Nope. The biological imperative to reproduce is universal (or near-universal) in the form of sexual desire, but not in the form of a conscious preference for having and rearing children.
Biology took care of the requirements for reproduction by instilling in humans a near-universal desire to fuck. That desire, when acted upon by a sufficient number of heterosexual couples of childbearing age with no options for birth control, results in producing sufficient offspring to continue the species, whether the couples in question spontaneously want children or not. Biology did not instill in humans anything like a universal conscious preference for parenthood.
You can argue that ignoring the natural sexual imperative altogether is abnormal (although I’d bet that there’s a very small percentage of people who are naturally truly asexual, so for them complete abstinence is normal), but you can’t conclude from that that not wanting children is abnormal.
Most people are right-handed, and most people are non-Jewish, and most people are not red-haired. That doesn’t in any way make those minority characteristics “not normal”.
Yes, most people have or want kids. But “most” doesn’t mean “so close to 100% that anyone who doesn’t fit into that category can be described as abnormal”. Not wanting to be a parent, like being left-handed or Jewish or gay, is a minority characteristic, but not an abnormal one.
Oh, puh-leeze. This distinction without a difference is merely an attempt to tone down an offensive and illogical statement into a somewhat less offensive (though no less illogical) statement.
Thank you, a thousand thanks, for saying what I was thinking, but articulating it better. I can’t believe people sit in daily rush-hour traffic, or see pictures of Calcutta on the news, and think to themselves: “That’s what the world needs. More people!”
I’m not wearing a hat, Kimstu, but if I was, I’d take it off to you.
I will also add that more and more women - nearly half of the female population in the US, from what I have read - are either choosing to not have children at all or delay childbirth until well into their thirties. So we have this whole generation of women that are not thinking about children until much, much later.
It’s the idea that every woman wants to have a baby that irks me, and that it’s her driving goal. Even women who want to have babies don’t have that as their main goal, it’s just one amongst many.
Sure, there are people who go baby-crazy, and that happens - but then, there are people who just calmly decide to have children, and don’t think about it much until then.
“Not normal” and “abnormal” definitely have negative connotations in general use, even if you personally don’t intend them that way. To say that being Jewish or being gay is “abnormal” would most certainly be perceived as somewhat disparaging by most people in those categories.
Why would you gratuitously ruffle feathers and risk appearing prejudiced by calling minority groups and minority views “abnormal” or “not normal”, when you could simply say that they’re in the minority?
In this case, the word “normal” does not mean “right” or “correct.” If you like, substitute the phrase “the norm.” Right-handed, heterosexual, non-Jewish people who don’t have red hair *are *“the norm.”
Very true. I’m not objecting to the use of terms like “the norm” or “the majority” in this context, because they’re different words from “normal” and have different connotations.
It’s not offensive to say that wanting to have children is the norm among adults. It is offensive to say that the minority of adults who don’t want to have children are “abnormal” or “not normal”.
If that seems illogical to you, go argue with the people in charge of the English language. I’m not the one who decided that “norm” should have somewhat different connotations from “normal”, even though they’re very closely related words: I’m just the one who’s pointing out that difference in this thread.
But let’s remember what’s the top priority for every TV show - getting sponsors to purchase time.
The vast majority of advertisers (with possible exceptions like condom makers and travel agencies specializing in romantic hideaway vacations for two) benefit from the existence of large families which buy lots of stuff. Plot lines that feature couples having kids (or single mommies and daddies with kids), or at the very least desperately wanting kids, warm the cockles of the advertisers’ greedy hearts.
If single people and couples without kids want to be influential and have their lifestyles represented on TV, you’ve got to buy lots more stuff.
TV shows. Now there’s a place to get your reality. I remember when they first started having actual black characters on TV shows, there was one main theme, “step-n-fetch it, living in the projects” until the Cosby show came along. And then I always got the impression that professional black Americans were the exception in TV land, not the rule (even though that was certainly not the case in my world).
I used to watch *Queer As Folk *religiously, and it always cracked me up how females watching the show tried to foster male/female mating rituals on the male/male relationships; insisting that Brian was this or Michael was that (based on their experiences as females), and never once factoring in that at the end of the day a gay man is still a MAN. It was hilarious.
I’m one female who NEVER wanted kids and can only relate to them when they start maturing, say…20. I’ve tried the marriage thing and let’s just say it’s not for me. I’m a college-educated, professional black woman who is happy with herself and her life. I’m not the “angry bitch” or “crack 'ho with 10 illegitmate kids” stereotype Hollywood has created for black women. Neither are my female family, friends or colleagues.
I’ve always liked to meet and interact with real people of all persuasions because that’s the only way to discover how we’re alike and to appreciate our differences.
I think all the ridiculous “one size fits all” storylines given to gays, AAs, and anyone else white “mainstream” America looks at as “the other” are done simply to endoctrinate the majority, to get them used to the idea that we’re just like like you–just gay or lesbian or dark-skinned or speaking with an accent or whatever! YMMV.
The couple of gay men I know well that have kids both have them from batshit crazy, selfish, stupid, financially retarded, and downright nasty women (that arent even good looking) that they used to be married too.
Talk about taking all of the bad from the hetero world and virtually none of the good. And to top it all off, both their kids are high maintanence drama queen (now teenage) daughters. And they both lived in the deep south until very recently.
Yeah yeah ha ha, but actually I do know a couple of gay male couples with kids acquired in their current relationships.
One couple adopted, and the sister of one member of the other couple had a surrogate pregnancy by being impregnated with her brother’s partner’s sperm, if you follow me. (Thus making the kid about the closest thing to a genetic descendant of both (male) parents as is biologically possible.)
Funnily enough, childfree by choice people are huge consumers (of things other than diapers). We have time, money, and energy to take vacations, go out for meals, and go shopping. We’re a large demographic that advertisers have overlooked in their Nuclear Family Zeal.
Yeah, because you NEVER see commercials where childless folks are hanging out on vacation drinking fancy beer or going out to dinner with all of their other childless friends or buying expensive cars that are impractical for families.
:dubious: It’s hard to tell because of the lack of character development in commercials as compared to sitcoms, but I kind of wonder how many of those people in commercials are actually meant to be perceived as childfree-by-choice, as opposed to one of the following:
a) young singles and dating couples who are in their carefree pre-kids stage of life but intend to be parents later;
b) parents of teen or adult children who don’t have to spend as much time watching their kids as parents of young children do;
c) parents of young kids who managed to get a babysitter.
Showing a group of unspecified, unnamed adults without any children present in a commercial is not the same thing as showing a group of adults who have deliberately chosen to eschew parenthood.
The charge was that advertisers ignore people without kids because they’d rather sell to families out of either old fashionedness or some kind of moral stance.
Looking at commercials today, that is obviously bunk. The reason behind a person’s childlessness in commercials doesn’t matter. All that matters is that this group is widely represented in commercials.
I remember when they first started having actual black characters on TV shows, there was one main theme, “step-n-fetch it, living in the projects” until the Cosby show came along. And then I always got the impression that professional black Americans were the exception in TV land, not the rule (even though that was certainly not the case in my world).