Couples that decided not to have children: how to cope with being judged by society
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.
We won't be child free much longer but I'm 33 and my husband is 36. I've never felt judged for not having kids. We're very busy and productive people so no one has ever questioned why we didn't want children.
We won't be child free much longer but I'm 33 and my husband is 36. I've never felt judged for not having kids. We're very busy and productive people so no one has ever questioned why we didn't want children.
Us, either, and I'm 38 and my husband is 42, will be 43 when our baby is born. And he's Catholic, yet still has managed to avoid the apparently torch-bearing angry mobs of Catholic parishioners who, according to some, make your life miserable if they do not deem you to be sufficiently procreating within a suitable window. Weird, right? But, yeah, we haven't had that experience at all.
When I was teaching, I did have the occasional parents who were "skeptical" that I could relate to/build rapport with their kids, not being a parent, myself, and all. They were quickly disavowed of that notion, however. It's weird, my husband taught, too, but he never got that schtick tossed his way. Maybe it's just an assumption lobbed at female teachers if they don't have kids.
Bump. I know not everyone is capable of bringing a kid in the world but if you don't at least adopt or do service involving children you miss out on a lot in life In that sense. People are biologically made to show care for a kid in their adult years.
I'm sorry, but who are you to tell anyone that we all should adopt / do service for children? You get to speak for yourself and do what's important to you, not dictate to others what should be important to them.
I thought your previous post about the "weirdos" having pets and taking "more vacations than necessary" deserved the Stupidest Post on CD award. But that was before I saw this one.
This is intriguing. Quite beyond the confines of this thread, I'd be interested in learning more. How do child-free people in a "rural, conservative, bible-belt area" come to be aware of each other, and become acquainted? Where do concentrations of such persons congregate? I mean this quite beyond even the topic of dating and relationships. In my own experience, in rural locations professionals are actually more likely to have traditional families (namely, with children) than blue-collar people. Quite often I am in business-meetings with 20-30 people, of whom zero are unmarried, and zero are without children. Again, this isn't an issue of those without children being judged harshly; they are simply either not present, or invisible.
Church.
Just kidding.
Gee, Ohio even in rural areas we have cell phones, internet and transportation. We also have bars and clubs, concerts, community functions, organizations, universities and the like, just like in them there big cities.
I didn't say the majority were childfree. I said I know a lot of child free couples.
Based on what I've seen & personally experienced, singles without kids are also negatively judged by others who have kids, in many cases. Sometimes this criticism is subtle, and in other cases it's more blatant. I definitely think a lot of this is because of jealousy.
Re: adoption: The process of adopting children can be extremely time consuming, laborious, and expensive. I have never done this (nor am I adopted), but when I was growing up my family had some friends who had adopted children - and, I remember hearing some stories from them about the process - which, as I said, can be very difficult.
This is why a lot of American couples will adopt children out of the U.S. - the waiting lists in the U.S. are extremely long for babies, and so for whatever reason it's easier for them to go to Central/South America, Asia, etc. - which is also difficult! So, saying people should adopt kids if they can have none of their own is easy to say. However, it's much easier said than done - if you even want children in the first place, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TabulaRasa
When I was teaching, I did have the occasional parents who were "skeptical" that I could relate to/build rapport with their kids, not being a parent, myself, and all. They were quickly disavowed of that notion, however. It's weird, my husband taught, too, but he never got that schtick tossed his way. Maybe it's just an assumption lobbed at female teachers if they don't have kids.
I don't understand this either. Why does someone need to have children as a prerequisite for working with children? When I was a kid, there were a lot of teachers I had who were young & hadn't gotten married and/or had families yet - and, they were great teachers. And, as an adult, I have also known teachers who didn't have children. Since teaching involves a lot of work outside of the classroom (grading papers, etc.), I would think that a single person (either male or female) would actually have more time to devote to their job than someone with a family. Just sayin'....
Last edited by The Big Lebowski Dude; 07-22-2015 at 01:08 PM..
I don't understand this either. Why does someone need to have children as a prerequisite for working with children? When I was a kid, there were a lot of teachers I had who were young & hadn't gotten married and/or had families yet - and, they were great teachers. And, as an adult, I have also known teachers who didn't have children. Since teaching involves a lot of work outside of the classroom (grading papers, etc.), I would think that a single person (either male or female) would actually have more time to devote to their job than someone with a family. Just sayin'....
In my case, I think a big part of it was that I taught special education, which meant dealing with a far wider range of developmental levels than many other teaching roles. When your caseload ranges in ability and development from that of about a 3-year old on up to a young adult, there is a lot that's outside the scope of general ed classroom teachers (which I was, as well). So parents could be like, "Well, you'd probably be better equipped to deal with my very developmentally delayed middle schooler, who can be very toddler-like, if you HAD a toddler you dealt with every day." Which wasn't actually particularly accurate, but I can see how these parents were more likely to have these perceptions than ones of typically developing students.
Still, I do tend to think that women who aren't mothers are held up to more scrutiny than men who aren't fathers. The "maternal" role seems to carry so much significance for women. Women who don't choose to have children seem to be seen as more intrisincally "flawed" by certain camps than men who don't choose to have children.
Gee, Ohio even in rural areas we have cell phones, internet and transportation. We also have bars and clubs, concerts, community functions, organizations, universities and the like, just like in them there big cities.
I didn't say the majority were childfree. I said I know a lot of child free couples.
Bars and clubs reflect the broader populace. Of the 50-60 persons in my immediate local acquaintance (coworkers, neighbors or former neighbors, persons whom I met socially), all but 4 have children. 2 of the 4 are a younger couple who'll likely have kids soon. One is a elderly widower whose former wife was infertile. And one is gay guy who never cared to have kids.
Of course I can "meet" child-free people via the internet. But that does nothing for local face-to-face interaction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TabulaRasa
I do tend to think that women who aren't mothers are held up to more scrutiny than men who aren't fathers. The "maternal" role seems to carry so much significance for women. Women who don't choose to have children seem to be seen as more intrisincally "flawed" by certain camps than men who don't choose to have children.
I think that this is true up to around age 40-45. Women who could still have children, but who choose not to, would presumably be more often the target of probing questions, than would be their male child-free counterparts. But after the age when parenthood is reasonable (or even possible), I don't find a gender-related difference; or possibly it even reverses. The reason is that conversations and social-interactions hinge upon dealing with teenaged or college-aged children, or possibly grandchildren. The child-free have little to add to this discussion, and eventually disengage from the social-scene. This affects men more than it does women.
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.
