out sex = babies, or who thought babies = attention. There will always be childless people who, uh, never learn how to love? Yell at your kids in the park? Don't want to buy Girl Scout cookies?

[ZPG Zealot]

In this thread, Ethical Implications of Remaining Childless By Choice (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=544295)Also, at one point YOU were the screaming brat. At some point YOU were a child. Some 'Breeder' raised YOU. Just like my daughter, who is a real person, you were a real person.

Actually, no, parents and extended family raised me not Breeders, so I was not the screaming brat at least in situations where people other than immediate family were around me. What infuriates many of the childfree is the derliction of duty we observe in many parents who insist it "takes a village" when it come to paying for their children's expenses, but otherwise insist the village has to right to undermine their reproductive freedom and lifestyle choices. Also, based on my own childhood experience (and that of my siblings and other relatives) of multiple caregivers among a large extended family, I am far from convinced that parents are necesary to raise sane, productive citizens of society. If anything, I wonder if the small family isn't the breeding ground of most mental illness.

[mswas]

I'm neither here nor there on children (they seem like a tremendous amount of work and I'd like parents to have all the resources they need to do the best job possible, but those who insist I have some of my own seem to be motivated more out of spite – misery loves company – than the kindness of their hearts), but I suppose 'childless' could be interpreted in the same way as 'godless.' You're missing something that, by default, should be in your life.

I see no implied 'should'. -less is a suffix used in the English language to denote the absence of something. The language itself uses a negative tense. That's all it is. To read some sort of deeper meaning into, is to project IMO. I am carless for instance. I do not own a car. It does not imply that I SHOULD own a car, simply that I do not. The English language does not need to be reconstructed to suit every single possible idea that people cling to as part of their personality. It would be an impossibly complex language if we were forced to reconstruct the language every time it didn't validate someone.
All in all, I don't really think there's a winner in the smug parents vs. nihilist child-free debate (or, my favorite, the child-hater who, by some stroke of luck/torn condom, got stuck with a kid and had their eyes opened to the awesomeness of reproduction and their incomparably bright, unique offspring). There will always be parents who molest/beat/neglect the children they have because they were too stupid to figure out sex = babies, or who thought babies = attention. There will always be childless people who, uh, never learn how to love? Yell at your kids in the park? Don't want to buy Girl Scout cookies?

Yes of course, there are assholes everywhere. But the childfree pretty much as a whole seem to have a chip on their shoulder. People who merely do not have children do not seem to have any trouble self-referring as 'childless'.

[mswas]

Actually, no, parents and extended family raised me not Breeders, so I was not the screaming brat at least in situations where people other than immediate family were around me. What infuriates many of the childfree is the derliction of duty we observe in many parents who insist it "takes a village" when it come to paying for their children's expenses, but otherwise insist the village has to right to undermine their reproductive freedom and lifestyle choices. Also, based on my own childhood experience (and that of my siblings and other relatives) of multiple caregivers among a large extended family, I am far from convinced that parents are necesary to raise sane, productive citizens of society. If anything, I wonder if the small family isn't the breeding ground of most mental illness.

You raise some interesting points, but I think this touches on the inherent problem. You are expecting the entire group 'parents' be responsible for a subset. You also seem to be projecting that because your parents were not there to raise you that your situation was optimal because the family that did raise you did a better job then your parents for whatever reason.

Sorry if this is too personal, but it seems to me that you are suggesting your parents didn't raise you even though they could have. Am I right? Or did your parents die when you were young?

I grew up with a general fear of parents because my parents were not very good parents. But as I grew up I realized that there were plenty of good parents out there. They had their foibles and flaws, but some parents are better than others.

And as for breeding grounds of mental illness. No one escapes childhood without scars.

[suranyi]

Says the person who calls not having children "bigotry".



That's not what he said. It's the person who calls people by disparaging names such as "breeder", or "crotch turd" (common terms on the childfree blogs) who have some sort of personality fault -- could be bigotry. I prefer to think of it as an overpowering misanthropy.

[Nava]

But the only people claiming some sort of 'worship' are the people who have a chip on their shoulder. No parents ask or require 'worship'.

My mother does, and she's not the only one I know. I know many parents who have told their children "it is your duty to take care of me!" meaning "to let me run your life, even though you're a grown up." I know many parents, specially mothers, who are unable to respect their children's territories. I know many who do not accept "talk back" even when it's to point out that they've got the result of one of yesterday's football matches wrong. I also know some who expect the rest of the world to accomodate them constantly; who do things like go on a camping trip and complain that the camping area doesn't have a baby changer, a playroom smelling of Febreeze and a separate kitchen for baby food. And of course there's the ones who think that giving birth makes you a parent (no, it's the raising that does).

Congratulations on not having had parents like those. But yes, there are parents who request and require unquestioning worship and submission.

[Jackmannii]

We really needed a thread that's a virtual duplicate of the other one currently running, with the exception that mswas wants to invent a new type of "bigotry"?I am just going by the fact that every person I've met who likes the term 'childfree' is either an open anti-natalist bigot, or gives such bigotry a wink and a nudge as you did in the other thread when jackmanii was making bigotted jokes.What nonsense. Like when you were claiming that the only reason people have kids is because they recognize it's their duty to Society.:rolleyes: It is also idiotic to pretend that "childless" does not have a pejorative implication in a culture where relatives and themes in advertising and the media place inordinate pressure on couples to have children, while glorifying single parenthood no matter how incapable the parent is of raising the kid(s) properly.

As I said in the other thread, the decision to have children should in general be regarded as ethically neutral, just like the decision not to have children. As comments in that thread showed, while giving lip service to that view there are some posters that just can't help throwing out snide allusions to how non-childbearers are "free riders" benefiting from others' fecundity. Should we stamp our feet and call those people "bigots"?

On the contrary, I think it's enough to point out the hypocrisy and silliness of such views.

Incidentally, I saw in today's paper a summary of a Nature article on how overpopulation may have already pushed some indicators of environmental degradation past the point of no return. Hey, let's all yell "Bigotry!"

Or maybe we should stop and listen.

[Wesley Clark]

I sense a new Bill O'Reilly talking points memo coming out of all of this.

Personally, I am child free by choice however I do not see why/where I would force it on others or deride them for having a different decision.

The reality is there are people who have children who are very derogatory and condescending to the childless, and in my experience they greatly outnumber the derogatory childfree activists. Neither kinds of derogatory behavior is acceptable.

[LavenderBlue]

As someone who has straddled many possible childbearing scenarios (did not want children until I turned thirty, had a child at 32 then found out it is impossible for me to have the second child I desperately want despite not being a moron, drug addict or welfare cheat) I have found the child free or those without children a thousand times less smug, bigoted and judgemental than those who have all the children they want both before and after forty.

I also quite frankly find the childfree more interesting. They tend to think about other things than the latest score junior got on his math test or how Karliee and Caisonne can't possibly learn to play soccer without mommy hovering over them every single second.

Nothing is more boring to me personally than the latest whine by my local suburban smug mommy gathering every single day at the bus stop each morning.

[RickJay]

... I was not the screaming brat at least in situations where people other than immediate family were around me.
That's what everyone says.

[Across]

Forgive me for not reading the entirety of the much longer thread linked in the OP, but I was wondering what the appropriate term for a couple who choose not have children is? Some posts in this thread have said "childless by choice" or CBC, but that's rather unwieldy, I think. The term "barren" or "infertile" is appropriate for couples unable to have children, but not for couples deliberately taking steps not to reproduce. "Barren" and "infertile" also imply that the couple want to have children.

I also disagree with the OP that "childless" is a suitable term, because it carries an implication that the circumstances can change. In one example given,mswas describes herself as carless. Presumably therefore, she could and would acquire a car if she needed to. So the term "childless" (or jobless, homeless) carries with the implication that the state is temporary, transient and changeable, which I don't think is appropriate to someone who has chosen not to reproduce. Example: someone who has shaved their head is hairless. Someone who has had their hair fall out is bald. The first is temporary, the second permanent.

The other option "child-free" is, according to the OP, an ideological stance implying dislike and intolerance of all children, and that certainly doesn't suit, well, me, for example.

I'm also fascinated that the term "breeder" is considered pejorative. Is that purely from context? I don't perceive any negative connotations of the word itself. Some people breed. Some people do not. If "breeder" was acceptable, then we could also use "non-breeder"to describe CBC people/couples.

[mswas]

What nonsense. Like when you were claiming that the only reason people have kids is because they recognize it's their duty to Society.:rolleyes:

Straw man. Never said that. *yawn* Already addressed this directly. So I don't know why you are continuing to say I said something I didn't say when you already KNOW FOR A FACT I didn't.

It is also idiotic to pretend that "childless" does not have a pejorative implication in a culture where relatives and themes in advertising and the media place inordinate pressure on couples to have children, while glorifying single parenthood no matter how incapable the parent is of raising the kid(s) properly.

I'm sorry that you feel oppressed by English Grammar. 'In a culture'. It's called the human race. There is significantly less pressure to breed in American society than there is in more traditional cultures. That the childish bleating of 'childfree' whiney blogs is taken remotely seriously at all is a testament to how much accomodation this nonsensical ideology is given in our culture. The entire biosphere puts an emphasis on breeding, not just American culture.

Childfree is whiney nonsense. 'Oh no, someone failed to validate my choices! I'm being oppressed! The Dictionary has me in shackles!'


As I said in the other thread, the decision to have children should in general be regarded as ethically neutral, just like the decision not to have children. As comments in that thread showed, while giving lip service to that view there are some posters that just can't help throwing out snide allusions to how non-childbearers are "free riders" benefiting from others' fecundity. Should we stamp our feet and call those people "bigots"?

The decision to have children IS regarded as ethically neutral.

Your inability to grasp what Malthus meant about freeriders doesn't mean you were being insulted. It just means that this topic gets you all weepy and emotional. Aren't you a Doctor? You should have plenty of money to enjoy a Margarita in Cozumel, enjoying the freedom that comes with not being burdened by children. It's a position I envy certainly. But I don't envy it so much that I begrudge you such freedom. Go enjoy, find yourself a nice Mexican lass/lad whatever you prefer to spend the week with. Buy her/him a Margarita or two! All I ask is while you are there, recognize that no one along the way at TSA, customs or anything stopped you from taking this trip due to the fact that you have children.

On the contrary, I think it's enough to point out the hypocrisy and silliness of such views.

Yes, people LOVE to point out the hypocrisy of straw men they just made up. It's a favorite pasttime on the SDMB for sure. ;)

Incidentally, I saw in today's paper a summary of a Nature article on how overpopulation may have already pushed some indicators of environmental degradation past the point of no return. Hey, let's all yell "Bigotry!"

Yes, there are lots of articles about that. But you're pointing your vitriole in the wrong direction. In the west, we don't overpopulate, we overconsume.

Or maybe we should stop and listen.

The only people listening to you are the people who are educated enough to engage in actual family planning. The people who are breeding like rabbits on ecstacy, they don't have a subscription to Nature.

[mswas]

I sense a new Bill O'Reilly talking points memo coming out of all of this.

Personally, I am child free by choice however I do not see why/where I would force it on others or deride them for having a different decision.

The reality is there are people who have children who are very derogatory and condescending to the childless, and in my experience they greatly outnumber the derogatory childfree activists. Neither kinds of derogatory behavior is acceptable.

:rolleyes: I expect better from you. You should know that proportion of the population matters not the sheer number. There are more parents who are derogatory because there are more parents. But the fact of the matter is most parents don't give a shit. They are indifferent.

And people who are childless by choice. They don't give a shit either.

But the majority of "childfree people", give a huge shit. They are angry and want to spew their vitriole at all parents.

So you know perfectly well that it's not meaningful to compare a population size that is the vast majority of the population to a tiny subset of the population. I shouldn't have to point this out to you.

[mswas]

Forgive me for not reading the entirety of the much longer thread linked in the OP, but I was wondering what the appropriate term for a couple who choose not have children is? Some posts in this thread have said "childless by choice" or CBC, but that's rather unwieldy, I think. The term "barren" or "infertile" is appropriate for couples unable to have children, but not for couples deliberately taking steps not to reproduce. "Barren" and "infertile" also imply that the couple want to have children.

I also disagree with the OP that "childless" is a suitable term, because it carries an implication that the circumstances can change. In one example given,mswas describes herself as carless. Presumably therefore, she could and would acquire a car if she needed to. So the term "childless" (or jobless, homeless) carries with the implication that the state is temporary, transient and changeable, which I don't think is appropriate to someone who has chosen not to reproduce. Example: someone who has shaved their head is hairless. Someone who has had their hair fall out is bald. The first is temporary, the second permanent.

The other option "child-free" is, according to the OP, an ideological stance implying dislike and intolerance of all children, and that certainly doesn't suit, well, me, for example.

I'm also fascinated that the term "breeder" is considered pejorative. Is that purely from context? I don't perceive any negative connotations of the word itself. Some people breed. Some people do not. If "breeder" was acceptable, then we could also use "non-breeder"to describe CBC people/couples.

Childfree would be one thing but the term connotes all sorts of nasty baggage, as people like jackmanii have made it into a politically charged hateful term. It would be one thing if people just wanted to use the term. But they don't, they make blogs denigrating parents. And most of the discussions on childfree blogs are about how much they hate parents and children. Breeder is considered perjorative because that's how it is used.

People who have kids and people who don't can largely do the same stuff. They can ski on the same ski slopes, go to the same movie theaters. They can live in the same apartment complexes. The idea that there is ANY oppression whatsoever of so-called 'childfree' people is laughably absurd.

Look at this: We have a forum call Brat Free.

http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/list.php?2

http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,101065

This is a lovely thread where they talk about how a disabled girl should have been allowed to die rather than receive medical care that prolongued her life until she was 10 years old.

My Mother was told that by a Christian Scientist when my sister who was born 8 weeks premature was saved by medical science and has lived to be 24 years old. So the childfree folks over at 'bratfree' share a commonality with hateful Christian Fundamentalists. Huzzah!

Pretty much the entire thread is about how much these people hate her parents for keeping her alive. To be fair, I can understand some of the posters who are relieved that this girl was put out of her misery. That's sympathetic. I understand. But some of the posts are just sheer and total hate.

Seriously, this is the same kind of shit as Stormfront. Childfree should not be accepted to be taken seriously, because it's a hateful ideology. It hates life itself.

The 'Moo' of my daughter is sleeping in the other room.

This shit isn't simply a choice not to have children. No, it's the active hatred of the act of procreation and anyone who engages in it. If you are childless by choice, I suggest you reconsider your choice to use the term childfree, because you are associating yourself with some very, very, very hateful people.

[Cat Whisperer]

Once again, I request that you respect people's choices on the labels they choose for themselves. I am childfree, not childless. Your continued wilful ignorance about what words mean to the people they apply to is getting kind of strange.

[msmith537]

Ok, let's not go overboard here on celebrating the "miracle of birth" or the "fabulous rewards" of raising kids. Billions of jackasses have managed to accomplish this difficult task for thousands of years.

You are free to chose to have kids or not have kids. Other people are free to not give a shit or even disagree with your choice.

[mswas]

Once again, I request that you respect people's choices on the labels they choose for themselves. I am childfree, not childless. Your continued wilful ignorance about what words mean to the people they apply to is getting kind of strange.

What ignorance? I'm perfectly aware of the word you choose to use.

I am free to use the proper English word in the way it was intended. This whole bullshit nonsense about being some kind of oppressed group is crap. Childless isn't an epithet. If you choose to be insulted by it, it has nothing to do with me.

I am speaking English correctly, and I am making a point about the difference between the two words.

msmith537 All beside the point. Yes, people are free to be assholes and there are assholes everywhere. But, we should not allow 'childfree' hateful nonsense to degrade decency in our society. People are free to be bigots if they want to be, certainly. But bigotry needs to be pointed out and recognized, and not merely accepted as an alternative lifestyle.

I'll reiterate, choosing not to have kids is a perfectly acceptable choice. In the other thread pretty much everyone agreed that it's ethically neutral to choose to have kids or not to have kids.

But Childfree is a hateful ideology that is spreading and gaining ground and they play this nonsense victim card in order to get people to accept it and condone it.

Childfree is the same kind of bigotry as Stormfront. Just got to the bratfree site and read some of the articles.

[mswas]

http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,118729

Here is a thread about how angry they are that news sources report on the first baby born in 2010.

[mswas]

http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,117358

Look she's angry that someone's baby was saved by medical science, because she didn't get a raise and her business spent money on 'mooooternity' expenses.

She could you know, be ranting about how health insurance shouldn't be coupled with employment, but no, she's pissed off that newborn babies receive medical care.

[monavis]

To say a couple who do not want children are bigoted, or selfish, in my opinion is very wrong. Some people who are responsible, love children and do not have them themselves are not selfish but would not have a child because they feel they would not be a good parent and a child deserves more.

People who have children,neglect them.mistreat them, and cannot afford to care for them physically, emotionally,financially are more selfish than ones who choose the opposite.

Responsible parenthood should in my opinion be the norm. You want a child to be able to give them love and support and not for the purpose to have them love you.

[BigT]

It's really simple. If you call all of any group bad, you are practicing bigotry.

And no getting around it by using the No True Scotsman fallacy. "My parents aren't breeders because they actually raised me right. But all them other parents..." "Those childfree people who don't disparage parents and kids, well, they're really childless-by-choice, not child-free." Sound remarkably similar to "Yeah, my black friends are nice people. But them others are n---" (Having grown up near the KKK capital, you hear that excuse a bit too much.)

My guess: the reason why all the people that mswas knows that are childfree are bigots is because they're more likely to be the ones that will make a big deal about it. It's like my observation that most of the gay people I know are absolutely flaming. It's selection-bias, that's all.

[MeanOldLady]

I guess I just don't get the point of this thread, or where you're going with this. What is the debate, or is this a rant you got worked up about because some mean people on the internet smack-talked babies?

I do fear a culture where anti-natalism is considered ok, and normal.Why on Earth would you fear this? Do you really see the impending doom of civilization due to some widespread anti-natalism out there?

Is this
Referring to the majority of parents as being the ones that let their kids run free and play with toys off the shelf, who let their kids scream their heads off in restaurants are the norm, is the same as saying that the average black person is lazy and shiftless. It's the same sort of bigotry, making everyone responsible for the worst of behaviors.anything like thisThen there are the fanatics, and almost everyone I know who likes the term 'childfree' falls into this category. They are the ones most likely to use the negative anti-natalist terms. And I don't think it's a minority of 'childfree' who behave like this. Childfree as far as I can tell is a code-word for anti-natalist bigot.or thisI am just going by the fact that every person I've met who likes the term 'childfree' is either an open anti-natalist bigot, or gives such bigotry a wink and a nudge as you did in the other thread when jackmanii was making bigotted jokes.Every person? Really? Well I suppose you have never met me, but I would describe myself as childfree, childless, without child, or would employ any other modifier that denotes I do not have children.

Yes of course, there are assholes everywhere. But the childfree pretty much as a whole seem to have a chip on their shoulder. People who merely do not have children do not seem to have any trouble self-referring as 'childless'.I'm sorry that you have harped on this free/less distinction so seriously. Where did this idea that all childfree people are angry would-be baby murderers come from? Did this all come from nasty message boards on the internet you've come across? This is an actual, real-word phenomenon?

[MOIDALIZE]

I propose a middle ground: we can celebrate children, yet bemoan mswas' decision to reproduce.

[MeanOldLady]

Oh snap!

[mswas]

It's really simple. If you call all of any group bad, you are practicing bigotry.

And no getting around it by using the No True Scotsman fallacy. "My parents aren't breeders because they actually raised me right. But all them other parents..." "Those childfree people who don't disparage parents and kids, well, they're really childless-by-choice, not child-free." Sound remarkably similar to "Yeah, my black friends are nice people. But them others are n---" (Having grown up near the KKK capital, you hear that excuse a bit too much.)

My guess: the reason why all the people that mswas knows that are childfree are bigots is because they're more likely to be the ones that will make a big deal about it. It's like my observation that most of the gay people I know are absolutely flaming. It's selection-bias, that's all.

I'm mostly going by the Straight Dope and looking at the Child Free forum.

The bigots are the ones who lament children getting medical care.

[Der Trihs]

It's really simple. If you call all of any group bad, you are practicing bigotry.So calling all Nazis bad is bigotry? All serial killers? All torturers? All evil people?

No; it's not automatically bigotry to call all members of a group that people choose to be part of "bad", because the group in question may be defined by being "bad". It's only bigotry then if you are factually wrong; an example of that would be someone who claimed that, say, Catholics secretly sacrifice Protestant babies. The bigotry there isn't disliking Catholics; it's doing so for fictional reasons. After all, if they did sacrifice babies that would be a perfectly just reason to dislike them.

[mswas]

Why on Earth would you fear this? Do you really see the impending doom of civilization due to some widespread anti-natalism out there?

Why are you defending this hateful shit? Therein lies the problem. You are treating it as though it's valid. The proof is in the pudding. People are defending a hateful ideology.

I don't think that all 'childfree' people are this hateful, but the proof is in the pudding. Just go on childfree forums and you see post after post about how much they hate parents and children.

I see on this particular forum epithets like 'Breeder' and 'Cult of the Child' thrown around. Don't tell me that calling you, 'childless', is insulting when you're going to walk around calling Mothers 'Moos'.

The fact that you feel the need to defend bigotry as though it's equally valid just proves my point.

I'm saying the term childfree is tainted by bigotry because of the primary responses you see on childfree forums. I mean they are lamenting that children haven't died. Seriously. You honestly think that this is on the same level as, "Really you don't want kids, how can you not want kids?" That's the problem here. The Childfree on that forum are mad that a human being did not die. As opposed to the smug parents who do not understand the choice not to have a child. There simply is no equivalent one is hateful to the extreme the other is just slightly assholish.

Notice, no attempt by you or anyone else to distance yourself from the people writing rants about how much they hate Mothers. Also, isn't it interesting that the hate is almost exclusively aimed at Mothers? Why is it so mysogynistic and not equal opportunity?

[mswas]

Here's some gems from a DIFFERENT bratfree forum at www.bratfree.com

Brandon -- Brandon Emerick, Shanksville Entry: 2890 on Date: 12-30-2009 04:28
My mother is a slut. She screwed her father to create me.
Type: Rant

This guy hates his Mother. Calls her a slut.


juliette -- fur baby moo Entry: 2889 on Date: 12-11-2009 21:03
What I enjoy most about being a child free fur baby moo is, if your little ones ever become a danger or great inconvenience to society, you can take them to the good doctor and end their life. Also, if they fear you only a little, they respect you more and obey without questions. I am never asked for money or to borrow the car. I can end their reproductive urges without their consent. By the way they behave far better than any "living miracle" out there.
Thanks for letting me express my thoughts.
Juliette

This one is glad that she can have pets because she can just kill them if she tires of them. Unlike children that you can't just kill.

See how much of these people want to KILL children? It's not just wishing THEY didn't have kids, it's wanting children to be dead.

If anyone talked about homosexuals or jews like that, the lot of you would be up in arms, but because they are talking about children, for some reason you're making excuses and trying to turn this around on me.

[Odesio]

I think people are generally pretty okay until they are influenced by things like groups, trends, and mass psychology.


So you don't think anyone is okay then? Because you, me, and everyone else is constantly under the influence of groups, trends, and mass psychology.

[Bryan Ekers]

I choose to defend the breeder-haters' right to heap scorn on people and practices they don't like. Or even people and practices they like, for that matter.

Anyone who objects is a free-speech bigot.

[mswas]

So you don't think anyone is okay then? Because you, me, and everyone else is constantly under the influence of groups, trends, and mass psychology.

LOL so true. But one can choose which groups influence them, at least to some degree.

It's amazing how hateful of humanity in general this is. We are all someone's children. So to hate children is to hate the human race, basically.

[Bryan Ekers]

See how much of these people want to KILL children?

It's not so much they they want to KILL children, they just want them not be alive, any more.

[mswas]

I choose to defend the breeder-haters' right to heap scorn on people and practices they don't like. Or even people and practices they like, for that matter.

Anyone who objects is a free-speech bigot.

That's right nigger-spic-faggot. But I bet the bigotted kikes in the moderating staff are gonna go all protocols of zion on me and shut me up in this post.

It's not so much they they want to KILL children, they just want them not be alive, any more.

And as long as society at large recognizes that this is anti-social and not something to be respected as an alternative lifestyle, then that's fine.

If it's just about not having kids how come I can go to any childfree forum and click two or three links on the first page and find someone wishing death on children?

[Katriona]

I guess I just don't get the point of this thread, or where you're going with this. What is the debate, or is this a rant you got worked up about because some mean people on the internet smack-talked babies?

To me it sounds like sour grapes because in the other thread parenthood wasn't being shown enough gratitude by all of us dam free-riders who aren't doing our duty to society by popping out kids. (post 225).

[mswas]

http://www.thechildfreelife.com/forum/

This one is not so bad. It is actually a ray of light in a long stream of ugliness at childfree forums. But even there, their slogan is, "A safe haven in a baby-crazed world."

It's still not just about meeting and hanging out with other people who don't want kids. It's still negatively referential to the rest of society who do. The idea that people want kids is considered some kind of insanity.

I dunno, I live in New York where being childfree is not uncommon at all. It just doesn't come up, it doesn't matter here. No one gives a shit if you have kids or not.

[Bryan Ekers]

That's right nigger-spic-faggot. But I bet the bigotted kikes in the moderating staff are gonna go all protocols of zion on me and shut me up in this post.

In all honesty, a warning wouldn't surprise me at all. Anyway, somebody out there is bigoted against something you are or something you practice, and they use less-than-polite terminology in the process.

Get over it.

If it's just about not having kids how come I can go to any childfree forum and click two or three links on the first page and find someone wishing death on children?

And how many clicks does it take to get to the Family Guy references?

I reiterate my "get over it" policy.

[Palo Verde]

We notice the visible and obnoxious. That's true of both groups.

People without children notice and comment on the screaming brats in restaurants because they have no reason to notice the ones who are removed before they get whiny, or the ones who are eating quietly.

People with children notice the childless by choice people who post obnoxious creeds on the internet but don't notice the ones who have no children but don't mind those who do. Because they aren't passionate enough to start websites about, "I'm childfree, but I don't mind if you aren't"

Just because the noxious ones of all types make the most noise doesn't mean they are the only types who exist.

Childless... childfree... (shrug) whatever term you wish to be called...


Palo Verde (mother of 4)

[mswas]

To me it sounds like sour grapes because in the other thread parenthood wasn't being shown enough gratitude by all of us dam free-riders who aren't doing our duty to society by popping out kids. (post 225).

Actually that's true.

I think you should have some respect for human life, and the necessary role that parenthood plays in the propagation of human life. I think it's at the core of basic decency.

You can dismiss it as sour grapes, but I think it's important. The childfree want respect and yet all they have in return is profound disrespect.

It's not ok for me to call you 'childless' but it's ok for you to say any number of hateful things about parents.

It's a one way street. You want respect but reserve the right to spread hate.

[Bryan Ekers]

It's a one way street. You want respect but reserve the right to spread hate.

Isn't that true of just about every social group in all of human history?

[mswas]

Isn't that true of just about every social group in all of human history?

No, I don't think so. But maybe.

There used to be a notion of common decency, but people decided that because there was racism at the time people held such ideas as common decency that it's not ok to target particular subgroups, but it's perfectly ok to spew hatred in every general direction.

The same people spewing hatred of children would be appalled at racism or homophobia.

[MOIDALIZE]

I'd have more respect for the propagaters of humanity if I felt like only the right people were doing the propagating.

And I love kids! My nieces and nephews are a blast. I may even have a couple some day. But raising children doesn't make you a goddamned hero. If you're a guy and you knock up the first broad who so much as gives you a handjob, I think that makes you kind of a schmuck. And why does it seem like the women who are most willing to pollute the earth by having way more children than is necessary tend to be ignorant sows? You don't see intelligent and considerate women pumping out 5 kids.

[Bryan Ekers]

I understand child-free people sometimes litter. Fuck those guys!

[MOIDALIZE]

I understand child-free people sometimes litter. Fuck those guys!

Better than producing a litter.

[MeanOldLady]

Why are you defending this hateful shit?Calm. Down. I am asking you why you fear the world will be overtaken by people who won't reproduce, leaving us in sort of a "Children of Men" scenario. That is not going to happen.

You are treating it as though it's valid. it is valid to not want children.

The proof is in the pudding. People are defending a hateful ideology. What? Who is doing that?

I don't think that all 'childfree' people are this hateful, but the proof is in the pudding. So why do you keep saying they are? Are they or aren't they?

Just go on childfree forums and you see post after post about how much they hate parents and children.So you are basing your beliefs about childfree people off crazies on the internet?

I see on this particular forum epithets like 'Breeder' and 'Cult of the Child' thrown around. Don't tell me that calling you, 'childless', is insulting when you're going to walk around calling Mothers 'Moos'.Uhh, okay, fair enough. I won't call mothers "moos." Never have.

I'm not even going to continue here. You're just ranting.

[mswas]

Calm. Down. I am asking you why you fear the world will be overtaken by people who won't reproduce, leaving us in sort of a "Children of Men" scenario. That is not going to happen.

I'm not. I'm just annoyed that this sort of thing isn't being universally condemned. If people in here came in and said, "I am childfree and that kind of shit appalls me.", it would be one thing, but that's not what's going on. They are coming in and insulting me and talking about how they are oppressed by correct syntax.

it is valid to not want children.

Of course it is. No one has argued otherwise.

What? Who is doing that?
So why do you keep saying they are? Are they or aren't they?

I am saying that the primary mode of discourse among the childfree community is hateful. I am sure as individuals there are plenty of people who use the term 'childfree' who are not hateful. Though as this thread proves there's a lot of winking and nudging going on. I haven't heard anyone defending the childfree expressing how disgusted by that behavior they are. Many parents have come out and said that it sucks that they are abused by other parents, but the childfree here are silent about those who wish death on children. No, it's me who is hurting their feewings.

So you are basing your beliefs about childfree people off crazies on the internet?

I'm basing my beliefs about the basic transmissions of a subculture. Hippies present a certain image, stock brokers present a certain image. This is the image that the childfree choose to present. And you don't see people coming out and condemning the terms, 'moos', 'breeders', or 'cult of the child'. But they are up in arms about proper English syntax.

Uhh, okay, fair enough. I won't call mothers "moos." Never have.

Glad to hear it.

I'm not even going to continue here. You're just ranting.

*shrugs* Whatever. It's about a decline in civility. Pure and simple. This sort of incivility should not be given credence. If you can't actually think about the topic without making it an ad hominem about me, that's not my problem.

To me the word childfree connotes a hatred of breeding, and not the simple choice not to. If people really want to self-apply that term, then fine, let them take the baggage on. It's all good.

[Katriona]

Actually that's true.

I think you should have some respect for human life, and the necessary role that parenthood plays in the propagation of human life. I think it's at the core of basic decency.

You can dismiss it as sour grapes, but I think it's important. The childfree want respect and yet all they have in return is profound disrespect.

It's not ok for me to call you 'childless' but it's ok for you to say any number of hateful things about parents.

It's a one way street. You want respect but reserve the right to spread hate.

And in the other thread you snarked on Cat Whisper's joke about genuflecting to another poster's comment as "cult behavior," but that's pretty much what you want. Got it. Tells me all I need to know, so I'm done here.

[mswas]

And in the other thread you snarked on Cat Whisper's joke about genuflecting to another poster's comment as "cult behavior," but that's pretty much what you want. Got it. Tells me all I need to know, so I'm done here.

Because the comment about genuflecting was a bigotted remark.

It's the perfect illustration. Thank you for bringing it up.

What she was saying was, "hahahaha your mean-spirited joke was funny!", all the while asking for respect.

Genuflecting is code for contempt for anyone who recognizes the importance of breeding in the continuation of the species. Anyone who views the child-bearing process with reverence is 'genuflecting'. The basic implication is that there is something wrong and cultish about actually taking the continuation of the species seriously.

Why do you think I have some obligation to accept generalized epithets against me and people like me, but I have a responsibility to not use English syntax correctly?

[LavenderBlue]

I'd have more respect for the propagaters of humanity if I felt like only the right people were doing the propagating.

And I love kids! My nieces and nephews are a blast. I may even have a couple some day. But raising children doesn't make you a goddamned hero. If you're a guy and you knock up the first broad who so much as gives you a handjob, I think that makes you kind of a schmuck. And why does it seem like the women who are most willing to pollute the earth by having way more children than is necessary tend to be ignorant sows? You don't see intelligent and considerate women pumping out 5 kids.

Yeah.

The Duggars and their decision to have nineteen smug, barely educated, sexist religious fanatics doesn't exactly thrill me.

You're not some sort of hero because you had children.

I've personally see far more bigotry directed against those who don't have children than against those who do.

The real problem isn't that people hate kids necessarily. The real problem is that American society doesn't exactly make it easy to have them or raise them properly.

But that's another thread.

[mswas]

Yeah.

The Duggars and their decision to have nineteen smug, barely educated, sexist religious fanatics doesn't exactly thrill me.

Expresses bigotry.

You're not some sort of hero because you had children.

I've personally see far more bigotry directed against those who don't have children than against those who do.

Claims others are bigots.

The real problem isn't that people hate kids necessarily. The real problem is that American society doesn't exactly make it easy to have them or raise them properly.

But that's another thread.

American society doesn't make it easy to have them or raise them properly?

I'm sorry, but this is such a fucking ignorant thing to say. America makes it about as easy as it has ever been in history. Raising kids properly isn't easy. That's not some fault of America. That's just the way it is.

[garygnu]

What you're seeing is really just John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/) applied to one group of people. You're also lumping the stupid zealots in with those who are merely annoyed by subconsciously self-righteous parents.

(My views may be colored by my apparently unusual ability to completely ignore crying and screaming children in public.)

[mswas]

What you're seeing is really just John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/) applied to one group of people. You're also lumping the stupid zealots in with those who are merely annoyed by subconsciously self-righteous parents.

(My views may be colored by my apparently unusual ability to completely ignore crying and screaming children in public.)

I'm not judging everyone who chooses not to have children. I am pointing out that there is a level of bigotry that is becoming acceptable discourse and I don't think it should be. All due respect to the greater internet fuckwad theory, but it's not really the bigots that bother me, it's that no one is speaking out against the bigots. Hell even people who seem pretty congenial like Cat Whisperer are congratulating people in public threads in GD on their bigotted jokes. Casually using epithets like genuflecting.

I think that parents should respect the decision of people not to have children, but I also think that the people who choose not to have children should have some fucking respect for the next generation who will be the ones changing their diapers in a nursing home.

Or should we just say that the childfree in the nursing homes are a waste of medical resources?

[Palo Verde]

I'd have more respect for the propagaters of humanity if I felt like only the right people were doing the propagating.

And I love kids! My nieces and nephews are a blast. I may even have a couple some day. But raising children doesn't make you a goddamned hero. If you're a guy and you knock up the first broad who so much as gives you a handjob, I think that makes you kind of a schmuck. And why does it seem like the women who are most willing to pollute the earth by having way more children than is necessary tend to be ignorant sows? You don't see intelligent and considerate women pumping out 5 kids.

I'm intelligent, at least I think so, I have a Master's degree and I've been a Doper for 8 years... what else do you want? My husband has a PhD who is a professor of Biomedical Engineering at a major research institution.

I think we're considerate. How can I prove that? We adopted a dog and two cats from the pound? We donate money to several environmental charities. I do a bunch of volunteer work.

I pumped out 5 kids (although we only have 4 now) and we have been looking into fostering one or two more.

So it happens.

[mswas]

I think the childfree in their rants, such as the one by Moidalize above, answer their own questions.

Why do ignorant sows pump out lots of kids? Because stupid and ignorant people make stupid and ignorant decisions.

But the fact that you choose to see this as reflecting on breeding in general is where the problem is. If your problem is with ignorance, then fine. But that's not how it's expressed, it's expressed as vitriole toward EVERYONE who breeds.

[drpepper]

I don't get what you want here, either. Your thesis here is scattered, selective, one-sided, and apparently based on some ignorant, hateful comments you read (and appear to be obsessed with) on some other message board full of people who are, unsurprisingly, ignorant and hateful. Then you want to somehow impute bigoted motivations to people here who don't take time out of their day to go over to that stupid message board, read through it to find examples of hateful comments, then come back here and rant about how these people are ignorant and hateful. Apparently you also think that these self-same people pose a threat to the free world.

To further conflate your bizarre philosophies, you throw this into the mixture:

I think that parents should respect the decision of people not to have children, but I also think that the people who choose not to have children should have some fucking respect for the next generation who will be the ones changing their diapers in a nursing home.

Or should we just say that the childfree in the nursing homes are a waste of medical resources?

Dude, WTF? Where the hell are you going with all this?

I think you should take a deep breath and just step away from this issue for awhile; you're really stirring up shit that just isn't there.

[mswas]

I don't get what you want here, either. Your thesis here is scattered, selective, one-sided, and apparently based on some ignorant, hateful comments you read (and appear to be obsessed with) on some other message board full of people who are, unsurprisingly, ignorant and hateful. Then you want to somehow impute bigoted motivations to people here who don't take time out of their day to go over to that stupid message board, read through it to find examples of hateful comments, then come back here and rant about how these people are ignorant and hateful. Apparently you also think that these self-same people pose a threat to the free world.

No actually, it was based on bigotted, ignorant and hateful comments on THIS message board. I just went out to childfree forums and with practically no effort at all found many, many, many supporting cites for open bigotry.

If you don't want to take the time to engage in the argument why did you bother to respond at all. Either debate or don't.


To further conflate your bizarre philosophies, you throw this into the mixture:

And there is the problem right there, that you think it's a bizarre philosophy to recognize that you wouldn't be alive if it were not for a 'breeder'.


Dude, WTF? Where the hell are you going with all this?

Just pointing out the obvious.

I think you should take a deep breath and just step away from this issue for awhile; you're really stirring up shit that just isn't there.

Except it is. Read the thread and participate or don't. I have cited many sources. no one has even addressed them. They are trying to make it personal about me. If ad hominem is the way you want to go about this, then fine. As of yet no one has really addressed my argument, they've addressed me.

[Jackmannii]

What nonsense. Like when you were claiming that the only reason people have kids is because they recognize it's their duty to Society. Straw man. Never said that.Post #206. This thread. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=544295&page=5)Children are produced to further society, by definition. That is precisely why children are produced. There is no other reason.I understand why you don't remember saying that. When spouting such a volume of drivel, it must be hard to keep it all straight.

mswas is so insistent on the fact that since "childless" is in the dictionary, it must therefore automatically be a neutral, non-pejorative term and anyone who says otherwise is wrong wrong wrong because, after all, it's in the dictionary.

Well, "childfree" is in the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child+free?qsrc=2446) too.

child⋅free  /ˈtʃaɪldˌfri/
–adjective having no children; childless, esp. by choice.

So there you go. It's in the dictionary. Your rant is rendered pointless.

Though it's hard to believe mswas had any interest in intelligent debate, given as he is to comparing those who think differently to Stormfronters.I think (mswas) should take a deep breath and just step away from this issue for awhile; you're really stirring up shit that just isn't there.But that's the mswas M.O. for posts. Take that away, and he'd have to shut up and then where would we be? :dubious:

[Bryan Ekers]

As of yet no one has really addressed my argument

Is your argument "some people are rude and that's wrong" ?

[mswas]

Is your argument "some people are rude and that's wrong" ?

No it's that this form of bigotry is tolerated, but shouldn't be. Childless is nowhere NEAR as offensive as 'breeder'.

[mswas]

Post #206. This thread. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=544295&page=5)I understand why you don't remember saying that. When spouting such a volume of drivel, it must be hard to keep it all straight.

No I don't remember saying it because I didn't say it. You are twisting my words knowingly and willfully so that they mean something other than what I said. I did post in that thread, I did say that people should have respect for life, parenthood and the humanity of children. But I didn't say what you said I said. You know that you made that up willfully and intentionally.

mswas is so insistent on the fact that since "childless" is in the dictionary, it must therefore automatically be a neutral, non-pejorative term and anyone who says otherwise is wrong wrong wrong because, after all, it's in the dictionary.

I am saying it's just a word.

Well, "childfree" is in the dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/child+free?qsrc=2446) too.

child⋅free  /ˈtʃaɪldˌfri/
–adjective having no children; childless, esp. by choice.

Sure, and as you know it's not the word that I have a problem with. You're just trying to twist and distort things.

So there you go. It's in the dictionary. Your rant is rendered pointless.

Except that's not what my rant is about, as you know.

Though it's hard to believe mswas had any interest in intelligent debate, given as he is to comparing those who think differently to Stormfronters.But that's the mswas M.O. for posts. Take that away, and he'd have to shut up and then where would we be? :dubious:

Heh, you were the one using epithets in the other thread. Go head, gloss all you want, but you are the one who referred to 'genuflecting'. Implying that having respect for parents is somehow something dishonorable. It's not.

But go ahead, make it about me. You know that the shoe fits. So you don't actually argue with the discussion. The obfuscation of cowardice suits you.

You just want the right to be a bigot, that's all.

[BigBertha]

I grew up without siblings, and never wanted children. If I could've gotten my tubes tied at 18, I would have. When people came to our house, my mother would introduce me, as this is Bertha, she hates kids!
Well, one day I fell in love, and got married. I wanted my husbands child. Its natural, I feel IMO something is wrong with people who don't. Sorry.

[mswas]

I grew up without siblings, and never wanted children. If I could've gotten my tubes tied at 18, I would have. When people came to our house, my mother would introduce me, as this is Bertha, she hates kids!
Well, one day I fell in love, and got married. I wanted my husbands child. Its natural, I feel IMO something is wrong with people who don't. Sorry.

I wanted children too, but I disagree with you that there is something wrong with people who don't want children.

There is definitely something wrong with people who HATE children though.

[MOIDALIZE]

I want to powerbomb all of the world's children.

[Marley23]

I propose a middle ground: we can celebrate children, yet bemoan mswas' decision to reproduce.

I want to powerbomb all of the world's children.
That's enough, MOIDALIZE. Either contribute to the discussion or post in a different thread.

[MOIDALIZE]

There was a discussion happening?

[mswas]

There was a discussion happening?

You're right not really. Several trolls have tried to hijack it and in some cases outright lie. The childfree don't like to discuss this issue, they just want to say nasty things about parents and have it be considered totally justified due to some sort of nebulous bigotry that they perceive in the world. A bigotry that doesn't affect their jobs, their ability to travel, their ability to vote, to live where they want, or any of that. They're oppressed by people who disapprove of their lifestyle. So that means it's perfectly justified to wish death on children, to insult and harangue parents in internet discussion forums, even if those people are being civil to them. They cannot handle adult discussions of the role of parents without making snide comments and slapping each other on the back for said snide comments.

It's really interesting to me how blatantly insecure this community is.

[Marley23]

That's right nigger-spic-faggot. But I bet the bigotted kikes in the moderating staff are gonna go all protocols of zion on me and shut me up in this post.

You're right not really. Several trolls have tried to hijack it and in some cases outright lie.
You've been given a lot of warnings about flying off the handle like this, mswas. If you want to continue posting here, stop this now.

[Cat Whisperer]

No it's that this form of bigotry is tolerated, but shouldn't be. Childless is nowhere NEAR as offensive as 'breeder'.
Being called "childless" is offensive TO ME (and to many people who self-identify as childfree). It carries about 20 years of baggage with it, and I've found a term that better describes my life and attitudes. As people have pointed out on the Dope many times, words mean things.

You keep talking about what childfree means - it means me. I *am* childfree. It also means the nutjob extremists that you keep talking about, but take it from someone who is active in the childfree community, they are far from the norm. When the people who self-identify as something don't match your definition of a term, maybe it's your definition that is flawed.

[mswas]

You've been given a lot of warnings about flying off the handle like this, mswas. If you want to continue posting here, stop this now.

I didn't fly off the handle. I wasn't angry when I posted that. I was merely pointing out that terms like 'breeder' are the equivalent of such epithets and shouldn't be considered ok amongst polite society.

If getting banned for making this point is something that must occur then that's fine. I do not want to post on a message board where such bigotry is condoned. If you want to rule as a moderator that this kind of bigotry is ok, and my illustration of why it's not ok, is not kosher that's fine. You can add me to the roles of the traffic die off that is occurring due to the inappropriate moderation of this forum.

I have been quite civil and in control of myself throughout this thread in the face of incivility from people telling me that my children should never have been born. In the fact of people telling me that 'childless' is an oppressive term, but think that it's ok to talk about 'genuflecting' at the altar of the child.

*shrugs* It really doesn't matter to me. If you ban me for something I believe in, and I didn't act rashly to earn that banning, I am perfectly willing to accept it.

[Bryan Ekers]

No it's that this form of bigotry is tolerated, but shouldn't be. Childless is nowhere NEAR as offensive as 'breeder'.

So bigotry (and the attendant labeling) is tolerated by people of similar or neutral views?


Did this strike you as insightful? You went looking for anti-child bigotry and you found it. Magellan, you ain't.

[mswas]

Being called "childless" is offensive TO ME (and to many people who self-identify as childfree). It carries about 20 years of baggage with it, and I've found a term that better describes my life and attitudes. As people have pointed out on the Dope many times, words mean things.

It's offensive to ME to hear terms like, "Genuflecting at the altar of the child.", but you don't care what offends me, why should I care what offends you? Especially since I am not being intentionally offensive by using English correctly, whereas anyone who uses "Genuflecting" is being intentionally offensive.

You keep talking about what childfree means - it means me. I *am* childfree. It also means the nutjob extremists that you keep talking about, but take it from someone who is active in the childfree community, they are far from the norm. When the people who self-identify as something don't match your definition of a term, maybe it's your definition that is flawed.

But it's not the nutjob extremists. ALL childfree forums contain people ranting about how much they hate children and parents. Some are more civil than others but they ALL have the same theme, the hatred of families. If it's far from the norm, how come you haven't actually tried to discuss this rationally? Instead you focus on this sort of Newspeak nitpick on the terms childless and childfree. How come on any child free forum I can find rants about how much they hate kids, moos and duds within seconds? On EVERY SINGLE FORUM. You tell me it's the exception EVERY childfree forum tells me otherwise.

Notice that you didn't express disgust at jackmanii's bigotry, you gave him a high five. You congratulated him on his wit. Which brings me to another point I'll never understand, why people think it's witty when someone repeats a trite and cliche joke. Nothing he said was clever, it was simply insulting, and you thought it was a great and wonderful thing to say. You are the reason I started this thread btw. I was impressed by how reasoned you were in the other thread until you started high fiving jackmanii for his bigotry.

[mswas]

So bigotry (and the attendant labeling) is tolerated by people of similar or neutral views?


Did this strike you as insightful? You went looking for anti-child bigotry and you found it. Magellan, you ain't.

Right, it was difficult for Magellan to go around the world. I just quoted from the top threads on the first forums I found on Google. It's not that I found bigotry after reading thread after thread. I quoted threads that were dozens of pages long and at the top of the queue on the forums. And every single forum I looked at had multiple threads full of hatred and vitriole. People with puking emoticons in threads about children.

It ain't like the bigotry is hidden in some dark recess. It's prominent and accounts for a high proportion of the post content on these forums.

[Marley23]

You can't use inflammatory language to piss people off and then act like you're being martyred, mswas. You are not going to get banned for the point you are making. If you continue to try to make it this way, you'll be banned for your poor choice of tactics and for the fact that you've done this before. The points you do have can be made without this kind of behavior and I suggest you start doing that.

[Bosstone]

It ain't like the bigotry is hidden in some dark recess. It's prominent and accounts for a high proportion of the post content on these forums.So let it stay on those forums.

[mswas]

You can't use inflammatory language to piss people off and then act like you're being martyred, mswas. You are not going to get banned for the point you are making. If you continue to try to make it this way, you'll be banned for your poor choice of tactics and for the fact that you've done this before. The points you do have can be made without this kind of behavior and I suggest you start doing that.

Whatever, I don't care. Do what you will. I'm not angry, I'm not upset. I am disturbed by this stuff, and annoyed that it's ok to use nasty epithets against parents, but I can't use other nasty epithets to illustrate the point.

And I won't be martyred unless you ban me. ;)

I'm not being uncivil here. I didn't actually call anyone specific any of those names, I just used them to illustrate a point.

You'll honestly be doing me a favor. I spend too much time on internet message boards as it is. :D

[mswas]

So let it stay on those forums.

It was used on this forum by jackmanii and Cat Whisperer.

[Bryan Ekers]

Right, it was difficult for Magellan to go around the world. I just quoted from the top threads on the first forums I found on Google.

On message boards dedicated to "child-free" discussions. What's next, finding discussions about movies at imdb.com?

[mswas]

On message boards dedicated to "child-free" discussions. What's next, finding discussions about movies at imdb.com?

So you agree then that child hate is normal for the child free?

[Bosstone]

It was used on this forum by jackmanii and Cat Whisperer.Then argue against them, don't rail on and on about other forums.

[garygnu]

Why isn't this thread in the pit? Mswas isn't debating anything, just complaining about drivel.

[Marley23]

Whatever, I don't care. Do what you will.
I don't need your permission, you know. ;) In any case, you're required to follow the same rules as everybody else no matter how strongly you believe in your side.

We're done with this sidetrack. Everybody is advised to stick to the subject without the ridiculous provocation or exaggerations about the other side.

[BigBertha]

I wanted children too, but I disagree with you that there is something wrong with people who don't want children.

There is definitely something wrong with people who HATE children though.I never hated them, I wanted to point out. I saw no reason to deal with them as they could not converse with me, nor did i ever feel proper watching a child that wasn't mine.
I do feel I am not out of them norm; how can you find the love of your life and not want to have their child? Tis all.

[mswas]

I never hated them, I wanted to point out. I saw no reason to deal with them as they could not converse with me, nor did i ever feel proper watching a child that wasn't mine.
I do feel I am not out of them norm; how can you find the love of your life and not want to have their child? Tis all.

Sure before I had kids my interaction with little kids was similarly limited. My wife used to complain about how freaky they were with their jam covered hands.

[suranyi]

Well, I would put it this way:

There's nothing wrong with being childfree in the orginal sense of the word: Not desiring children.

But it is true, many of the people who post on the childfree boards are complete whackjobs. Any time a child is given any type of news coverage, good or bad, they get up in arms. If it's bad, it shows how evil all children are. If it's good, no child deserves it. The whole world is a big conspiracy by parents against the childfree.

I think there's a lot of similarities between those boards and, for example, freerepublic, in that both are dominated by confirmation bias.

I can only hope that the people who post on the boards (mswas has linked to them) are only a small minority of the childfree population.

I have to add that I haven't seen anything nearly that bad on the SDMB.

[Bryan Ekers]

So you agree then that child hate is normal for the child free?

Well, if I go to forums dedicated to left-handedness, I'd be entirely unsurprised to see disparaging remarks about "righties". I wouldn't automatically assume that all (or most of, or even a significant minority of) left-handed people feel this way, since I'm looking at the self-selecting group that bothers to post on such topics.

So, no, I don't agree to things that are unproven.

Disclosure: I'm left-handed and childfree.

[Der Trihs]

Instead you focus on this sort of Newspeak nitpick on the terms childless and childfree. It's no more Newspeak than the distinction between "loner" and "lonely". Or "atheist" and "godless".

And considering the way most people act towards those who don't have children - as if they are either defective or evil -it's an important distinction. Some people don't have children, don't want children, and are neither unhappy nor evil.

[mswas]

Well, I would put it this way:

There's nothing wrong with being childfree in the orginal sense of the word: Not desiring children.

But it is true, many of the people who post on the childfree boards are complete whackjobs. Any time a child is given any type of news coverage, good or bad, they get up in arms. If it's bad, it shows how evil all children are. If it's good, no child deserves it. The whole world is a big conspiracy by parents against the childfree.

I think there's a lot of similarities between those boards and, for example, freerepublic, in that both are dominated by confirmation bias.

I can only hope that the people who post on the boards (mswas has linked to them) are only a small minority of the childfree population.

I have to add that I haven't seen anything nearly that bad on the SDMB.

It's more reserved on the SDMB but they slip in comments about genuflection and the cult of the child.

If actually taking on the job of the propagation of the species is 'cultish' then whatever, I'm a cultist. I do seriously consider how I raise my child and what that means for society. I try to raise her to be civil and to respect others. To say please and thank you. You don't have to believe me or give me accolades, but I do actually think about the greater society. When she's screaming in a restaurant I do try to figure out the best way to get her to stop so that I don't annoy the other diners. *shrug* Best I can do I guess. If people still hate me and my children for our simple existence, well, I think that's bigotry. And if you are going to make comments about 'genuflecting' then I'll go on using the term, 'childless'.

[mswas]

It's no more Newspeak than the distinction between "loner" and "lonely". Or "atheist" and "godless".

The Newspeak dictionary was about limiting the language. Removing 'unnecessary' words for political reasons. You're right having the world 'childfree' isn't Newspeak. It's the attempt to eliminate 'childless' that is Newspeak.

But I maintain that civility is a two way street. If you don't want me to use the term childless, don't pat someone on the back when they make a bigotted joke at the expense of the 'breeders'.

I think the whole childfree/childless issue is oversensitivity to an extreme degree. It's like 'herstory', saying that the word history is anti-women. It's really the intent that makes something offensive. When someone calls me a breeder they INTEND to be offensive. When someone uses the term childless they're just speaking English.

And considering the way most people act towards those who don't have children - as if they are either defective or evil -it's an important distinction. Some people don't have children, don't want children, and are neither unhappy nor evil.

I really don't believe it's 'most people'. But I live in the Liberal Utopia of New York where these types of things are not a big issue in my subgroup.

[Der Trihs]

It's more reserved on the SDMB but they slip in comments about genuflection and the cult of the child.
Well, if anything that's a polite way to put it. On the whole, I see "children" used as a weapon. "For the children" generally means "against everyone else". I see the "pro-child" people demanding unearned respect, while at the same time trying to restrict the freedom of others to supposedly "protect the children". Protect them from "dangers" that just happen to be what the parent in question finds personally offensive. I'm tired of putting up with censorship "for the children".

The Newspeak dictionary was about limiting the language. Removing 'unnecessary' words for political reasons. You're right having the world 'childfree' isn't Newspeak. It's the attempt to eliminate 'childless' that is Newspeak. Who's trying to eliminate it? Someone asking that they, personally be referred to a certain way isn't trying to eliminate a word.

But I maintain that civility is a two way street. If you don't want me to use the term childless, don't pat someone on the back when they make a bigotted joke at the expense of the 'breeders'. Something I can't recall ever hearing in the first place, except in cases like, well, yours where you probe the crannies of the Internet to find people saying something you don't like.

When someone uses the term childless they're just speaking English. Sometimes. Quite often though, they are being insulting, pitying or outright accusatory. I'm not interested in listening to someone lecture me about how they are morally superior because they have children and how I haven't done my "biological duty".

[in hiding]

Really, I don't see the point here.

"I am childfree and that kind of shit appalls me."

See? I guess nobody here agrees with this weirdos on a some message boards that are all about hating children. We just don't understand why you get so worked up about this non-issue. Really, a self-titled "childfree" Internet forum is the mother of all confirmation biases (biae? biasae? bias...esses?). You just cannot argue from that alone.

Really, this is the issue of people hating other people because of something they do or are. I don't see anything special here. There are people on this world who would hate me because I'm male, because I'm a geek, because I'm a an atheist, because I'm german, hell, hate me because I don't like sports or because my favorite colour is blue. you just found some people who hate other people because of something else. So what? It's even a little less aggravating then racism to me, as it's hating people for something they DO instead of something they ARE.

I think the whole childfree/childless issue is oversensitivity to an extreme degree. It's like 'herstory', saying that the word history is anti-women. It's really the intent that makes something offensive. When someone calls me a breeder they INTEND to be offensive. When someone uses the term childless they're just speaking English.

Yeah, well, no more. People here have told they...

a) ...don't actually have anything against children or people who have children, but chose to remain without children for their own reasons, and...

b) ...they like the word "childfree" better, because it does not imply something that's missing, but rather a state they chose. In fact, they are offended by "childless", because it implies this state is involuntary.

So, from now on, if you use the word "childless" in this context, you are well aware you are insulting people. ;)

Come on. You don't want to be called "breeder" (I mean, that's a english term, too - if you have children, you bred, didn't you)? If you don't want to be called that, all right, of course I understand that, but then why don't you accept that some people want to be called "childfree" and not "childless"? You can't complain about getting a label you don't like from other people if you label them a way they don't like.

The question if we should be grateful to people who have kids is not even related here.

[mswas]

Yeah, well, no more. People here have told they...

a) ...don't actually have anything against children or people who have children, but chose to remain without children for their own reasons, and...

b) ...they like the word "childfree" better, because it does not imply something that's missing, but rather a state they chose. In fact, they are offended by "childless", because it implies this state is involuntary.

So, from now on, if you use the word "childless" in this context, you are well aware you are insulting people. ;)

I knew that before. But why should anyone care about the feelings of people who have contempt for my lifestyle? What does it matter? If they are going to make comments about 'genuflection' then that absolves me of any necessity to validate their life choices knowing full well that they won't reciprocate such courtesy.

Come on. You don't want to be called "breeder" (I mean, that's a english term, too - if you have children, you bred, didn't you)? If you don't want to be called that, all right, of course I understand that, but then why don't you accept that some people want to be called "childfree" and not "childless"? You can't complain about getting a label you don't like from other people if you label them a way they don't like.

It's about intent. Childless is merely descriptive whereas no one uses the term 'breeder' in a non-offensive sense. It's MEANT to be offensive, whereas childless is merely the default.

It's interesting that this concept is lost on people. Being intentionally offensive vs just using English in the mainstream way.

Do you think there is a responsibility to kowtow to the linguistic stylings of people who express open contempt for you?

It's multicultural Chomskyan tactics. The idea that language itself is oppressing them. I don't use 'herstory' either and plenty of feminists would claim I am oppressing them, and I think their argument is more valid than that of the childfree about the term childless. It's multiculturalism run amok, where we are told that every lifestyle is some kind of subjugated minority, when the notion that life is oppressive to the childfree is patently absurd. Everyone I know who is childfree revels in it, goes to live in France for one month and California the next. They party all night, hop from bed to bed if that's their thing. I don't see any oppression going on at all. I see a society that supports a radical freedom in their lifestyle.

[ZPG Zealot]

You raise some interesting points, but I think this touches on the inherent problem. You are expecting the entire group 'parents' be responsible for a subset. You also seem to be projecting that because your parents were not there to raise you that your situation was optimal because the family that did raise you did a better job then your parents for whatever reason.

Sorry if this is too personal, but it seems to me that you are suggesting your parents didn't raise you even though they could have. Am I right? Or did your parents die when you were young?

I grew up with a general fear of parents because my parents were not very good parents. But as I grew up I realized that there were plenty of good parents out there. They had their foibles and flaws, but some parents are better than others.

And as for breeding grounds of mental illness. No one escapes childhood without scars.

My parents had very little in action with me during my childhood because they had better things to do like earning a living. Children were raised communally in the extended family with whatever hands were available doing the child minding, but it certainly wasn't the desirable work of any adult. The desirable work was something that paid money. Yet, I look back on my childhood, at least until the point when I was old enough to be given chores, as an incredibly blissful period. I certainly didn't suffer from any lack of parental attention. In fact, I think it is the primary factor in why I am a self-sufficient, mature adult today. And the same is of my cousins and siblings and all the other children I know raised in similiar fashion.

[mswas]

My parents had very little in action with me during my childhood because they had better things to do like earning a living. Children were raised communally in the extended family with whatever hands were available doing the child minding, but it certainly wasn't the desirable work of any adult. The desirable work was something that paid money. Yet, I look back on my childhood, at least until the point when I was old enough to be given chores, as an incredibly blissful period. I certainly didn't suffer from any lack of parental attention. In fact, I think it is the primary factor in why I am a self-sufficient, mature adult today. And the same is of my cousins and siblings and all the other children I know raised in similiar fashion.

Ahh, sounds like an interesting situation.

[ZPG Zealot]

If it's just about not having kids how come I can go to any childfree forum and click two or three links on the first page and find someone wishing death on children?

Well, if the kid is dead, those of us who couldn't stand the kid are free of him or her. Why do childfree people sometimes wish death on children? Probably the same reason people sometimes wish death on street mimes, skinheads, muggers, etc. It's a natural response when someone annoys or threatens you.

[Trepa Mayfield]

I knew that before. But why should anyone care about the feelings of people who have contempt for my lifestyle? What does it matter? If they are going to make comments about 'genuflection' then that absolves me of any necessity to validate their life choices knowing full well that they won't reciprocate such courtesy.


You could step up and be the better person.

[mswas]

Well, if the kid is dead, those of us who couldn't stand the kid are free of him or her. Why do childfree people sometimes wish death on children? Probably the same reason people sometimes wish death on street mimes, skinheads, muggers, etc. It's a natural response when someone annoys or threatens you.

Sure, but I don't think that if this kind of hate is the norm, the mainstream among childfree as seems to be indicated by childfree forums that it should be validated. Hateful ideologies should be recognized as hateful ideologies. This should be viewed similarly as other bigotted zealots like Fred Phelps. As I see it bratfree.com is the same as godhatesfags.com.

[ZPG Zealot]

Ahh, sounds like an interesting situation.

To me it was the norm.

[mswas]

You could step up and be the better person.

Sure, that's one way of looking at it. I just don't think this bigotry should be validated by society at large. It needs to be pointed out for the bigotry that it is and we shouldn't give into the whiney bullshit about how childfree people are oppressed by parents everywhere. It's entitled hateful nonsense. There's no oppression going on. These people need to relax, fly to Cozumel and drink a Margarita and examine just how oppressed they're not.

[LavenderBlue]

Expresses bigotry.

How is it bigotted to point out that the Duggars have nineteen children, children that are homeschooled, taught to adhere to roles in life based solely on gender, allowed no exposure to the outside world and barely given any education?

All you to do half the time is listen to one of her poor kids. When they speak in public most of them give no evidence of more than a third grade education.

Claims others are bigots.

Yes. There are people who are bigotted against those without children.

Your point?

American society doesn't make it easy to have them or raise them properly?

I'm sorry, but this is such a fucking ignorant thing to say. America makes it about as easy as it has ever been in history. Raising kids properly isn't easy. That's not some fault of America. That's just the way it is.

Your opinion.

You're obviously never been a woman forced between economic survival and leaving a three month old baby behind in day care.

I have and yes it sucks.

Compared to the rest of the industrialized world we very few protections for women with small children. We have no subsidized maternity leave and no subsidized day care. Lose your job and you risk losing your family's health insurance. We tie decent public schools to property taxes thus making it hard to find good public education if you are not middle class or above in income.

Then again attitudes like the implications that you've apparently expressed herer -- that breeding is inherently good even if the net result is someone who grows up to be a mugger, crack addict or half wit -- don't help either.

[ZPG Zealot]

Sure, but I don't think that if this kind of hate is the norm, the mainstream among childfree as seems to be indicated by childfree forums that it should be validated. Hateful ideologies should be recognized as hateful ideologies. This should be viewed similarly as other bigotted zealots like Fred Phelps. As I see it bratfree.com is the same as godhatesfags.com.


Over sensitive much? Pro-natalism could easily be classed as a hateful ideology because of the danger overpopulation presents to the lives of those of us already born. If you don't like the fact that boards like bratfree.com exist, then devote your time to teaching children manners and proper deportment. When society has no brats, places like bratfree will cease to exist. Until then (and it will probably be a long until), be glad that childfree people have places they can commune free of children and let out some of their tension. It makes us less likely to respond in kind to the bad behavior of brats and their handlers.

[in hiding]

I knew that before. But why should anyone care about the feelings of people who have contempt for my lifestyle? What does it matter? If they are going to make comments about 'genuflection' then that absolves me of any necessity to validate their life choices knowing full well that they won't reciprocate such courtesy.

Hm. Followed by

Everyone I know who is childfree revels in it, goes to live in France for one month and California the next. They party all night, hop from bed to bed if that's their thing. I don't see any oppression going on at all. I see a society that supports a radical freedom in their lifestyle.,

I guess you do have contempt for a chil... for a lifestyle without children, at least it's implied here. But I wouldn't call you a "breeder".

It's about intent. Childless is merely descriptive whereas no one uses the term 'breeder' in a non-offensive sense. It's MEANT to be offensive, whereas childless is merely the default.

Oh, no. "childless", like "godless" feels somewhat offensive like many other "-ness", in the way of "why the hell did you screw up so you don't have *it*" to me. It emphasizes the without. I wouldn't call a person horseless, or planeless. The point is, you can't decide what description is acceptable just because you don't see anything wrong with it. With the same argumentation I could say - mswas doesn't care if I like being called this - why shouldn't I call him a breeder then?

It's interesting that this concept is lost on people. Being intentionally offensive vs just using English in the mainstream way.

See, most people I see here are not intentionally offensive. They see the word "childfree" as I described it above. And that's it.

Do you think there is a responsibility to kowtow to the linguistic stylings of people who express open contempt for you?

It's multicultural Chomskyan tactics. The idea that language itself is oppressing them. I don't use 'herstory' either and plenty of feminists would claim I am oppressing them, and I think their argument is more valid than that of the childfree about the term childless. It's multiculturalism run amok, where we are told that every lifestyle is some kind of subjugated minority, when the notion that life is oppressive to the childfree is patently absurd.

And again you go on over... I don't know... a conspiracy of people who want to change language? Or something? I honestly don't understand this. I'd expect you reaction to this to be something like "Huh. You really don't like this word? Childless? That bad? Allright then, I'll call just you ... what was it? Childfree then". Really, there is not a big meeting of children-and-mother-haters going on, and their latest plan is to mess up language to annoy you. There are just a few nutjobs who have an irrational hate on children. They happen to call themselves childfree. But that does not mean everybody who uses this phrase thinks the same.

[mswas]

Over sensitive much? Pro-natalism could easily be classed as a hateful ideology because of the danger overpopulation presents to the lives of those of us already born. If you don't like the fact that boards like bratfree.com exist, then devote your time to teaching children manners and proper deportment. When society has no brats, places like bratfree will cease to exist. Until then (and it will probably be a long until), be glad that childfree people have places they can commune free of children and let out some of their tension. It makes us less likely to respond in kind to the bad behavior of brats and their handlers.

I look at it a bit different. Two year olds are brats naturally. They are basically feral and must be taught manners. The thirty and forty year old brats at bratfree.com have no excuse and no room to talk.

The only way for there to be no brats is for there to be no children.

It seems like a spoiled brat ideology for people who are pissed off that they don't get coddled like children anymore. That's all I can see in it.

There's no oppression. Go fuck and suck your way across Europe, or whatever your pleasure is, stop whining about how people who are far less free than you are live. You get to go home and my daughter is no longer in your hair. She comes home with me. ;) I enjoy her company, and I love my daughter, but she can be really annoying.

Before I ever had kids I don't remember EVER being as angry at children or their parents as what I see from childfree types. Sure I saw poorly behaved adults with poorly behaved kids, but I see poorly behaved adults without poorly behaved kids too. Such as at bratfree.com.

Rather than hating kids, take your Dink ass sailing around the Caribbean and be hundreds of miles from any children for days at a time. Seriously. If you don't have kids and you are socially mobile, what exactly do you have to complain about?

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally posted by mswas:
"Everyone I know who is childfree revels in it, goes to live in France for one month and California the next. They party all night, hop from bed to bed if that's their thing."
"It seems like a spoiled brat ideology for people who are pissed off that they don't get coddled like children anymore. That's all I can see in it. "
"Go fuck and suck your way across Europe, or whatever your pleasure is, stop whining about how people who are far less free than you are live."
"take your Dink ass sailing around the Caribbean and be hundreds of miles from any children for days at a time."

It looks like there is indeed bigotry in this thread, but it's not coming from the childfree people.

[mswas]

I guess you do have contempt for a chil... for a lifestyle without children, at least it's implied here. But I wouldn't call you a "breeder".

That's nonsense that exists only in your own head. I don't have contempt for people who don't have kids. Only people who whine like little babies about it, and show contempt for people while asking the same people they are openly insulting to to validate their lifestyle.



Oh, no. "childless", like "godless" feels somewhat offensive like many other "-ness", in the way of "why the hell did you screw up so you don't have *it*" to me. It emphasizes the without. I wouldn't call a person horseless, or planeless. The point is, you can't decide what description is acceptable just because you don't see anything wrong with it. With the same argumentation I could say - mswas doesn't care if I like being called this - why shouldn't I call him a breeder then?

'Feels somewhat offensive'. It feels somewhat offensive because you're a self-obsessed narcissist. It's not offensive in any way. I'm sorry if the English language is formulated where it emphasizes the negative tense. I assure you it's not a conspiracy to invalidate your feelings.

See, most people I see here are not intentionally offensive. They see the word "childfree" as I described it above. And that's it.

In my experience get someone who cares about the distinction between childless and childfree, and talk about the subject long enough and they'll inevitably start trash talking parents.

And again you go on over... I don't know... a conspiracy of people who want to change language? Or something? I honestly don't understand this. I'd expect you reaction to this to be something like "Huh. You really don't like this word? Childless? That bad? Allright then, I'll call just you ... what was it? Childfree then". Really, there is not a big meeting of children-and-mother-haters going on, and their latest plan is to mess up language to annoy you. There are just a few nutjobs who have an irrational hate on children. They happen to call themselves childfree. But that does not mean everybody who uses this phrase thinks the same.

Nah, it's not a big conspiracy it's just, 'validate me', multicultural leftist pablum. The idea that all of society should adapt to your extremely narrow subculture. 'We prefer to be called...' Childless has been the normally used word throughout all of English 'herstory'.

Seriously the childfree are NOT an oppressed subculture. Not by a long shot. It's laughably absurd and disrespectful to people who actually are oppressed to say that they are.

Wo/Man up, and accept that not everyone is going to validate your alternative lifestyle.

Someone gave birth to you, and if you have no respect for that, then you are unworthy of respect. And that's just how I see it. If nothing is sacred other than your imperative to enjoy then your life is hollow and vapid as far as I am concerned. Wake up and taste the blissful freedom of not having children, and ignore the minority of people who question your choices. If a lot of people around you question your choices, then stop hanging out with those people. If it's your family, deal with it, everyone's family is obnoxious in some way.

[mswas]

Originally posted by mswas:
"Everyone I know who is childfree revels in it, goes to live in France for one month and California the next. They party all night, hop from bed to bed if that's their thing."

It's bigotted to mention that my friend gets travel a lot and gets laid all the time as a result of his not having children?

That's some pretty odd insecurity you have there.


"It seems like a spoiled brat ideology for people who are pissed off that they don't get coddled like children anymore. That's all I can see in it. "

Sure, for childfree bigots who complain and bitch and moan that the news mentions children, and who wish that children would die or be denied medical care. Yeah, this is what I think of those people.

"Go fuck and suck your way across Europe, or whatever your pleasure is, stop whining about how people who are far less free than you are live."

Telling a person to enjoy their freedom is bigotted?

"take your Dink ass sailing around the Caribbean and be hundreds of miles from any children for days at a time."

Telling someone to use their extra income to go on an awesome vacation is bigotry? Dink means Double-Income No Kids. It's not a derogatory term.

It looks like there is indeed bigotry in this thread, but it's not coming from the childfree people.

Nope it's definitely from the childfree people. After all, it was you who was making the nasty jokes that precipitated this thread. There's no changing that. Of course you won't cop to it. So I'm going to call you childless until you apologize for it. You don't get to be insulting and derogatory and then demand respect. Apologize for congratulating jackmanii on his cliche 'genuflecting' comment or get used to me referring to you in particular as childless. Simple as that. You want respect you have to give respect. You aren't entitled to it.

You've got some serious problems, and none of them are oppression at the hands of parents. I'm sorry you're not comfortable being childless and need to find a scapegoat group to lash out at.

[mswas]

Anyway, I've made my point. Go ahead and live the fantasy that you are being oppressed by people who don't really give your life any thought most of the time.

I'll stick to hanging out with childless people who don't have a chip on their shoulders about it and who take maximum advantage of their freedom.

[marshmallow]

You can't be bigoted against someone who doesn't exist.

[in hiding]

That's nonsense that exists only in your own head. I don't have contempt for people who don't have kids. Only people who whine like little babies about it, and show contempt for people while asking the same people they are openly insulting to to validate their lifestyle.

That's why wrote "I guess" - "I'm not sure, but it sounds like...", you know? Trying to be polite, to make sure it wasn't just miss-communication? No?

'Feels somewhat offensive'. It feels somewhat offensive because you're a self-obsessed narcissist. It's not offensive in any way. I'm sorry if the English language is formulated where it emphasizes the negative tense. I assure you it's not a conspiracy to invalidate your feelings.

Erm. Okay. And here I thought you were somewhat reasonable. Ah well.

(...)

Someone gave birth to you, and if you have no respect for that, then you are unworthy of respect. And that's just how I see it. If nothing is sacred other than your imperative to enjoy then your life is hollow and vapid as far as I am concerned. Wake up and taste the blissful freedom of not having children, and ignore the minority of people who question your choices. If a lot of people around you question your choices, then stop hanging out with those people. If it's your family, deal with it, everyone's family is obnoxious in some way.

Respect? No. I'm kinda happy for it, obviously, but respect? Why? Did my parents ask me? No (duh.). Did they consider the economical future and wanted to do something for todays society? No. Could they be sure whether I'd be a benefit or a hazard to the people? No. I have respect for the way they raised me, for the values they have and all, but respect for the decision itself? No. They wanted a child. That's why people get children. They want them. Because that's what people do. It's biology. Chemistry. That does not make the whole thing any less wonderful, but it's not a selfless sacrifice.

But to demand respect from the children you decided to have because you had them? Why on earth? Thats crazy.

[mswas]

That's why wrote "I guess" - "I'm not sure, but it sounds like...", you know? Trying to be polite, to make sure it wasn't just miss-communication? No?

Fair enough.

Erm. Okay. And here I thought you were somewhat reasonable. Ah well.

It's completely unreasonable to tell people that they are being offensive to you by using a standard English term. If you are childfree you are still childless by definition.

Respect? No. I'm kinda happy for it, obviously, but respect? Why? Did my parents ask me? No (duh.). Did they consider the economical future and wanted to do something for todays society? No. Could they be sure whether I'd be a benefit or a hazard to the people? No. I have respect for the way they raised me, for the values they have and all, but respect for the decision itself? No. They wanted a child. That's why people get children. They want them. Because that's what people do. It's biology. Chemistry. That does not make the whole thing any less wonderful, but it's not a selfless sacrifice.

Selfless sacrifice isn't the only thing worthy of respect. Basically you are saying that unless your parents were Jesus, they don't get respect. 99.9% of all human action is self-serving. Respect in this case is a reverence for life. A reverence for the way you came into this world, for where you came from, for the people that came before you. A respect that billions of years of hardcore motherfuckers clawed their way out of the slime to allow you to exist.

But to demand respect from the children you decided to have because you had them? Why on earth? Thats crazy.

It's not crazy. It's normal. It's basic. Those same people could've birthed you and left you to starve too. But they didn't. This whole ideology shows a hatefulness, begruding your own parents respect, your own ancestors respect. Respect for life.

What's irrational is to only respect selfless acts. It's just an excuse to be niggardly with your respect. Again, why should I respect your choice if you don't respect mine? Why should I give a shit what you 'would like to be called', after all your choice to not have children wasn't 'selfless'. So why do you deserve respect for not having kids but I don't deserve respect for having them? All this nonsense about overpopulation is really a post hoc rationalization.

[BigBertha]

Anyway, I've made my point. Go ahead and live the fantasy that you are being oppressed by people who don't really give your life any thought most of the time.

I'll stick to hanging out with childless people who don't have a chip on their shoulders about it and who take maximum advantage of their freedom.I had one child and have had the freedom to do whatever I've wanted; maybe if one has 4, say, it can hamper plans.

[mswas]

I had one child and have had the freedom to do whatever I've wanted; maybe if one has 4, say, it can hamper plans.

I have one and it certainly increases the logistical complexity of doing things. I have my second on the way. Definitely not going for 4. ;)

[Ají de Gallina]

Not having children is, in itself, a morally neutral proposition.
If you don't want any, perfect. I love mine and my having children, in itself, does not make me morally superior.
However, thinking that all kids are spolied out-of-control kids is a bigoted position because it refuses to see the reality that the group being described does not consist solely or even primarily of the stereotype. Furthermore, saying you do it because you want to save the planet or something like that is giving too much importance to yourself.

I agree with mswas that this is quickly becoming another issue where the SDMB is settling the issue; in this case as to not having children being superior or at least that mocking people that are proud of their children as much more acceptable than doing it with people who don't have children.

[tomndebb]

Anyway, I've made my point. Go ahead and live the fantasy that you are being oppressed by people who don't really give your life any thought most of the time. As opposed to going on at length about being offended by persons whom you have to actively seek out to even encounter just so you can be offended?

[mswas]

As opposed to going on at length about being offended by persons whom you have to actively seek out to even encounter just so you can be offended?

Would you please read the thread before responding with the same straw man as everyone else? I know this is asking for you to do something way out of character. But try it.

I didn't go out of my way. I didn't need to. People were asking for respect in one thread while being actively insulting at the same time. I started a thread pointing it out. I did some Google searches and every single forum I found had plenty of threads about how much people hated children, wished them dead and were pissed off that people spent money on their medical expenses. It wasn't 'out of my way'. It's prominent, because that's what childfree is about.

[mswas]

Not having children is, in itself, a morally neutral proposition.
If you don't want any, perfect. I love mine and my having children, in itself, does not make me morally superior.
However, thinking that all kids are spolied out-of-control kids is a bigoted position because it refuses to see the reality that the group being described does not consist solely or even primarily of the stereotype. Furthermore, saying you do it because you want to save the planet or something like that is giving too much importance to yourself.

I agree with mswas that this is quickly becoming another issue where the SDMB is settling the issue; in this case as to not having children being superior or at least that mocking people that are proud of their children as much more acceptable than doing it with people who don't have children.

Just so, people ask me to respect their decision by calling them, 'childfree', while they openly mock me.

[tomndebb]

I agree with mswas that this is quickly becoming another issue where the SDMB is settling the issue; in this case as to not having children being superior or at least that mocking people that are proud of their children as much more acceptable than doing it with people who don't have children.
I suspect that it is much more a case where a tiny number of posters arrive on the board bearing the wounds of various personal encounters and are willing to fight to the death to avenge themselves on various third parties who have not actually inflicted those wounds. Since people holding unpleasant opinions come in all varieties, there are sufficient numbers on both sides of the issue who have suffered such wounds, leading to bitter feuds among those small groups while the vast majority of posters look on with bemusement, wondering why such venom is expressed over rather minor issues of language.

[tomndebb]

I didn't go out of my way. I didn't need to.
. . .
I did some Google searches
. . . If I spent my time hitting message boards using anti-Catholic catchwords, I would expect to see a lot of hostility directed against my beliefs. I see some of it here without actually searching.

However, I would feel rather silly to actually go looking for it, then complain when I found it.

[mswas]

I suspect that it is much more a case where a tiny number of posters arrive on the board bearing the wounds of various personal encounters and are willing to fight to the death to avenge themselves on various third parties who have not actually inflicted those wounds. Since people holding unpleasant opinions come in all varieties, there are sufficient numbers on both sides of the issue who have suffered such wounds, leading to bitter feuds among those small groups while the vast majority of posters look on with bemusement, wondering why such venom is expressed over rather minor issues of language.

Well for me I have no problem with the term childfree, and no problem using it. What I do have a problem with is the incivility, and then of course the larger philosophical issue of respect for life, which I do think is very important but is largely being lost in this tit for tat bullshit.

If someone wants me to call them childfree then I ask in return that they don't speak disrespectfully of parents.

If they want to have a philosophical discussion of it then don't get all weepy when someone uses a term like 'free-rider problem', and hijack the thread so that you can insult and harangue people rather than discussing the philosophical issue. Free-rider problem isn't a personal attack it's a description of a sociological mechanism. Saying that the childfree enter into a free-rider problem is no more insulting than saying that I have a responsibility not to have children because of overpopulation and environmental degradation. Both are valid arguments if your primary goal is to have a philosophical argument. The problem is that doesn't seem to be the case.

What seems to be the case is that people want those who they have open hostility and contempt for to validate their lifestyle. Why should I validate one's lifestyle when they are showing open contempt for the way I live my life?

[Ají de Gallina]

I suspect that it is much more a case where a tiny number of posters arrive on the board bearing the wounds of various personal encounters and are willing to fight to the death to avenge themselves on various third parties who have not actually inflicted those wounds. Since people holding unpleasant opinions come in all varieties, there are sufficient numbers on both sides of the issue who have suffered such wounds, leading to bitter feuds among those small groups while the vast majority of posters look on with bemusement, wondering why such venom is expressed over rather minor issues of language.

Sure, it's always the 5% that spill venom (on both sides of any issue), however I'd say that a majority of the observers are closer to the "having kids r teh sux0r" side.

[mswas]

If I spent my time hitting message boards using anti-Catholic catchwords, I would expect to see a lot of hostility directed against my beliefs. I see some of it here without actually searching.

But that's a poor analogy. I put 'childfree forums' into Google. That was the search string I used. I clicked on the first several hits that came up. I wasn't using anti buzzwords. I didn't look up 'breeder' or 'moo' I looked up 'childfree forum'. Are you saying that 'childfree' is a hate term?

However, I would feel rather silly to actually go looking for it, then complain when I found it.

Except this is a straw man. I went to the first four or five childfree forums I found and clicked on thread on the front pages. I read a few pages of those threads. I didn't have to search hard because on most of them there were hateful screeds at the top of the list.

You're talking to me like I did some digging. I didn't. I just clicked on the first links that came up on my search that fit the criteria I was searching for. IE, childfree forums.

[in hiding]

Selfless sacrifice isn't the only thing worthy of respect. Basically you are saying that unless your parents were Jesus, they don't get respect. 99.9% of all human action is self-serving. Respect in this case is a reverence for life. A reverence for the way you came into this world, for where you came from, for the people that came before you. A respect that billions of years of hardcore motherfuckers clawed their way out of the slime to allow you to exist.

That's why I wrote "I have respect for the way they raised me, for the values they have and all, but respect for the decision itself?". Sure I'm happy to be here. Sure I respect parents who do good things for the good things they do. For the responsibility the take. And so on. But for the decision to have children itself? No. The have children because they want to. No other reason. And don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, neither their motivation nor the act itself. But I won't create a mystical ideal that this is bigger than it actually is.

It's not crazy. It's normal. It's basic. Those same people could've birthed you and left you to starve too. But they didn't. This whole ideology shows a hatefulness, begruding your own parents respect, your own ancestors respect. Respect for life.

Still, the fact they chose to have children in the first place is nothing special. Nothing sacred. They wanted to, and they got me. And that's okay. But that's it. They did it well, and *that's* what I respect them for.

What's irrational is to only respect selfless acts. It's just an excuse to be niggardly with your respect. Again, why should I respect your choice if you don't respect mine? Why should I give a shit what you 'would like to be called', after all your choice to not have children wasn't 'selfless'. So why do you deserve respect for not having kids but I don't deserve respect for having them? All this nonsense about overpopulation is really a post hoc rationalization.

First of all, no overpopulation from me. Yeah, that's a bit flat, at least in the western modern world. The selfless thing...

I don't know, maybe I'm running into the edge of my vocabulary here, but ... There is "to respect somebodies decision", as in "so you want kids, great, good luck!", in the way of acknowledgement for a decision that you might have done in a different way, but can see the other's point.

And there is "to have respect for somebody" in the way of an acknowledgement of something extraordinary. "Wow, he really went into the burning house again!".

In this sense, I of course respect your decision to have children, but I don't have any special respect for it because that would require something extraordinary (do it really well, for example, or in difficult circumstances, and I'll have respect for that). Sure, it's a lot of responsibility, it's not easy, but in the end you want it. So you have it. And that's your decision, and that's fine.

So yes, I respect your choice, I expect you to respect mine (whatever it is, actually, I'm not so sure yet), and I can't understand for the life of me why you can't just be polite about the whole less/free thing.

Argh. Later:


If someone wants me to call them childfree then I ask in return that they don't speak disrespectfully of parents.


Exactly. Can we agree on that? "We" call you how you would liked to be called, and you do the same? That's all I wanted to get to.

[ZPG Zealot]

I look at it a bit different. Two year olds are brats naturally. They are basically feral and must be taught manners.

Rather than hating kids, take your Dink ass sailing around the Caribbean and be hundreds of miles from any children for days at a time. Seriously. If you don't have kids and you are socially mobile, what exactly do you have to complain about?

I look at it this way. If the child is feral and must be taught manners than it must be isolated from the rest of the society until those manners are instilled. This is what my family did. The child stays home and out of the way of other people until he or she is quiet and well-behaved enough to be brought in public. It works very well.

And it is actually very difficult to get away from children unless you have a considerable fortune. Apartment buildings and communities cannot discriminate against tenants with children unless they are specifically retirement communities. Resorts and entertainment facilities can try subtle means of getting people with children to stay away, but with the exception of adult orientated businesses, banning them outright isn't easy because of people with children who insist on taking them places they don't belong.

[mswas]

I look at it this way. If the child is feral and must be taught manners than it must be isolated from the rest of the society until those manners are instilled. This is what my family did. The child stays home and out of the way of other people until he or she is quiet and well-behaved enough to be brought in public. It works very well.

It sounds like you had a unique situation that most people cannot replicate just be wanting to. You're projecting those unique circumstances onto people who cannot emulate them. Kids learn to be social by interacting socially. If I were to isolate my child then she'd be a brat at 4 when I took her out of isolation.

And it is actually very difficult to get away from children unless you have a considerable fortune. Apartment buildings and communities cannot discriminate against tenants with children unless they are specifically retirement communities. Resorts and entertainment facilities can try subtle means of getting people with children to stay away, but with the exception of adult orientated businesses, banning them outright isn't easy because of people with children who insist on taking them places they don't belong.

I don't see why getting away from children is something that should be respected. You could live rurally. There is wide debate on the issue of where children do and do not belong. You don't take your kid to the nightclub, casino or titty bar, but childfree seem to have this sense of entitlement to avoiding children at restaurants. Children are people, they are not possessions, as such there is no reason to discriminate against them. If you go out to a restaurant in NYC at night though you're not going to run into many kids, if any at all.

[tomndebb]

Sure, it's always the 5% that spill venom (on both sides of any issue), however I'd say that a majority of the observers are closer to the "having kids r teh sux0r" side.In any situation, the loud opponents will tend to outnumber the loud proponents. My guess would be that when these erupt, most live-and-let live folks, on both sides, are going to see the nastiness and simply close the thread. There are a lot of child rearing folks on the SDMB and I seriously doubt that we are going to be run off any time soon.

[Jackmannii]

I'm left-handed and childfree.Didn't Portia Nelson sing this in "The Sound Of Music"?

[mswas]

That's why I wrote "I have respect for the way they raised me, for the values they have and all, but respect for the decision itself?". Sure I'm happy to be here. Sure I respect parents who do good things for the good things they do. For the responsibility the take. And so on. But for the decision to have children itself? No. The have children because they want to. No other reason. And don't get me wrong, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, neither their motivation nor the act itself. But I won't create a mystical ideal that this is bigger than it actually is.

But this is a straw man creation of the childfree. No one is asking for respect for the mere fact of having kids. At least no one I have ever known. But you SHOULD respect people by default until they prove themselves unworthy of that respect. Just my opinion. If I met you I would not question your decision not to have kids. And I might tell an anecdote about my children. I don't think I should be uncomfortable talking about my kids, but I like to think I am socially astute enough that I can tell when people are uninterested in what I have to say. (mostly) But in the cases of where I'm not that socially astute, I don't think it should reflect on the fact that I have kids. I am not socially inept because I have kids after all.

Still, the fact they chose to have children in the first place is nothing special. Nothing sacred. They wanted to, and they got me. And that's okay. But that's it. They did it well, and *that's* what I respect them for.

Well I think human life is sacred. The decision to create it might not always be a sacred act, but it can and should be.

First of all, no overpopulation from me. Yeah, that's a bit flat, at least in the western modern world. The selfless thing...

Right. Overpopulation comes up in these discussions a lot. And I respect someone concerned about overpopulation IF they also make a radical effort to curtail their own consumption, because in the west we overconsume. It's in the third world where people overpopulate.

I don't know, maybe I'm running into the edge of my vocabulary here, but ... There is "to respect somebodies decision", as in "so you want kids, great, good luck!", in the way of acknowledgement for a decision that you might have done in a different way, but can see the other's point.

Right. When I say respect, I don't mean accolades, I mean common courtesy.

And there is "to have respect for somebody" in the way of an acknowledgement of something extraordinary. "Wow, he really went into the burning house again!".

Yea, exactly. That's not the respect I am talking about. I am talking about more, "I respect your shared humanity with compassion."


In this sense, I of course respect your decision to have children, but I don't have any special respect for it because that would require something extraordinary (do it really well, for example, or in difficult circumstances, and I'll have respect for that). Sure, it's a lot of responsibility, it's not easy, but in the end you want it. So you have it. And that's your decision, and that's fine.

Yea, that's about how I see it. And I hope you are spending more time enjoying the freedom your choice affords you rather than lamenting whether or not some parent validates that choice.

So yes, I respect your choice, I expect you to respect mine (whatever it is, actually, I'm not so sure yet), and I can't understand for the life of me why you can't just be polite about the whole less/free thing.

I CAN be polite. I'm choosing not to be in order to make a point. If this were not a debating forum I wouldn't press you on your decision, but as it is, and you chose to click the link, then we can argue. The rules of being polite are different in a debate than they are in every day interaction.

Exactly. Can we agree on that? "We" call you how you would liked to be called, and you do the same? That's all I wanted to get to.

Yes, I agree. That's the point I'm making too. If you want me to call you childfree then don't be a dick about your childfree status. Don't wink and nudge.

This all started basically because someone got all butthurt when someone mentioned that the childfree issue created a 'freerider' problem. That person was unable to look at it philosophically and then started just spewing epithets. But the freerider problem is applicable, because if you don't have kids you'll need my kids or someone else's kids to wipe your ass at the nursing home when you are old. Just as my kids participate in the tragedy of the commons by using up communal resources. Talking about the freerider problem is no more insulting than talking about the tragedy of the commons problem. It's just that the respect that was assumed went only one way. This particular poster was able to talk about environmental degradation due to population, but it wasn't ok to talk about the freerider problem without him and a couple of groupies going apeshit and getting nasty.

[Bosstone]

There are a lot of child rearing folks on the SDMB and I seriously doubt that we are going to be run off any time soon.Quite. I expect a godless America long before I expect a childless America.

The "cult of child" haters are not a movement and have no political power. It'd be more productive to freak out about the immorality of 4chan than any childfree board.

[mswas]

Quite. I expect a godless America long before I expect a childless America.

The "cult of child" haters are not a movement and have no political power. It'd be more productive to freak out about the immorality of 4chan than any childfree board.

Starting one thread on a message board is not exactly, 'freaking out'. I think people ascribe a lot more importance to a message board than is warranted. I'm not writing letters to my senator, I am talking about a minor issue in my life that I think is worth discussing.

[Bosstone]

Starting one thread on a message board is not exactly, 'freaking out'. I think people ascribe a lot more importance to a message board than is warranted. I'm not writing letters to my senator, I am talking about a minor issue in my life that I think is worth discussing.Says the person who wants to condemn it under the bigotry label.

[mswas]

Says the person who wants to condemn it under the bigotry label.

*shrugs* It's bigotry. Doesn't mean I'm sitting here having convulsions of apoplexy. ;) Try and put things into perspective, your perspective is a bit off.

[in hiding]

But this is a straw man creation of the childfree. No one is asking for respect for the mere fact of having kids. At least no one I have ever known. But you SHOULD respect people by default until they prove themselves unworthy of that respect.

But really, what's the difference then? If they do well I'll give my respect allright.


Yes, I agree. That's the point I'm making too. If you want me to call you childfree then don't be a dick about your childfree status. Don't wink and nudge.


Well, that's obvious. But people will always do things like this, on all sides - there are lots of opinions as well that state childfree or -less or whatever people are worthless. Ah well. I'll haul my childless, godless self to a eventless, dreamless sleep now. ;)

[Snowboarder Bo]

A completely and wholly irrational belief in persecution used to justify the hatred of a group.

Wow! You perfectly paraphrased your own OP!

[garygnu]

Remind me again why I should automatically respect the child of a stranger?

[suranyi]

I'm a little confused by the OP's point as well, although in general I do agree with him that the hard-core childfree are hateful.

I don't know about "bigot". But I think that someone who calls a person whom they've never met and don't know anything about a "crotch turd" has a screw loose somewhere. That's a common slur on the childfree boards.

[ZPG Zealot]

[QUOTE=mswas;11951478]It sounds like you had a unique situation that most people cannot replicate just be wanting to. You're projecting those unique circumstances onto people who cannot emulate them. Kids learn to be social by interacting socially. If I were to isolate my child then she'd be a brat at 4 when I took her out of isolation.QUOTE]

Thousands of children (if not millions when one considers the span of human generations) have been raised the way I was. If people want to emulate a situation they will certainly put considerable effort into doing so. And who said I was isolated. I lived in a house with a dozen or more people at any given time. It's about teaching children to behave and if they can't removing them from bothering others until they can behave.

[ZPG Zealot]

I don't see why getting away from children is something that should be respected. You could live rurally. There is wide debate on the issue of where children do and do not belong. You don't take your kid to the nightclub, casino or titty bar, but childfree seem to have this sense of entitlement to avoiding children at restaurants. Children are people, they are not possessions, as such there is no reason to discriminate against them. If you go out to a restaurant in NYC at night though you're not going to run into many kids, if any at all.

Really, you would perfer people that don't like children hang around them will they will only be aggravated and eventually enraged by their annoying behavior. That's a receipe for disaster. I don't like being around children other than those of my extended family and friends from the same culture and avoid them for the same reasons I avoid heavy metal concerts, monster truck rallies, and Rush Limbaugh conventions. As for treating children like people and not discriminating against them most childfree people would like nothing more for children to be treated as people and subject to the same rules of behavior. If an adult would be asked (or ordered) to leave a restaurant, theater, concert for screaming and crying, so should a child. As senior citizens cannot change their Depends in public and someone who makes the mistake of urinating by the side of the road could end up on a sex offender registry, I see no reason an infant should be changed anywhere other than a restroom.

[Malthus]

In any situation, the loud opponents will tend to outnumber the loud proponents. My guess would be that when these erupt, most live-and-let live folks, on both sides, are going to see the nastiness and simply close the thread. There are a lot of child rearing folks on the SDMB and I seriously doubt that we are going to be run off any time soon.

They are not going to be "run off", but the consensus on this board on the matter of children is close to as strong as its consensus on religion and US politics: the majority lean a certain way and the loudest voices are the extreme in one direction.

The difference being the sheer oddity of being against, well, parenting and children. Our species would do very well (even if be very uniform and thus somewhat boring) if everyone was an Atheist and a Democrat. It does not rely for its very existance on some people being religious Republicans, thankfully.

[CrazyCatLady]

What you have to keep in mind about childfree boards is that they're a place for people to blow off steam. It is considered unacceptable to eviscerate some smarmy twit who insults you, your desires, and your marriage like this:

I wanted my husbands child. Its natural, I feel IMO something is wrong with people who don't. Sorry.

and this:


I do feel I am not out of them norm; how can you find the love of your life and not want to have their child? Tis all.

We don't have a public outlet where it's acceptable to tell people like this what we think of their disrespect--if we tell them off, we're being "oversensitive" and need to go take our "DINK asses" somewhere else and chill the hell out. And I'm not just talking about the actual twits responding that way. I don't think you appreciate how frustrating a situation it is to just have to sit and take that sort of insult because expressing your offense garners you even more insult. So people hold it in till they get to a "safe" place where people won't rag on them for being pissed about being ragged on, and like any other pent-up frustration it tends to fester a bit.

As such, you can't take the commentary on those boards as truly indicative of people's general attitudes, any more than you can take someone calling their spouse a fucking asshole right after a fight as being truly indicative of the general state of their marriage.

And let's just get back to this "why should I respect your lifestyle when you don't respect mine" thing for a moment. Big Bertha and her ilk clearly don't respect my lifestyle. By your own logic, why should I respect hers? It's a vicious circle, innit?

[Malthus]

Remind me again why I should automatically respect the child of a stranger?


Why should one automatically respect a stranger?

In my opinion, reciprocity. One should respect others, because one expects respect oneself.

[Malthus]

As for treating children like people and not discriminating against them most childfree people would like nothing more for children to be treated as people and subject to the same rules of behavior.

Children should not be held to the same standards as adults, for the simple reason than children - particularly very young children - are not capable of achieving these standards.

Offering children a certain amount of lattitude is again a variety of reciprocity. As very young children, we were all ourselves offered the same lattitude. If you think you never cried in public as a baby yourself - chances are you are simply mistaken.

This does not mean that children have a free ticket to engage in public destructive disobedience (or worse, that parents have a licence to allow the same). Respect goes both ways, as it should. Parents should be doing their best to educate and discipline their children; the lattitude extended by others doesn't extend to wilfully rejecting a proper parental role.

But holding children to the same standards of public behaviour as adults is quite unrealistic.

[Der Trihs]

One should respect others, because one expects respect oneself.Well, maybe YOU expect respect. The problem with your argument is that it only works with popular people.

[Malthus]

Well, maybe YOU expect respect. The problem with your argument is that it only works with popular people.

That doesn't follow at all.

I expect respect as my right, whether I'm "popular" or not.

Just as my right to respect as a person exists, even if I happen to be of a disfavoured minority.

A child isn't simply an appendage of a parent, and respecting that child isn't a duty owed to the parent, but to the child.

Why should you respect a stranger's child? Because the stranger's child is also a person, and persons are deserving, as of right, basic respect. A respect you have a right to demand for yourself from strangers. If strangers do not give you respect because you are "unpopular", they are failing in their ethical duties; if you do not respect a stranger because they are a child, you are failing in yours.

[mswas]

Well, maybe YOU expect respect. The problem with your argument is that it only works with popular people.

Is there any reason why *I* should respect *YOU*?

[mswas]

Really, you would perfer people that don't like children hang around them will they will only be aggravated and eventually enraged by their annoying behavior. That's a receipe for disaster. I don't like being around children other than those of my extended family and friends from the same culture and avoid them for the same reasons I avoid heavy metal concerts, monster truck rallies, and Rush Limbaugh conventions. As for treating children like people and not discriminating against them most childfree people would like nothing more for children to be treated as people and subject to the same rules of behavior. If an adult would be asked (or ordered) to leave a restaurant, theater, concert for screaming and crying, so should a child. As senior citizens cannot change their Depends in public and someone who makes the mistake of urinating by the side of the road could end up on a sex offender registry, I see no reason an infant should be changed anywhere other than a restroom.

Are these strawmen really necessary? I don't give a fuck who you hang out with. But recognizing the reality that there are people in this world and that your agism is simply crass and rude goes a long way to becoming a civilized person. You expect two year olds to be civilized and yet you refuse to be civilized yourself. Part of being civilized is accepting that two year olds are socially inept.

I agree that it's inappropriate for a child to scream in a public place. And there are inappropriate places to take the child. My daughter has this awful book given her by one of my wife's aunts. It's called, "Urban Babies Wear Black", and it's this really pretentious book about babies going to all kinds of inappropriate places like museums, the opera, art galleries etc... There are plenty of kid friendly activities, children's museums and the like. And that's where kids should go.

But conversely, babies cry, and babies are human beings and you live in a plural polity. Expecting babies to be segregated from your existence is entitled and simply not very realistic. You're going to come across babies on occasion, and sometimes they will be obnoxious and they will scream. Part of the responsibility of being an adult on your part, is that you suck it up and deal with it. Otherwise you are simply a whiney and crying baby of an advanced age.

As for changing a baby, if a restroom is available, yes that's the appropriate place to change them. But your argument is against uncivilized behavior and is not a reflection on parents in general. Just like I don't walk up and scream 'fuck you' in people's faces randomly, there are certain dictates of decorum. Essentially you and I are saying the same things. We are talking about levels of decorum, and I agree there are appropriate ways to deal with a baby, just as there are appropriate ways to comport yourself as an adult whether you have children or not. My argument is that much of the childfree rhetoric is not appropriate behavior for a mature adult.

[Crawlspace]

I didn't go out of my way. I didn't need to. People were asking for respect in one thread while being actively insulting at the same time. I started a thread pointing it out. I did some Google searches and every single forum I found had plenty of threads about how much people hated children, wished them dead and were pissed off that people spent money on their medical expenses. It wasn't 'out of my way'. It's prominent, because that's what childfree is about.This isn't true. You were the one who first called attention to the 'childfree' calling them radicals, use of the term PC fanaticism, the decision to define themselves in that manner odd, that there was a common chip on their shoulder, and had already come to the conclusion that what undergirds the childfree is a kind of bigotry that treats children as consumer products. This was all stated well before the discussion got raucous. Here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11898763&postcount=4). Here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11899370&postcount=42). Here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11899436&postcount=46).

But this is a straw man creation of the childfree. No one is asking for respect for the mere fact of having kids. At least no one I have ever known.From the other thread:But, the fact of the matter is, if you do not have a recognition and deference to the position of parenthood in general, then your position isn't merely that you do not want to have children. It is at its core, anti-natalist.

Anyway, I've made my point. Go ahead and live the fantasy that you are being oppressed by people who don't really give your life any thought most of the time.Post one instance of a CBC person in either these threads who has claimed to be oppressed.

[suranyi]

That doesn't follow at all.

I expect respect as my right, whether I'm "popular" or not.

Just as my right to respect as a person exists, even if I happen to be of a disfavoured minority.

A child isn't simply an appendage of a parent, and respecting that child isn't a duty owed to the parent, but to the child.

Why should you respect a stranger's child? Because the stranger's child is also a person, and persons are deserving, as of right, basic respect. A respect you have a right to demand for yourself from strangers. If strangers do not give you respect because you are "unpopular", they are failing in their ethical duties; if you do not respect a stranger because they are a child, you are failing in yours.

Some people find it awfully hard to realize that a child -- even a baby -- is a person, not an object.

[mswas]

Thousands of children (if not millions when one considers the span of human generations) have been raised the way I was. If people want to emulate a situation they will certainly put considerable effort into doing so. And who said I was isolated. I lived in a house with a dozen or more people at any given time. It's about teaching children to behave and if they can't removing them from bothering others until they can behave.

Right, but the essence of entitlement is thinking that because you had it that way that everyone does.

I cannot simply go out and purchase an extended family situation like yours. They don't sell it at Wal Mart.

[mswas]

This isn't true. You were the one who first called attention to the 'childfree' calling them radicals, use of the term PC fanaticism, the decision to define themselves in that manner odd, that there was a common chip on their shoulder, and had already come to the conclusion that what undergirds the childfree is a kind of bigotry that treats children as consumer products. This was all stated well before the discussion got raucous. Here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11898763&postcount=4). Here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11899370&postcount=42). Here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11899436&postcount=46).

From the other thread:

Post one instance of a CBC person in either these threads who has claimed to be oppressed.

If you have something to say about the topic then come back to me. This cruft does not interest me. I'm done trying to justify my right to start a thread. I have a right, the thread is started, now discuss the topic or don't.

In your opinion does childfree as an ideology lend itself to anti-natalism. Is anti-natalism bigotry? Do children deserve to have the same rights and respect afforded to adults? If not, at what age does a human become a person?

[ZPG Zealot]

Right, but the essence of entitlement is thinking that because you had it that way that everyone does.

I cannot simply go out and purchase an extended family situation like yours. They don't sell it at Wal Mart.

Then perhaps you should have thought twice or three times about having kids. There is an old saying: Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part which I think should be applied to parents. Because you don't have the resources and infrastructure to do things properly doesn't mean someone else should be drafted into doing it for you or suffer needlessly for it. If your child is uncontrollable leave him or her at home until they can be civilized or be prepared for people to hate your guts and wish both of you were dead. Consider yourself fortunate that no one acts on those impulses. I love my dogs, but when we leave the yard, they are put on leases. And one of my dogs is a retired search and rescue dog that has contributed more to improving human life on this planet than any child ever could.

[mswas]

Then perhaps you should have thought twice or three times about having kids.

So because there are people out there with unrealistic expectations about how I raise my child and think that I should conform to their whims I should not have kids due to the fact that society is no longer organized around a traditional tribal model?

Like for really real?

I have no problem supporting my kids. It's YOU who has the problem. Why should I care about your problems?

There is an old saying: Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part which I think should be applied to parents. Because you don't have the resources and infrastructure to do things properly doesn't mean someone else should be drafted into doing it for you or suffer needlessly for it. If your child is uncontrollable leave him or her at home until they can be civilized or be prepared for people to hate your guts and wish both of you were dead. Consider yourself fortunate that no one acts on those impulses. I love my dogs, but when we leave the yard, they are put on leases. And one of my dogs is a retired search and rescue dog that has contributed more to improving human life on this planet than any child ever could.

I have the resources and infrastructure to do it properly. I just don't have the resources and infrastructure to emulate an externally imposed ideal by some misanthropic dude I am talking to on the internet. My daughter is fed, gets medical attention, has a social life and is generally happy. Society and my family operate just fine without appealing to archaic forms of child-rearing as some sort of ideal.

And this is the demonstration of your bigotry. My child is well-behaved but you are saying that even so, I should not have had children because my life doesn't conform to some sort of idealized past experience that YOU have, even though your experience is pretty far from the mainstream, whereas my experience is the mainstream.

Please explain to me why YOUR sense of entitlement should be a factor in my decisions?

[ZPG Zealot]

So because there are people out there with unrealistic expectations about how I raise my child and think that I should conform to their whims I should not have kids due to the fact that society is no longer organized around a traditional tribal model?

Like for really real?

I have no problem supporting my kids. It's YOU who has the problem. Why should I care about your problems?



I have the resources and infrastructure to do it properly. I just don't have the resources and infrastructure to emulate an externally imposed ideal by some misanthropic dude I am talking to on the internet. My daughter is fed, gets medical attention, has a social life and is generally happy. Society and my family operate just fine without appealing to archaic forms of child-rearing as some sort of ideal.

And this is the demonstration of your bigotry. My child is well-behaved but you are saying that even so, I should not have had children because my life doesn't conform to some sort of idealized past experience that YOU have, even though your experience is pretty far from the mainstream, whereas my experience is the mainstream.

Please explain to me why YOUR sense of entitlement should be a factor in my decisions?

You are using the excuse that your inability to provide your child with an extended family as a license for allowing your child to misbehave. If your child is well-behaved, childfree people have no problem with him or her. When children misbehave we believe their parents deserve scorn and all other means of social disapproval. It is as simple as that. As long as you care about the opinions of other people, you are going to have to accept the fact that people will form negative opinions about your decisions.

[ZPG Zealot]

Furthermore, why should your decision to have a child, based solely on YOUR ENTITLEMENT ISSUES, entitle you and that child to gobble up so many of the world's resources (it's not like you offered to offset the carbon footprint your child is going to case, by eliminating your own), cause my property taxes to increase to pay for public schools and infrastructure while you get a tax break for having a child, and generally make life more uncomfortable because of crying, screaming children.

[mswas]

You are using the excuse that your inability to provide your child with an extended family as a license for allowing your child to misbehave.

No I'm not. That's some bullshit you just made up. Like I said, bigotry.

If your child is well-behaved, childfree people have no problem with him or her. When children misbehave we believe their parents deserve scorn and all other means of social disapproval. It is as simple as that. As long as you care about the opinions of other people, you are going to have to accept the fact that people will form negative opinions about your decisions.

Except I do take care of my children. And as long as you behave like an entitled brat when you should be able to behave like a real adult, the rest of us will continue to heap scorn upon you.

Be that as it may though. There is no excuse for wishing death upon children. It's disgusting anti-life bigotry and should not be condoned or tolerated. If you condone and tolerate it then you have nothing of value to tell me about how I should raise my children. I do not take the opinions of psychotic fanatics into account as to how I should raise my children.

Based on what you are telling me right now it's pretty obvious to me that your upbringing was not complete as it has left you bereft of certain necessary coping skills and the inability to separate your own internal monologue and hatred of children from the reality of real people who you are interacting with.

That is not to say that extended family situations are not positive environments, but they can just as easily be toxic. Idealized philosophical fantasies are not applicable to the real world. People who were raised properly understand this.

[mswas]

Furthermore, why should your decision to have a child, based solely on YOUR ENTITLEMENT ISSUES, entitle you and that child to gobble up so many of the world's resources (it's not like you offered to offset the carbon footprint your child is going to case, by eliminating your own), cause my property taxes to increase to pay for public schools and infrastructure while you get a tax break for having a child, and generally make life more uncomfortable because of crying, screaming children.

And here it goes.

Thank you for providing the perfect case study for my thread. I appreciate it. Here's what it comes down to. Children are not people. They are resource consumers as opposed to the 'people' who choose not to have children.

What entitles YOU and YOUR parents to gobble up the Earth's resources?

Do you offset the carbon footprint of your car? Your house? Your pets?


That's the bottom line. Childfree is a political ideology that believes that children are not people.

[Malthus]

Then perhaps you should have thought twice or three times about having kids. There is an old saying: Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part which I think should be applied to parents. Because you don't have the resources and infrastructure to do things properly doesn't mean someone else should be drafted into doing it for you or suffer needlessly for it. If your child is uncontrollable leave him or her at home until they can be civilized or be prepared for people to hate your guts and wish both of you were dead. Consider yourself fortunate that no one acts on those impulses. I love my dogs, but when we leave the yard, they are put on leases. And one of my dogs is a retired search and rescue dog that has contributed more to improving human life on this planet than any child ever could.

Are you for real? Your *dogs* have contributed more to improving human life than *any child* could? :D

I rather suspect you are deluding yourself over your parent's ability to never take you in public as a baby.

[Malthus]

Furthermore, why should your decision to have a child, based solely on YOUR ENTITLEMENT ISSUES, entitle you and that child to gobble up so many of the world's resources (it's not like you offered to offset the carbon footprint your child is going to case, by eliminating your own), cause my property taxes to increase to pay for public schools and infrastructure while you get a tax break for having a child, and generally make life more uncomfortable because of crying, screaming children.


Why exactly should we prioritize you over mswas's kid?

[mswas]

Are you for real? Your *dogs* have contributed more to improving human life than *any child* could? :D

I rather suspect you are deluding yourself over your parent's ability to never take you in public as a baby.

Clearly the circumstances of his sequestration have created a deep and abiding misanthropy.

It's funny that he thinks his dog contributes more than 'any child could' though his dog was once a puppy and wasn't contributing anything as a puppy, and when it worked as a rescue dog there was a person who managed that dog, so whatever rescue that dog participated in can also be credited to the 'child' that grew up into an adult and worked with it in the rescue operations.

[Cat Whisperer]

<snip>
Post one instance of a CBC person in either these threads who has claimed to be oppressed.
I was wondering that myself, but I didn't want to waste my time wading through this thread again (once was more than enough). Any other Dopers want to do the dirty work? I think I've claimed that people don't always mind their own business, but I don't think I went as far as claiming oppression of my people at any point (the "my people" thing is a joke, by the way, for the humour-impaired - hyperbole for effect, I believe this one is).

[ZPG Zealot]

No I'm not. That's some bullshit you just made up. Like I said, bigotry.



Except I do take care of my children. And as long as you behave like an entitled brat when you should be able to behave like a real adult, the rest of us will continue to heap scorn upon you.

Be that as it may though. There is no excuse for wishing death upon children. It's disgusting anti-life bigotry and should not be condoned or tolerated. If you condone and tolerate it then you have nothing of value to tell me about how I should raise my children. I do not take the opinions of psychotic fanatics into account as to how I should raise my children.

Based on what you are telling me right now it's pretty obvious to me that your upbringing was not complete as it has left you bereft of certain necessary coping skills and the inability to separate your own internal monologue and hatred of children from the reality of real people who you are interacting with.

That is not to say that extended family situations are not positive environments, but they can just as easily be toxic. Idealized philosophical fantasies are not applicable to the real world. People who were raised properly understand this.

It appears you lack the necessary coping skills to deal with the fact that some of us do not think children are special snowflakes that should be worshipped and adored. There is nothing said on a childfree board that could not be found on an anti-metalhead, Star Trek, or partisan political board (left or right wing). I find it odd that you consider my perfectly normal childhood and the childhood of millions of children throughout history (seen occasionaly, but not heard) an idealized philosophical fantasy.

[ZPG Zealot]

Why exactly should we prioritize you over mswas's kid?

I'm a tax paying citizens that's contributing to society. Children are a burden on society until they can contribute; therefore, they should always come second to adults. But what childfree people are fighting far is simple equality, not a "prioritization" over children.

[mswas]

It appears you lack the necessary coping skills to deal with the fact that some of us do not think children are special snowflakes that should be worshipped and adored. There is nothing said on a childfree board that could not be found on an anti-metalhead, Star Trek, or partisan political board (left or right wing). I find it odd that you consider my perfectly normal childhood and the childhood of millions of children throughout history (seen occasionaly, but not heard) an idealized philosophical fantasy.

I don't think having an extended family is something that should be looked down on. I just think it's clear that this extended family did not raise you as properly as you claim because people who have been raised properly can cope with the fact that children sometimes cross their paths and sometimes are noisy. That's the bottom line, you can't cope, you've said so yourself. Now you are defending the right to say hateful and bigotted things because other people say hateful and bigotted things in other venues.

[ZPG Zealot]

Clearly the circumstances of his sequestration have created a deep and abiding misanthropy.

It's funny that he thinks his dog contributes more than 'any child could' though his dog was once a puppy and wasn't contributing anything as a puppy, and when it worked as a rescue dog there was a person who managed that dog, so whatever rescue that dog participated in can also be credited to the 'child' that grew up into an adult and worked with it in the rescue operations.

The dog and it's handler didn't do any of that as a puppyor a child, but as an adult handler and and adult dog. Adults contribute. Outside of the odd genius, children only consume and use.

[mswas]

I'm a tax paying citizens that's contributing to society. Children are a burden on society until they can contribute; therefore, they should always come second to adults. But what childfree people are frighting far is simple equality, not a "prioritization" over children.

You have simple equality. In fact your paying of taxes entitles you to rights not afforded to children. As an adult you can purchase and consume alcohol, own a gun, drive a car, and vote in elections. So you clearly are not 'frighting' for equality, you are 'frighting' for the subjugation of children when no problem really exists.

For some reason you have decided that children oppress you. Nevermind that you can do anything you want whenever you want within your means. Catwhisperer, Crawlspace, here's your example of someone claiming oppression. I mean other than your insistance that I kowtow to your selective redefinition of the English language.

What you are complaining about is that children are not sequestered from adult society. You are complaining that there isn't some form of segregation, some form of discrimination against children. The tax code recognizes that children grow up into adults, and it was written by people who can look at this issue rationally. It recognizes that all of us at one point were children, and that children are necessary to bring up the next generation, so that when you once again are a non-productive member of society, there will be workers working to support your non-productive ass.

[mswas]

The dog and it's handler didn't do any of that as a puppyor a child, but as an adult handler and and adult dog. Adults contribute. Outside of the odd genius, children only consume and use.

Adults start out as children.

This is obvious to any well-adjusted adult.

Your comparison is stupid. You are comparing the productivity of an adult dog to the productivity of a child human. Your comparison should be of your adult dog to an adult human. An adult being a child who has reached the age of 18.

[ZPG Zealot]

I don't think having an extended family is something that should be looked down on. I just think it's clear that this extended family did not raise you as properly as you claim because people who have been raised properly can cope with the fact that children sometimes cross their paths and sometimes are noisy. That's the bottom line, you can't cope, you've said so yourself. Now you are defending the right to say hateful and bigotted things because other people say hateful and bigotted things in other venues.

You appear to be unable to cope with the fact that there are people in the world that do not adore and worship children. And my right to say I can't stand the noise of children is part of the Constitution of the United States (you know, freedom of speech). It's not a matter of
"coping". It's a matter of in a polite society I shouldn't have to always accept excuses for children's bad behavior. The bad behavior should be recognized as an offense to society and dealt with.

[Malthus]

I was wondering that myself, but I didn't want to waste my time wading through this thread again (once was more than enough). Any other Dopers want to do the dirty work? I think I've claimed that people don't always mind their own business, but I don't think I went as far as claiming oppression of my people at any point (the "my people" thing is a joke, by the way, for the humour-impaired - hyperbole for effect, I believe this one is).

Sure, post 18.

Parents in our society constantly demand exaggerated respect and deference. They demand that all of society follow their rules, that everyone give their opinions respect just because they have a child, talk about how they are superior beings, and sneer at those who don't have children like they were vermin.

The "oppression" word isn't used, but certainly the concept is there.

[StusBlues]

Man, I can just feel the love in this thread.

[Malthus]

I'm a tax paying citizens that's contributing to society. Children are a burden on society until they can contribute; therefore, they should always come second to adults. But what childfree people are fighting far is simple equality, not a "prioritization" over children.


That's just silly. A person's moral worth is not measured by their current ability to "contribute".

[ZPG Zealot]

You have simple equality. In fact your paying of taxes entitles you to rights not afforded to children. As an adult you can purchase and consume alcohol, own a gun, drive a car, and vote in elections. So you clearly are not 'frighting' for equality, you are 'frighting' for the subjugation of children when no problem really exists.

For some reason you have decided that children oppress you. Nevermind that you can do anything you want whenever you want within your means. Catwhisperer, Crawlspace, here's your example of someone claiming oppression. I mean other than your insistance that I kowtow to your selective redefinition of the English language.

What you are complaining about is that children are not sequestered from adult society. You are complaining that there isn't some form of segregation, some form of discrimination against children. The tax code recognizes that children grow up into adults, and it was written by people who can look at this issue rationally. It recognizes that all of us at one point were children, and that children are necessary to bring up the next generation, so that when you once again are a non-productive member of society, there will be workers working to support your non-productive ass.

Given the quality of today's children, it is more likely I will be supporting their non-productive asses in prison, long before the children in my family (because they have been properly raised) will be supporting me.

[mswas]

You appear to be unable to cope with the fact that there are people in the world that do not adore and worship children.

No, I don't think we should put up with people who are bigotted against children. Basic civility is a far cry from adoration and worship. As anyone who has made it to adulthood knows.

And my right to say I can't stand the noise of children is part of the Constitution of the United States (you know, freedom of speech).

Civility and legal rights are two different things as any adult who understands etiquette and law at all knows.

It's not a matter of "coping". It's a matter of in a polite society I shouldn't have to always accept excuses for children's bad behavior. The bad behavior should be recognized as an offense to society and dealt with.

But it is a matter of coping. You are incapable of coping with the fact that sometimes children cry in public, and sometimes parents are less than stellar at their duties. It is all about coping. You can't cope and so you hate children and parents as a result. The bad behavior of children is certainly not the norm. Kids have yet to learn the skills of etiquette, but the only way they will learn the skills of etiquette is to have interactions with other people. For the most part, children ARE sequestered from the adult world. They spend their time in venues where children are known to be, like playgrounds and schools, at home, etc... There are certain public venues where you need to accept that children will attend, like the mall, the grocery store etc... If you don't want to see children at dinner, go to dinner at 8 at a nicer restaurant. There most likely won't be kids there, and if there are you can go to another restaurant. If it is that important for you to tailor your life around avoiding children, then learn to cope and tailor your life. You expect, like most children, that the world will conform to your whims.

[Malthus]

You appear to be unable to cope with the fact that there are people in the world that do not adore and worship children. And my right to say I can't stand the noise of children is part of the Constitution of the United States (you know, freedom of speech). It's not a matter of
"coping". It's a matter of in a polite society I shouldn't have to always accept excuses for children's bad behavior. The bad behavior should be recognized as an offense to society and dealt with.


Freedom of expression evidently applies to you. But you are arguing expressly that other persons should *not* have that freedom - because it might annoy you! :D

[mswas]

Given the quality of today's children, it is more likely I will be supporting their non-productive asses in prison, long before the children in my family (because they have been properly raised) will be supporting me.

LOL, precisely. And you have to hide the silver when the black guy comes over to fix the cable, because everyone knows that black people steal.

[ZPG Zealot]

That's just silly. A person's moral worth is not measured by their current ability to "contribute".

It's not about moral worth. It's basic etiquette. Elders are to be respected. Furthermore, children should be last and least largely because they are such an unknown. We have no way of knowing whether the resources contributed to a child will be used properly or squandered. With an adult this decision can be more clearly made based on their previous actions.

[ZPG Zealot]

Freedom of expression evidently applies to you. But you are arguing expressly that other persons should *not* have that freedom - because it might annoy you! :D

Nonsense, I am saying, we should have equal rights to freedom of expression. If I scream in a theater or throw a sippy across a restaurant, I would be asked to leave or possibly escorted out by security.

[Malthus]

It's not about moral worth. It's basic etiquette. Elders are to be respected. Furthermore, children should be last and least largely because they are such an unknown. We have no way of knowing whether the resources contributed to a child will be used properly or squandered. With an adult this decision can be more clearly made based on their previous actions.

So - what about those adults who are not in a position to pay taxes? Should they be "respected" at all?

Or, I'm a high earner and I pay a *lot* of taxes. Should you respect me - more?

Seems a rather repugnant attitude to me. How about this one - respect people regardless.

[mswas]

It's not about moral worth. It's basic etiquette. Elders are to be respected.

Yes of course, elders are to be respected. I think we all agree with that statement.

Furthermore, children should be last and least largely because they are such an unknown. We have no way of knowing whether the resources contributed to a child will be used properly or squandered. With an adult this decision can be more clearly made based on their previous actions.

But that's not how society is structured. Society is structured around treating people equally, not with some assumption that they may or may not become productive adults. Furthermore, if you want a child to become a productive adult you have to invest resources. Society as a whole has come to the decision that investing in children makes sense. Which is why you have the luxury of living in the most successful and wealthy society in history, (Western society as a whole) because of these cultural beliefs.

[ZPG Zealot]

[QUOTE=mswas;11954479]you don't want to see children at dinner, go to dinner at 8 at a nicer restaurant. There most likely won't be kids there, and if there are you can go to another restaurant.QUOTE]

I have seen screaming children at $50.00 a plate restaurants (which is some serious money in the area I live in) at ten o'clock at night. There are places where children should not be taken. Until parents respect this, they should expect death glares and nasty comments whenever they take children some place inappropriate.

[Malthus]

Nonsense, I am saying, we should have equal rights to freedom of expression. If I scream in a theater or throw a sippy across a restaurant, I would be asked to leave or possibly escorted out by security.

The silliness lies in expecting the same standards of behaviour from an adult or child (and no, I'm not really of the opinion that the US Constitution has anything to do with the matter).

You can't behave like a newborn, in public? Well, that's just too bad. I feel for your deprivation, but honestly - normal humans give infants latitude that, by and large, they do not extend to adults.

That being said, there are some venues young children should not be taken to, exactly because they cannot be expected to keep quiet on demand.

[ZPG Zealot]

How about this one - respect people regardless.

I would love to see parents forced to this standard.

[mswas]

I have seen screaming children at $50.00 a plate restaurants (which is some serious money in the area I live in) at ten o'clock at night. There are places where children should not be taken. Until parents respect this, they should expect death glares and nasty comments whenever they take children some place inappropriate.

Well I agree with you that this is not appropriate behavior for the parents. They shouldn't be bringing kids to fancy restaurants past their bedtimes.

But what does this have to do with parenthood as a whole? Someone did their job as a parent poorly. So what?

[mswas]

I would love to see parents forced to this standard.

Why just parents?

[Malthus]

I would love to see parents forced to this standard.

Know what? I'd love to see everyone, parents and non-parents alike, attempt to reach for this standard for themselves.

Rating people by how much they "contribute" strikes me as fairly repugnant, and moreover leads to some nasty self-serving entitled behaviour. The clarion cry of the entitled tends to be "I pay my taxes ... !!!".

[ZPG Zealot]

The silliness lies in expecting the same standards of behaviour from an adult or child (and no, I'm not really of the opinion that the US Constitution has anything to do with the matter).

You can't behave like a newborn, in public? Well, that's just too bad. I feel for your deprivation, but honestly - normal humans give infants latitude that, by and large, they do not extend to adults.

That being said, there are some venues young children should not be taken to, exactly because they cannot be expected to keep quiet on demand.

If the child cannot adhere to the standards of behavior of an adult, he or she (or rather his or her parents) should not expect the same freedom to go everywhere and do whatever they want within the boundaries of the law that an adult gets.

[Malthus]

If the child cannot adhere to the standards of behavior of an adult, he or she (or rather his or her parents) should not expect the same freedom to go everywhere and do whatever they want within the boundaries of the law that an adult gets.

No fooling?

Oh gee, and there I was about to have my 4 year old drive the car to the bar for a highball. :D

Yeah, kids DON"T have the same legal rights as adults. No-one is arguing that they should!

[Ají de Gallina]

This thread is already showing the behaviour mswas was talking about. Even as many protested the message appearing more and more is no longer "children are all screaming brats" to "I don't want to pay for your kids school" and "they are parasites". I don't want to pay for street in front of (generic) your house or for offsetting your dog's fart, but it's part
The thread's also shown that the bile of "childfree" fora was easily accepted here.
Really, someone asking why he should respect another human being? Really?

Mswas, mission accomplished.

[Crawlspace]

If you have something to say about the topic then come back to me. This cruft does not interest me. I'm done trying to justify my right to start a thread. I have a right, the thread is started, now discuss the topic or don't.

In your opinion does childfree as an ideology lend itself to anti-natalism. Is anti-natalism bigotry? Do children deserve to have the same rights and respect afforded to adults? If not, at what age does a human become a person?Everything I said was on topic and directly refutes a point you were trying to make. The fact that it shows you to be a disingenuous debater does not change this fact. Furthermore, I don't remember anyone questioning your right to start a thread. What they've asked is that you provide evidence for the underlying premise: people who identify as childfree are derogatory bigots. If you would like to now change the debate to the questions listed above, fine. I think it will lead to more civil debate.

[ZPG Zealot]

No fooling?

Oh gee, and there I was about to have my 4 year old drive the car to the bar for a highball. :D

Yeah, kids DON"T have the same legal rights as adults. No-one is arguing that they should!

You are the one arguing that children throwing things in restaurants and screaming in theaters should be given "latitude." Once again, when the child can act like an adult, he or she can do adult things. Until then, children should be in the appropriate nursey facilities.

[Malthus]

You are the one arguing that children throwing things in restaurants and screaming in theaters should be given "latitude." Once again, when the child can act like an adult, he or she can do adult things. Until then, children should be in the appropriate nursey facilities.

What, you seriously think that allowing infants to drive cars is an example of "lattitude" on the same order as putting up with an infant crying in public?

Given that position, I suppose kids should be isolated until they can drive cars? :D

That's pretty nuts.

[Cat Whisperer]

Sure, post 18.



The "oppression" word isn't used, but certainly the concept is there.
You missed the context - this was the post to which the post you quoted was in response:

But the only people claiming some sort of 'worship' are the people who have a chip on their shoulder. No parents ask or require 'worship'.
The response from Der Trihs was:Parents in our society constantly demand exaggerated respect and deference. They demand that all of society follow their rules, that everyone give their opinions respect just because they have a child, talk about how they are superior beings, and sneer at those who don't have children like they were vermin.I think you have to really stretch to get "childfree people claim they're oppressed" from this. If this is the only example you have, it's pretty weak.

[Bryan Ekers]

The thread's also shown that the bile of "childfree" fora was easily accepted here.

Possibly, but what's also happening is that we feel no obligation to share mswas's outrage about something he had to look for to complain about.

[Crawlspace]

For some reason you have decided that children oppress you. Nevermind that you can do anything you want whenever you want within your means. Catwhisperer, Crawlspace, here's your example of someone claiming oppression. I mean other than your insistance that I kowtow to your selective redefinition of the English language.No, sorry. Your interpretation of someones emotions doesn't count. This should be easy for you, especially re: the perceived selective redefinition of the English language. You've made this claim so many times I'd have thought it was the rallying cry of the childfree. "Do not oppress, it's not childless" or some such thing.

[Malthus]

You missed the context - this was the post to which the post you quoted was in response:

The response from Der Trihs was:I think you have to really stretch to get "childfree people claim they're oppressed" from this. If this is the only example you have, it's pretty weak.

How does the context change anything?

A statement that parents "constantly demand exaggerated respect and deference", "demand that all of society follow their rules" and "sneer at those who don't have children like they were vermin" is pretty clearly a claim that those who aren't parents face 'oppression', though as I noted he doesn't use that word (though it would hardly be stronger or more extreme if he did).

That's just in the first page. See the more recent exchanges with ZPG Zealot for further evidence.

Now, I'll readily grant that these are extremes: it is pretty extreme to paint all parents as oppressively looking down on the childless/childfree as "vermin" or (as ZPG Zealot does) insist that all children remain out of public until they are adults.

But the point I think is well made: that when such extreme types appear, they are not laughed at here; their antics are more likely to be hand-waved away (as, I point out, you appear to be doing with your post).

If I was to address the childfree in offensive generalities similar to those used in the quoted post - would you find it offensive?

[mswas]

This thread is already showing the behaviour mswas was talking about. Even as many protested the message appearing more and more is no longer "children are all screaming brats" to "I don't want to pay for your kids school" and "they are parasites". I don't want to pay for street in front of (generic) your house or for offsetting your dog's fart, but it's part
The thread's also shown that the bile of "childfree" fora was easily accepted here.
Really, someone asking why he should respect another human being? Really?

Mswas, mission accomplished.

Agreed. Thank you.

[mswas]

Possibly, but what's also happening is that we feel no obligation to share mswas's outrage about something he had to look for to complain about.

LOL, this is the same kind of logic as Republicans opposing the KBR rape bill because Al Franken wrote it.

[Ají de Gallina]

Possibly, but what's also happening is that we feel no obligation to share mswas's outrage about something he had to look for to complain about.

Maybe, but it's not like he's complaining that his football team plays a 3-4 defense instead of a 4-3. It's about hating other human beings for a conition they cannot change and THAT has a very bad name.
If it were black/jew/gayfree living we were talking about it would not get the wink mswas talked about.

[Bryan Ekers]

LOL, this is the same kind of logic as Republicans opposing the KBR rape bill because Al Franken wrote it.

I'm not familiar enough with that situation to comment on any possible similarities, but there's no personal element to this (or at least not much of one). I'd've made the same ridiculing statements no matter who wrote so specious an OP. I also haven't bothered to read the thread that supposedly inspired this one because there is no need - this thread is sufficiently ridiculous on its own merits. What are you actually arguing, that there exist some people on the internet that don't like children? Well, duh. Pick anything, and you can find somebody on the internet who doesn't like it, even to the point of irrationality. I'm sure there are thing you dislike to the point of irrationality.

Not me, though. I'm cool about stuff.

[Bryan Ekers]

Maybe, but it's not like he's complaining that his football team plays a 3-4 defense instead of a 4-3. It's about hating other human beings for a conition they cannot change and THAT has a very bad name.

Simple time cures childhood, so it's not hard to take this form of bigotry less-than-seriously.

Der Trihs did raise an interesting point, though. It's not automatically about the actual child - it's the accommodation expected, if not demanded. I don't personally object to babies crying in public - crying is what babies do, after all - but I look askance at censorship and educational issues where in the name of protecting children, some people are trying (and sometimes succeeding) at keeping children ignorant and incidentally depriving me, an adult, access to certain information or entertainments that I desire.

So some people put their arguments in terms of "moos" and "crotch-fruit". Immature, certainly, but getting outraged about it is silly.

[mswas]

Simple time cures childhood, so it's not hard to take this form of bigotry less-than-seriously.

Der Trihs did raise an interesting point, though. It's not automatically about the actual child - it's the accommodation expected, if not demanded. I don't personally object to babies crying in public - crying is what babies do, after all - but I look askance at censorship and educational issues where in the name of protecting children, some people are trying (and sometimes succeeding) at keeping children ignorant and incidentally depriving me, an adult, access to certain information or entertainments that I desire.

Yes, but so do I. You and I share the opposition to such censorship, and we also don't take our ire at such things out on children because of it. As a parent, I do not think it is reasonable to disallow adults to kill hookers on their X-Box if they want to. ;p

So some people put their arguments in terms of "moos" and "crotch-fruit". Immature, certainly, but getting outraged about it is silly.

So some people put their arguments in terms of "niggers" and "porch-monkeys". Immature, certainly, but getting outraged about it is silly.

[Across]

Okay, despite your claims to be calm and not overreacting and flying off the handle at all, I think this is a clear indication that you are getting a bit carried away.

Childfree would be one thing but the term connotes all sorts of nasty baggage, as people like jackmanii have made it into a politically charged hateful term. It would be one thing if people just wanted to use the term. But they don't, they make blogs denigrating parents. And most of the discussions on childfree blogs are about how much they hate parents and children. Breeder is considered perjorative because that's how it is used.

<snip a whole buncha stuff restating your position on people who use the term "childfree">

This shit isn't simply a choice not to have children. No, it's the active hatred of the act of procreation and anyone who engages in it. If you are childless by choice, I suggest you reconsider your choice to use the term childfree, because you are associating yourself with some very, very, very hateful people.

I never said I used the term "child-free". I never disagreed with your definition of the term "child-free". Given that there are people who define themselves as Childfree and spout a bunch of hateful bullshit that I don't agree with and that doesn't apply to me and my life choices I don't especially want to use the word.

I don't agree that the term "childless" is an acceptable substitute, for the reasons stated in my post.

So I was wondering what an acceptable term would be? This is just a question for mswas, but for everyone participating in this debate. Obviously, some people will favour "childfree" despite the objections, and some will advocate "childless". Is there a third choice that is perhaps not quite so controversial?


And on the topic of semantics . . .

<snip>

It's really the intent that makes something offensive. When someone calls me a breeder they INTEND to be offensive. When someone uses the term childless they're just speaking English.



Can't you see the contradiction in this statement? You believe that the term "breeder" is offensive, because you believe the people using this term intend offense, even though there is nothing inherently pejorative in the word - simply in the context and intent with which it is used. However, you are rigorously defending the use of the term "childless" because the dictionary definition of the term is acceptable, regardless of the additional meanings and implications now attached to the term. You can't have it both ways.

[Ají de Gallina]

Simple time cures childhood, so it's not hard to take this form of bigotry less-than-seriously.

Der Trihs did raise an interesting point, though. It's not automatically about the actual child - it's the accommodation expected, if not demanded. I don't personally object to babies crying in public - crying is what babies do, after all - but I look askance at censorship and educational issues where in the name of protecting children, some people are trying (and sometimes succeeding) at keeping children ignorant and incidentally depriving me, an adult, access to certain information or entertainments that I desire.

So some people put their arguments in terms of "moos" and "crotch-fruit". Immature, certainly, but getting outraged about it is silly.

"Simple time" I can accept from you, not from the "why-id-you-spend-money-on-your-disabled-kid" crowd.

Sorry, what DT says is "I accept things that cause me no inconvenience" to which I cna reply in exactly the same way.

[Bryan Ekers]

So some people put their arguments in terms of "niggers" and "porch-monkeys". Immature, certainly, but getting outraged about it is silly.

So disparaging terminology of any kind is effectively identical to the racial slurs you used here and earlier?

You're not convincing me by compounding the silliness of your argument.

[RickJay]

You are the one arguing that children throwing things in restaurants and screaming in theaters should be given "latitude." Once again, when the child can act like an adult, he or she can do adult things. Until then, children should be in the appropriate nursey facilities.
You couldn't learn to act like an adult if you spent all your time in a "nursey facility," could you?

You, when you were a kid, had to be exposed to adults and grownup, everyday situations to learn how to act accordingly. Just as you learned that way, so must all children.

[mswas]

So disparaging terminology of any kind is effectively identical to the racial slurs you used here and earlier?

No, HATEFUL terminology of any kind is effectively identical to the racial slures I used here and earlier.

You're not convincing me by compounding the silliness of your argument.

What's there to convince? My argument is self-evident.

[tomndebb]

You couldn't learn to act like an adult if you spent all your time in a "nursey facility," could you?The line has certainly been bent in this thread, but this is too far over.

Ratchet it back.

[ /Moderating ]

[Frylock]

So I was wondering what an acceptable term would be? This is just a question for mswas, but for everyone participating in this debate. Obviously, some people will favour "childfree" despite the objections, and some will advocate "childless". Is there a third choice that is perhaps not quite so controversial?



Maybe the phrase "childless by choice" would work? I think the "by choice" negates the pejorative connotations of "childless".

[mswas]

Maybe the phrase "childless by choice" would work? I think the "by choice" negates the pejorative connotations of "childless".

childfree would be fine if it hadn't accrued so much baggage. And childless by choice would accrue the baggage too if the childfree community continues to wink and nudge the nasty jokes rather than policing itself.

[Bryan Ekers]

No, HATEFUL terminology of any kind is effectively identical to the racial slures I used here and earlier.

So some people hate children and some other people hate blacks, but I daresay the former is relatively harmless, unless you can point to some anti-child analogue of the Klan.

If we're not to consider the actions that follow the words, than the whole thing is a vapid pool of mootness.

My argument is self-evident.

If that was true, it'd be an axiom, not an argument. In any case, it all boils down to somebody on the internet saying something you don't like. Big whoop.

[BigBertha]

I'm a smarmy twit?
Uh huh. Anyway, people do have the choice nowadays to not have children, for most of the human race going back millenia, they had no choice except to be celibate if they wanted to be childfree.

[mswas]

So some people hate children and some other people hate blacks, but I daresay the former is relatively harmless, unless you can point to some anti-child analogue of the Klan.

Ridicule it early and often and it never gets to that point.

If that was true, it'd be an axiom, not an argument. In any case, it all boils down to somebody on the internet saying something you don't like. Big whoop.

You got it, you understood it your entire critique is over style not substance. Yes, some people are jerks on the internet and some people start threads on the internet about very minor points. Why start a thread like this when I could be talking about something important like how much Sarah Palin sucks right?

[CrazyCatLady]

I'm a smarmy twit?

Not you, necessarily, but most of the people I've encountered saying such rude, insulting things about me and my marriage based on what we want out of our lives, yes. And you can't deny that saying something is inherently wrong with me, and implying that something is inherently wrong with my relationship with my husband, is indeed quite rude and insulting.

And yet, mswas, for all your carry-on about how the childfree should police each other to condemn terms like "breeder" I don't see you condemning someone outright saying there is something inherently wrong with those those of us who don't want kids. You want to talk about rudeness and intent to be insulting...there it is. Right there. If you're going to be intellectually honest and logically consistent, you need to give her the same castigation you expect me to give people who say things you consider insulting to you.

[Bryan Ekers]

Ridicule it early and often and it never gets to that point.

Well, far be it from to question the premise of eternal vigilance, but are you claiming that what you're doing is ridicule? I think you've actually managed to turn some people who were previously indifferent to childfree message-boarders into sympathizers with them.

Besides, in lieu of any child-lynching incidents (or at least I'm not aware of any), it's just a bunch of people whose behavior gets reinforced by the group. The board quotes could easily be coming from their version of the Pit, where they blow off steam and throw crude insults around freely (and egg each other on) with no intention or desire to actually do anything about the object of their scorn.

Seriously, how many hate-crimes directed against children have there been? Seems to be they're at far more risk from their own parents than any number of non-reproducing child-haters. Policies that you have argued on this board have more violent baggage attached.

You got it, you understood it your entire critique is over style not substance. Yes, some people are jerks on the internet and some people start threads on the internet about very minor points. Why start a thread like this when I could be talking about something important like how much Sarah Palin sucks right?

There are substantive comments one can make (and I have made) about Sarah Palin. What you've created here, though, is (as far as I can tell) just an exhibition of how much your feelings have been hurt. Somebody made a "genuflecting" remark of some kind and instead of taking them to the Pit for it, you went looking off-board for a concentrated form of the same attitude. The merit of such an accomplishment escapes me.

[Grumman]

Ridicule it early and often and it never gets to that point.
Isn't everybody glad we've got mswas here to defend us from the childfree?

Get over yourself.

[mswas]

Not you, necessarily, but most of the people I've encountered saying such rude, insulting things about me and my marriage based on what we want out of our lives, yes. And you can't deny that saying something is inherently wrong with me, and implying that something is inherently wrong with my relationship with my husband, is indeed quite rude and insulting.

And yet, mswas, for all your carry-on about how the childfree should police each other to condemn terms like "breeder" I don't see you condemning someone outright saying there is something inherently wrong with those those of us who don't want kids. You want to talk about rudeness and intent to be insulting...there it is. Right there. If you're going to be intellectually honest and logically consistent, you need to give her the same castigation you expect me to give people who say things you consider insulting to you.

Post 80 (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=11950296&postcount=80)

[mswas]

Well, far be it from to question the premise of eternal vigilance, but are you claiming that what you're doing is ridicule? I think you've actually managed to turn some people who were previously indifferent to childfree message-boarders into sympathizers with them.

If it's that easy to make people sympathize with bigotry well... We know what that means. But it doesn't matter see. The childfree who come in here are mad at me for pointing it out. They aren't mad at the other childfree for giving them a bad name, for making them look bad. They're mad at me for making a thread about it.

Besides, in lieu of any child-lynching incidents (or at least I'm not aware of any), it's just a bunch of people whose behavior gets reinforced by the group. The board quotes could easily be coming from their version of the Pit, where they blow off steam and throw crude insults around freely (and egg each other on) with no intention or desire to actually do anything about the object of their scorn.

This is a childish argument. Best to point out incivility before it becomes evil.

Seriously, how many hate-crimes directed against children have there been? Seems to be they're at far more risk from their own parents than any number of non-reproducing child-haters. Policies that you have argued on this board have more violent baggage attached.

Beside the point, and you know this. You're just rabble-rousing for the lulz.

There are substantive comments one can make (and I have made) about Sarah Palin. What you've created here, though, is (as far as I can tell) just an exhibition of how much your feelings have been hurt. Somebody made a "genuflecting" remark of some kind and instead of taking them to the Pit for it, you went looking off-board for a concentrated form of the same attitude. The merit of such an accomplishment escapes me.

A lot of people have agreed with me. That you feel the need to ridicule me is beside the point. You enjoy doing that and do it often. This is entirely personal for you.

Every tumor starts out as a single cell.

[tomndebb]

Every tumor starts out as a single cell.Sort of like every rant starts out as a single post.

This has long been tiresome and I have let it go too long without actually developing into a discussion.

Open the next one in the Pit where it belongs.


[ /Moderating ]