Rising Anti-Child Movement...Parents BE AWARE

Just to disspell some myths about the child free. My best friend is childfree and is one of the most loving people you could ever meet. She is a kindergarten teacher and the parents and kids adore her. She spends summers volunteering for various underprivliged children's organizations as well as other charities. She is far removed from any label of selfishness. She is also active in one of the local No Kidding groups. Why? because like me, she wants to be around adults who talk about adult things. I have children of my own but I do not want to spend free time talking endlessly about them like so many of my friends who also have children do. I would join a No kidding group if I were eligable. Sometimes I almost want to fake it. As parents, we never think that we are talking too much about our children, and to close friends and relatives, that may be ok, but to people who just want to get out and talk about politics, the arts, dining, sports, current events, etc, it gets boring. Face it, too many of us, especially we that have young children, are out of the loop. It is a natural process since being a parent takes up 90% of our time.

I treasure my childfree friend. She makes sure I stay in the loop and adds a completely different and enriched perspective to my life. I am also aware and sensitive to the many challenges my Childfree friend faces. She has been questioned rudely about when she is going to have a child more times than anyone can calculate, and is always told that she doesn't know her mind. She has been denied a tubal even though she is 29 years old and has been married for 6 years and has had extra responsibilities foisted upon her because she does not have children to go home to. It does happen based only on the fact that people see her time as more expendable.

If anyone thinks that the childfree are spoiled, selfish, or whiny, think about how many parents (including myself at times) appear. They are no more or less than we are. Get to know some of them before you make judgements. Of course there are some that are unpleasant, but go to any little league or soccer game and you can run into unpleasant parents as well.
 
I just wanted to point out that the majority of people on this thread have used the word "family" to refer to parent(s) with children. Does this mean that my husband and I are not a family because we do not have children?

I'd like to agree with the person who commented that a childfree group was no different than a parent group. If my husband and I move someplace new, how are we going to meet people? We don't have PTA meetings to go to, bars don't seem like a good idea, there's no local play group since we have no kids. I'd definately look into a No Kidding group to try and find folks we connect with.

I work in the SUNY system (NY state colleges). We are currently without a contract, which means no pay raises. The benefits being debated that prevented the union from agreeing to the contract were all things I will never benefit from. Why? They were all aimed at parents. While I am in favor of increasing benefits, I wish I could find an organization to work for that used a choice appraoch to benefits - each employee receives the same dollar amount and can choose to apply it towards health insurance, day care, extra PTO, donate to charity, etc.

My last point is about kids at Disney World. I expect them to be there. My problem is with the parents who allow their kids to ruin my experiences because "they're just kids" or "we paid to be here." When I waited as long as you did to see a show and your kid starts to scream, which makes it impossible for me to hear what's going on, I don't think that's fair. My favorite was the time a child got fussy and then decided she needed to pull my hair, hard, and mom just thought it was funny. I didn't think the pain, or the candy reside in my hair, was funny.
 
When those who are militantly "child free" are of retirement age and want police/fire coverage, medical care, service industry help, etc., do they plan on working until their 90's? Who will be paying into the social security system if they are not working? Who will be paying the taxes to provide them with medicare coverage and other benefits! Why, it will be all those children who didn't deserve an education or health care or child care providers.
Remember that this is all a giant circle. Those who choose to militantly exclude one population may find that they need them later......

.....and notce I said miltantly child-free by choice. Not child free but child-friendly/willing to tolerate those little ones while they learn to become competent adults. There is a difference in choosing a lifestyle that is best for you- and assuming that others should live your lifestyle, too (that goes for the mommy-daddy "pushers" too!).
 

just believe that not everything that is made/produced needs to be childfriendly. It is okay to have adult themed places (and I am not talking about sexual things either). I say it is fine to bring children but make sure they behave. No one else thinks it is cute when your two year old is screaming and crying in a place that is going to run you $200 or more for dinner.

ITA!!

I do have a kid, but there are lots of places where she does not belong! Further, when I, as a parent, drop a load of $$ on a babysitter so that DH and I can go somewhere adult, I can tell you that I am as mad (if not madder than) you when some other kid ruins my nice time.

just wanted to point out that the majority of people on this thread have used the word "family" to refer to parent(s) with children. Does this mean that my husband and I are not a family because we do not have children?

Excellent point!!!
 
While reading through this thread, I noticed a lot of people wondering who would pay for the "old age" of childfree folks who don't have children to pay for their Social Security benefits, as is this were a reason to have children.

To those of you -- childfree or childed -- who are expecting Social Security to be around when you are ready to retire, I suggest you read up on the comments Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan made about the SS system last week. Put money in an IRA, 401K or other retirement plans and kiss the money you put into social security goodbye because it's not going to be there. Demographics give the system another 15 or 20 years before it collapses under its own weight unless there's a dramatic overhaul, and having more children now isn't going to save it.
 
I've almost read this entire thread. Wow. This continues to be such a heated topic. For me, as a childless by choice woman, the problem seems to be with "extremists". I agreed with parts of the article. I think it's great for people without children to get together in a group and have fun. I'm noticing that I don't have as much in common with my friends since their focus is now on their children. This is not a criticism of them. It's just an observation. My friends with children get together for baby groups, play dates, etc... so I don't see a club for childless couples to be bad. That said, I do think that some people in this No Kidding group are taking it too far. Parents and children should absolutely have rights. I'd be offended with the word "breeder" too. I'd never use it.

There are "extremists" on the other side too. I am 30 and do not have children (though this decision is not written in stone yet). I have been called selfish, uncaring, immature....the list goes on. I take great offence to such remarks. I admit that I'm terrified to have children. I'd want to be the best parent that I could be and I worry I don't have the tools. I'd want to give my possible children the best life I could. Is it selfish to worry about this??

Don't you think we all need to lighten up a bit? I respect people with children. I just would like the same respect in return.
 
When those who are militantly "child free" are of retirement age and want police/fire coverage, medical care, service industry help, etc., do they plan on working until their 90's? Who will be paying into the social security system if they are not working? Who will be paying the taxes to provide them with medicare coverage and other benefits! Why, it will be all those children who didn't deserve an education or health care or child care providers.

Actually, it is MYSELF paying into my future social security. I could swear there's a place on my paystub where it says how much of my earnings is going into social security! And if its not enough to live on later, I have a retirement fund provided by none other than Me, Myself and I.

Nobody said that children don't deserve health care or an education. However, there are some people who abuse the system. For example, women who keep having babies with men who won't provide and live off of welfare. Can't they use birth control, or stop sleeping around? Guess who is paying for that? Me, and every other taxpayer. What are these women thinking? That "God will provide"? I am a little tired of being "God" and providing these people with my taxes!

Its not the fact that children need certain things that bugs me. its the fact that some parents have this "entitlement mentality" about them.
 
Don't you think we all need to lighten up a bit? I respect people with children. I just would like the same respect in return.

I think this pretty much sums it up for me. I thank God that I live here in the good ol' USA where we all pretty much have an abundance of choices. For those who choose not to have children, hey I respect that. I am a parent and I chose that for myself. It's part of being a citizen of these United States. It all boils down to mutual respect for each other. I have no problem with the idea of a group of individuals, with a common thread, getting together to enjoy one anothers company. That is what this country is based on. Freedom. The freedom to do just that. If No Kidding wants to convene and have their ranks of childless individuals and/or couples interacting with each other and discussing politics, religion, sports, the weather...so be it...hey that is just dandy. The main problem I had with the article was the admonishment of parents just for having children.

"It's the end of your life if you have a kid," the 25-year-old bachelor says in an interview. "You can't do anything, you can't go anywhere. People ruin their lives by having kids, and then they try to ruin ours in theaters, or by clogging up both lanes of traffic in front of schools. I don't feel that the rest of society should be punished because they want to have children."

I don't admonish those who choose to be childfree. That is YOUR RIGHT to choose. I will not scorn you for doing so, and I am truly empathetic when you are pressured by your family and friends in making that decision.

This 25 year old quoted in the article is not a very good ambassador for the groups of childless people. I am a parent, I love my children, and I love the life I have with them. Respect me and I will respect you.
 
"It's the end of your life if you have a kid," the 25-year-old bachelor says in an interview. "You can't do anything, you can't go anywhere. People ruin their lives by having kids,


While I know how he feels, I can agree with DJBounce in that he should have phrased it better. He should of said "It would be the end of MY life if I had a kid. It would ruin MY life if I had one", rather than using "your", "you" and "people". He should of spoken for himself only.
 
I am a little tired of being "God" and providing these people with my taxes!

Well, me too, and I have a kid! But let's not forget that there are loads of people without kids with the same entitlement mentality. Let's not paint with an overly broad brush. As a society, though, we are meant to pool our resources for the common good - this is one of the founding principles of this country. It's the abusers of all kinds who ruin it for everyone.
 
Originally posted by lucky_bunni
How dare they steal the term "breeders" from us gays!

So not true Josh.... Your just trying to ruffle feathers. ;)
Many gays love children and would never refer their parents as breeders.
 
Here's my question, and maybe you can address this, Goofy Girl: I have noticed from the freers thread on the singles board that many people who do not choose to have children, refer to their pets as their fur children. Do these people really equate the importance of an animal with that of a human child? I prefer not to see pets in any public places (although I saw two on the laps of people driving cars yesterday- but that's a different subject), I think people should keep them at home. Some pets behave, others don't and their owners just let them run around sticking their noses everywhere-- o.k. got off on a tangent there.

Anyway, for some reason it bothers me (just a weird pet peeve) when people refer to animals as children. I think in no way is that animal's health and well being nearly as important as that of my children.
 
No, Momof2inPA, I do not consider my dog and cats to be the "equivalent" of human children. As the doting aunt of 7, I understand the difference between animals and people. But just maybe, having pets is a good exposure to some of the responsibilities that go along with the joys of parenting.

When I decided to adopt my pets, I had to think about all of the things it meant: I'd have to pay to feed them, provide appropriate shelter and medical care for them (including making sure they do not suffer when they come to the end of their days; make sure were looked after when I was working and when I was on vacation in places where pets aren't welcomed. I would be responsible for training them to behave, so that they wouldn't create problems for me or for the people with whom they might come into contact. I had to ensure that I would have time to spend with them every day, so that they would be sociable with people. I had to realize that there were a lot of places that I couldn't (or shouldn't) bring them. I had to realize that when I did find places (e.g., hotels) that WERE friendly to pets, it was my responsibility to ensure that they behaved well so as not to spoil the experience for non-pet owners and for future visitors who would want to bring their pets. I knew that I was the one who would be responsible for cleaning up after them. I knew it was also my responsibility to prevent my pets from roaming around unsupervised, creating hazards and messes in other people's space, on the roads, etc. Having thought about all of these things, I decided I was willing to accept them, and my dog and two cats are an important part of my family. They are not my friends, they are not human children, but they are creatures who I love and am responsible for -- both for their sakes, and for the sake of society at large.

If all pet owners thought about these things before they adopted pets, there would be a lot fewer animals causing problems. Come to think of it, maybe people should think about a lot of the same issues before they have children ...
 
.Mom of 2 in PA, I am the mom of an 18 month old, and six year old (both human children). I also am a mom of a 9 year old black lab. She is a part of our family and I love her every bit as much as I do our children. I do consider all living things as equal and I know many other people who do too. I am raising my children to feel the same way. Afterall, can you have too much compassion?

I like to think that both my human children and my furry child are well behaved, but both have their moments. If the way some one loves their animals, houseplants, or children bothers you, that is not their problem. I don't see why it is relevant to criticize how or what someone decides is worthy of love. It in no way affects your daily life, contrast to that of children affecting everyone else's lives when brought to inappropriate places, behaving badly or costing tax payers (sorry, my daughter goes to public schools and cost tax payers too but I am sympathetic ). :(

My whole point to this is what does it hurt if someone is Child free? Even if they are militanly childfree, who here has been accosted by any childfree person? Now ask the question to the Childfree about how many times they have experienced insensitive remarks, disgust about their choices (like has been shown here) and assumptions about their character. I am willing to bet that it will be pretty much one sided
 
Originally posted by appyhay
.Mom of 2 in PA, I am the mom of an 18 month old, and six year old (both human children). I also am a mom of a 9 year old black lab. She is a part of our family and I love her every bit as much as I do our children.

OK, I do find it unfathomable to love a pet as much as my children, but you are right about your feelings not affecting my life. What would affect my life is if you decided that your dog should accompany you to public places where my family would rather not see animals. I really don't want my tax money going to the animal hospital or shelter, either. Maybe I'm an animal freer.
 
Originally posted by momof2inPA
I have noticed from the freers thread on the singles board that many people who do not choose to have children, refer to their pets as their fur children. Do these people really equate the importance of an animal with that of a human child?

Yes, my boys are my furbabies and they are important TO ME. And we do have plans to have "real" kids in a year or so. When we do, I will have three kids - one I can claim for taxes and two furry ones. ;)
 
I think trying to compare animals and kids are like comparing apples and oranges. Both have the right to happy lives and good treatment and beyond that the similarities end IMO.

If people want to refer to their pets as their babies or even consider pets more important than children, it's of no consequence to me. They are free to believe whatever they wish.
 










Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE














DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Back
Top