Plight of the Childless

My husband and I decided long ago that we would never breed. Now, all of our friends, siblings, people we work with are having children, and think that we’re odd and unfulfilled in not having any kids.

Hubby’s brother tired to “talk some sense” into us. Children, he explained are the only real purpose of marriage, and we’re ignoring our natural purpose by chosing not to reproduce. We will lead empty lives, he prophesied, and when we are old, no one will take care of us. He said that eventually, we would realize all of this and want a child, too.

My response was that we are VERY fulfilled as it stands. We travel extensively, go out on the town whenever the mood strikes us, and because we have no babies to support, can afford to buy whatever we want. We can have nice cars that have no spilt apple juice and ghram craker crumbs in the backseat. We can go to Europe on a whim because we don’t need to worry about child care. We can have nice furniture and don’t have to worry about things getting broken or stained. We can stay up late, read, watch television uninterrupted by the demands of a child. And, when we are old and feeble, we will have enough money to ensure that we stay in the nicest possible nursing facilities because we had no college tuitions to pay for our young. I pointed out that even if we had children, there’s no guarantee that they would support us in our old age.

In the course of this conversation, we began discussing how the childless in America are discriminated against. We don’t get the tax breaks that breeding couples do, and in fact, we pay taxes to pay for other people’s children.

Hubby’s workplace allows for six weeks of paid maternity or paternity leave outside of vacation and sick time. That’s six more weeks of leave that we will never be able to take advantage of, simply because we choose not to have children. In my opinion, the six weeks should just be added to vacation time so that even the childless could take advantage of it. They could even make it a one-time thing.

The people that we work with are always leaving to go to a child’s baseball game, or a dance recital, leaving the childless to do their work. “Oh, I can’t stay late tonight. My kid has a play.” “Well, Lissa’s hubby doesn’t have any kids, so make him stay late tonight.” He had one co-worker say that he should always be the one to stay because hubby doesn’t have a family. “What?” Hubby said. “Yes, I do. I’m married.” Oh, the co-worker replied * that’s * not a family! You’re only a family if you have children. Countless time, theater tickets have gone unused, dinners have burned, and weekend get-aways have had to be cancelled, because people think that their plans with their children are more important than our plans.

So, what do you think, guys? Have any of you child-free people experianced the same thing?

This topic was covered a few months ago in this thread:
Are middle-class parents ripping off the “child-free”?

It was quite an active discussion, and since there are several new members, well worth revisiting.

I hate kids and even if I could breed, I wouldn’t simply because I hate kids. They all belong in orphanages or at a soylent green farm.

HUGS!
Sqrl

Gee, don’t hold back, Cubbie. Tell us how you really feel.

Deep breath…Oh, never mind.

Tell your husbands brother to mind his own business. And if you don’t think your job has enough benefits, get another one. Paid family leave is extremely rare. If your company offers it, they obviously think their employees with children are worth it.

I can’t find one thing here to agree with. I’m single and live alone in an apartment. Does this mean I’m discriminated against for not getting tax breaks on mortgage payments or claiming head-of-household status or not even having any dependents whatsoever? I could claim that my taxes are supporting you married people, but that’s ridiculous. Of course people with children should get tax breaks - kids are expensive. There’s clothes that are being outgrown, extra medical expenses, dental treatment, etc. Parents have a hard enough time trying to raise a child right, the least they deserve is a little less pressure on the wallet.

And as for the 6 weeks maternity/paternity leave: People without kids don’t get it because they don’t need it (or really deserve it). My sister just recently had a little girl, not quite a month ago. There is a lot of work to be done when welcoming a new baby into the house. The mother needs to recuperate (look at the size of that thing that just squeezed its way out of there, for crying out loud!) The father can be there to help ease the adjustment to having a demanding, needing infant crying at all hours, not to mention that he may be a comfort during port-partem (sp?) depression.

And as for parents taking time off work to spend time with the families - GOOD! It meant more to me than you’ll ever know to be playing baseball and see my father in the stands rooting for me, cheering when I got a hit or offering cheerful advice when I struck out.

The difference is that these people get the ‘perks’ for the benifit of their children, which they are trying to raise and teach as best they can. You want the same things for yourself, and to me that just seems selfish.

Why should I have to pay for it, then? You have decided to reproduce. That’s fine and dandy, but why should I pay for, and be inconvinienced by your decision? I know kids are expensive, and it may sound harsh, but if you can’t afford one, don’t have one.

Deserve it? Why do people with children deserve it? My grandmother worked like a dog with her husband on a farm while raising five children. She got no leave. It was hard on her, but she knew that if she wanted to have children, she had to make the sacrifices. NOT the people around her.

But not for the rest of us who have to fill in for you. Why can’t I take time off of work to spend with my dog? Or with my husband? Or doing whatever I want to do?

I can understand a new mother needing to recuperate from childbirth. Fine. Take sick leave until you have recovered. But I still don’t think you should get a six week vacation, upsetting the lives of everyone that works with you.

No, what I think is selfish is people who think my life and my plans are meaningles compared to theirs. Why should I have to step aside for people who decided to have children?

I’m child free and I don’t totally agree with everything you’ve said. I do agree that people should leave you alone and not bug you for not wanting to have children. If you don’t want to, that’s your business.

Here’s the stuff I don’t agree with…

Staying home to help take care of a newborn isn’t exactly a vacation. It’s a lot of work. No, I don’t have children myself, but I have a brother and a sister who are both more than 20 years younger than me and I had to help take care of them when they were infants, so I do have somewhat of an idea of the work that goes into it.

Six weeks at the beach and six weeks with a newborn just aren’t the same thing.

If you don’t want to work late, then just say no. If the job’s that bad, get a new one. Easier said than done for some people, I realize, but the way you made it sound, if the folks at your company can take off on a whim for their kids, then you should be able to have control over your schedule too. Stop complaining and just stand up for yourself. (If it’s really that bad.)

You went on about how great your life is because of not having kids (the free time, the travel, etc.). Well, that’s true…as childless people we have a lot of freedom to do what we want that people with children don’t have. So why complain about all the stuff that they get that we don’t? They have a lot of responsibility that we don’t, so I think they’re entitled to some perks here and there.

Hubby works for the state and has a job where there must be someone there at all times. He gets stuck working late when no one else will do it because of their plans. His supervisor has the final say, and he generally sides with the people who have plans with their children, rather than my husband who just has plans with his wife. The supervisor has children of his own, so that might have something to do with it.

I work in a small, three-person office, and since I am new here, I’m the low chick on the totem pole, and get stuck with the overtime.

I realize that children are a big responsibility, I just don’t think that I should have to bear part of it, and I don’t think that people who have them should necessarily get special treatment because of it.

This has got to be the most selfish and shallow statement ever made. True fullfillment comes from watching a human being that YOU CREATED grow and mature into an intelligent, creative, productive(insert favorite adjective here) person. And yes, it costs an arm and a leg but it’s worth every damn dime.

Lissa, you addressed everything I said except for the above statement. As a married couple, you get tax breaks that I don’t. Same for people who own homes instead of renting. By your logic, I’m paying for you to be married and for all sorts of people to own a house. How is this different from your claim that you are supporting other people’s children?

From what I’ve read, you’re saying you want more money and time off to do fun things with your husband. What you seem to not understand is these people are taking time out and getting more money to take care of their children, not to go on a vacation or do the theatre - they are taking care of a responsibilty.

If that’s the only source of fulfillment for you, I feel sorry for you. I am childless, and choose to stay that way, and my life is anything but empty. To say that the only happiness in life comes from making babies sounds awfully shallow. And calling someone selfish for not adding to the world population is awfully short sighted.

Or did I misunderstand?

Different people are fulfilled by different things. You may find “true fulfillment” in raising a child; others may find it elsewhere. What makes you think that it’s impossible for anyone to be truly fulfilled without having kids?

Re: maternity leave

What if I want to take six weeks off and work on my book? Or volunteer full time for a charity? Or for the Nader campaign? I would be expected to use up any vacation time I have coming, and then simply take unpaid leave, hoping all the while that my job will still be there for me.

However, I could take that time off if I were having a baby (or, to be biologically correct, if my wife were. :slight_smile: )

I think that both should fall under the same heading–I really do think that people should be able to take time off from their jobs to do the things they consider fulfilling, whether that is writing a novel, working for a homeless shelter, or having a child.

Of course, you could say that taking off for a personal project is selfish, but how is it moreso than having a child? Does the world need extra people more than it needs volunteer charity work, or another novel?

Don’t get me wrong–I hope to have a child (note singular) someday. I think that being a parent is a wonderful and fulfilling thing to do. But to say that those who do not have children and choose to devote their lives to other pursuits are selfish and unfulfilled is the most absurd thing I’ve heard in a while.

Dr. J

My goodness, what a spirited debate.

Lissa darling, no-one should be telling you that you’re wrong not to “breed.” The choice to bear a child or not is a HUGE one, and not to be undertaken simply because lots of other people do it. I applaud your decision, and at least one of my sisters-in-law shares your view.

My take on feminism is that it gives me a choice, period. I don’t HAVE to have the high-powered job, but nor do I HAVE to stay home barefoot and pregnant. The fact that I would choose to stay home with my son in a heartbeat if I could (instead of working) is a personal one, and I would never dream of forcing my choices or views on someone else.

As for the idea that parents are getting “extras” that other employees don’t- well, I can’t imagine working for anyone who would allow such arbitrary work assignments (oh, let Bob work, he has no kids, etc). Aren’t there any guidelines for this sort of thing where your husband works? Oh wait, you said he works for a state… never mind…

Okay, you’re single, but you could still buy a house and get the tax breaks. And actually, after hubby and I married, our taxes went UP. (We joke about getting divorced and living together as a way to save money.)

Yeah, that’s what they keep telling me. I’ll admit to being selfish . . . that’s why I shouldn’t be a parent, and don’t intend to become one.

I do understand that. I just don’t think I should be inconvienienced by YOUR responsibility. I don’t care if it’s shallow or not, I don’t think I should have to work your job and mine too because YOU chose to breed. As I said before: I realize that children are a big responsibility, I just don’t think that I should have to bear part of it, and I don’t think that people who have them should necessarily get special treatment because of it.

On a number of issues, I’ll back you up, Lissa. If I take time off to be with a kid, I had darned well cover that time somewhere. I have no right to designate a single or childless person as the “full-time emergency maintenance” employee. If there are obligations that come with the job, whether or not I have children does not mitigate my requirement to fullfill those obligations.

Similarly, I’m going to disagree with anyone (on or off this thread) that makes a big deal about how only children can fullfill one’s presence on Earth. Any person’s personal fullfillment is personal and cannot be determined by some vague definition that is set by not much more than a herd mentality.

I will take issue with one statement, however:

My kids are going to pay for your retirement, either directly by paying into Social Security or (if you don’t need it because of your superior choices in investments and retirement planning) indirectly by simply maintaining a society in which you can live.

Should you have to pay for every tax break that I may get from having kids? Possibly not. But it is a more complex issue than simply “Tax breaks for kids are bad.” or “Taxes on non-parents to support kids are bad.” Each tax issue should be addressed on its own merits, not by slogans. Taxes for schools, for example, ensure that there will be a few people left to administer your 401k disbursements, to say nothing of having educated cops, medical personnel, etc.

Yeah. The thing that burns my biscuits here is the implication that people don’t get leave time and have to work overtime BECAUSE of parents. A very few years ago women were fired for getting pregnant. Period, no recourse, no discussion of whether they could afford to live on one income or not or whether they wanted to quit. Oh, they might have put it more nicely and given you a baby shower on your way out, but you were out all the same. Paternity leave? Are you out of your mind? What do men have to do with raising a family?

Quote:

“I would be expected to use up any vacation time I have coming, and then simply take unpaid leave, hoping all the while that my job will still be there for me.”

You have, in a nutshell, described the Family and Medical Leave Act. The only difference is that businesses are required to keep the job (or an equivalent) open. People won these options because they fought and lobbied for them. Now, most new mothers get a “generous” 6 weeks of unpaid leave. Can you go 6 weeks without a paycheck? No, me neither. I don’t even mention men, as most men don’t dare try to use the leave the law has provided them, even if they can afford to.

If you want to take 6 weeks to write a book, save up your leave time or find an employer that thinks you are valuable enough to make a sabbatical part of your benefits package. Just don’t pretend it’s the fault of us “breeders” if you have a hard time finding one.

Hey Lissa, not to argue many more of your posts, but you have Kent4mmy’s quote wedged smack in the middle of two of mine. Please understand, I do not think you are selfish for not wanting to have children, it is your right to have children or not, however you choose. Just because someone chooses not to have children doesn’t make them any less of a person.

DoctorJ - you want to take time off to work on a novel? Go ahead, the govt makes grants for just such a thing. Apply for a grant, take a leave of absence, work on your novel.

I don’t have any children, yet I do not resent the breaks parents get. I think that it benefits everyone in a society when children are made a priority. It’s the same reason I don’t resent paying school tax–We ALL benefit from educated young people, not just the parents.

I do think it’s annoying that people bother you about your decision. I wish more people thought carefully before bringing new people into the world.

I think Todd covered this pretty well, but let me add that your comment comes across as extremely hostile and insulting, not to mention arrogant. I have not decided whether I will ever have kids, but I sure as hell won’t do it until I’m sure I want to make the sacrifices required. Somehow, I’ve been thinking of this plan as logical and in the best interests of any child I do have, but apparently it is shallow. If I were sterile and I believed your assessment of life, I guess I would just kill myself right now.

On the other hand, I don’t see any reason to get bent out of shape over parents getting some help from the government or their employers. It sounds to me, Lissa, like you and your husband need to either get new jobs or stop complaining. The parents who get to go home aren’t victimizing you - your employer is, and it sounds like you’re complicit in it. You’d rather grumble about unfair parental perks than confront your boss about your eniquitable treatment. Well, if you love the job so much and you don’t want to confront your boss, you could always pretend to have kids. Who would know?