Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think it's pretty clear in the fact that there are endless debates about this that the real problem lies in not being secure with your own choices and how they square with others' choices. And that's an issue, overall...not just with the kids/no kids topic, but anything where there are polarizing lifestyle choices.
Too often, people can't just weigh their options, consider their values and what's most important to them, and make an informed choice and be good with it and confident that it's the right choice for them. This leads to them continually feeling they must defend their choice to others who have made different ones, continually try to "win" others over to "their side," like it's gathering troops for a battle, and that if enough people agree with your choice, that makes it the "right" choice, versus acknowledging that what's the "right" choice for someone is purely individual to that person, and that there are no universally applicable "right" choices.
Secure, happy, stable people don't stress out about how their choices are perceived by others, and aren't motivated to argue the case for their choices like it's a courtroom defense. They just do what's right for them, because they know what's right for them, and know that others' views on the matter are extraneous.
"Secure, happy, stable people don't stress out about how their choices are perceived by others, and aren't motivated to argue the case for their choices like it's a courtroom defense."
Completely agree. But, again, acknowledging that there IS a stigma -- which was the OP's point -- isn't synonymous with being unduly bothered by it.
"Secure, happy, stable people don't stress out about how their choices are perceived by others, and aren't motivated to argue the case for their choices like it's a courtroom defense."
Completely agree. But, again, acknowledging that there IS a stigma -- which was the OP's point -- isn't synonymous with being unduly bothered by it.
It's very "tree falls in the forest," though.
If you're not there to hear it, the sound it makes is fairly immaterial.
Since I had my kids older (38 and 40), I spent a LARGE portion of my adult, working life as a person who was not a parent. I've been a parent for three and a half years, so I have a very functional working memory for how life was before I was a parent. I also married at 37, so I also have a very functional working memory of how life was when I was an unmarried non-parent, too.
I can think of literally ONE time any "stigma" of being a single, childless person reared its head...and I'm not actually convinced that it was actually any stigma that was at the root of it, versus simply just being a case of employers/coworkers attempting to exploit something for their own purposes. A manipulation, really. That was when I was in my mid twenties to early thirties, working for a small newspaper. Because publication does not change if there is a holiday, we always needed coverage Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, etc. The "family" holidays. Ideally, there was a rotation...I stay late on Christmas Eve, that means I don't stay late on New Year's Eve, or vice versa. But what I started to see happen in the seven years I was there was that it just got to be the assumption that "Tabula Rasa will stay late/pick up the coverage/man the scanner/go out on calls/leads over the holiday...BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T HAVE A FAMILY. Somebody with A FAMILY doesn't want to sacrifice that holiday time! I had to have a come-to-Jesus conversation with my editor that, uh, yeah, I sure did have a family, and one I'd like to spend holidays with as well. And if I didn't. I still would like to have holiday time, time to participate in traditions, just plain time off, etc.
Again, I don't really buy that this was a byproduct of stigma against the unmarried and without kids. I think it was just people who wanted more time off exploiting something. Just basic self-servingness.
"Secure, happy, stable people don't stress out about how their choices are perceived by others, and aren't motivated to argue the case for their choices like it's a courtroom defense."
Completely agree. But, again, acknowledging that there IS a stigma -- which was the OP's point -- isn't synonymous with being unduly bothered by it.
As someone who is single and childless, I do not agree that is a stigma. Stigma is like a scarlet letter, you're actually ostracized and treated differently by society, it's associated with disgrace and shame. I have never felt that put on me, even by the well-meaning people who fear I might regret missing out. They aren't saying these things because they think you're a disgrace, they say it because they truly think parenthood is an awesome thing and they want everyone to experience it. I have as I said, sometimes felt embarrassed because I could not seem to meet anyone, but that was internal and not due to them.
I have never had anyone not respect my answers to these questions. The vast majority of time it was people in my family, well-meaning people like my grandma, who really just wanted to know I was taken care of before she died. Strangers and casual friends have never expressed opinions on me not having kids. Again, I do not think it's at all unusual in this day and age. Millions of men and women are single without kids, it's not like it's something people rarely run into or you're some kind of novelty. And again, if you choose to live in some backwater place where it is unusual, that's on you. There's no reason a single person with no kids must live in a suburb where it's mostly families.
"And again, if you choose to live in some backwater place where it is unusual, that's on you. There's no reason a single person with no kids must live in a suburb where it's mostly families."
I've said, I think three times now, that this is entirely dependent on where you live. In some places, being single and/or childless is the norm and you'll fit right in. In others, you might as well have two heads. In still others, no one cares. That said, not everyone is always free to just pick up and move to wherever his or her demographic is most densely represented.
"And again, if you choose to live in some backwater place where it is unusual, that's on you. There's no reason a single person with no kids must live in a suburb where it's mostly families."
I've said, I think three times now, that this is entirely dependent on where you live. In some places, being single and/or childless is the norm and you'll fit right in. In others, you might as well have two heads. In still others, no one cares. That said, not everyone is always free to just pick up and move to wherever his or her demographic is most densely represented.
But I still don't think it's a stigma. When I lived in a suburb, most of the people had kids. No one treated me like I had 3 heads, I just wasn't part of the community because their activities revolved around the bus stop and kid's stuff. People were nice enough, I just didn't meet friends there because I had little in common with them.
I didn't move 3 states away. I moved out of the suburb to a beach town 45 minutes away. I could've moved to a condo development in the same town and had more single people around me. I could have moved to towns with an artsy vibe and many singles 20 minutes away. I could have moved into Philly and had a zillion choices to meet people and there single and childless would have been the majority. There are always choices. Again, people with kids are tied to good school districts and so are concentrated in suburban areas. I didn't have that holding me back.
What exactly do you mean "you might as well have had 2 heads"? Did people scream and pull their kids close when they saw you, what?
"And again, if you choose to live in some backwater place where it is unusual, that's on you. There's no reason a single person with no kids must live in a suburb where it's mostly families."
I've said, I think three times now, that this is entirely dependent on where you live. In some places, being single and/or childless is the norm and you'll fit right in. In others, you might as well have two heads. In still others, no one cares. That said, not everyone is always free to just pick up and move to wherever his or her demographic is most densely represented.
Exactly. If I could have "picked up and moved" I would have several years ago. Simply not possible without a decent job offer lined up.
Exactly. If I could have "picked up and moved" I would have several years ago. Simply not possible without a decent job offer lined up.
Again you don't have to move states away. You can move 30 minutes in another direction, and keep the same job. You can stay in the same town, but move from a suburban house to a condo where there will be many more singles. There are many choices. If you live in Atlanta, I don't believe for a second there's no place you could move to that's less suburban and more urban.
Last edited by ocnjgirl; 05-07-2019 at 03:27 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
