I know a number of topics are going on the merits of childfree/childless vs. childburdened/childful, but I have a couple of thoughts or questions perhaps:
As a society, I believe members have an obligation to other members. We all draw the lines at varying places.
As a corollary, if (take the US, but most Western European nations are in the same boat) a country does not replicate itself through birth growth or immigration, how are social services going to be paid for in the future? Or in other words, isn’t to the advantage of the childfree to develop good little workers whose payroll taxes will pay for the triple bypasses and the social security? Again, the line drawing will undoubtedly kick in (i.e., I pay my taxes, that’s all the little shits are going to get or I donate all my free time to being a Big Sibling).
Dunno, just think the conversation can all take a less personal viewpoint and consider a wider angle on the camera.
“We’ve never studied “not liking children” as a disorder or “issue” in any of my psych classes.”
GMRyujin - in my experience, if you stick with psych, you’ll enjoy it more and more (I personally hated years one and two, but you have to do them to get to the good stuff). I’m sure you’ll get to cover relationship issues, however, not liking children is not classified as ‘a disorder’ and neither is having a bad relationship with your siblings for that matter. It could be that extremely poor communication with your siblings when growing up is the root cause of your hatred for children - there are many root causes to choose from.
I’m on the other side of this issue-seated right next to ** QueerGeekGirl**.
One of my dearest friends L. gave birth 6 years ago.
For the first four years of little J.'s life, the only thing that kept us friends was the fact that I was 1)willing to make an extreme effort and 2) I constantly compromised.
Little J.'s schedule always came first. While I realize that adhering to a regular schedule is important in childrearing, I often wanted to scream “She won’t die if she’s kept up 45 minutes past her bedtime. She won’t implode if she doesn’t get her nap right away”
All conversations ultimately came back to baby J.
Didn’t matter what we were currently discussing-somehow L. managed to incorporate J.'s latest achievement or problem.
“You think it’s hard to reach a peace plan in the Middle East-well, let me tell you, if our leaders had a baby with colic, they’d know what hard really is!”
We couldn’t go anywhere for an adult outing because I was the only one L. really trusted with J. at the time including her husband.
While that was flattering, I could never completely convince L. that I didn’t much care for babies-I prefer to interact with the continent and coherent. I’m very capable of changing a diaper or feeding baby slop-I just don’t care for to do it on a regular basis.
I would have given anything for a private adult couples dinner at a restaurant with L. and her husband but I accepted the fact that it just wasn’t going to happen for a while.
My very quietly offered opinions about children in general were summarily dismissed because I was not a mother.
As Miller so aptly stated, it is possible to have intelligent opinions on parenting even if one is not a parent.
Luckily, L. is now coming out of her baby/toddler induced fog and we can now do things without J. being constantly included. Actually, I have no desire to exclude J. from all our interactions-I quite enjoy her company at the appropriate time and in the appropriate setting.
Just not all the time, every time we get together-that’s all.
I fully support anyone’s right to not be a parent, not enjoy kids, and to not interact with them to any significant extent. But the behavior of extreme avoidance such as is intimated in the above quote does strike me as extreme, if not pathological. Other issues may need to be addressed.
I was a well behaved child, but not because my parents were strict. I honestly can’t think of a single time I was even punished. I was just naturally a quiet kid who didn’t like to rock the boat…much. I also had my moments.
But like Miller said…the tihngs that make kids “charming” is what makes them grating. And maybe I have my own unresolved issues from childhood. I know in my experience, my peers when I was a child were a bunch of howling barbarians.
Bill H, after all that’s been said, I’m curious if you still feel the same way about part (b) of your OP. What do you think of the numerous responses to that part of your OP ?
Thank the gods I’m not in this situation yet. None of my friends have kids yet (and aren’t really close to having any) but I can see how kids will change, or destroy, a friendship.
Children are a compromise. If you choose to have kids, you need to understand this life changing experience may well include losing your friends, not having a life, and spending the next decade or two working hard for your kids (as it should be).
Just don’t bitch if us CF people want to hang out at the pool hall and you can’t come. Or see a “R” rated movie so your kids can’t come. Or go on a camping trip for a week. These things are adult-only situations (except maybe the camping) and if you can’t make it, too bad. Your choices in life exclude some of these things. Live with your choice and stop whining.
If and when I choose to have kids, I don’t expect to even see the inside of a nice resturant for the first 14 years. I know I can’t hang with the boys in the pool hall (too smokey for kids) or do some drag racing with the baby in the back. I will understand if my friends don’t invite me to a weekend of paint ball, or a road trip across the country*. I made the choice to have kids and loose this kind of freedom.
*Please keep in mind these are only examples. I’m sure some people can hire a baby sitter for a week but I know I can’t afford that!
What do you think about the numerous responses to part (b) of your OP?
I love children, though I don’t have any (yet). I fully intend to breed. I still get annoyed when I’m trying to enjoy dinner at a nice resteraunt and have to listen to a howling baby. Or a howling baby in a movie theatre (in an R rated movie no less!) ect. ect.
And as I’ve posted in many other threads I had (yes! she’s gone!) the coworker from hell who insisted on bringing her 2 year old son EVERYWHERE with her. To meetings. To work lunches. To the work Christmas party. And what’s worse, she never disciplined the little brat. Half the time we couldn’t hear the people speaking in the meeting over him. The boss had a word with her and she started screaming that we weren’t “child friendly” :rolleyes: This year the Christmas party was being held at our new supervisors house. Very gracious of her. I later heard that little pwecious was camped out on her beige leather recliner with a black magic marker and post it pad. When the supe asked C.W.F.H. nicely to have him sit somewhere else she immediately started with the 'ol “not child friendly” battle cry. She also tried (and is still trying, even though she no longer works for us) to get the supe fired.
So, should I have nothing to say about CWFA’s parenting skills? Because I don’t have kids? Please. When a parent’s shitty parenting skills directly effects me, you’d better be damn sure I’m gonna have something to say about it. :mad:
In general, yes I do, though I’ll admit it was much too strongly stated. Let me put it this way:
At core, the trait I’m unhappy about is how some (but far from all) childfree people treat children as non-humans. Like a dog for example, where when two people and a dog are together, the two people decide the topic, and dog sits. Or perhaps the dog whines to be played with, and the people either tell the dog to shut up or send him off to play by himself while they talk. That’s not to say the child should dictate the conversation or the activity or anything else, but the child is not an annoying disturbance to the process; the child is a participant.
Here’s another phrasing: Go read some of the Childfree-friendly threads, and you’ll discover that many (but not all) childfree people view a couple with children as well, a couple with children. The people in question view themselves as a family (and no, a couple is not a family; go look it up). Some of these childfree couples view social activities with said family as a social activity with the couple, not getting that a fundamental change has occurred in that couple, to the extent that they don’t even view themselves (primarily at least) as a couple any more.
Of course to repeat what I said earlier, many times a couple with children enjoy being away from their kids, and often they do enjoy being just a couple. But that’s become secondary to them.
OK, but you actually said you had a problem with people who “don’t get along with children”.
I fulfill that requirement, because I DON’T get along with children. But I don’t fulfill the other one, since I don’t treat them as non-human. Of course they’re humans. For example (and I’m not equating children with passive-aggressive behaviour, it’s only an example) I don’t treat people who are passive agressive as non-human, but I also “don’t get along with passive agressive people”. Do you see the difference ?
So which is it ? Do you have a problem with people* who treat children as non-humans, or do you have a problem with people who “don’t get along with children” ?
*I’ve known parents who treat their children as if they’re non-human, so it’s not a “some CF” thing, it’s a “some people” thing.
You’re not my doctor, you’ve never met me, and you have no basis other than the fact that I do not interact with children to base your opinion on, so please don’t be offended when I tell you that your psychoanalysis smells a lot like shit.
I am not some broken person, and I certainly don’t need a psychiatrist to help me fix something that is not broken. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the fact that I don’t like being near or interacting with kids of any type.
Sorry, catsix. I should have made it clear I wasn’t trying to analyze you. Or anyone, for that matter.
But I still believe that extreme avoidance behaviors (and you did mention one behavior which on the surface sounds like it could fit that category) are an indication that other issues mayneed to be addressed. Usually because a large number of people are still miserable despite their particular coping mechanisms. Not broken, but miserable.
A well-behaved, well-brought up child is NOT treated like one of Joe Jackson’s kids.
I was a well-behaved, though hyperactive child. (ADHD). That being said, I KNEW how to behave, and what was expected of me, and my parents didn’t take me places where it was inappropriate. They got my cousin to babysit for me. I didn’t mind-we played Candyland and ate pizza. I LIKED it when I had a babysitter.
What the FUCK is wrong with expecting kids not to be complete spoiled brats who throw food everywhere and don’t listen?
There is another side to all this. Before I go on I would like to loudly proclaim that I am fine now but I was a very badly abused kid. Multiple perpetrators including my brother who was another kid. The sort of story that if it hit the papers would have the pitizens out with pitchforks. I was brought up very wrong indeed and was totally clueless about how people interacted because the world I came from was so different to that others seemed to come from (realising that was the start of healing).
During my 20s I was terrified of children. I did not trust myself to deal with them properly as by then I knew the way I was raised and disciplined and rewarded were all unacceptable but they were still my instincts. Friends of course had kids and I just couldn’t be there without telling this sort of story which is not something I like to do generally speaking. I stayed away for everyone’s sake.
I am a long time over all that, I love my SOs son and the few kids I have in my life. I cannot get those friends from my 20s back and I am sure they show the kind of resentment towards me that some folks here are demonstrating but sometimes there is more to it than you know. I did not hate those kids, I was scared of hurting them and I was triggered by them.
It was not selfishness or meanness. Bottom line is if people don’t want to be around your kids why do you want to force your kids into the equation? It could be dangerous for somebody.
Actually, since it is your point, I think I’m going to need you to go look that one up.
I’d hate to know I’ve been using the wrong terminology on my Christmas Cards for the last 8 years. “Greetings from the Dooku childfree couple.” :rolleyes:
The Webster’s Revised Unabridged has “The group comprising a husband and wife and their dependent children, constituting a fundamental unit in the organization of society.” as its second definition, after “The collective body of persons who live in one house, and under one head or manager; a household, including parents, children, and servants, and, as the case may be, lodgers or boarders.” It also has a lot of definitions about common lineage or descent and close relations.
WordNet just says “a social unit living together”, following it with “primary social group (parents and children)”, “a collection of things sharing a common attribute”, and “people descended from a common ancestor”.
The OED, which I know off the top of my head is organised chronologically, starts with “the servants of a household”, follows it with “the retinue of a nobleman” and “the staff of a high official”, then “a school of gladiators”. (At least two of those are obsolete; I forgot to check the others though I suspect that there aren’t many ancient Roman gladiators these days to discuss.) Then there’s “the body of persons who live in one house or under one head, including parents, children, servants, etc.” A secondary definition is given for a collection of birds and animals that can share a limited habitation without violence. Third definition is “The group of persons consisting of the parents and their children, whether actually living together or not; in wider sense, the unity formed by those who are nearly connected by blood or affinity.” (Emphasis added.) Then “A person’s children regarded collectively.” Definition four handles descent from a common ancestor, a noble ancestor, or membership in a particular ethnic group. Fifth is a group of individuals or nations bound together by political or religious ties. After that it starts getting metaphoric.
Okay, I’ve looked it up. You’re as full of shit as I thought you were.
