The "No Kids Club" (Page 12)
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2011-04-22 8:13 AM in reply to: #3460096 |
Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" yeats - 2011-04-21 11:23 PM trinnas - 2011-04-21 11:31 PM Kids/no kids either way it is a trade off. I give up some of my free time and I take on the responsibility of a child and I am rewarded for that choice by my son every day. To someone else that is not something that means anything to them so they choose not to have kids and they give up those rewards. I do not see what I "give up" as a burden to me and I doubt the childless by choice see what they "give up" as a burden to them. I'm not trading off anything by not having kids, and I'm not giving up anything by not having them. This notion of a "burden" either way is baffling. I'm living exactly how I want to. I'm not "giving up any rewards" by not having kids because having kids would bring absolutely no reward to my life. None. Zip. Zilch. I don't want them. I don't need them. They wouldn't bring me happiness. I can see how they might bring rewards to other people's lives, but definitely not my own. WAITAMINUTE, YOU LIAR!!! CODY-BEAR IS YOUR BABY!!! HOW CAN YOU FORGET HER?? |
|
2011-04-22 8:19 AM in reply to: #3460084 |
Elite 4547 | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" Renee - 2011-04-22 12:09 AM ChineseDemocracy - 2011-04-21 11:33 PM I hear ya Renee. Nice post. That said, our ability to create that love is based on (to a certain degree that is ultimately debatable) on our parent or parents. Genes and environment. nature-nurture. Children that are abused and/or neglected (yes, extreme examples, but very prevalent) might argue the point that everything they do in their lives is "up to them." Not to bring this thread down, but I came out of an abusive household and feel entitled to argue that point. I clearly remember the purple bruises on my 3 year old bottom when my mother put me in an ice bath after my father whipped me with a leather belt. Earliest memory I have. It went on for years. I was 21 the last time my father struck me. Everything I do in my life is up to me. My childhood wasn't ideal, but it is over. It ended a long time ago. I am an adult and I get to decide who I am and what kind of person I will be. I am accountable for who I am; I won't shift blame to others or hold tightly to resentments. It only holds me back and makes me small. My father got to control me to an extent, but he lost ultimate control when I was 7 and developed critical thinking skills. It was then that I realized he was the problem and not me. From then on, I protected my mental well-being and prepared myself for the day I would leave my home and be free of his irrational raging. As an adult, I was more of a parent to him than he was to me when I was a child. That's the way I'm wired - I have strong parenting instincts. And I am loving to the point of what some might consider folly. That isn't wiring - that is choice. Deliberate, conscious, hard fought for choice. Love is a deliberate act, a choice. But back to my point - no it wasn't acquiescence on my father's part. It was acquiescence on my mother's part. It was also the case of children brought into the world for what some might consider the wrong reasons (gender roulette). And despite my father's questionable motivation, I am grateful for my siblings. I love them dearly, just as I love their beautiful children. You have kids, you roll the dice. You try to be the best parent you can. Some people's best is excruciatingly wanting. Some people are boundlessly loving and nurturing. Most are somewhere in between. In the end, the child gets to decide who they will be. Have kids, don't have kids, I don't care. But to argue that kids are a problem or to suggest that kids brought into this world due to acquiescence is sad ... I am deaf to that kind of thinking. Life is beautiful and children are beautiful and adults are beautiful. We're all broken in some way; that's life. Let's get on with it. Renee, you're an exceptionally strong, intelligent, and caring individual as your many posts illustrate quite clearly. You must see that you are likely not the norm. From the statistics I've seen, yes, of course you are going to see folks defying the odds. You did it. Many others have done it...but on average more fail to overcome the obstacles than surpass them. I agree with you that life is beautiful. It's a miracle. It's amazing. I just happen to think we'd have less problems in the world if we were able to cut down the #'s of unwanted/unloved children. In fact, I think this is pertinent to the "no Kids Club" thread because in this thread I'm hearing a lot of great posts from people who have put a lot of thought into their decision not to have children. It seems to bolster my opinion that unfortunately, many of the folks probably best-suited to become parents, don't...while those horribly suited to be parents, the impatient, the selfish, those who lack empathy, the completely irresponsible, they are the ones who end up propagating the species and along with them, the traits that lead to more folks just like them. (you being the exception of course Renee...but it sounds like your mother was very caring and perhaps tipped the scales in the other direction for you and your sisters?) btw, I will politely take exception to your quoting me that I said "kids are a problem." If I gave that impression, I apologize. I've always said the bad parents are the problem. I don't believe in "original sin." I believe children are the ultimate picture of innocence. That said, raised incorrectly (and for each child incorrectly means something different, it is a subjective term) they have a greater risk of becoming adults that take from society more than they give. So, in conclusion, to everybody out there: have kids, don't have kids...I do care. |
2011-04-22 8:35 AM in reply to: #3460322 |
Master 1920 Ann Arbor, MI | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" 1stTimeTri - 2011-04-22 9:13 AM yeats - 2011-04-21 11:23 PM trinnas - 2011-04-21 11:31 PM Kids/no kids either way it is a trade off. I give up some of my free time and I take on the responsibility of a child and I am rewarded for that choice by my son every day. To someone else that is not something that means anything to them so they choose not to have kids and they give up those rewards. I do not see what I "give up" as a burden to me and I doubt the childless by choice see what they "give up" as a burden to them. I'm not trading off anything by not having kids, and I'm not giving up anything by not having them. This notion of a "burden" either way is baffling. I'm living exactly how I want to. I'm not "giving up any rewards" by not having kids because having kids would bring absolutely no reward to my life. None. Zip. Zilch. I don't want them. I don't need them. They wouldn't bring me happiness. I can see how they might bring rewards to other people's lives, but definitely not my own. WAITAMINUTE, YOU LIAR!!! CODY-BEAR IS YOUR BABY!!! HOW CAN YOU FORGET HER?? Hehe. She is our baby, it's true. And she is as close to human as a dog can get, and as close to having a kid as we'll ever get |
2011-04-22 8:39 AM in reply to: #3460335 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" ChineseDemocracy - 2011-04-22 9:19 AM btw, I will politely take exception to your quoting me that I said "kids are a problem." If I gave that impression, I apologize. I've always said the bad parents are the problem. I don't believe in "original sin." I believe children are the ultimate picture of innocence. I did not mean to suggest or imply that you feel that kids are a problem. I was speaking to some of the other attitudes expressed. Sorry if my sloppy writing allowed for that misperception. And thank you for your kind words. Have a great day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a beautiful one here in Florida. And since you're a fan and we're on the topic of sweet children, I'll leave you with (was listening to it on my bike ride yesterday): She's got eyes of the bluest skies |
2011-04-22 8:58 AM in reply to: #3460308 |
Pro 5011 Twin Cities | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" I know of two IUD failures as well (one is a result; the other is the person whose IUD failed). It's not that uncommon, I mean out of 100 people, you'll get...one or two, statistically speaking? |
2011-04-22 9:03 AM in reply to: #3460260 |
Expert 1145 Ann Arbor, MI | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" Ryan, I think most (almost all) in this discussion are in the very reasonable zone. I understand your choice and feel like you have thought about it. It's a better choice than having kids when you secretly don't want them! (which occurs for sure) Having kids is complex (or not having them is too), personal. I love my kids more than I ever I thought I could. But that's me and I don't judge anyone in any way for thinking differently on the 'having kids' issue. See you at Musselman Hi Fred! I hope my tone didn't bring the discussion down, that wasn't my intention. Ultimately, I was responding to language used in this thread and in other conversations about this topic -- not just what I quoted, which isn't fair to the poster I responded to -- that is either consciously or unconsciously charged with value statements about how other people live their lives and the choices they make. I take exception to language that casts judgment on others' lives based on a single person's life experiences. What I want to make perfectly clear (and what I believe you've iterated in the past), is that a single individual speaks best about his/her own life, choices, and experiences. It is all too easy when discussing other people's choices to fall into language with connotations of judgment, value, and worth. Edited by yeats 2011-04-22 9:03 AM |
|
2011-04-22 9:07 AM in reply to: #3460435 |
Pro 4824 Houston | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" mmrocker13 - 2011-04-22 8:58 AM I know of two IUD failures as well (one is a result; the other is the person whose IUD failed). It's not that uncommon, I mean out of 100 people, you'll get...one or two, statistically speaking? My midwife attended a birth where the baby came out with the IUD in his hand! Talk about a 'take that' statement he made.
I absolutely believe people who don't want kids shouldn't have kids. I can only hope those on this thread who are so strongly of the 'no kids' camp have been sterilized.
|
2011-04-22 9:09 AM in reply to: #3460435 |
Extreme Veteran 1260 Miami | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" mmrocker13 - 2011-04-22 9:58 AM I know of two IUD failures as well (one is a result; the other is the person whose IUD failed). It's not that uncommon, I mean out of 100 people, you'll get...one or two, statistically speaking? I think it is a lot more uncommon than that. I wouldn't know where to find those statistic, but i'm sure accidents happen when a couple just rely on one person to be the one taking precautions. If you are absolutely sure that you dont want to get pregnant, you take the responsible approach and both take precautions to prevent that from happening. I'm sure that the 2% failure rate of condoms would be covered by that....Unless we are talking about superman sperm |
2011-04-22 9:15 AM in reply to: #3460465 |
Champion 4835 Eat Cheese or Die | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" Cuetoy - 2011-04-22 9:09 AM mmrocker13 - 2011-04-22 9:58 AM I know of two IUD failures as well (one is a result; the other is the person whose IUD failed). It's not that uncommon, I mean out of 100 people, you'll get...one or two, statistically speaking? I think it is a lot more uncommon than that. I wouldn't know where to find those statistic, but i'm sure accidents happen when a couple just rely on one person to be the one taking precautions. If you are absolutely sure that you dont want to get pregnant, you take the responsible approach and both take precautions to prevent that from happening. I'm sure that the 2% failure rate of condoms would be covered by that....Unless we are talking about superman sperm Agreed. Until the wife and I thought we could handle to responsibility of kids, she was on the pill and we used a condom. After we thought we could handle it, but weren't totally ready we just used the pill, realizing it could fail. If you don't want kids you shouldn't be relying on a single prevention method with a known failure rate. I still don't count one method failing as an accident. We all know the IUDs, the pill and condoms fail. Use two methods or get sterilized if you don't want kids. Edited by graceful_dave 2011-04-22 9:17 AM |
2011-04-22 9:47 AM in reply to: #3460308 |
Elite 3223 Hendersonville | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" trinnas - 2011-04-22 8:05 AM graceful_dave - 2011-04-22 8:43 AM trinnas - 2011-04-21 10:20 PM You are right, there is no 100%, but everyone I know personally who has had an "accident" was just careless (not on the pill got drunk and didn't use a condom, that's actually the story for every accidental pregnancy I know). I don't know anyone who was actively using birth control (either the pill or condoms or both) and still got pregnant. I know they exist, but until I meet someone who has had that experience, I'll continue to agree with InnerAthlete that in modern times, there are no accidental pregnancies, just careless people who prefer to label their carelessness "an accident." InnerAthlete - 2011-04-21 6:09 PM I view it as ultimately my decision since he has very little biological control of the situation, but I respect/love him too much to "force" him into fatherhood. "Accidental" pregnancies don't exist from my perspective with the availability of modern science. Really other than abstinance can tell me of a birth control method that is 100% effective??? The odds may be low but they still exist. Well now you do. I got pregnant using an IUD Me too. I had it for 3 years with no issues and then I got pregnant. Discovered I had miscarried at 12 week appointment. 1 in 999 people get pregnant with an IUD. |
2011-04-22 9:49 AM in reply to: #3460474 |
Champion 10019 , Minnesota | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" I think the reason that "attitudes" have popped up here is because we of the "no kids club" can't simply be here and be happy about it. Even here we have been prompted to explain ourselves. I struggle with the concept of why we assume the default - everyone should have/want kids. If you don't want/do that, then you must explain. It's exhausting! For me, a lot of the reasons for having kids do not hold water with me - but I am not asking anyone to defend themselves. I will say something that hasn't been said here, I wonder if anyone agrees. Being comfortable with kids aside, I am not interested in having kids because they are a pain in the butt! Even the sweetest kids have a lot of needs. I don't want to clean up anyone's sick, I don't want to have to drag a screaming toddler from a room (usually with guests), I don't want to be begged for things endlessly, etc. I have four nieces who I am very invested in. I love them and find my interactions with them very rewarding. I have a very good relationship with one, whom I hope to continue that with when she is an adult, a lot like a daughter. But when I visit them I leave exhausting, annoyed, and often sweaty/dirty I also hear a lot from friends about struggles with child rearing. They are tired, too busy, and their relationship with their spouse suffers. I didn't get married to take on another full-time job. As they get older it starts to get a lot better of course. I am not discounting the value of these small people. My husband and I talk about the one niece a lot and marvel at what she says and does. I am just not willing to put up with that for 18 (or more) years, just so I can have someone to go for lunch with when I am in the nursing home. I also see how relationships between parents and children can deteriorate and that would be the ultimate disappointment. I do actually think about the idea of having kids, think about names I would use, or what they would look like. But I simply cannot get over the hump on the fact that I don't want to deal with it. It's not worth it to me. This is all complicated by the fact that I took a class in college about Population. It was a life changer for me. And if our population declines, making room for more immigrants, I think that's GREAT! If someone needs a safe place to live, and they wish to contribute to America's society, then I welcome them. Because my husband is an "Acquiesor" to not having kids, I still hear about this a fair bit. Ironically, I am not allowed to make statements like "I'm glad we don't have kids because..." yet I still have to put up with complaints about not having them. In summary, I am really tired of this. |
|
2011-04-22 9:49 AM in reply to: #3459402 |
Master 1699 Malvern, PA | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" mrbbrad - 2011-04-21 3:48 PM AndrewMT - 2011-04-21 2:33 PM Renee - 2011-04-21 1:09 PM Just like I am leery of people who don't like dogs, I am leery of people who don't like kids (which is a different matter than not wanting to be a parent). I think people who don't like kids just don't like people in general - that's my read. Misanthropes are not my people. I am intrigued by your take on this. I'd like to offer a differing point of view, speaking as someone who doesn't like kids but loves humanity.
This statement seems completely incongruous to me. Kids, especially young kids, are the purest form humans can take.
that ^^^^^^ |
2011-04-22 9:49 AM in reply to: #3460450 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" yeats - 2011-04-22 10:03 AM Ryan, I think most (almost all) in this discussion are in the very reasonable zone. I understand your choice and feel like you have thought about it. It's a better choice than having kids when you secretly don't want them! (which occurs for sure) Having kids is complex (or not having them is too), personal. I love my kids more than I ever I thought I could. But that's me and I don't judge anyone in any way for thinking differently on the 'having kids' issue. See you at Musselman Well then I am sorry you misread my intent. We all have rewards in our lives. What is considered a reward is determined by what we desire and what means something to us personally. All of life is a trade off of things we want vs things that are not important to us. That goes for all things in life not just the kids/no kids dichotomy. |
2011-04-22 9:51 AM in reply to: #3459415 |
Master 1699 Malvern, PA | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" AndrewMT - 2011-04-21 3:53 PM mrbbrad - 2011-04-21 2:48 PM AndrewMT - 2011-04-21 2:33 PM Renee - 2011-04-21 1:09 PM Just like I am leery of people who don't like dogs, I am leery of people who don't like kids (which is a different matter than not wanting to be a parent). I think people who don't like kids just don't like people in general - that's my read. Misanthropes are not my people. I am intrigued by your take on this. I'd like to offer a differing point of view, speaking as someone who doesn't like kids but loves humanity.
This statement seems completely incongruous to me. Kids, especially young kids, are the purest form humans can take. That's a subjective feeling you have. Your use of the word purity doesn't really apply to my reasoning for why I don't like kids. Loving humanity does not mean loving all humans. are you sure about that? |
2011-04-22 9:52 AM in reply to: #3459493 |
Master 1699 Malvern, PA | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" 1stTimeTri - 2011-04-21 4:23 PM Marvarnett - 2011-04-21 3:17 PM SoberTriGuy - 2011-04-21 2:13 PM Be thankful that your parents had kids...
If I wasn't born to my parents I would have been born to another set of parents. And, unfortunately, the population is not shrinking, so I would have been born at some point. In a whole different level of thought and discussion, the chances of "you" being "you" are highly not probable, whether in the way one thinks of a "soul" or identity, determined by "uniqueness". yeah... this could get very deep... |
2011-04-22 9:56 AM in reply to: #3459594 |
Master 1699 Malvern, PA | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" AndrewMT - 2011-04-21 5:32 PM Renee - 2011-04-21 3:55 PM mrbbrad - 2011-04-21 3:48 PM AndrewMT - 2011-04-21 2:33 PM Renee - 2011-04-21 1:09 PM Just like I am leery of people who don't like dogs, I am leery of people who don't like kids (which is a different matter than not wanting to be a parent). I think people who don't like kids just don't like people in general - that's my read. Misanthropes are not my people. I am intrigued by your take on this. I'd like to offer a differing point of view, speaking as someone who doesn't like kids but loves humanity. This statement seems completely incongruous to me. Kids, especially young kids, are the purest form humans can take. That's beautiful and I fully concur. I wrote that I am leery of people who don't like kids. Note that I did not say any of the following:
If someone said "I don't like people" or "I don't like people younger than 35 years old" I would feel the same way. Misanthrope, by definition. Children are merely little people. We all have our negative inclinations; I'm entitled to mine. Just as those who don't like little people are entitled to theirs. Misanthropes are not my people. I'm a people person; I take them one at a time, just as I find them. That includes little people. Renee, please understand that I'm not trying to attack your point of view, but instead am trying to undertand it and have a conversation. Are there individual people in the world that you do not like? Have met someone who for some reason annoyed you and left you feeling like you just wanted to get away from them? If not, then you're truly a wonderful person for being so understand and accepting of others. I love people/humanity, but there have been plenty of people I've met who I dislike for various reasons. Kids, due to the traits that I've mentioned before, generally fall into that category. They're little humans who are usually very annoying and whom I have nothing in common with. I have met kids that I like, but they're a rare exception. Mistanthropes, by definition hate all people/humanity, not specific individuals for whom there is a reason for the dislike. wow... harsh words... I think you could have expressed your feeling in a lighter manner |
|
2011-04-22 9:56 AM in reply to: #3460560 |
Champion 18680 Lost in the Luminiferous Aether | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" BikerGrrrl - 2011-04-22 10:49 AM I think the reason that "attitudes" have popped up here is because we of the "no kids club" can't simply be here and be happy about it. Even here we have been prompted to explain ourselves. I struggle with the concept of why we assume the default - everyone should have/want kids. If you don't want/do that, then you must explain. It's exhausting! For me, a lot of the reasons for having kids do not hold water with me - but I am not asking anyone to defend themselves. Because my husband is an "Acquiesor" to not having kids, I still hear about this a fair bit. Ironically, I am not allowed to make statements like "I'm glad we don't have kids because..." yet I still have to put up with complaints about not having them. In summary, I am really tired of this. Seems to me with these two things it is more a matter of a chip on your shoulder. Most of the parents here I have seen have said if you choose not to have kids that is your choice. Just because someone asks you why you do something does not mean they are judging you for it. I have been in both camps at different points in my life and they were my choice. |
2011-04-22 9:59 AM in reply to: #3459568 |
Champion 6962 Atlanta, Ga | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" Renee - 2011-04-21 5:09 PM Marvarnett - 2011-04-21 4:17 PM SoberTriGuy - 2011-04-21 2:13 PM Be thankful that your parents had kids... If I wasn't born to my parents I would have been born to another set of parents. And, unfortunately, the population is not shrinking, so I would have been born at some point. That's an interesting take. I believe just the opposite - if my mother didn't birth me, I wouldn't exist. Not anywhere. I am who I am because my mother birthed me. Would I be okay with not existing? There would be no "I" that could consider the question of my lack of existence! Que sera, sera. So, Dan, why do you believe you would still be around even if your mother hadn't birthed you? Asking merely out of curiosity. I hadn't heard this perspective before. Renee: |
2011-04-22 10:01 AM in reply to: #3460581 |
Champion 10019 , Minnesota | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" trinnas - 2011-04-22 9:56 AM BikerGrrrl - 2011-04-22 10:49 AM I think the reason that "attitudes" have popped up here is because we of the "no kids club" can't simply be here and be happy about it. Even here we have been prompted to explain ourselves. I struggle with the concept of why we assume the default - everyone should have/want kids. If you don't want/do that, then you must explain. It's exhausting! For me, a lot of the reasons for having kids do not hold water with me - but I am not asking anyone to defend themselves. Because my husband is an "Acquiesor" to not having kids, I still hear about this a fair bit. Ironically, I am not allowed to make statements like "I'm glad we don't have kids because..." yet I still have to put up with complaints about not having them. In summary, I am really tired of this. Seems to me with these two things it is more a matter of a chip on your shoulder. Most of the parents here I have seen have said if you choose not to have kids that is your choice. Just because someone asks you why you do something does not mean they are judging you for it. I have been in both camps at different points in my life and they were my choice. Yes, I do have a chip on my shoulder about this. If someone asked why I made this choice, and simply said "oh, okay, I hadn't thought of that perspective" then I would not assume they were judging. But when they then go on to defend their side (i.e. bringing up Social Security), there's more to it. If that's not meant to be judgmental, it still feels like it. |
2011-04-22 10:02 AM in reply to: #3460580 |
Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" maxmattmick - 2011-04-22 9:56 AM AndrewMT - 2011-04-21 5:32 PM Renee - 2011-04-21 3:55 PM mrbbrad - 2011-04-21 3:48 PM AndrewMT - 2011-04-21 2:33 PM Renee - 2011-04-21 1:09 PM Just like I am leery of people who don't like dogs, I am leery of people who don't like kids (which is a different matter than not wanting to be a parent). I think people who don't like kids just don't like people in general - that's my read. Misanthropes are not my people. I am intrigued by your take on this. I'd like to offer a differing point of view, speaking as someone who doesn't like kids but loves humanity. This statement seems completely incongruous to me. Kids, especially young kids, are the purest form humans can take. That's beautiful and I fully concur. I wrote that I am leery of people who don't like kids. Note that I did not say any of the following:
If someone said "I don't like people" or "I don't like people younger than 35 years old" I would feel the same way. Misanthrope, by definition. Children are merely little people. We all have our negative inclinations; I'm entitled to mine. Just as those who don't like little people are entitled to theirs. Misanthropes are not my people. I'm a people person; I take them one at a time, just as I find them. That includes little people. Renee, please understand that I'm not trying to attack your point of view, but instead am trying to undertand it and have a conversation. Are there individual people in the world that you do not like? Have met someone who for some reason annoyed you and left you feeling like you just wanted to get away from them? If not, then you're truly a wonderful person for being so understand and accepting of others. I love people/humanity, but there have been plenty of people I've met who I dislike for various reasons. Kids, due to the traits that I've mentioned before, generally fall into that category. They're little humans who are usually very annoying and whom I have nothing in common with. I have met kids that I like, but they're a rare exception. Mistanthropes, by definition hate all people/humanity, not specific individuals for whom there is a reason for the dislike. wow... harsh words... I think you could have expressed your feeling in a lighter manner I'm glad the term "generally" was used, but even then, question that. And the phrase "usually very annoying" I will NOT agree with. |
2011-04-22 10:05 AM in reply to: #3460096 |
Master 1699 Malvern, PA | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" yeats - 2011-04-22 12:23 AM trinnas - 2011-04-21 11:31 PM Kids/no kids either way it is a trade off. I give up some of my free time and I take on the responsibility of a child and I am rewarded for that choice by my son every day. To someone else that is not something that means anything to them so they choose not to have kids and they give up those rewards. I do not see what I "give up" as a burden to me and I doubt the childless by choice see what they "give up" as a burden to them. I'm not trading off anything by not having kids, and I'm not giving up anything by not having them. This notion of a "burden" either way is baffling. I'm living exactly how I want to. I'm not "giving up any rewards" by not having kids because having kids would bring absolutely no reward to my life. None. Zip. Zilch. I don't want them. I don't need them. They wouldn't bring me happiness. I can see how they might bring rewards to other people's lives, but definitely not my own.
how do you know what you're giving up? you've never had it to experience, where as us who have chosen to have kids, to a point, are aware of what we're giving up? I've had the free time, slept in, drank my beers (and I still get to do all those things if I want)...
some of you childless by choice types are extremely defensive and harsh for no reason...
|
|
2011-04-22 10:06 AM in reply to: #3460588 |
Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" Marvarnett - 2011-04-22 9:59 AM Renee - 2011-04-21 5:09 PM Marvarnett - 2011-04-21 4:17 PM SoberTriGuy - 2011-04-21 2:13 PM Be thankful that your parents had kids... If I wasn't born to my parents I would have been born to another set of parents. And, unfortunately, the population is not shrinking, so I would have been born at some point. That's an interesting take. I believe just the opposite - if my mother didn't birth me, I wouldn't exist. Not anywhere. I am who I am because my mother birthed me. Would I be okay with not existing? There would be no "I" that could consider the question of my lack of existence! Que sera, sera. So, Dan, why do you believe you would still be around even if your mother hadn't birthed you? Asking merely out of curiosity. I hadn't heard this perspective before. Renee: So you believe in a finite or infinite "ethereal collection" of potential living beings? I've never heard of that before. This intrigues me. |
2011-04-22 10:09 AM in reply to: #3460569 |
Elite 4235 Spring, TX | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" maxmattmick - 2011-04-22 9:51 AM AndrewMT - 2011-04-21 3:53 PM mrbbrad - 2011-04-21 2:48 PM AndrewMT - 2011-04-21 2:33 PM Renee - 2011-04-21 1:09 PM Just like I am leery of people who don't like dogs, I am leery of people who don't like kids (which is a different matter than not wanting to be a parent). I think people who don't like kids just don't like people in general - that's my read. Misanthropes are not my people. I am intrigued by your take on this. I'd like to offer a differing point of view, speaking as someone who doesn't like kids but loves humanity.
This statement seems completely incongruous to me. Kids, especially young kids, are the purest form humans can take. That's a subjective feeling you have. Your use of the word purity doesn't really apply to my reasoning for why I don't like kids. Loving humanity does not mean loving all humans. are you sure about that? Very sure. |
2011-04-22 10:09 AM in reply to: #3460595 |
Pro 4824 Houston | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" BikerGrrrl - 2011-04-22 10:01 AM trinnas - 2011-04-22 9:56 AM BikerGrrrl - 2011-04-22 10:49 AM I think the reason that "attitudes" have popped up here is because we of the "no kids club" can't simply be here and be happy about it. Even here we have been prompted to explain ourselves. I struggle with the concept of why we assume the default - everyone should have/want kids. If you don't want/do that, then you must explain. It's exhausting! For me, a lot of the reasons for having kids do not hold water with me - but I am not asking anyone to defend themselves. Because my husband is an "Acquiesor" to not having kids, I still hear about this a fair bit. Ironically, I am not allowed to make statements like "I'm glad we don't have kids because..." yet I still have to put up with complaints about not having them. In summary, I am really tired of this. Seems to me with these two things it is more a matter of a chip on your shoulder. Most of the parents here I have seen have said if you choose not to have kids that is your choice. Just because someone asks you why you do something does not mean they are judging you for it. I have been in both camps at different points in my life and they were my choice. Yes, I do have a chip on my shoulder about this. If someone asked why I made this choice, and simply said "oh, okay, I hadn't thought of that perspective" then I would not assume they were judging. But when they then go on to defend their side (i.e. bringing up Social Security), there's more to it. If that's not meant to be judgmental, it still feels like it. I understand where you are coming from and where you could feel judged. Just so you know it goes both ways, I don't think anyone gets off scott-free. If you only have one kid you are being selfish not giving that child a sibling. If you have 2 boys you should have a girl and vice versa. If you have 3 children it's an odd number and somebody will always be left out. The only time *some* people were happy is when I had 2 boys and 2 girls except I should not have had 4 children, that is too many. And when I had 5 well.... the comments flew... I am over-populating, I am a serial birther, a breeder, selfish, the list goes on and on. I was told all those things above so everyone gets judged not just those who choose not to have children.
|
2011-04-22 10:11 AM in reply to: #3460606 |
Pro 4824 Houston | Subject: RE: The "No Kids Club" maxmattmick - 2011-04-22 10:05 AM yeats - 2011-04-22 12:23 AM trinnas - 2011-04-21 11:31 PM Kids/no kids either way it is a trade off. I give up some of my free time and I take on the responsibility of a child and I am rewarded for that choice by my son every day. To someone else that is not something that means anything to them so they choose not to have kids and they give up those rewards. I do not see what I "give up" as a burden to me and I doubt the childless by choice see what they "give up" as a burden to them. I'm not trading off anything by not having kids, and I'm not giving up anything by not having them. This notion of a "burden" either way is baffling. I'm living exactly how I want to. I'm not "giving up any rewards" by not having kids because having kids would bring absolutely no reward to my life. None. Zip. Zilch. I don't want them. I don't need them. They wouldn't bring me happiness. I can see how they might bring rewards to other people's lives, but definitely not my own.
how do you know what you're giving up? you've never had it to experience, where as us who have chosen to have kids, to a point, are aware of what we're giving up? I've had the free time, slept in, drank my beers (and I still get to do all those things if I want)...
some of you childless by choice types are extremely defensive and harsh for no reason...
Gosh, do you think statements like that could make them defensive???? |
|