That’s interesting… I think of parenting as “involuntarily raising a pet”. 
I’m CBC. Well, maybe not *totally *by choice, since you have to have a freaking *date *before you can have a child, but anyway… I never felt pitied or belittled by anyone, in the media or in real life. If anything, I feel envied by most of my child-blessed friends…TRM
Yeah, I think they’re based in Canada, eh.
I did get fixed and almost had a kid :eek:
I agree, it pisses me off that people assume we have kids after 19 years of marriage, and act all sympathetic or shocked when not only do we not have kids, we never wanted kids in the first place [either human or goat]
Honestly, I have obviously been born without an ounce of maternal anything … I can not comprehend wanting kids - especially when I hear about some poor woman that was killed and her preborn infant stolen :eek: though the crime itself horrifies me.
they used to on the Love Boat … young singles and childless people off gleefully spending money … sigh
you mean except for the kitteh rodeo at 3 am …
Why is it pretty much every cat in the world goes nuts and runs maniacally around the house at 3 am?
Giving anything capital letters does make it sound more like a cause than what should just be a personal state of being. Like the camps are drawing lines and squaring off.
As someone who’s stuck in the middle, it’s awkward. I was recently lectured by someone about how I should proudly embrace the fact that I’m Childfree and revel in how much awesomer my life is than people with kids. Only, I’m actually not. I’m Childless. I’d be a parent if my body would cooperate, only it won’t, and that’s something that I really don’t want to talk about at a work function. How about we just be two women who have no kids? Does this have to be a political cause?
So Tracy - who is nuts and seldom makes good decisions - decides not to have a vascetomy - and already has children. And Jack, who is also nuts and makes a lot of decisions, most of which he doesn’t follow through on and many made spur of the moment - makes a decision to never have children - probably pretty spur of the moment - that he doesn’t follow through on - and this is a sign that the media doesn’t respect people who are childfree by choice? Seems like its a case that 30 Rock, it the interest of humor, doesn’t respect its characters.
There are a ton of shows on television that are not family sitcoms. That show adults without children. However, its darn hard to make a show about a happily married couple without children flying off to Aruba on vacation funny or dramatic. There needs to be conflict. Children tend to provide it. Or work provides it - so the childfree are usually on work related shows. Or dating provides it - so you end up with Will and Grace so you can watch Grace date inappropriate people.
Best example I can think of, of a show that featured married couples with pretty much no mention of children whatsoever, is Good Life (Good Neighbors in the US), about a couple who turn their back on the rat race and become self-sufficient in their upper-middle-class neighborhood. Tom and Barbara lived next door to Margo and Jerry, a slightly older couple who were also child-free.
There were only two brief mentions of the possibility of children – one where Barbara teases Tom by implying he’s going to be a father (but it’s one of their animals), and another where Tom talks to Jerry about doing some freelance work and Jerry wonders if it’s because Barbara’s preggers (which Tom dismisses).
The show lasted four series and though both wives were certainly young enough to have kids, and though they lived in a classic suburbia where 2.5 kids are the norm, the show found plenty of fodder for jmarried-life humor without dragging in the classic “omg we’re pregnant!” scenario. Rather surprising because it could have caused a lot of tension in Tom & Barbara’s lifestyle – living off the land and performing back-breaking labor to produce enough to feed themselves would have been extremely difficult with one of them not able to chip in, not to mention a third mouth to feed.
And that probably answers the question of why they didn’t go there. The writers preferred to focus on the frustrations and rewards of self-sufficiency without bringing in something that could potentially destroy the humor and overall light nature of the show. Thouguh the Goods had serious moments of doubt about their chosen lifestyle, they never seemed to worry about whether a kid would support it – apparently that was something they just weren’t particularly interested in.
Never a discussion about why Jerry and Margo didn’t have kids. Margo as a mother would have been … interesting! Their kids woudl’ve been off in boarding school so it wouldn’t have changed the dynamic of the show too much. So it’s an interesting choice there from the creative team behind the show.
That would have been an interesting show to watch, choie. When I watch shows like that, there is always a tension for me, waiting for the baby shoe to drop (and it usually does).
If you don’t think the lines are drawn and people are squaring off, you may not have noticed it, but it’s happening. I’m a member of a CBC social group, and we have had reservations refused at restaurants when they learned what kind of group we are, as an example of the world we actually live in. I’ve discussed it with people in our social group, and very few of us feel free to discuss our unpopular reproductive choices in general society (I never volunteer the information that I’m CBC - I only mention it when I’m asked directly).
See, that’s why we differentiate between Childfree and Childless. The people in my group are most definitely ChildFREE. I have sympathy for the Childless - I don’t understand it, because I have never had the urge to have children, but they say it bothers them, and I take their word for it. The problem which prompted this thread is that far too many people without children on tv are treated like they are Childless, and that simply isn’t the case.
Why in the world would a restaurant need to know what type of group you are before taking a reservation? I’ve made reservations for large groups at restaurants before, and usually they just need to know the number in the party, time of arrival, and someone’s name to put the reservation under.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Why would a restaurant refuse a large, presumably paying group, of adults because none of the members have any children? Secondly, if you’re all childless adults, you’ll likely have little reason not to drink copious amounts of alcohol, which is extremely profitable for a restaurant.
Somebody’s telling tales, but I don’t think it’s the restaurant.
If I had to guess, (going by the attitude you are showing in this thread) I would imagine you are the type to go around shouting “I AM CHILDLESS BY CHOICE BY GOD, AND DONT YOU FUCKING FORGET IT” at every given opportunity…
(BTW, I am 39 and also childless, but dont feel the need to share that fact with the person answering the phone for my local bistro)
I don’t believe you. Unless you are leaving out some important details, like it was parents night at Chuck-e-Cheese or something, I think is a complete fabrication. There is no way a restaurant would refuse a large group of paying adults, if they didn’t behave in a way to get themselves thrown out. No way.
Put me on the list of people who don’t believe you. Unless you demanded that the entire restaurant be Childfree while you deigned to grace them with your presence or something. I’ve made reservations for large groups that included lots of children, and you clearly get the sense of disappointment from the servers when they realize that half their hopefully lucrative 40 person party will be ordering from the kids menu.
Um, the point of TV is to get the viewers to pony up their disposable income for the sponsors’ products. The manufacturers make more money if there are families with kids buying their stuff (with the possible exception of companies that make things like condoms and itty-bitty sports cars). Naturally there are plenty of shows with children, previously undecided couples finding Fulfillment through child-bearing and avoiding abortion or suffering unimaginable stresses even considering one.
Things are not as regimented on TV now as in the '50s and '60s, but you don’t think that Nabisco and Wal-Mart and such still have considerable influence with producers? C’mon.
And what’s with all this about CBC couples and discrimination and stuff? Who the hell cares if you work for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, apart from people getting pissed off at all the Celine Dion specials?
Some other childless TV couples:
Dick and Paula Hollister (Richard Benjaman and Paula Prentiss) in He and She.
Fred and Ethyl Mertz
Ralph and Alice Kramden
Ed and Trixie Norton
Nick and Nora Charles (in the movies, too)
Mac and Sally McMillan (of McMillian and Wife)
Colombo and his wife
Barney and Elizabeth Miller (Barny Miller)
Pete and Gladys Porter (Pete and Gladys)
Norm and Vera Peterson (Cheers)
And, though Bob and Emily Hartley were childless, there was an episode where they were trying to have a child.
I’ve only seen the first two Thin Man movies. IIRC, the second one ends with Nora revealing that she’s pregnant. Did they just drop that entirely for the third movie?
The McMillans had a baby at some point. I think it might have been to accomodate Susan St. James’s real life pregnancy.
Bob and Emily Hartley’s attempts to conceive were touched upon in more than one episode in the early seasons. However, the rumor is that when it was suggested to Newhart that they actually have a baby on the show, his response was “Who are you going to get to play the parents?”
Norm and Vera were also trying to conceive in at least one episode, but they gave up on the idea.
Barney Miller had an adult daughter. Barney was quite perturbed when Wojo asked her out.