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.
It is as taboo for a parent to admit that their children ARE a heavy burden on them as it is for one to say that they'd like to sleep with their brother.
I am a mother who loves her children TO PIECES but will admit that they ARE heavy burdens on us in today's social context. Yes, they are here now and we are doing the very rightest by them. But I also know now my life, and our life as a couple, would have been MUCH easier, possibly more rewarding and fulfilling, had I chosen NOT to have them. It may have also been lonelier in old age (heavily debatable) but this we'll never know.
Parenting today is a VERY, VERY heavy burden. Much harder than it's ever been PERIOD. Let no one else BS you into believing the contrary. Yes, there are the kisses and the pride and the hugs. A much more brutal reality however is a life with no respite and constant child-related stress or child-related concerns, worries or "to do"-s; and I am not talking about a baby-sitter driven, rushed, guilt-laden, 1 hour coffee break type of respite.
My parents and pretty much everyone in my parents' generation had a life where children were just naturally part of it. But their LIFE did not equate the children. Yes, they loved us. Yes, they provided for us, they guided and mentored us and they took primary responsibility for us. More than anything else they EXPECTED things from us and ...boy, did we make things happen without much input on their part but expectation to step up!!.
But all this they never did alone and they never did THIS and nothing else at all times. NEVER. We did not take ALL the space in their lives. They had social lives apart from us, the children; they had uninterrupted couple conversation time apart from us, the children, every day; they had entire weeks in a row of completely child-free existence. They had some darn strong support networks that allowed them to enjoy long breaks away from us and allowed us to enjoy long breaks away from them - only for the family to be so much happier and refreshed upon reunification.
Between two sets of willing and highly involved grandparents (pretty much parent replacements) and state-sponsored, trustworthy, uber-safe, uber-fun, educational 12 day camps with teachers to whom our parents were very close (in a personal, private manner) - they had a life. And not a shabby one. Add to this a community full of frolicky children that provided daily opportunities for free play and socializing outside, INDEPENDENT of their personal time.
Things that my parents or anyone in their generation NEVER had to do (should mention I am not US born and raised):
1. Have us glued to them 24/7 until we turned 18.
2. Be directly involved in myriad of projects sent from school, do homework with us daily, assign extra advanced homework to us in order to assauge fears driven by a horrendously competitive market.
3. Always drop any sort of adult breathing moment and take us/drive us places in order for us to get some exercise/fresh air/extra-curriculars - or else there will hardly be any.
4. Pay with coin for each and every little drop of "leisure/fun/smile" that they would have hoped to get for us.
5. Have their children compete with the rest of the world's children instead of the children in their own town.
6. Try to inculcate manners, respect for parents, teachers and adults, a work ethic, no tantrums, and so many others... against a social backdrop that pretty much encourages children to be exactly the opposite of all these.
7. Constantly try to play "responsible gate-keeper" and "limit-setter" against modern ills that supposedly have a perfectly legitimate right to exist, including imbecilizing yet so alluring media (TV, Internet, video games, gadgetry of all sorts, etc), horrible foods set at the children's eye level every step you take with them outside the house, crass commercialism that makes any child want more, more, more.
This is a very exhausting role my parents never knew because there were no such ills to defend us from.
I am not even going to get into what happens when the beloved college graduate will join the ranks of those who return at home because there are simply not enough jobs available for them out there or who will manage to get a job that did not require the miserable college degree or even the grad degree in the first place.
Through all these traps and so many others that previous generations of parents simply never had to deal with, we are still supposed to NEVER EVER see children as "a burden", NEVER EVER dare to complain ("whooaaa, oh poor me", right?) and if we are, we need "mental help" because we are "deranged".
And while we're at it...keep breeding.
All I can say is congratulations to all those who chose to pass this insane reproductive game. It is the right choice given where humanity is in the 21st century.
Your could-have-been-children will thank you from the Heavens.
Not in my world. I only remember my parents taking 1 weekend away when I was a kid. Every once in a while they'd go to a party or something and leave us with grandma or a sitter, but it was very rare. I only remember a couple of specific times. They took us everywhere.
I do agree that it they are potentially more of a financial burden now. Things are more expensive, and people are earning less. Who knows what it will be for future generations though.
My daughter passed away when she was 18, and she was our only child. My husband was the one to say it first ~ "Now we'll never be grandparents!" We still miss that opportunity immensely.
However, when I was raising her I drilled into her very hard to not have kids when she was young and single. I've had a couple of nieces who had babies single and they've had a helluva time getting by. So had she not had any at all, I think I would have adapted to it.
Oh, I'm so, so sorry about your daughter. That is very tragic. It's very different when you lose a child.
The implication of this is that CBCs live for themselves and not others. This is untrue. A person doesn't have to have children to live for others. Most CBCs I know give to charities, volunteer at all sorts of organizations from Big Brothers Big Sisters to Humane Societies, care for aging parents, and even allow family members' children to live with them. There's a real problem with CBCs being thought of as self-centered, selfish people. It's a stereotype that needs to be examined.
I am not speaking about all childfree people--I am speaking about the subset of people you mention, the ones in the quote I used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppermint
I find it odd that anyone would encourage someone who can be that honest with themselves, to admit their genuine feelings, to have a child that they are unprepared or unwilling to care for. It's odd to me that that person is the selfish one, the one to be pitied, the one to be wheedled.
I don't find anything commendable about being unwilling to care for a child. I think it's good when people are able to admit that about themselves, but that's because I think that honesty is important, and I think it would be hard for a child to grow up in a home where he or she is not wanted. But not wanting to care for a child ... it's not necessarily a negative, but I don't see how it could be a postive. It is selfish. Don't get me wrong: I fully admit that having children is selfish as well. I just don't think "Well, at least I'm being honest about it" is noble, which is how I'm interpreting how you're saying it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppermint
It's odd to me. It seems backward. To me, it seems that person should be admired for standing against a system in which parenthood is lauded as the most noble and best of all roles, where the rest of life's experiences are treated as secondary.
^ This is the statement in particular that my post was about. From an evolutionary standpoint, I don't really find that to be an admirable sentiment. People aren't refusing to have children to stand against an oppressive worldview, anyway ... they don't want to have them because, as you said, they are unprepared or unwilling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppermint
If a person does not feel compelled to procreate, why force the issue? Why is my not wanting a child "abandon[ing] the idea that parenting is important"? I am not suggesting that parenting isn't important, but it is frequently presented to CBCs as the only important thing, that those of us who do not procreate have done nothing of value with our lives, which is another misconception.
I'm sorry that happens to you. It happens to those of us with kids too but in reverse. The whole thing is unfortunate.
I don't find anything commendable about being unwilling to care for a child. I think it's good when people are able to admit that about themselves, but that's because I think that honesty is important, and I think it would be hard for a child to grow up in a home where he or she is not wanted. But not wanting to care for a child ... it's not necessarily a negative, but I don't see how it could be a postive. It is selfish. Don't get me wrong: I fully admit that having children is selfish as well. I just don't think "Well, at least I'm being honest about it" is noble, which is how I'm interpreting how you're saying it.
Ok, so are you just neutral on the subject, or do you think it's un-commendable to not want to care for a child?
Please explain how not having a child is selfish. I think before you do, you will have to define selfish. You and I evidently have different definitions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia
^ This is the statement in particular that my post was about. From an evolutionary standpoint, I don't really find that to be an admirable sentiment. People aren't refusing to have children to stand against an oppressive worldview, anyway ... they don't want to have them because, as you said, they are unprepared or unwilling.
I don't follow. I think I'm misunderstanding that statement. I shouldn't have used that phrase. There are 18 common reasons why most CBCs don't have kids. I boiled it down, but really the rationale is more complicated. There is a wonderful book on this subject for anyone that's genuinely interested in understanding CBCs called Two Is Enough by Laura S. Scott. You have stated and argued for the most common misconceptions about those who choose to live childless.
All I can do is try to live the life that's authentic to me. I won't live a life others choose for me because it fulfills their definition of a selfless, important, or good life. I will continue to volunteer my time, give my monies to other, advocate for others, and enjoy my time on this planet.
No, I wouldn't care. It's a lot of responsibility and we are over populated right now. I have a daughter who doesn't want kids, one who wants to adopt a child and a boy who says he wants tons.
Now, my second husband and I chose to not have children. His father got really upset when we told him. He told his son that he was 'selfish', which surprised us both. It surprised ME because, although my mother-in-law was Mormon, and raised their kids in the Mormon church, my father-in-law was NOT. And they already had a lot of grandkids at the time.
Ok, so are you just neutral on the subject, or do you think it's un-commendable to not want to care for a child?
Both, I guess. It's not a bad thing, but not being a good thing does not make something bad. I don't see how not wanting to care for a child could be a commendable thing. Being honest about it, okay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppermint
Please explain how not having a child is selfish. I think before you do, you will have to define selfish. You and I evidently have different definitions.
You used the phrase "unwilling to care for." To me, that is ungiving. I know that some childfree lead otherwise generous lives, but so do people with children. I doubt that most of them make the decision not to have children out of altruism, piety, or other selflessness. They choose not to have children for the same reason that others choose to have them: because that is what they wish to do. That's why I said that neither is particularly selfless.
I don't know whether I am arguing for "the most common misconceptions about those who choose to live childless"--I was just responding to a statement you made about being unprepared or unwilling to care for children. You seemed to say that we should be admiring people with that attitude, but I am not sure for what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppermint
All I can do is try to live the life that's authentic to me. I won't live a life others choose for me because it fulfills their definition of a selfless, important, or good life. I will continue to volunteer my time, give my monies to other, advocate for others, and enjoy my time on this planet.
Okay. That sounds good. But this is unrelated to not wanting to care for a child, right? People with children do this too.
Now, my second husband and I chose to not have children. His father got really upset when we told him. He told his son that he was 'selfish', which surprised us both. It surprised ME because, although my mother-in-law was Mormon, and raised their kids in the Mormon church, my father-in-law was NOT. And they already had a lot of grandkids at the time.
But he got over it.
It's a very, very common label for CBCs. I think there is a real issue with definition, at least that is what I've come to understand. I just googled "define selfish" and dictionary.com defines it (first definition) as:
Quote:
devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others
I don't know very many people, period, let alone CBCs that are devoted only to themselves, regardless of others. The truth is that I know only a handful of people that I consider genuinely selfish. It's silly for me to list all the people I have or do assist or all the people that my childfree friends and family members assist. There are some people in this world who will see our decision, based on years of consideration, contemplation, and debate, as selfish. Fortunately, I think fewer young people fall into this trap, even the religious young people. It's mostly something I hear from older generations (50 and up) and the ultra conservative. That's encouraging. A bad stereotype seems to be beginning to fade.
It's very hurtful and frustrating when people, especially someone you love, labels you instead of trying to understand you. I'm sure you and your husband spent time discussing it and made the decision for a myriad of reasons. It's unfortunate his dad reacted the way he did.
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.
