I think it’s the equivalent of how pregnant women and mothers with young children get all sorts of unsolicited “advice” and are continually second-guessed on parenting skills and decisions.
Yeah, I’m not fond of that sort of “joking”, either, but for whatever reason I don’t think it bothered me as much as it seems to bother you - but hey, everyone’s different and that’s cool.
Now my sister, the one who runs a hospice for a living, she really doesn’t like that sort of “joke”. And that was even before our mother died.
Indeed, and I wouldn’t joke about that. I was being serious, and I thought it was relevant. People often “bingo” the childfree by asking who’s going to take care of us when we’re old. I for one think it’s awful to wish that on one’s children, and I don’t plan to live that long either.
No, seriously there has got to be some kind of trigger at work.
If my experience comes up in conversation, though it’s now years in the past, at least a couple of people will make a point of telling me how their Mom says ‘Just bury me under the wood pile! Ha, ha, ha!’ I can find no explanation for how frequently this happens.
And I’m always confused why they feel the urge to tell me this? I want to ask why are you telling me this? That seems rude, they seem well intended, mostly, I think?
And you can see for yourself, I posted but a few paragraphs about an experience, years past, as it pertains to the childless topic. And Bam! Next post… (Please don’t worry I’m offended, I’m not, but I’ve listened to a LOT of this ! It strikes a nerve for me, is all!)
It baffled me then and that the story alone should still trigger this, continues to baffle me.
Why do people tell pregnant women scary stories about labor and delivery? Why do people tell folks about to go into surgery all sorts of horror stories? Same thing from my viewpoint.
For me, it had to do with the fact that I was (at the time) an English-speaking, Republican-voting, college-educated, white Evangelical Christian. By not re-producing, I was reducing the future population of same by at least one. Not good for The Community, if you get my drift.
I am now an English-speaking, Libertarian-voting, college-educated, white …something, but not Evangelical Christian, so few people (beyond my mother) care whether I reproduce or not.
I agree it is not unique to child-rearing. My point was that, in modern discourse, it is a commonplace. Unfortunately, casting the rhetoric in this form obscures the real issues.
I don’t agree. Determining which position makes society better is a real matter of priorites and hard decisions. Some anodyne ‘we are all special snowflakes and morally equal’ will not cut it, because at some point, we as a society will be asked to decide actual stuff like ‘should we grant public subsidies to daycare and force employers to grant generous parental leave - or not’. Or the ever-popular ‘a single person and a parent are both workers - who should be pressured into working Christmas’.
At some point (and, apparently, reasonably often, judging by how often this issues are raised on this site), issues arise as to whether the rules of society ought to “favour” parents or non-parents, often with common tax dollars - should they pay for stuff like childhood education and daycare and the like? If so, to what extent? Tax breaks for having kids? That sort of thing. How much of the burden of child-rearing should be placed on parents because, after all, it was their decision? Does it matter that placing much or all of that burden on parents has a differential effect on women? Etc. etc.
These questions need answers and, to an extent, the answers will depend on how one views the social utility of child-rearing vs. other activities. If the potential to write the American Novel or telling funny jokes is of equal social utility to raising kids(or if social utility is purely subjective), it stikes me as sensible for someone to take the position that parents ought not to be “favoured” with social programs, but bear the costs themselves.
It’s not an either or thing; that’s why I disagree with this notion. We don’t have to pick between a society that values children and accommodates parents, and a society that is the complete and total opposite. There’s a middle that you’re excluding.
I have to roll my eyes at the “special snowflakes” thing too. No we’re not all special snowflakes, but not all parents are benefiting society by procreating. Some of them are actually hurting society by procreating. And? How does pointing this out add to the discussion?
But that’s jumping to an unreasonable conclusion, IMO. Ask yourself what is even the point of publically subsidized education if outcomes associated with educated minds (like publishing a novel or becoming a talented surgeon) are of less inherent worth than raising a child. Is our purpose in life merely to churn out more people? Of course not.
We can have family-flexible systems at work and subsidized daycare and that good stuff, while still seeing parenthood as a choice, not a duty, a sacrifice, or an indicator of one’s moral standing.
I don’t think I’m requiring picking of opposites. I would describe this as a continuum. How much should society in effect subsidize child-rearing?
I don’t think it adds at all.
It is similar to discussions about welfare: the issue is the social value of the policy as a whole. Pointing out that some particular recipients of welfare are undeserving reprobates (while undoubtedly true) is besides the point, other than as a rhetorical device.
Discussing whether it is of value to society as a whole to support child-rearing does not require making a moral judgment about people who do, or do not, raise children.
It is worth noting, without passing any moral judgment however, that without reporoduction, there is no “life” to have any “purpose”.
All of those surgeons, novelists, and other admirable people were, of course, once children. Granted, so were all those criminals and other reprobates. Arguably, supporting parents in their child-rearing ensures more of the former and less of the latter … which is why even non-parents ought to be on board with it.
This. I’m still not understanding how choosing not to have a child you don’t want to parent is “selfish.” This is the biggest decision a person can make in their lifetime, since it doesn’t just affect the person who makes it; it affects, in the most fundamental and profound way possible, the course of another person’s entire life. There are enough ways to screw up a child by accident, why should someone court that possibility if they know it’s not something they want to or are capable of taking on?
On the other hand, having a child “because I want one” without some deep, serious consideration of how this decision will affect long-term outcomes for that child… that’s selfish.
As for the notion that the only way a person can contribute to society is by making more people… seriously? What about art, activism, working in social services, or medicine, or otherwise taking care of people who already exist, or scientific discovery, heck, farming, tailoring, or opening a retail shop… which arguably have a much more far-reaching impact than having a child, which will directly affect only the immediate and maybe the extended family of the mother and/or father of the child.
There’s also the consideration that having slower population growth will reduce the strain on the world’s ecology and resources. Is consideration for an entire planet selfish?
I may have missed it, but for those who are writing that deciding to not have kids is selfish, please explain to me what you mean. Who am I harming by not having a child?
You know, Its a losing battle. I dont see why their has to be disputes over it. If you dont have them. Cool, if ya do. Cool. If one day you do want them, cool. If you never want them, cool!! Who cares.
I never wanted children, and am glad I didn’t have them. I really think that the people who have an issue with other people not having children wish they had made the same decision.
Over the years, I’ve had two people tell me that they wouldn’t mind if their kids died. :eek: Really.
I think this is a pretty generic compliment, especially if said immediately after having observed you interacting with some children, and even more especially if it even more generic, like “You’re really good with them.” However, if you are overly sensitive because you happen to have a parent who is pestering you about actually having children, you might not take this is the general spirit offered.
I used to think that everyone ought to stick to having two kids-- you know, zero population growth, but now I think that people who don’t want to parent shouldn’t, and that means that people (like my aunt and uncle) who are really good at it can have four children and not worry about overpopulation.
My mother didn’t want children, but bowed to social pressure. Fortunately, my aunt did most of the actual care of me, so it worked out.
I think there is a difference between conversation and confrontation. Yes, I’ve sometimes asked people why they never had kids but only for conversation. I never meant any harm.
To quote a favourite highly-cynical character of mine from fiction – though in this case, about war, not about parenthood-or-not: “But that would make sense”.
And people are just letting you know that you aren’t the first person to ask that question, so even if your intentions are innocent, that doesn’t mean the question isn’t an annoying one.
When people ask me the question, I answer it in a friendly enough way, which probably gives the incorrect impression that I don’t mind talking about it. I imagine the same goes for the people you’ve talked to as well. People are really good at hiding their emotions just for the sake of smooth social interactions.
People I’ve known who worked in family law or any kind of counseling have told me that the worst custody disputes are the ones where NEITHER parent should have it. And it has nothing to do with socio-economic status, either. And the number of people who get married without ever discussing whether they want children would blow your mind too.