[QUOTE=Kalhoun]
What the fuck does this have to do with the conversation at hand?
[/QUOTE]
What do you think the conversation at hand is? This is how I see it:
fessie: I hate the term breeder and its’ conotations.
Other Dopers: Their views on the term.
starfishfillet: His (?) view.
Me: I don’t quite agree, but I kinda see what you are saying.
You: SHITCOCK!@
[QUOTE=bordelond]
**Catsix ** responded to a comment about how “Mother’s Day must’ve been a real hoot in your house growing up” by posting that here mother, in fact, (vehemently?) discouraged celebrating the holiday at all when catsix was growing up. If I understood correctly, there were no Mother’s Day cards or gifts in the household.
[/QUOTE]
My mother despised Mother’s Day. We didn’t do gifts or cards for it. She said that if she didn’t get respect and love the rest of the year, one day didn’t matter. And if she did, then one day didn’t matter. She called it “Hallmark Day.”
[QUOTE=Wolfian]
What do you think the conversation at hand is? This is how I see it:
fessie: I hate the term breeder and its’ conotations.
Other Dopers: Their views on the term.
starfishfillet: His (?) view.
Me: I don’t quite agree, but I kinda see what you are saying.
You: SHITCOCK!@
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps because starfishfillet seems to have changed his argument. At first, he’s going on and on about how we want to elevate pregnant women and mothers above all other humans-despite the fact that we specifically said no, that’s NOT what people are proposing.
And:
But then, he/she goes on to state that he/she is only referring to the irresponsible ones? Huh. Kind of a disconnect there.
Who knows? I refuse to speculate about catsix’ origins.
I don’t make a big deal out of mother’s day, myself–but I certainly appreciate any tokens, gestures or good wishes that come my way. My kids each get or make me a card, and we eat out-my choice. I got lots of dandelions etc when they were little and some interesting breakfasts in bed!
I think you’re right re the commonplace. There probably is a gulf that can be difficult to breach, if one lacks imagination. To my mind, the lack of imagination is coming from those who would not give up seats and who use such disparaging terms.
[QUOTE=eleanorigby]
amijane -I think you’re on to something and perhaps those who use this term to express their contempt are actually referring to an inner anger. IANAT, but such hostility projected onto someone else rarely has a benign cause.
[/QUOTE]
Firstly, although I can understand parents feeling the term is inherently hostile, I’m not sure that it is. Mean, yes. Dismissive and disrespectful, certainly. Angry?
Well, all I can think of that childfree people using the term ‘breeder’ are angry at is that society values the choice of people to be parents, when really in a significant amount of cases, perhaps those people shouldn’t be parents at all. I’m not saying the majority or parents, just a large portion, I guess. We all see bad parenting around us all the time, but being a ‘parent’ is validated and respected pretty much automatically in this culture. And damn right, it’s continuing the species and ensuring a new generation to care for the older generations.
But childfree people, largely, made a choice to. To continue with a career that, in most jobs anyway, does contribute to society perhaps. To not add people to an already over-stressed environment, perhaps. To not increase an already over-grown world population… these are not my arguments, but they are arguments for remaining child free that I have heard. Does society validate those persons’ choices? Do childfree people get any sort of tax breaks, perks, or other form of congratualtions for their choice? Nope.
And I’m not saying that I think childfree people SHOULD get those validations, as I don’t think we need them. We don’t have the increase of costs that a larger family unit entails, nor the extra demands on our time and energy. But for many childfree people, their choice to remain childfree was every bit as valid to them as the choice couples make to procreate. Difference is, nobody recognises those choices as valid to our society, except fellow child-freers. So perhaps all the congratulations and lauding of parenthood can get a bit tiresome when there’s no recognition for you and your choices. Maybe it’s why I’m so vocal about being infertile (that and I wish to remove a general taboo surrounding women with a whisper it! barren womb), it means I don’t have my choices questioned. People won’t be able to assume that I’m not ‘contributing to our future’, as one person said to me when I told her I didn’t children and wouldn’t be having them. Of course, I loved her :eek: :smack: when I told her that actually I couldn’t have kids. Heheh PWNED.
Maybe if childfree people are a bit more recognised within society as valid, contributing citizens, we’d stop with the ‘Breeder’ nonsense. Or maybe not, people are mean.
[QUOTE=amijane]
Well, all I can think of that childfree people using the term ‘breeder’ are angry at is that society values the choice of people to be parents, when really in a significant amount of cases, perhaps those people shouldn’t be parents at all. I’m not saying the majority or parents, just a large portion, I guess. We all see bad parenting around us all the time, but being a ‘parent’ is validated and respected pretty much automatically in this culture. And damn right, it’s continuing the species and ensuring a new generation to care for the older generations.
[/QUOTE]
But the counterexample to that is the disgust and anger directed towards bad parents. The same society that holds parenting in high regard is also extraordinarily vicious towards those who don’t do it well. Look at the outrage directed towards the woman who was caught on a mall security camera hitting her kid (the woman who later claimed she was discriminated against for being an “Irish Traveller.”)
I don’t see the point in “childfree” people castigating all parents because some are bad when the bad ones are already subjected to considerable contempt, as they should be.
That’s illogical. Not having kids is a null event; nobody deserves recognition for non-participation. The thing is that you claim the “Child-free” get no recognition - but that’s absurd, of course they do. People without children DO get recognition and benefits for the things they choose to do. If you picked your career over having kids, you are rewarded through the rewards a person gets in their career - pay, promotions, professional recognition and whatever satisfaction you derive from that job. If you choose a job, you get recognized for the job you do. What’s the problem? What else should anyone be recognized for except what they actually DO?
I dunno – I do feel a fair amount of sympathy for childfree women in particular, who are frequently picked on. Especially by their mothers (“When are you gonna have a baby?” at the wedding reception is pretty common). Since I didn’t become pregnant until I was 38, I heard a LOT of remarks for years & years.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
But the counterexample to that is the disgust and anger directed towards bad parents. The same society that holds parenting in high regard is also extraordinarily vicious towards those who don’t do it well. Look at the outrage directed towards the woman who was caught on a mall security camera hitting her kid (the woman who later claimed she was discriminated against for being an “Irish Traveller.”)
I don’t see the point in “childfree” people castigating all parents because some are bad when the bad ones are already subjected to considerable contempt, as they should be.
That’s illogical. Not having kids is a null event; nobody deserves recognition for non-participation. The thing is that you claim the “Child-free” get no recognition - but that’s absurd, of course they do. People without children DO get recognition and benefits for the things they choose to do. If you picked your career over having kids, you are rewarded through the rewards a person gets in their career - pay, promotions, professional recognition and whatever satisfaction you derive from that job. If you choose a job, you get recognized for the job you do. What’s the problem? What else should anyone be recognized for except what they actually DO?
[/QUOTE]
Agreed. That would be like patting someone on the back for not murdering you.
Incidently, do we have an insulting name for people who adopt a mess of kids? Or are they immune to the scorn because they didn’t actually give birth?
[QUOTE=amijane]
Everyone has a right to be annoyed by being called a snotty name. However, sometimes I think it’s a good idea to look at the bigger picture - people who are calling you ‘breeder’ are doing so out of ignorance of the lifestyle you enjoy with your children, the early morning cuddles, the wanting to scoop the little boogers up and breathe them in, all the good stuff and bad… you get to have all the joys (and exhaustion!) of parenthood and they simply don’t understand what they’re missing out on. So pft, does it truly matter what they call you? They know better, that they made the right choice. But you know better too, right?
[/QUOTE]
The “sticks-and-stones” argument doesn’t work with this because it isn’t often that people go up to one specific person and call her to her face a “breeder”. It’s use, IMO, fosters a negative feeling towards parenting in general, but specifically towards mothers. It’s saying that having children is a bad thing. Recently there was a thread in which a poster took aim at people who call themselves “so-and-so’s mom/dad” on their license plate. His/her issue was that doing so meant that you defined your existence by your child. Well calling parents breeders boils them down to only one biological function. You’re not seeing them as a person anymore.
The problem with this line of thinking is that many, many, many “breeders” continue with careers that contribute to society. Or are all doctors, firemen, police officers, nurses, teachers, software developers, engineers, forest rangers, EMTs, military personnel, etc, child free?
But child-free people get “perks” that parents have given up. You have more money and freedom. You don’t bear the incredible burden of being responsible for another person - a responsiblity that could turn out very badly if your offspring makes very unwise decisions.
What other perks do you want? A day like mother’s day or father’s day in which people pay lip service to your role as a parent? Yes parents get a tax break on child care but people who own houses get tax breaks too.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
That’s illogical. Not having kids is a null event; nobody deserves recognition for non-participation. The thing is that you claim the “Child-free” get no recognition - but that’s absurd, of course they do. People without children DO get recognition and benefits for the things they choose to do. If you picked your career over having kids, you are rewarded through the rewards a person gets in their career - pay, promotions, professional recognition and whatever satisfaction you derive from that job. If you choose a job, you get recognized for the job you do. What’s the problem? What else should anyone be recognized for except what they actually DO?
[/QUOTE]
Firstly, in employment law over here, female parents get to keep all the benefits of having a career while on maternity leave. Trust me, I’d LOVE to have a year long break to look after a kid, anyone’s kid! You’re telling me that mothers don’t get perks that others don’t? Fathers aren’t entitled to that leave, regardless that research suggests either parent is suitable as a primary care giver. I’m not able to qualify for a paid year long career break as I’m unable to procreate, which was not my choice. So, men and infertile women are certainly discriminated against. Doesn’t mean I think that should necessarily change, but the situation exists, even if you don’t like it.
And how do childfree people get recognition specifically for their choice not to procreate? They made a choice, THAT was what they did. People are rewarded for choices all the time, to suggest otherwise is highly disingenuous or unimaginative. What rewards do they get for that? Last I heard, there aren’t cards available saying ‘HOORAY, you’re not having a baby even though you could have done so within your current co-dependant and disfunctional relationship! CONGRATS on making the responsible choice!!’. There aren’t YAY WOO You’re Not Having A Baby! showers. There aren’t 2-door-environmentally-friendly-little-car special parking spaces, just special spaces for the gas-guzzling heaps parents need to drive these days. There isn’t a year long ‘Puppy-ternity’ leave option, which would suit me down to the ground considering it’s one of the few ways I’m able to extend my family unit. Hubsand and I can’t take advantage of ‘special family deals’. Our ‘family’ isn’t welcome at social events as a whole - can’t take dogs everywhere you can take kids. No, dogs aren’t kids, but they’re the closest I’m able to manage and they are damn important to me.
I wouldn’t change any of that. In this country, parents and families get great tax breaks that mean people don’t have to make half the wage I do - and that’s marvellous. It really is, I approve of that thoroughly. But don’t tell me that I get my childfree status validated to the same extent as parents, who get all the stuff I do plus more, plus a pat on the back with it even though their kids are god-awful brats who certainly aren’t going to look after me when I’m older. My contribution is a million times more valild in my eyes than theirs, as they are just producing kids who will grow up to be a burden on the state, and claiming tax credits (payments to all parents here) as they do so. So they’re choosing to participate in a process that actively costs ME current and future earnings in tax, and they’re doing something more valid and more deserving of respect and recognition than me? Don’t agree with you there, sorry.
[QUOTE=Caridwen]
I didn’t read her post that way. I don’t think her entire premise was should a pregnant woman expect to have a seat offered to her. That’s your interpretation.
She seem to me to be asking if pregnancy would fall into the catagory of the handicapped/elderly seating and if it would be a valid reason for asking someone to give up her seat.
…
She seemed to be asking for clarification about whether it was acceptable to ask.
[/QUOTE]
As the OP of the first thread, maybe I can set this particular issue to rest.
Caridwen, you read the question correctly. I was just wondering whether pregnancy was considered a temporary disability–not because of the baby-making status, but because of the exhaustion, unwieldiness, puffiness, soft ligaments making leading to instability, etc.
After seeing some of the responses, I went to the source and asked a train station operator, who said that it is not technically considered one unless you have a disabled card. “You have to rely on the courtesy and common sense of your fellow passengers, she said.” So, that’s settled easily enough.
A guy on crutches was several places behind me in line at the station today, but I waved him to the front of the line and made sure he got on first. I’d have done that even if the station operator told me something different. Nobody else in the intervening spaces protested. It seemed like the courteous and sensible thing to do.
I’m still not keen on the use of the word “breed” in this context, because it seems that the childfree definition applies to bad or thoughtless parents. I don’t aspire to be one of those. But y’know, sticks and stones.
amijane, I can relate to many of your complaints, really. There is a tacit approval of procreating - sometimes a really tangible one. It’s also an unspoken assumption that this next generation is going to help take care of the collective us in our old age, so there is a quid pro quo to it.
(on preview) jaderabbit many OBs will obtain disability cards for their clients – particularly one who’s carrying twins, fercryinoutloud!! That soft ligament part, that was the worst; it kills me when people talk about pregnant women “carrying an extra 30 lbs out front” as if that was the only problem! I couldn’t lift my foot to put on pants, the pain in my hip was excruciating; it was just impossible. Good news is, that whole problem goes away within hours of delivery!!
The other thing I really wanted to point out, I’ve been thinking about this for a while (and it might have been better placed in a different thread, but this has been an interesting discussion at points and the kids are napping so here I go) is that I worry that our American culture’s frequent annoyance with small children and their mothers contributes to child abuse.
Now, I know everyone’s got a story about how somebody’s brat really DIDN’T belong at a particular restaurant or theatre and totally ruined their evening, and I won’t argue those instances. In fact, I’ll tell you right now that mothers are among those who find such intrusions particularly annoying, since THEY’VE gone to the time and expense of procuring a babysitter, and REALLY want to get away from kid noise for a change.
What I mean, though, is that “kid time”, “kid space”, “kid needs” are of a totally different dimension than the adult world. There’s a reason why those old sci-fi movies featured short invaders, and it’s because small kids are aliens.
Which means that a mom who’s paying attention to her children has to partially inhabit that bizarro world.
We’re not moving as quickly through the line at McDonald’s, for example, b/c for little 'uns this is an adventure that requires some exploring, both in and out of the queue (which is why I never take mine there when it’s noon and hard-working people need to get their food quickly and go…but that’s been done in other threads).
It seems to me that 90% of daily life in this country is about moving fast and making money, and small children just don’t fit into that matrix. Are we supposed to keep them in a box somewhere until they grow up?
If the good people of the Dope who get so upset at instances of child abuse and neglect want to have an effect on the problem, I suggest they practice visible tolerance of mothers and their children in public places. You won’t stop the worst cases from happening, because there is Evil in the world – but you might well diminish the lesser events. You might help a Mom keep her temper in check by demonstrating your understanding that her job is to wrangle aliens, and they sometimes need extra time and space. It would be a better expenditure of time and effort than semantic niggling over issues of entitlement. Empathy accomplishes more than scorn.
There’s a wonderful little piece in the new “O” magazine on this subject. A corporate “conflict expert” (who even knew there was such a thing?) says that
[quote = Anna Maravelas]
Everyone feels rushed…And each of us has about 30 frustrations a day. They can be little things, hassles, minicrises, but when we’re tired, we get mad…The first (reaction) is to blame someone else when a problem arises. The other is to blame ourselves…They grow out of the same thinking pattern: (i)I’m frustrated because of someone’s stupidity(/i)
[quote]
Her strategy for avoiding this dichomoty is to remind yourself that “There’s something going on in the other person’s life that I can’t see. If I knew what it was, his behavior would make sense to me.”
She uses the example of a driver who’s in a big hurry, on his way to a really important meeting and already feeling anxious when he’s caught at a red light. The woman in front isn’t watching the light, she’s looking in the backseat of her car. As the light changes she doesn’t move – but instead, (i)gets out of her car and starts digging around in the back seat(/i)!
Of course this makes the driver purple with rage at her inconsideration and self-centeredness. He rolls down the window and screams at her, but it’s a couple minutes more before she moves.
What he didn’t know, though, (and this is a true story) is that the woman’s toddler was choking in the back seat and the woman was frantically trying to clear her child’s throat.
I’m not saying that every inconsiderate parent out there is doing the Heimlich; just that “kidland” is vastly different universe.
[QUOTE=amijane]
I wouldn’t change any of that. In this country, parents and families get great tax breaks that mean people don’t have to make half the wage I do - and that’s marvellous. It really is, I approve of that thoroughly. But don’t tell me that I get my childfree status validated to the same extent as parents, who get all the stuff I do plus more, plus a pat on the back with it even though their kids are god-awful brats who certainly aren’t going to look after me when I’m older. My contribution is a million times more valild in my eyes than theirs, as they are just producing kids who will grow up to be a burden on the state, and claiming tax credits (payments to all parents here) as they do so. So they’re choosing to participate in a process that actively costs ME current and future earnings in tax, and they’re doing something more valid and more deserving of respect and recognition than me? Don’t agree with you there, sorry.
[/QUOTE]
Way too broad a brush there. You act as though “god-awful brat” is the default child, and anything else is some kind of freak.
And “producing kids who will be a burden on the state” … what? Just what are you getting at here? If you’re talking about a subset of parents, you’re going to have to be much, much clearer than you’re being.
The tax breaks aren’t all that … come on now. It’s not going to make up half of a professional’s salary in the U.S.
Lastly … a year off for paid maternity leave is far, far from the default. A very few professions have a paid year-long sabbatical available to employees (the only one that comes to mind is teaching public school in Louisiana), but that’s so rare as to be insignificant in a discussion like this.
Fessie – about “America’s annoyance with small children” … bravo!
[QUOTE=amijane]
Firstly, in employment law over here, female parents get to keep all the benefits of having a career while on maternity leave. Trust me, I’d LOVE to have a year long break to look after a kid, anyone’s kid! You’re telling me that mothers don’t get perks that others don’t? Fathers aren’t entitled to that leave, regardless that research suggests either parent is suitable as a primary care giver. I’m not able to qualify for a paid year long career break as I’m unable to procreate, which was not my choice. So, men and infertile women are certainly discriminated against. Doesn’t mean I think that should necessarily change, but the situation exists, even if you don’t like it.
[/QUOTE]
I really agree with a lot of what you have to say and I have immense sympathy and respect for people who cannot have children, and also for those who choose not to. But one thing I really disagree with is the idea (and you are not the first I have heard it from) that maternity leave is a big perk and reward for having children. I have never met a person and I would have a hard time believing there is anyone who ever chose to have a baby just to get maternity leave. It is not a vacation. It is kind of like giving a struggling swimmer a life jacket instead of making them swim for shore on their own. Now maybe things are different in the UK (I know here 6-12 weeks is more the norm for maternity leave) but in the U.S. anyone is entitled to family leave for 12 weeks (albeit unpaid) to take care of a family member who cannot take care of themselves, yet no one sees someone taking care of their dying spouse and thinks “I wish I had 12 weeks off too!” I just get that sentiment a lot, that my days at home are / were ‘days off’ and I laugh, for me my easier days are generally when I am away at work. But they are less rewarding for me, so I choose to work part time to try to find a balance.
Taking care of an older child while working, at least for me, is much easier then taking care of a newborn even while home full time. They just take constant care, it is more work than being ‘at work’.
Being a dog-lover myself I respect this. But if I chose not to have a dog, because I would not be able to take care of one properly, I would not expect any applause or recognition. I think others are just pointing out that we don’t generally give people ‘woo-hoo yay for you’ parties for things they choose not to do. I respect choosing not to have children and I think it is a responsible choice, and I agree that people should weigh the implications of having children more carefully in general, but with all choices comes good and bad and we don’t expect praise and recognition for things we don’t do, that’s all. I would make a terrible surgeon, so maybe I should give myself a “hooray I am not cutting anyone open” party.
We all as a society depend on the fact that those who can work and be productive will support those who can’t or won’t. For better or worse, those of us who can produce are usually still better off and have easier lives than those who can’t. Sure I have to work and help support those burdens of the state but I wouldn’t want to trade places with them. I also accept that I give taxes for all kinds of things I don’t agree with or use myself, and that I pay much more out when I have kids then I save in tax breaks. I can see why some people think parents get all these ‘perks’ but I really doubt the perks are even a factor when people decide whether or not to have children. Maybe there is a couple somewhere out there who is having kids for the tax breaks but I guarantee they are a tiny minority (and idiots).
[QUOTE=amijane]
Firstly, in employment law over here, female parents get to keep all the benefits of having a career while on maternity leave.
[/QUOTE]
Great. It’s good for the employee and the employer.
Of course I am not saying that. Honestly, what the hell are you talking about? Did you read my post past the first word? When did I say anything that amounted to “mothers don’t get any breaks”?
They are where I’m from. Petition your government for better parental leave rules. Or talk to your employer; my employer gives us more than we’re legally entitled to because they know it makes good business sense.
But in any case, this has zippo to do with anything I wrote.
You don’t get recognition for things you choose not to do. You get recognition for things you do. Honestly, how immature does someone have to be to whine and bitch that they want prizes and breaks for things they didn’t do? Saying that you want recognition for not having children is like saying you want recognition for not becoming a lawyer. That was a choice, right? You chose not to become a lawyer. I chose not to become a journalist. Why would you or I get “credit” for that?
You have one life and a finite amount of time in which to accomplish things. You get credit for, and derive utility from, the things you actually accomplish. If you don’t have kids, well, you have more time to do other things that might get you the accolades and kudos you seem to want. Some things get more credit than others; for instance, doctors get more credit than truck drivers for their career choice. You’re a grownup, you pick your own path.
Of course not, because that would be fucking retarded. It would be like giving people cards for not graduating from a school this year. We truly are living in a society too obsessed with personal entitlements when people seriously say they should be recognized for, literally, nothing.
You sound like the Mad Hatter, going on and on about unbirthdays. Happy unbirthday, but don’t expect any sane person to care. You don’t deserve something for nothing.
I see compact car spaces all the time. Look harder. I travel everywhere in North America and I’m seeing “Compact only” spaces more and more.
But hey, if you don’t like giant vehicles, I suggest you rethink whether this has anything to do with kids; it seems to be gigantic vehicles are just as commonplace among the “Child-free” as they are among parents. I can’t begin to tell you how many dorks I see in massive F350’s and Ford Expeditions who clearly just bought them to look cool.
Dogs aren’t as important as people. Sorry, I love dogs, but giving someone a year’s leave to take care of a dog is stupid. There’s no reason for an employer to do that. There IS a reason to give maternity leave; because it substantially increases the likelihood the employee will be retained in the long term, thereby increasing long term productivity. That’s why my employer tops up maternity leave pay; it’s economically worth it to give that leave. Sane people do not quit to take care of dogs. People who don’t get maternity leave quite frequently, by necessity, quit to care for children.
Children, as much as some would like to forget it, are human beings, and it is right and correct that we should account for their needs in the way we construct our cities, homes, businesses and societies, especially given the fact that 100% of all humans who have ever lived, including you, spend part of their lives as children. They are as deserving of accomodation as anyone else. Giving parents a few breaks is really about accomodating the needs of children, and it is right that we do this, just as we accomodate the needs of adults.
Dogs are animals and exist to serve our purposes and “deserve” nothing except humane treatment.
I won’t, and I didn’t. You do not deserve to have your “Child free” status validated at all. You don’t deserve something for doing nothing. You deserve to be rewarded for what you actually do. Do you work? Well, you get a paycheck. Congratulations. If you do charity work you deserve some appreciation for that. If you climb Mount Everest, I think you rightfully should brag a little. But you do not deserve any credit for choosing NOT to climb Everest, do charity work, or forego a particular career.
Which is preposterous. Are YOU a burden on the state? If not, what made your parents different? The great majority of people are, over the course of their lives, a positive contributor for the economy and society as a whole. The idea that not having kids is “a million times more valid” in any objective sense than having them is provably absurd. If it’s just YOUR opinion, well, great; then you get credit from yourself. Go ahead and slap yourself on the back, tell yourself you’ve made the right choice. But why should anyone else care?
[QUOTE=fessie]
Are we supposed to keep them in a box somewhere until they grow up?
[/QUOTE]
Why that would be ever so – thanks! 
KIDDING! 
Actually, that’s pretty much exactly the case, isn’t it? It’s the parents’ jobs to suppress their children’s little ids; being civilized isn’t inborn, and is in fact counter to our instincts. The benefit of cooperating with others (or at least not antagonizing them) is something we have to be taught.
Child-free woman to Marge Simpson, who is trying to convince her of the merits of having children:
“I don’t think I’ll ever understand your point of view. Not even with all my free time.”
[QUOTE=bordelond]
If you’re talking about a subset of parents, you’re going to have to be much, much clearer than you’re being.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, apologies - I wasn’t using too broader a brush but was referring to a previous comment of mine in this thread, specifying that I did not mean the majority of parents, which I should’ve made a LOT clearer.
[QUOTE=Velma]
I really agree with a lot of what you have to say and I have immense sympathy and respect for people who cannot have children, and also for those who choose not to. But one thing I really disagree with is the idea (and you are not the first I have heard it from) that maternity leave is a big perk and reward for having children.
[/QUOTE]
great post, and I agree with most of your points. I certainly don’t believe that maternity leave is a vacation! I’d still like to have the chance, though. Plus, although the UK’s employment law is fantastic in terms of maternity leave (and yes, women will soon be entitled to a full year of maternity leave, not sure the exact date that this change is being implemented but the law currently stands at 6 months), it’s not great in terms of other compassionate leave: for example, my organisation does not have to give me any leave at all legally if my partner becomes terminally ill or dies. As fessie says, a tacit approval of reproduction above other life changing events. However, I feel I need to make this clear - I wouldn’t want maternity leave or tax payment changes to be made! I love that I live in a supportive country that takes care of its parents!
Thing is, I was really just trying to explain to parents how things can appear from a childfree perspective, not justify people acting like arseholes. Name calling can seldom be justified, in my experience. But denying that society congratulates couples for reproducing when that was certainly not always the responsible choice for that couple, isn’t exactly realistic. Simply put, parenthood is applauded, childlessness is not, for whatever reasons on either side. Both states exist in the main due to a binary choice: to reproduce or not - why should state be more valued than the other? That’s how it feels to be childfree; to be valued less than parents, any parents, when considering recognition/tacit approval offered to them and not us. And it does feel “them and us” sometimes, which is a great shame. To not be a parent is to be excluded from a big club that encompasses the majority of adults in the world, as far as I’m aware.
And anecdotally? I manage parents who have refused development into a more senior role as they’d lose their higher level of tax credits and therefore be no better off (and I don’t blame them one bit!). Perhaps consequentially (?), the male and female upper management in my company are almost exclusively childfree.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Of course I am not saying that. Honestly, what the hell are you talking about? Did you read my post past the first word? When did I say anything that amounted to “mothers don’t get any breaks”?
[/QUOTE]
Yes I read your post, in full. Apparently you haven’t read any of mine in as much detail as you believe if you think I am childfree by choice.
And I’m not entirely sure why you’re taking what I infer to be quite an aggressive tone with me. Was I rude to you? If so, I apologise. I don’t appreciate you jumping down my throat, however, for trying to get you to understand that making a choice is not doing nothing. To simply forget to have kids is doing nothing, and that’s not what I’m attempting to discuss with you.
Compact car spaces in the US? YAY! I haven’t been to the US since I was 14 and the UK is backward in that as in everything else, so looking harder’s not going to do me a great deal of good. I’m very glad to hear that they exist, though.
And yes, I work in the charitable sector for less than half of what I’d make in the private sector, so I’m off to pat myself on the back for that and have a little cry over you being shitty about me apparently choosing to not have kids. Thanks for that, alot, that was as lovely to hear as it always is.
To be honest society applauds the child choice because that ensures the maintaining of society.
I understand the motivations and resons for those who choose not to have kids, and then there are those who can not. But you see, while those people contribute while they are working they eventually become the burden as they get older. Not always, of course, but there comes a point where we are unable to do anything for ourselves.
The next generation is the cushion for the previous. When you become older you will need someone to buy your house, pay the taxes and into the Social security and or pension plans. Life as a whole does not and stop with one group. It goes on and on with one generation paying off the previous and in turn generating a new population to pay for them.
That is why the choice of parenthood is looked on more favourably. A couple with children who retire may have the children support them and take soem of the burden from the state. Yeah, it doesn’t always work that way sometimes the children are the burden… and sometime the childless are but the crap shoot favours the family units with kids rather than the successful childess people.
As for the “breeder” crap. I have to wonder if it is about the selfishness of the person spitting it out. Same for the bus seat nonsense. Reminds me of children fighting
MY SEAT! MINE! MINE! YOU CAN’T HAVE IT! YOU AREN’T SPECIAL! IT’S MINE!!! GIMMEEE!
Feh. A little politness can’t hurt. It’s just a seat I have two legs and can stand. We don’t punish the elderly because they chose not to die sooner.