"Of course, you should feel free to have lots of babies if you like them and they make you happy!"

...and if YOU can afford them.

Gilbert suggests that people claim their kids are their chief source of happiness largely because it's what they are expected to say.

OMG, too true!

Reason can be surprisingly awesome for a "free"-market libertarian publication. When they turn to social or scientific issues, they come out with some great contrarian arguments.

Reason is a terrific magazine. As I have said on more than one occasion, feminists probably have more in common with the free market crowd than with the left wing labor movement. Unfortunately, the movement seems to have aligned itself with the latter.

Free market advocates tend to celebrate achievement, believe in the importance of career and productivity and focus primarily on consensual relationships in both the social and economic realm. I think there is a lot of philosophical common ground that should be explored.

EmmaSteinfeld - so only the rich should have kids?

Simpson's bit is harrlaious.
I do love my own children, and several other people, more than material wealth, but laughter is good too.

Mindy: I don't recall saying that. Does one have to be "rich" to be able to afford children?

I don't think anyone should be having "lots of babies." Overpopulation, carbon footprints???? Hello!!

@Mindy -- there's a wide range between "can afford to feed more mouths" and "rich".
- - - - -
I love my kids but I also know I'd have been happy if I'd never had them. There are plenty of "maggie barfed in your purse" moments when I wonder what the hell I was thinking. But it's also not "the kids" that make me happy, it's stuff we do together (games, trips, conversations, etc). Barf makes me sad, whining about something makes me annoyed, playing a board game is fun, hugs are nice... it's a mix of things.

Children are the one area that it seems every stranger in the world feels justified to have a deep, personal opinion on my life. Many strangers in the store: "Oh, a boy and a girl, you've got a set! So you're done!" A set? If that's my attitude, I'd be better off collecting beanie babies.

Reproduction worked out for me. I wouldn't push anybody else into it if they don't feel like it, though. [Except because I'm jealous about their freedom from babysitters and soccer practice...]

PurdueAttorney-

Unfortunately, the libertarian market-worshipping contingent also supports coercive hierarchies based on who has the most culturally valued "accomplishments" and unrestrained capitalism that screws over just about everybody but rich white western men while the labor-loving left is full of fair and rational human beings. I like it when feminism allies itself with fair and rational human beings.

Maybe you think that feminism is about careers and productivity, and maybe you are convinced that the "free" market as it stands has anything to do with consent (as opposed to capitalist bullying), but I personally find the bridges you're trying to build really really icky.

What Emma and Book_Grrl said.

AMEN!!

I've been saying this same thing for years. Ever since I was young, I knew I didn't want children - EVER. And yet, all kinds of people - from family members to total strangers - keep telling me that I'll change my mind someday, and that I *NEED* to have a baby! My answer is always that I am WAY too selfish to have children, and I love my free time and disposable income too much to have kids. And I am certainly NOT the "mommy" type.

And yet, when I say that, people STILL glance knowingly at each other with their smug little smirks and say things like, "Oh, you just wait! We'll see you in five years with a bunch of kids attached to you!" at which point I shudder in disgust at the very thought. Not only is it rude and arrogant for people to think that just because I was born a female, I NEED to procreate, but it's really nobody's business but mine.

And if they still say to me, "Oh, when are you going to have a bay-beee, you should have a bay-beeeee, you NEED to have a BAY-BEEEE!!", then I tell them to take that sentence and replace the word "baby" with the word "cancer" and that will pretty well indicate my feelings on the subject!!

That usually shuts them up. :)

"Perhaps it's because they don't like them very much."

I can't remember the last time an article's subhead made me want to turn cartwheels and scream "hallelujah"! As I approach my mid-thirties, I've noticed more often than not how cruel and judgemental people can be toward the 'childfree-by-choice' crowd. I get that my mom is disappointed (she WOULD make a wonderful grandmother), but the snarky comments I get from business assoicates or the wives of my husband's friends are enough to make me want to lose my shit.

I don't like children, peroid. I don't like the noise they make, their lack of reasoning skills, the TV programs my formerly sane friends are forced to watch with their kids, etc., etc. I don't know if I am missing a parenting gene or if disliking children is just something that has developed in my nature, but it is what it is.

I DON'T LIKE THEM. My husband doesn't like them. Thank you, Reason Mag, for reminding me that this is okay. Every other day of my life I am made to feel like some sort of social pariah.

I've been saying this same thing for years. Ever since I was young, I knew I didn't want children - EVER. And yet, all kinds of people - from family members to total strangers - keep telling me that I'll change my mind someday, and that I *NEED* to have a baby! My answer is always that I am WAY too selfish to have children, and I love my free time and disposable income too much to have kids. And I am certainly NOT the "mommy" type.
----------

You took the words out of my mouth. (Although it would be "daddy" type in my case.) I realized when I was 12 that I just don't like kids. Almost 20 years later and nothing has changed.

My mother held out hope for grandkids for years, but finally admitted defeat a few years ago. (I'm an only child.)

@ Mz.Stilletto:

Amen, my sister. Again, feels good to hear some likeminded feelings toward something I feel quite strongly about.

When I get the "Oh, just you wait" line, I usually respond with this: "You know those people who accidentally leave their kids in hot cars in the summer, and everyone says 'how awful that a child would die that way' and 'that person should have never been a parent'? I could be that kind of parent, so I'm saving my child's life by not giving it life."

Seriously, I am a completely forgetful person who lives in her head half the time, riding elevators 20 stories past the floor I needed to get off on. I KNOW I would not make an even decent parent, and damn it, I'd like someone to thank me for realizing this and not bring a helpless human into the world.

*exhale* Ok, feel better, getting back to work now.

I do agree that people shouldn't be having "lots of babies" because of over-population concerns. In fact, I wish I could say I don't want to have children but I have not out-evolved that pesky drive to reproduce. I think it's fucking ridiculous that people have issues with other people making the decision NOT to reproduce. I have an aunt and uncle whom have no children and I have always loved dearly and I was dismayed to hear my other aunt (a mother and grandmother) make a snarky comment about they "didn't like children and had never changed a diaper." If they didn't like children, they certainly never let it on to me as a child because I loved loved loved seeing them. And it's pretty fucking lame to expect that everyone is going to get some sort of magical fulfillment from scraping baby shit off a screaming child.

This is when I like Big Brothers/Big Sisters. You can have all the fun with a kid without the responsibility of taking care of one full time. I do like kids, but the idea of popping one out and raising one doesn't appeal to me at all.

And I do love that Simpsons episode. "PPASSCCATAG is also a disease of the brain stem." Everything I know I learned from that show.

I love it, I love it, I love it.

I have never wanted kids (I'm 25) and I alway get the 'you'll change your mind' line. I always tell people that when they say that to me, it just makes me more set in my ways.

Would I be a good mom? Yes. Would my parents be amazing grandparents? Yes, because they were wonderful parents to me. But I do not like kids, I do not find them appealing, and I believe that in the time it would take to be dedicated to raising a kid (or two or three), I can invest myself in causes that need the help and that I care about.

And triskelion, your last line was priceless. I laughed out loud at my desk.

I think it's a feminist issue that so many childless here thought they need to frame their decision in selfishness or that they'd somehow be a horrible parent.

There's not need to "level" to the accuser. To make the accuser feel better by putting yourself down.

Just say you don't want to be a parent - you don't want to have kids. If it's a puzzle, it's a puzzle to them.

Frankly, I wish people would not have children as "old age caretakers" or have children because it's the thing to do or have children because they want to be a stay at home mom, but they don't particularly like kids (yes, there are those), or have kids to shut up their spouse or family -- or have kids just on that birth control failure.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is no more of a pro-life position than to have every child be a wanted child and every parent to be a chosen parent absolutely.

@Mz. Stilletto & vtcheme "And I am certainly NOT the "mommy" type."

C'mon now. What IS the "mommy type?" I may or may not be "the mommy type," but I'm a kick-a$$ mom. I dislike the notion that there is a "mommy type" that we can collectively look down upon.

Kali Ma - JEEBUS, seriously? Now I'm being *tsk'd* over my use of the phrase "mommy type"? Good grief!!

I am not "collectively looking down" on the supposed "mommy types", nor am I encouraging anyone else to do so. I'm just saying I'M NOT ONE. Is that OK with you? That I don't feel like a "mommy" in any conceivable way? Seriously, if I had a kid, I'd be the kind to stick it in a cage hanging from the ceiling and forget about it for a few days. Do you still disagree that I should be labeled NOT a "mommy type"??

Try to put away your knee-jerk reactions once in a while; they're not helpful. I'm real happy for you that you're a kick-ass mom, but personally, I couldn't even give a shit. No offense. But surely someone will be offended anyways - someone always is.

I am so, so tired of having to apologize for this, but it's a touchy subject so here goes.

Your kids are fine for you. Enjoy them; I'm sure they're marvelous little people. I do not have kids, and I do not want kids. Please don't take it personally. It's nothing to do with you.
Also I am so so tired of people telling me I'll change my mind because it's what every woman wants, and aren't I greedy/selfish for not having at least one child?
If refusing to bear a child I don't want is selfish, then yeah I guess I am. If insisting that the only way to be a fulfilled woman is to bear children when the world is full of unwanted children already- I was one, I should know- then I do not need that fulfillment.
Again, mothers, fathers, this is not about you or your kids. This one choice, this one decision is about me, and me alone, and that's pretty much the way I want it.

I don't mind children. It is usually parents who piss me off. Not to mention a culture that rewards parenthood with everything from tax breaks to baby showers to minivans with multiple juice-box-sized cup holders to anxiety for women who choose not to bear children. That really gets me, too. But not as much as parents themselves. Ugh. Give me children any day!

I think one day i might want like one kid, but thats after I can have years of a disposable income and living it up and traveling so I don't see that for a VERY long time (i'm only 20 so at the very least 10 years).
I hate when people say that I'll change my mind about babies and have like 12. I don't like babies that much, but I think it'd be cool waaaaaaaaay later on.
In the meantime, i'm enjoying buying books and shoes.

"Perhaps it's because they don't like them very much."

See...I didn't like this part at all. I hate the implication that I must dislike children just because I don't want one of my own.

I love kids. They are generally adorable and far more intelligent than we give them credit for and always thought provoking. I see a baby (even the atrocious ones) and go awe...isn't he just the cutest little thing.

But some people insist that I'm either in denial or a child-hater because I don't want to have one of my own.

Why does not having children have to mean that you think they're vile little creatures? (Answer: probably because you're being demonized for being the baby factory the patriarchy demands.)

I like them...but I don't want my entire world to revolve around them (for any period of time really) particularly one that I can't pick and sure as hell can't return.

The "You'll change your mind" comment is a whole bunch of misogynistic projection. For some reason, parents seem to believe the childfree people, especially childfree women, are getting away with something by not having children.

The common standby of "You'll change your mind" is a feeble attempt to insult and shame childfree women (by essentially calling them immature) and make them feel unsure of themselves. It rarely works anymore.

Take heart that once you get past 40, those comments tend to slow somewhat.

I think another reason the children-are-the-best-thing-that-can-happen-to-you myth persists is because having kids is such a HUGE and irreversible change, having room for doubt, for the possibility that "it might not work for you" is just unbearably intimidating. When people have kids they need to take a leap of faith that it will make them happy. When feminists go around pointing out the complexity of parenthood, they get shushed because they are challenging the guarantee of "fulfillment." That's too much for a lot of folks to think about.

In general I think the whole "selfish" argument is BS. Do people who have kids really do it for the future economic stability of their population? No. They do it because they guess it will make THEM happy, it will give THEM the lives they want, so THEY will have someone to take care of them when they're old. We all make our life choices for SELFISH reasons, some just have different preferences. And I think the people who call vol-childless people "selfish" are the ones who realized too late that they are not cut out for parenthood, and probably would have had a happier life sans family. Basically, they are jealous.

Wow this is SO ME. I really have never liked kids - I was reading some of my old high school/middle school journals and even in THERE I said "I don't think I need to have kids to be happy". I never sayinever, and maybe my opinion will change, but maybe it won't. I DO know that if I choose to have any, I will only have one and will not use fertility treatments.

I'm very comfortable in this choice but a lot of people seem to think I'm just young and naive for thinking this, or a sour, nasty person for not liking children. They also like to say that since I enjoy "feminine activities" like cooking, baking, knitting and gardening, I'll naturally want to have 4 kids. The thought makes me shudder....

I decided long ago that I didn't want children. Whenever someone asked me the "when are you going to have kids question," my answer was "never." I got more than my share of knowing smiles in return and the "oh you will someday" comments.

Well guess what? I never had kids. I'm now 47 years old and quite happy with the way my life turned out. I'm not old and lonley. I'm not dissatisfied. My life is great. Fortunately, I met my husband, who also had no desire for children, about 18 years ago and we've been selfishly happy ever since.

Yea, we put up with massive shit from our families about our selfishness in not producing the desired male grandchild. So fucking what! I told my father in law that if he really wanted a grandson that bad, I'd spawn it if he'd raise it. That shut him up.

Yes, I admit I'm selfish. I like my clean and quite house. I like that I can do what I want, when I want. I like the freedom of just having adults in the house.

Any maternal feeling I have, I lavish on my dogs. One of whom is Scooter.

I'm sure there have always been just as many women (and men) who didn't want children as there are now. The difference is that access to reliable contraception and abortion are historically very new. I am childless by choice and without reproductive rights I know my life would be very different.

Along these lines, I was once having a conversation with an older male colleague of mine who lives in the suburbs with his wife and children (my nightmare). I told him I can't imagine commuting for hours a day on the train b/c it would interfere with my personal life and he said, "Well, maybe when it's not just you you'll feel different." Ugh it pissed me off so much. Don't assume I'm going to have children just because I'm a woman, and don't assume I'll make the same lifestyle choices as you! It also made me mad b/c his wife stays at home with the rug rats, so the implication that I would be a suburban SAHM was there as well...

I agree that: "Because they don't like them very much" doesn't really cover it. There are lots of people out there who do like children but for various reasons don't want any of their own. Those people may prefer to be great aunts or uncles, or volunteer with children, or work with children (my sister is a teacher and is in no hurry to have children because: "I work with children all day. I don't need to see them when I get home too!")

"I've been saying this same thing for years. Ever since I was young, I knew I didn't want children - EVER. And yet, all kinds of people - from family members to total strangers - keep telling me that I'll change my mind someday, and that I *NEED* to have a baby!"

Ditto. I've had family members tell me that since I first told them (when I was about 3) that I didnt want kids. My family still talks like I'll change my mind saying things like, "here, take this (some family memento) because when you have kids I want them to have it." Its like theyre in denial. Even when I went into my last doctors appointment I asked if I could have my tubes tied (I was about 22). The doctor (whos a woman) asked me why. I told her I didnt want kids, and she acted like she was thrown off course. She asked why, assuming that I was a lesbian and simply thought because of that I couldnt have kids. I told her no, its just that I dont want kids!

(personally I identify as bi, and have a bias for lesbian familys-I just dont want one).

This is where having nieces and nephews comes in handy:) Parents get the grandkids and you get to play with the babeez but hand them back at the end of the day.

I do not want kids and like many here I always get the "you'll change your mind someday" answer or, worse, "Yes you do," which for some reason will send me into the red faster than anything. I think it's because I don't like having people who 1)aren't me or 2)don't know me, assume they know my "true" feelings on the matter.

I am not selfish because I don't want kids. I don't hate kids but really can only take them in small doses.

And my reply now for people who tell me I'll want kids is, "Well, Jesus didn't seem to think they were necessary so why should I? That is, unless you believe some contraversial version of the story." ;)

Usually I'll get stunned stares and some stammering about Jesus having more "important" things to do, to which I reply, "So do I." That usually ends the conversation.

to be honest, i think alot of people act shocked, or say "you will change your mind" or accuse the childless of being selfish (the ones that are the most vehement about it anyway) bc they are actually very insecure about their own choice and may have reservations about what they cannot change. so i think alot of it comes from jealousy and the wish that everyone be as miserable or unhappy as they are. thats not to say that everyone with kids is miserable or unhappy, but i just think there are probably lots that regret their choice (which doesnt mean they dont love their children) and are afraid to just own up to it.

Gopher II: I've heard others say the same thing: when they want their tubes tied, the doctor thinks they're lesbian. Which makes no sense. Lesbian sex can result in pregnancy? It's pretty obvious they haven't thought that one through, probably because there's so much societal pressure to reproduce. I know plenty of people who shouldn't have had kids, but felt that they had to, or that it would fill some void in their soul if they did.

Btw, I plan on having kids at some point, but not until I'm financially and emotionally in the right place. Family members remind me in not-so-subtle ways that my biological clock is ticking, even though I'm only 26. I am so ready for society to stop telling us women that they know what's best for our bodies and lives. Good for those of you who know what you want and are sticking up for it.

That lesbian comment in response to a request to get your tubes tied just seems bizarre to me - I mean, if your reason for not wanting kids is that you're a lesbian, well that just sort of takes care of itself....

Personally, I've had mixed feelings about having kids throughout my life, but I've wanted them less and less as I've gotten older. Now I'm 36 and I know I'll never have them. I love kids, but I also love my life the way it is and being able to do what I want. Kids change everything.

I have to say, however, that I have never felt pressured to have kids. Because of my work and lifestyle, I am surrounded by feminists and cool people. But even in my extended family, I've never been pressured. Of the five sets of cousins in my family, one of us in each set has never had children, and I've never even heard anyone say anything about that.

The one conversation I remember having with my mom about it - probably 10-15 years ago - I said something about her wanting grandchildren. She said that should be completely irrelevant to my decisions since I was the one who would actually have to raise the kids. Now my sister has two fabulous kids so that's been taken care of.

I agree that: "Because they don't like them very much" doesn't really cover it. There are lots of people out there who do like children but for various reasons don't want any of their own.

Interestingly enough, I usually hear "I do like children, but it's just not for me," more so than the reverse, when people who don't want kids make an attempt to explain why they don't want them.

I don't like kids, and I have no shame in saying that. I don't want kids, not because I don't biologically have to fulfill an obligation to procreate, not because there's enough people already, not because the world is fucked up, not because of "carbon footsteps" as one person already mentioned, but because I don't like kids. Have there been moments where I've tolerated, hell probably enjoyed, the presence of one? Sure, but it's those rare, rare occurrences, in which the child in question has possessed an intelligence, temperament, and comprehension way beyond their age. But even then it's just cute for a while, and back to their parent/s they go.

Some people have tried to "shame" me for admitting so by stating the obvious: "but, you were a kid once." No shit, Sherlock, no shit.

Usually I'll get stunned stares and some stammering about Jesus having more "important" things to do, to which I reply, "So do I." That usually ends the conversation.

Oh, nice comeback...noting it down.

UltraMagnus: I am going to pass that comment about Jesus on to some of my friends who don't want a child. :)

Sera –

Free market advocates are usually pro-immigrant, anti-war and want people to succeed. This is not a zero-sum game I am talking about.

And yes, I do think that feminism should be about careers and productivity. I want my daughter to grow up to be a fully independent adult who can pursue her own career, goals and agenda without being told how by the “labor loving left�. I want to her to have the ability to have a family if she sees fit, and when she sees fit. I don’t want her to have to be dependent on a husband or the government. In fact, one of my roles as a parent is to make sure my children (both my daughter and my son) have the skill set to succeed in the open market.

As an atheist, I was amused that you used the religious language to describe supporters of the free market. It is actually the “mixed economy� that supports coercive hierarchies and rich white western men. When business gets into bed with government, it is the poor and minorities who suffer most. One of the reasons I support the free market, in contrast, is that it is the best way of raising living standards across the board.

You stated that: “the labor-loving left is full of fair and rational human beings.� Setting aside the organized crime element, this is just historically inaccurate. It was the labor-loving left that tried to benefit white men at the expense of minorities. The 40-hour work week, 8 hour day and anti-open shop elements of labor were directly meant to shut out non-white laborers. It was the labor loving left that looked the other way while millions starved to death in the communist block, supported eugenics and basically tried to “whiten� the country. These aren’t the policies of the free market and its supporters. Last time I checked colonialism and the like was a result of mercantilism, not free markets and capitalism.

But what burns me up the most is that somehow my belief that the free market is a good thing supposedly disqualifies me from wanting the best for my wife and daughter. As if I would want to see either of them subservient to any person or government. I can understand,and agree with, the opposition to social conservatives, but why should I have to buy into Leftist economic policies to believe that women are people too.

See, the thing is, I like kids. I like talking to them, hearing what they have to say and what they're discovering about the world. When I was younger and went to Take Your Daughter to Work day with my mom, who is an early childhood special ed teacher, one kid latched onto me for the day and talked his pregnant mother into naming the baby after me. I used to babysit and had a damn good time playing dinosaurs and watching Disney movies with the kid.

But I don't want any myself. I don't want another human being depending on me that completely. I'm going into theater. It's going to be hard enough keeping -myself- fed and clothed, let alone another person. I'll probably have to move around. I'm going to have to work a lot to stay alive. So unless I had a partner who somehow had a higher paying job AND more time to spend with the kid, I don't think that would be a great way to grow up. If I were going to be a parent, I'd want to be the kind of parent *my* parents were, and offer the same kind of love and support and wisdom. I can't do that if I'm going to live the life I want. And I'm not going to restructure the course of my life for somebody else. It makes my mom a little sad sometimes, but she's pretty much accepted it, and is looking forward to my brothers having kids someday. They want to, and they'll be awesome dads.

. . . my dad still thinks I'll change my mind. And I don't dare say anything about it to my extended family, because they'd think it terribly selfish of me not to become a baby machine.

I've decided that I probably won't have children either, but instead adopt children. I would have a very hard time actually giving birth to a child when there are so many children being brought into the world by people who don't have the resources/emotional maturity/mental stability to care for them and so they end up in foster care. But even just wanting to adopt children instead of giving birth to them gets me self-satisfied looks from people. You know, that, "Oh, you'll change your mind later" look, or occasionally a comment along the lines of, "If you can have children why would you adopt?" Which PISSES ME OFF.
It's not like I don't WANT children, I just don't want to GIVE BIRTH to children. And STILL people are weirded out. I don't get it...what is this society's hang-up with choosing not to give birth or have babies?

Not having children appeals to me because while people would criticize me, I'd only be criticized for that one thing.

Meanwhile, parents will be constantly told that they're raising their kids wrong, no matter what they do. I know years and years of all those criticisms would hurt me more than the criticism I'd receive when I say I don't want kids.

I chose not to be a teacher, a firefighter, a lawyer. I am not writing a thread about how awful the day to day lives of people in those professions are. (the hands full of chalk, the pain of burns and high cancer rates, the real drudgery of paperwork and protocol.

As far as I can see, any profession, including my chosen one (not talking about parenting here) has its share of drudgery, financial challenges (if you follow a career in the arts say) and awful days dealing with bad bosses, editors or clients.

I am not writing in defense of motherhood. I am writing to say that there is a bent in feminist discourse I find awkward.

I understand that for women it is different: that the choice to be a mother has traditionally been expected, but also under-respected. I understand that childless women are tired of well-meaning and even nasty comments and inquiries and of feeling like they failed expectations. That is what the women in this thread are venting.

No one who doesn't want to have kids should feel obliged to have them. The job is tough and demanding - I have two.

Still, I have noticed as I parent two girls that men and women (often childless) can treat the choice to parent is somehow a feminist failure, or at least a burden on the economy, as attested by the first comment which says that only those who can afford to have children should have them. (now only rich women should have kids.)

I want to say that I think the work woman and men do to raise kids (feminist, world changing kids) to be respected, not in the "that's the work god meant you to do, so give up the rest of your life" manner of respect. But in a way that matters: that there is real support for those who decide to raise kids(access to daycare, incentives, work flexibility), that we aren't parenting in a vacuum, that we don't have to lose so much of our income just because we chose to share our lives with, admittedly, little tyrants (but cute ones to us, at least as cute as the dog Monty is to his (her) owner.

A feminist of my aquaintence said to me that an educated women who decide to raise kids are "wasting their degrees", that they should be using their education to further the feminist cause instead of changing diapers and introducing a new one to the world.

Children are still pretty important to this world - global footprint and overpopulation taken into account. They are essential to community and essential, I think, to understanding oneself. That does not mean that breeding (I am not using contractions because my eight-month-old decided to help type my message and somehow changed the setting to criatian language symbols...) is required of every woman, but that we recognize the importance of children in our society, that we are all a part of a family somehow and that we need to support families (I do not mean this in any right-wing christian way, but allowing women of many different backgrounds to have children without being so harshly penalized financially). Maybe I am thinking of France.

Anyway, the older one, wants my participation in some imaginative drama involving talking donkeys, a death-defying rescue and magic.

That said, I am coming to the end of my mat leave and am looking forward to more of my life not focusing on day to day demands of children, while my husband stays home while juggling part-time freelancing.

We should not pretend parenting is easy or pretty or not full of days where someone does puke in your purse. But I want to feel respected for my choice as well...

"my formerly sane friends"

Commenting that people who have children lose their sanity/interest/ability to hold a conversation/ambition are just as rude and infuriating as comments that the child-free are selfish. Both types of comments come from insecure people trying to make themselves feel better about their choices.

RE: being able to afford a child:

I wouldn't buy a car if I couldn't afford the gas, maintenance, and insurance. Why would I have a child if I couldn't afford the food, clothing, and childcare?

wanderwoman and janet:

what you said!!!

"I wouldn't buy a car if I couldn't afford the gas, maintenance, and insurance. Why would I have a child if I couldn't afford the food, clothing, and childcare?"

EXACTLY! How is it that people are getting " only rich people should have kids" from "people who can't afford children shouldn't have them?" Being able to afford children isn't necessarily the same as being rich. My aunt and my mother have been teachers for about ten years, so while neither one of them are rich, both of them can afford the children that they have without a whole lot of difficulty.

wanderwoman: I completely agree with you.

My mother, a lifelong feminist, has never worked more than part-time since she's had kids (although she is a pre-school teacher, and most of those jobs are part-time). A lot of people find that to be incompatible with being a feminist, which she (and I) have never understood. My mother has always felt that it was her life's calling to raise and teach kind, aware, mature kids (and make sure her chldren were feminists!) That doesn't mean she isn't a feminist, or doesn't think that women should have full time careers and kids or no kids if they want, it simply means she wants kids for herself.
While I think most people on this blog, and the majority of feminists, agree that women should have choices, and that any choice they make in terms of childbearing, careers and otherwise is valid, I think there is still a minority of feminists and mainstream society, that looks down on women who decide to raise children (just as there are those who look down upon women who choose the reverse.) Feminism is about choices, and making any of those choices shouldn't diminish your feminist cred.

wanderwoman: on point!

feminism is about liberation, right? why replace one set of judgements and strictures with yet another?

brunette, that's mad funny...

"I don't hate kids but really can only take them in small doses. "

Exactly. I worked at a summer camp, and I loved the kids - but it was really great to hand them off to the counselors at the end of the day. I think that if I were to have a kid, I'd end up getting so frustrated and annoyed that I wouldn't give them the care they need.

My best friend is planning on having two kids, and we're both hoping to live within the same geographic area. So, she's decided that I will teach her kids to ride and I can do the whole "teaching little girl to ride and taking her to horse shows thing", and at the end of the day, they're hers.

And between my best friend and five siblings, I think I'll end up with PLENTY of children to be around, if I so choose.

If I want something that's messy, eats it's head off, is expensive, is always requiring new shoes, brings in plenty of medical bills, always needs something new and shiny.... I think I'll get a horse.

... except that buying a car and having a child are not the same. Unlike buying a car, having children - or not having them - is a human right. That's what "choice" is all about. I am not wild about people having lots of children that they cannot raise (not usually a matter of money), but people do have a right to have children. They do not have a right to have cars.

Secondly, we all benefit or are harmed by the development of children. So, we might want to be more supportive of parents than people who want cars. For example, society can (and should in my opinion) provide childcare, education, healthcare, etc. We would all benefit from lower crime and more productive members of society (and lower long-term costs). We could take more responsibility for children as a society and not simply put all that responsibility on parents who "can afford it."

Check out www.sistersong.net for more about reproductive justice.

Buying a car is a choice. Having a child is a choice.
See the similarity there?

So is the implication that some of you (Emma etc.,) are making that because I'm a teacher whose monthly pay check equals the monthly cost of child care, that I shouldn't have kids, while perhaps Brittany Spears should be able to? I don't buy it.

As feminists, we should help foster healthy women, children and families by providing for the welfare of future generations. There are people in this world who want to have children-- they should be allowed to have them, and should be supported in their decision. There are people in this world who do not want to have children. They too have the right to their own decision, and should be supported.

However, I can't but help getting this weird vibe that some of you think that society revolves around those of us with children. Perhaps if you'd ever had the experience of changing a diaper on a dirty bathroom floor because a changing table isn't available, or been scowled at for having the audacity to bring a family member out of your house, or tried to navigate unplowed sidewalks with a stroller, you'd begin to see that the world doesn't actually revolve around parents.

Bottom line: the problem is neither parents nor those that don't wish to have children, it's the self-satisfied libertarians who feel that their own personal wealth exempts them from having to contribute to society.

Wanderwoman,

I find your taking issue with anti-mother feminists on this board to be really, really odd. I say that because, without exception, everyone here seems to have gone out of their way to assert that though they've chosen to remain childless they respect your right to have children if you so choose. What more do you want? As a privileged class in this society (i.e. as a mother, as a chosen parent), my guess is that you've gotten used to that privilege and the praise and social reward that's heaped upon you for having made the reproductive decisions you've made and are a little out of your element when others say simply, "not for me." You end your post by saying, "I want to be respected for my choice as well..." which seem to be a response to attacks against you that were never even leveled to begin with.

You'll forgive everyone here if they haven't written comments that wax philosophical about the beauty and wonder that is motherhood, but the article was not about motherhood. It was about making the choice to forgo motherhood. And if you feel that because women here have outlined their reasons for remaining childless, they somehow project those same values onto your life or regard you with disdain, well that's pretty reductive and insulting. The reason we're all coming together to talk about the nuances and judgments associated with not having children is because it's something that's rarely discussed and understood even less. This is article provides a rare forum to discuss it. No one hates you. We're just not focused on you right now. Pretending we're anti-mother just because we're not talking about your specific experience is like men who say "What about the Penis Monologues! Feminists hate men!" No, we're just not talking about them at that specific moment.

Finally, Spirina said:
"While I think most people on this blog, and the majority of feminists, agree that women should have choices, and that any choice they make in terms of childbearing, careers and otherwise is valid, I think there is still a minority of feminists and mainstream society, that looks down on women who decide to raise children."

And I agree that it's wrong that a minority of a minority of people don't respect your right to have children (so, what, like seven people are really upset about your choice to have kids...). The rest of us here are talking about a majority of the majority of people who don't understand or respect our reproductive decisions. A group that you too, Wanderwoman, seem to fall into as I noted your lovely little lecture about how I'm clearly incapable of "understanding [my]self" since I don't have children. Awesome.

Crystalee:
As a privileged class in this society (i.e. as a mother, as a chosen parent), my guess is that you've gotten used to that privilege and the praise and social reward that's heaped upon you for having made the reproductive decisions you've made...

I know that wasn't directed at me, but as a lesbian parent, I have to say, I haven't really felt any gain in privilege since having my daughter.

Look, there is a very important point being made here: women should not feel that they are required to have children. There are lots of good reasons to not have them, starting with flat out not wanting to. It's disgusting that society often overlooks that point while pushing the norm of woman as mom.

However, I think this discussion is veering towards "this is my decision, and this is why it's better than yours." Having been talked down to by a patriarchal society on a daily basis, I can't abide by that.

@ janet

When I referred to my "formerly sane friends," I was not judging them in any way. In my effort to toss together my thought, some of my lighthearted tone was lost.

Several friends of mine joke that they've lost their sanity over repeated viewings of cartoons and their kids' tendencies to sing jingles, etc. ad nauseum. I didn't intend to infer that I found them insane, I was riffing on conversations where they joke about losing their sanity due to their kids' media habits.

My friend's reason for not having children with her soon to be husband is that she "is really into snowboarding right now". It's my favorite reason for not having kids ever.

The biggest sign to me that sexism exists in this area is women automatically defend their decision not to have children. I've seen that displayed here and in many other forums. I've heard every excuse from "I'm in school right now and my boyfriend sucks" to "I think it's better for the environment not to have children". Honestly we as women don't owe anyone an explanation, it's our body, it's our choice, it's our decision.

I decided to have a child at 19, when I was just starting college and had only been dating my boyfriend for 6 months. I don't feel like I owe anyone an explanation for choosing to have a child or for making the decision not to have more. My pregnancy wasn't planned, but I made the decision that was right for me and right for my relationship.

Oh..and the "if you have money to have them" is stupid. How many people have cars, houses, services that put them into debt? Does anyone buy anything with cash anymore? Not really, so why should people being insulted for having children that cause they to go into debt or ask for some help from the government. Businesses get money to help them stay afloat, why not american families?

eastsidekate,

Families with children are essentially subsidized. Income tax relief, lower per-person-cost of health care for families, state-sponsored insurance for children of low-income families, etc. I understand that it's still a HUGE expense to be undertaken by the parents, but when I make expensive lifestyle decisions, I have to pay for ALL of it myself. The only comparable thing I can think of are the student loans for which I did not qualify. So, yeah, that's the privilege I'm talking about.

And once again, there's this sense that the conversation is "veering towards 'this is my decision, and this is why it's better than yours.'" Which is weird because it hasn't been said or insinuated by anyone! I think that sometimes when people say, "cool. You made a decision, and I'm going to make a different one," people get offended. But frankly, I do think that my decision is better than yours. FOR ME. And that's the key point that the mothers here seem to be mistaking for something else.

Actually, I have very little debt and I live my life in a manner that allows me to keep it that way. If someone wants to go into debt, whether for a car or a child or whatever, that is a personal decision.

The childfree Villagers are already paying what I consider to be our fair share via income and school taxes.

Children are not a necessity and, therefore, if you want them, you get to pay for them. It really isn't a difficult concept.

"Oh..and the "if you have money to have them" is stupid. How many people have cars, houses, services that put them into debt? Does anyone buy anything with cash anymore? Not really, so why should people being insulted for having children that cause they to go into debt or ask for some help from the government. Businesses get money to help them stay afloat, why not american families?"

I'm afraid you need to learn the difference between good debt and bad debt.

Also, people need a place to live, and some people need cars. If its something they need but they don't have the money, then they have no choice but to go in debt, so I don't think that's a good comparasion. And if they're buying a car or house that is more expensive than they need and can afford, I frown upon that as well, because its financially irresponsible. When you have kids and you can't afford them, it's not only financially irresponsible, but heck, I think one could argue that it's selfish that you consider your WANT for kids to be more important than whether or not you can actually afford what those kids NEED.

And I don't typically feel too much pressure to have kids, except when I had a boyfriend who wanted kids, and wanted them to be biologically his, when I was pretty sure that if I ever did have kids, I'd want to adopt. He kept talking about compromise, like having one kid that would be biologically his and adopting the rest, but I told him there was no compromise about it, if I decided I didn't want to carry a child then I wasn't going to. Then he got all sentimental about how nice it would be to have to take care of his pregnant wife, and I nearly puked.

Besides that, the only person I can think of off the top of my head that pressures me to have children is my younger sister, because she wants nieces and nephews, and she can't count on our brother to ever have kids. But that's ok because its not like she's saying that its wrong of me to not want kids. And it amuses me because she says stuff like, "You don't even have to get married if you don't want to, you can adopt!" Which makes me glad that she's accepting of non-traditional families.

Buying a car is a choice. Having a child is a choice.
See the similarity there?

Oh, well, thanks for clearing that up. Clearly, all choices are equal, and mitigating circumstances, or differences in the type of choice being made are completely irrelevent.

It's like how choosing to take the ambulence to the hospital during a medical emergency is a choice! I mean, you could always drive yourself, or have somebody else drive you, or drag yourself, or take public transit. If you can't afford the medical bills, well, then you just shouldn't take the ambulence. Or get the treatment. Or get hurt in the first place.

According to the USDA, a single child, two parent household could expect to spend between $13k and $14k a year in 2006. According to the Census Bureau, the *median* income in 2006 was a hair over $48k. That's pre-tax. Take out taxes and housing, and 14k starts to look like a pretty damned big chunk of a your yearly income. And if you're in the +20% of the population making less than $24k a year... well... I guess those poor people just shouldn't have kids, right?

Please.

This is the last I'll say, because I don't want to derail this thread any further away from Ann's excellent OP than I already have. What I and others have taken exception to is many posters' (crystalee, Emma, prof/activist) yes, insinuations, that society somehow rewards women for having children by bestowing upon them massive amounts of privilege. Lower per-person-cost of health care? I'm not sure that holds for queer parents.

IMO, society punishes women who choose not to have children by looking down on them, yet provides far too little to help to those women who do decide to have children. We're all losing out, while men are free to have fulfilling lives outside the home without having to answer to society on whether they have kids or how they care for them.

Children are a feminist issue, because society expects women to have them, and do all the work of caring for them, at a high personal price. Pretty much every woman on this board, mother or not, suffers in one way or another at the hands of the dogma that children are "women's business".

__
And speaking of privilege.... there are lots of reasons people end up in debt, and not all of them are the result of "personal decisions." Medical bills, anyone? On the job discrimination?

I get the "selfish" and "you'll change your mind" comments as well. When I tell people that I don't like children and that I like my life just fine the way it is I'm told that my priorities will change once I have a child. Um, HELLO! I like my priorities just the way they are. That's when the "selfish" thing comes in. To that I usually ask people that give me all kinds of b.s. reasons for having a child why they don't adopt. Isn't it selfish to want to bring another body into the world when there are so many children that need loving homes? Really folks, what's so special about your genes that you need to reproduce?

Punishing children for being born to poor families is unfair and foolish.
We will pay for children either by providing them with what they need now, or we can wait until they grow up and become criminals. I'd rather pay now.

For me, the choice to have children would seem a lot more selfish than the choice to not have them. My family's full of depression, anxiety disorders, suicides, etc. I've lived with depression and anxiety issues for the past 15 years. I really don't want to gamble that my child would be free of such things, and I don't want my child to have the burden of a psychologically unhealthy family. It's just not worth it to me.

I don't look down on everyone those who has children, but I do look down on the ones who have children and refuse to change their zany lifestyles to take the kids' needs into account (which also often impacts other people, not just the kids, but it does the most damage to the kids.)

I also resent the ones who think they should be treated better than I should simply because they have had kids. I know I'll ruffle at least a few feathers with this, but just having kids is not an accomplishment. Raising them well is.

Wander, Crystal, et al.

WAIT. Let's not argue amongst ourselves. Its really easy to get defensive and say thing that to someone else might sound as if we do not respect each others choices. I think that this is especially true with issues that cut right to the heart of womanhood, independence, and patriarchal expectations. I know I start to get a little bristle-y at the topic, even when I know the people involved aren't deriding me. So before we draw our swords, let's try to remember that at least in this space we can expect our choices will (by the vast majority of people) be respected.

It's disappointing to hear so many people, particularly progressives, say that they hate kids. Since when is it OK to hate on an entire group of people, particularly a group of people as profoundly disempowered as children? Kids are individual people. Some of them are fantastic, and some of them are assholes, just like adults.

wanderwoman - no one here is denigrating mothers. parenting is important and respect the choice to do it. i agree wtih crystalee's response.

further, your comment about it being in everyone's best interest, parent or not, to help and encourage the development of children is to some extent true. i'm very interested in what is often referred to as the "work-life balance", and that includes for many people balancing career with raising children. i absolutely think this country has a long way to go in that area and it is imperative to achieving anything like true gender equality.

anyway, i've never been too fond of children and consider them completely uninteresting until they can carry on a conversation. i'm content to be the cool aunt and play with other people's kids until they become obnoxious and i can send them home. i'm discovering more and more female friends who feel the same way but are reluctant to admit it for fear of those oh-so-condescending smiles and the "you'll change your mind SOMEday" remarks. it's nice to know i'm not alone.

American "families" already receive financial assistance from the government in the form of all those credits and deductions they get on their tax returns. The childfree? Nope. We don't get those, which means we're already subsidizing American "families." We pay more taxes already. How much more would you have us pay? Should we be put into financial hardship to support the personal choices others have made? Why...especially when we may have made the childfree choice partially because we could not afford to raise a child? And then you want to bleed us dry financially to support others' children?

Medical bills? With the exception of elective procedures, they are a necessity.

Job discrimination? I don't think anyone chooses to be discriminated against.

Having children? That's clearly a choice.

"I think that this is especially true with issues that cut right to the heart of womanhood, independence, and patriarchal expectations."

Interesting. I've only had one man ever get pissy with me about my choice to remain childfree. All the others (and there have been a LOT of them) have been women...more accurately, mothers.

Whew, finally someone said it. I have passed my mid 30s and have realized that I just do not want to have kids. Kids are a lot of money and responsibility, and I am just not ready for that commitment yet and not sure if I ever will be. I respect anyone who decides to have kids that can take care of them...but it's just not for me.

"RE: being able to afford a child:

"I wouldn't buy a car if I couldn't afford the gas, maintenance, and insurance. Why would I have a child if I couldn't afford the food, clothing, and childcare?"

To stick it to The Man, outbreed the people in power, obey patriarchs, and/or blame anyone else but yourself for your children being where you chose to have children?

Emma, I've had the same experience with my choice not to have children. My male friends don't even mention my childlessness at all; women, however, even my close friends, express puzzlement and often derision at my decision. Odd.

I do find interesting the notion that women shouldn't explain themselves and their reproductive decisions. And while I whole-heartedly agree that I don't OWE anyone an explanation for what I choose to allow to go on inside my own body -- and later in my home and family -- I don't think that makes it wrong or somehow latently influenced by sexism to discuss here the reasons I've chosen to forgo a traditional family structure. Simply saying 'I'm not gonna have kids cuz I don't wanna' is fine -- no one is OWED a further explanation, but I think that any well-reasoned human being does have more reasons than that. Hell, I have a further explanation for what I chose to eat for dinner. And I should feel free to share it or not share it as I please.

Coming to a place like this and saying, 'I like having the freedom to travel' or 'I don't much like children' isn't necessarily being "defensive" as much as it is saying, 'I have reasons for doing or not doing things because I am a fully actualized human being.' And I find it interesting to hear about other women's stories and the ways that they prioritize their lives. This would be a really boring thread if we all just said "I don't want kids" "I do want kids" "I don't" "I do" It's a discussion, not a survey. And I think it's great that women feel like they can come here and be open about why they've ordered their lives in they ways that they have.

I would like to see women's - including poor women's - choice to have children supported as vehemently by feminists as their right not to have or bear children. But putting that aside...

We're already paying for kids who are not supported while they're growing up. We just choose to put that money into prisons and sending them off to war than providing support to families and parents. The latter would be cheaper and would provide a much greater benefit - both financially and otherwise.

Secondly, I think we all agree that getting pregnant is not always completely a choice. Unless you're advocating forced abortion, then having a child may not be 100% a choice either. Not to mention that many poor women cannot get abortions even if they want them.

I don't understand what poor women in this situation are supposed to do.

As a femminist, I find the "don't have them if you can't afford them" bullshit a little, I don't know....Bullshitty.

If women across the country, of every socioeconomic background had access to birth control, heatlth care, sex fucking ed, let alone when or where they had sex ... then I could understand. Possibly.

But I read these boards every day, and every day there is another fucking TRAVESTY that stems from, or around, making women have unwanted babies. And the POWER society has over women because of the amount of effort and money and time that goes into raising a child.

So to this nonsense about being able to afford kids is fucking crap...Society doesn't want us to be able to afford it, that's the fucking problem.

Emma and her ilk don't want to be burdened with having to feed, clothe and educate the generation that will be taking care of them when they grow old.

I certainly hope they can AFFORD to.

I mean, jesus.

There tends to be such hatred and animosity towards women on both sides of this issue. I myself have 2 children and have never once tried to change a woman's mind about not having children. I think it's an awesome decision. Sometimes I wonder what my life would be like had I not had children because you know what, wiping shit does suck. It sucks HARD! Not getting enough sleep sucks. Not being able to finish reading a book without being constantly interrupted for goldfish crackers sucks. Getting puke on a cashmere sweater sucks. Having a three year old scribble on your new couch sucks.But there is a lot that doesn't suck too. I love taking my son to a new city and see him look around with amazement at the buildings. I love turning my children on to new foods or books I read as a child. I could go on and on.
Are my children my chief source of happiness? No probably not. But they are an irreplaceable source.

I respect every woman's decision, no matter what it is--but sometimes I get the impression that my decision isn't respected by the childless women. There has been a lot said on here that feminism is about choices and all choices should be respected but when comments such as---- "And it's pretty fucking lame to expect that everyone is going to get some sort of magical fulfillment from scraping baby shit off a screaming child"--- are made it's almost degrading to the women that do that every day. NO ONE GETS FULFILLMENT FROM THAT. It's one of the nasty parts of the job. When you make that statement you are slapping a label on the women that made that choice. You are implying that they are not only simplistic, but below you because you need more to "fulfill" you. WE ALL NEED MORE.

"We're already paying for kids who are not supported while they're growing up. We just choose to put that money into prisons and sending them off to war than providing support to families and parents. The latter would be cheaper and would provide a much greater benefit - both financially and otherwise."

Good point. What does that have to do with discouraging or encouraging people from impoverishing their children?

IRL, it's totally possible to both like having a social safety net and dislike using it as a hammock at the same time.

Fishboots,
Having children is no guarantee that they are going to take care of you when you get older. Do you mean as a social safety net through their taxes, etc? Because really, I don't see how my supporting your kids now, is going to ensure that they take care of me when I am older. And btw, the Mr. and I have already decided that if/when we get to the point that we need someone to take care of us and wipe the shit from our asses or the drool from our faces, we want to check out. Your (not you specifically, but in general) are off the hook for having to take care of me.

"Emma and her ilk don't want to be burdened with having to feed, clothe and educate the generation that will be taking care of them when they grow old."

I'm one of Emma's ilk and I don't want their food and shelter to be at the whims of politicians and taxpayers alone after their parents chose to assume "all you need is love" or "God will provide" or whatever and had a whole bunch of kids when they could afford only enough food and shelter for fewer kids. The job market is insecure, and welfare seems even less secure...

Meanwhile, anyone else noticed a double standard out there? Some people seem to believe that when a single woman brings a child into dire poverty it means extramarital sex is evil - and believe that when a married man brings a child into dire poverty it means he's a saint while [insert name of scapegoat] put that baby where that baby is. o_O

"And yes, I do think that feminism should be about careers and productivity."

Hell yeah! You CANT be a feminist and a housewife at the same time. Get your ass out there and work.It would be hideous to deprive the world of womens contributions in the workplace(and studies back me). I think its pathetic to get an allowance from your husband. If my mother didnt work, I wouldve been sorely disappointed. I used to feel pride and independance when I used to tell my school friends that she worked(its sad that it was such a point to be made-when did you feel it was exeptional if your dad worked). I admired how she handled problems and saw how it was a benefit to people. She was an extension into the world for me. It should be the man who stays home because the women receive a pay cut. A working mother is also a good role model for her daughter. a working mother dissipiates alot of the bull that girls are told either about their gender or about womens contributions in the workplace.Girls are more vulnerable to being discouraged from seeing themselves as having lives other than mothering. A working mom eleminates that vulnerability and those subversive messages that creep into a girls psyche and allows her daughter to define her own world. There is also skepticism about why a woman would need to be a SAHM. Usually its because she doesnt have an equal split of work in the household, with the mother usually taking on the infamous double shift. How is a SAHM NOT saying a womans place is in the home? If a SAHM felt parents should devote themselves full-time to their kids, then why isnt the husband doing it too? Hasnt misogynistic society always intervened for that role to be conveniently filled by the woman?

(I hope this didnt post twice!)

oops, I meant to say "your kids" are off the hook.

"Emma and her ilk don't want to be burdened with having to feed, clothe and educate the generation that will be taking care of them when they grow old."

Oh boy. There's one I've never heard before. (/sarcasm)

As I said in a previous post, my ilk and I are already paying at least our fair share in taxes because we don't have all those deductions and credits, not to mention paying school taxes. How much more do you want from us? Maybe we should just endorse our paychecks over to the nearest mother and be done with it already. We don't have children so why on earth would we need a paycheck?

As I said, did it ever occur to you that maybe some of us decided NOT to have children because we couldn't afford them...yet you want us to pay for yours. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

First, to those who say, "That article rubs me the wrong way! I like kids! I just don't want any!" ... the article says "perhaps." That means, "maybe." A possibility. It's not 100%. Perhaps you should go back and read that word before you get all snitty.

I don't want kids. I don't like kids. I feel no need to apologize for this. I feel that as women we're taught to live our lives for other people and not worry about our own desires and needs. So we have to justify our reproductive decision with "I'm just so selfish." There's nothing selfish about doing what's best for you as long as you're not doing it out of some weird malice. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Selfishness includes a certain intent to deprive someone else of something.

I seriously have yet to hear an argument for childlessness being selfish. When I was a tween, I told my mom I didn't want kids. She and my slightly older brother ganged up on me and went on about how that was soooooo selfish, and I needed to have at least one, because otherwise I was selfish selfish selfish. Why? Because my mom wants grandkids! My brother wants nieces and nephews! And of course, THEIR wants at my expense aren't selfish AT ALL. Just my desire to control my own life.

Look at it this way: I don't donate blood. Is that selfish? Lots of people need blood, after all. But I take certain medications, and I have a tendency to faint when the doc orders blood tests and they just take 2 vials. I can't imagine if I gave away a whole pint. So is that a selfish decision? No. It's the best decision for me. Selfishness is to say, "NO, MINE, CAN'T HAVE IT!" to withhold something just to deprive someone else of that thing.

So unless you're not having kids just to piss off your relatives, stop with the selfishness excuse. You're not being selfish. You're living your own life.

And lastly, yes, you should be able to reasonably afford kids before you have them. I don't understand what the problem with this is. You should be in the best position possible. I had a friend who got married earlier than anticipated (by about two years). After one year of marriage, they decided to have a baby. She was just finishing university, getting ready to go to medical school in a city several hours away. Her husband had a year or two left to his university work. Was this a good time to have a baby?

NO.

They were moving several hours away from their support system, she would be super-busy, her husband would have to take night classes and take care of the baby during the day ... and I really just wanted to smack her upside the head and ask what she was thinking. Is it so wrong to hope people will think through such a decision before making the commitment? Sheesh. No one's saying you need to be rich, but you should at least have some stability. Some savings. Something like that.

If a SAHM felt parents should devote themselves full-time to their kids, then why isnt the husband doing it too?

Because, due to the wage gap, the salary the woman would be earning would just barely cover, or not even cover, the cost of child care. Seriously. I've known women who have become SAHMs for exactly that reason. They didn't have enough money to carry on working outside the home. And once you've been out for a couple years (if you have only child), it's not that easy to get back in.

All I can say about the "poor people shouldn't have children" argument is how incredibly it misunderstands how and why people have children. Such an argument can only be advanced from the perspective of one for whom poverty is a temporary situation. When I was in graduate school, sure, I didn't have children in part because I was too poor to support them and myself at what I felt to be a minimally decent standard of living, but, and this is crucial, I knew that within my childbearing years, I would make substantially more money. So it made sense for me to put off having children. We live in a capitalist economy that depends on having large labor force that cannot realistically achieve advancement. Sure, you get the odd person here and there who gets out of poverty through a combination of good luck and hard work, but the essential nature of capitalism means that the vast majority won't--otherwise there wouldn't be the labor to support the bosses at the top. So what you're asking the vast majority of poor people to do is to put off having children forever. So, not only are poor people working crappy miserable jobs if they can get them--so they're sure as hell not going to be able to find fulfillment and a sense of self-worth in work--but now they're not supposed to find solace in the loving bonds of parent and child either, if they want to? (Bear in mind that becoming a parent may well be the only way to gain any sense of respect and leadership under these circumstances, the only way to achieve status and recognition in their communities.)

If you don't have anything to look forward to, there's no reason whatsoever to put off having children.

Children are not cars; people who love them and want to have them do so for far more complex and deep-seated and vital reasons than go into buying a new car. Just like people who don't want children don't look at their finances and say "Well, I've never wanted kids, but I've got several spare thousand dollars hanging around, so what the hell," people who desperately want children will at some point and in some way have them, regardless of financial issues.

Great to know that there are so many other women who are comfortable with their decisions not to have kids!

My friend comes from a family of 11 and has known basically all her life that she doesn't want any kids. I think she even asked her doctor about sterilization, but was told that the procedure is only an option for women over 25 or who have already had children. Has anyone else encountered this? It would seem the "you'll change your mind" mentality may not only be embraced by our nosy friends/relatives/acquaintances, but actually built into our institutions. Disturbing.

Emma, Mina, Not....

I'm not asking any of you to pay for my children, I am asking you to look around and realize...holy shit.... I didn't build that road, or my house, or my car.... I don't write my own prescriptions or draw my own blood, or fit my fucking glasses. Huh. Who did that? OTHER PEOPLE. Other people that may not have been, strictly speaking, affordable.

I guess that means I might not a.) be the only person in the world b.) be dependent on someone else in this world to get through my day.

You don't want to have kids? Thank you for that. You don't want to pay for someone else's? Are you that short sighted?

You want to get all patronizing and shit on a feminist blog about how WOMEN shouldn't be havin' babies if they can't afford them, and WOMEN are the ones that are really mean to you? Seriously?

Address my previous concerns about the availability of health care, sex education, birth control and how those details might have some bearing on whether a women has a child, I might take you seriously. Dig further into how society gains from creating a situation where having a baby is the most likely thing to impoverish a person.

I don't want your money. I am sick and fucking tired of having women put into corners, and then having so called feminists piss and moan about the monies. Teh MONIES!

Again, in case it wasn't clear before, thank you for not reproducing.

By the by, I am all for going childless. Some days I wish I did the same though most I am glad I have the little widgets. But they ain't for everybody.

I think she even asked her doctor about sterilization, but was told that the procedure is only an option for women over 25 or who have already had children. Has anyone else encountered this?

Unfortunately, from the stories I've read on feminist blogs, this is an incredibly, obnoxiously common story. It's pretty appalling. I can't think of any other elective surgery doctors do this about. You can walk in and get a boob job, no problem, but your tubes tied? Heavens, no. After all--you might change your mind. And we all know that never happens with boob jobs.

Thank you EG and fishboots!

And I still would like to know: what is a poor woman who's facing an unplanned pregnancy and doesn't want or can't afford and abortion supposed to do?

Because the only answers I can come up with are: 1) forced abortion - assuming someone will pay for it. 2) forced sterilization. 3) no sex for poor women.

None of those seem very feminist to me (although they have all been pushed in the past by "so called" feminists).

Emma,

"I've only had one man ever get pissy with me about my choice to remain childfree. "

Since when do men have a monopoly on enforcing patriarchal expectations? Most of the patriarchal nonsense I've been taught has come from other women.

mgt,

She should slink away like the trollop society says she is and stop making us feel guilty that we DON'T live in a society where everyone has sufficient resources to make the best possible choices...obviously /snark

being the baby factory the patriarchy demands

Most ridiculous thing I've heard today.

I don't know exactly where feminism started to collide with, and become materialism, but let's get one thing straight:

As a life form, once you strip away everything else about you, your entire purpose is to reproduce. That's it. You serve no other purpose on this earth, as a lifeform, than to make more of yourself, and to a lesser extent, ensure what you make can grow up to...make more of itself.

I don't mean just women, either. Women, men, cats, dogs, trees, everything that lives and is capable of reproduction exists to make more of itself. It's just the nature of life.

The "You'll change your mind" comment is a whole bunch of misogynistic projection.

No, it's more that statistically, the majority of people, even those that say "never", end up having children.

The hormonal drive to reproduce isn't some sort of fallacy, you realize.

The common standby of "You'll change your mind" is a feeble attempt to insult and shame childfree women

As above, no, it's not. Stop trying to treat everything as an attack on women. People say it, often out of having more experience than you. I know a lot of friends, with parents that were "never going to have kids". They usually say that you'll change your mind, because, as said, statistically, most people do.

. You can walk in and get a boob job, no problem, but your tubes tied? Heavens, no. After all--you might change your mind. And we all know that never happens with boob jobs.

First off, stop trumping this. It's foolish. They give the exact same spiel to men, even though ours is obviously much more reversible than yours.

Why? One word, easy one. Liability. If you change your mind about a boob job, they can remove the implants. If you change your mind about a hysterectomy, they can't exactly put your uterus back.

In our incredibly litigious society, where malpractice insurance is already through the roof, I do not for one moment blame them for protecting their own best interests. And because, again, most young women under 25 that swear kids are never an option, end up choosing to have them.

I think I fall somewhere in the middle on this. Having children is a personal choice and the sacrifices for that choice should fall on the parents (both of them ideally) but is anyone seriously saying that isn't the case? That a few tax breaks make up for all the sleepless nights and other sacrifices? Parents do make sacrifices already. And although it is a choice to have children I think it is important to society that someone does it. Given that there should be some support. Not 100% in my opinion but infrastructure and programs to help. Lower per-head health care might seem unfair to you but those parents are still paying more overall than you. To me it is just like my tax dollars going to support police even though I might never have to call on them. To maintain roads I might never drive on (I rarely drive). Taxes go to support those things that create and maintain society and one of those things is someone out there having some children.

For the record I don't have kids but I probably will soon. I intend to return to work ASAP but that is just what works for myself and my husband.

Liability. If you change your mind about a boob job, they can remove the implants. If you change your mind about a hysterectomy, they can't exactly put your uterus back.

Bullshit. If you change your mind about a boob job they cannot restore nipple sensation and they cannot restore breast function. If you change your mind about a nose job, they cannot unbreak your nose and put it back the way it was.

Oh, Monika, I just want to say that I agree with every single word you wrote. I think your position is eminently sane and compassionate.

The government WILL provide for children whose parents can't afford to keep them. It's called adoption.

I think if a poor woman accidentally gets pregnant, she should be able to get an abortion if she so desires, and I think its sad that some women have to go through pregnancy simply because she can't afford to terminate it. That said, even if she ends up having the child, she doesn't have to keep it if she can't afford it. She can give it up for adoption. I don't think parents should have children they can't afford, and then expect the rest of society to pay for them.

I know some people REALLY want children. Well I REALLY want a hot tub, but I can't afford it. I don't even have a place to put it. I know its not the same, but if you can't afford something, you can't afford it, no matter how happy it will make you. You have the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right to BE happy. There's a difference.

I realize I sounded callous there, but that's life. You shouldn't buy nice houses that will put you into debt that you can't handle, and you shouldn't choose to have children if you can't provide for them. THAT is what is selfish. And notice I said choose...I'm not talking unplanned pregnancies here.

Hell yeah! You CANT be a feminist and a housewife at the same time. Get your ass out there and work

That is possibly the most ridiculous and offensive thing I have heard all day, GopherII. I thought you were joking until I read the rest of your comment.
Feminism is about CHOICES, NOT about saying that you can't be a feminist if you want to be a SAHM or a housewife. Saying that women must participate in the paid workforce is JUST as bad as saying that they must be SAHMs.
So many people (including anti-feminists) think that feminists think women can't and should never stay home with their kids. This is exactly what they're talking about, which I know is not what feminism is about.

I'm glad you were proud of your mother for working. My mother didn't always work when I was a kid, and yet is a lifelong feminist (but not according to you, apparently...) She didn't stay home because she felt that one parent HAD to stay at home. Rather, she wanted to be at home with her children at least part time (she worked off and on as a preschool teacher.)
Feminism is about letting women be their authentic selves. If a woman's authentic self involves lots of children, no children, working, staying at home and homeschooling her children, living on a mountainside with her four goats and carving things, or anything else, feminism should and does support that.

Bullshit. If you change your mind about a boob job they cannot restore nipple sensation and they cannot restore breast function. If you change your mind about a nose job, they cannot unbreak your nose and put it back the way it was.

I take it you aren't a doctor. Loss of nipple sensation is not something that happens to every woman, nor is it even incredibly common. Secondly, many women have implants, and can, in fact, breastfeed, which is "breast function". Unless you think they have some other purpose.

My sister is currently breastfeeding with implants, and from all her complaints about it hurting her nipples, I can guarantee you she has sensation.

So, research before calling "bullshit".

Also, nosejobs don't help your point, because they weren't the subject of the conversation.

I don’t recall ever insinuating that I thought I was the only person in the world. I am, however, a person who believes in personal responsibility. I take my responsibilities – to my family, to my friends, my finances, my job - very seriously and I expect others to do the same. Does that make me less of a feminist or somehow evil?

As for short-sightedness…funny you should mention that…I happen to think it’s extremely short-sighted of people to have children when they cannot afford them, with the expectation that the rest of us/society/government will provide. And no, I absolutely do NOT understand why anyone in poverty would want to bring a child into that poverty. Does. Not. Compute. I believe someone else mentioned that it was the only way they could achieve any “respect or leadership� in their communities. Well, isn’t that just a fine ‘n dandy reason to have a kid. And the childfree are called selfish? Oh, please.

I was educated in the public school system. I had the same sex ed classes as my peers (and I had parents who did not discuss sex with me at all). Some of my classmates were pregnant before they graduated. Most of us were not. What was the difference? We all had the same sex ed classes. Why didn’t it “take� on some of the teens? Are you telling me that there is an overabundance of people out there who are procreatin’ without knowing how procreatin’ happens? Because I don’t buy that. Poverty does not equal ignorance. Now, if you want to talk about making sex education and birth control more available for people (all people…not just those living in poverty and not just women) then let’s get busy on that. And I’d suggest that we add some financial education to that repertoire, too. But if you’re advocating that people just have kids without any consideration of how much it’s going to cost to clothe, feed, educate, and care for those children, then no. I absolutely do not agree with that. I love this line Mina used: “IRL, it's totally possible to both like having a social safety net and dislike using it as a hammock at the same time.�

Incidentally, I’m not just talking about people in poverty affording children. I’m also talking about middle class people who keep having more kids and then bitching about how they can’t afford daycare. As my brother once said to his friends who were bemoaning the costs of daycare when they were expecting their fourth child, “don’t you people think before you fuck?�

As for your tirade about me getting “all patronizing and shit on a feminist blog about how WOMEN shouldn't be havin' babies if they can't afford them, and WOMEN are the ones that are really mean to you?� Is that a problem? Last I knew, it was women who have babies. Not men. Maybe my public school sex ed classes weren’t so great after all. Isn’t that how it works? But, incidentally, other than my comment about handing my paycheck over the nearest mother, none of my other comments about affording children were gender specific.

As for my assertion that I’ve only ever had one man make a snide remark about my childfreedom, but I’ve had an abundance of them from mothers, why on earth shouldn’t I say that on a feminist blog? It’s the truth. Should I lie and say it’s all THE BAD, BAD MEN? Because it’s not. It’s mothers who get pissy, defensive, and pull out all the bingos. I can’t help it if you don’t like that. If that bothers you, I suggest you take it up with the mothers who act like assholes, not me.

As for “the monies,� we all need it to survive, don’t we? How would you have me save for my retirement? How would you have me pay for my food and clothing and education? How would you have me pay those taxes that are so desperately needed for all those people who choose to have children even though they haven’t give a thought to how they’re going to afford them?

Honestly, I never thought advocating that people take responsibility for themselves and their choices was so controversial. I thought it was common fucking sense.

"You CANT be a feminist and a housewife at the same time."

I thought that was satire when I first read it, but no, you're absolutely serious. Are you KIDDING me? Women who choose to stay home with their children somehow don't deserve the feminist badge of honor? In some cases women don't make enough money for the benefits of daycare to outweight the costs. In other cases they simply don't want someone else raising their children. And in other cases they actually - gasp! - LIKE staying home with their own damn babies! How dare you suggest that a woman who feels fulfilled by being a mother is somehow not contributing to society - she's raising her fucking children.

And as for women who do work - I have no problem with that. But think about it - who exactly is watching a working woman's child during the day? Oh yes, that's right - in most cases, it's most likely another WOMAN, whether a nanny or a worker at a daycare or a female relative. I don't really see how dumping your kids on other women because you're somehow too good to do something so menial when you have "real work" to do is somehow a better, more "feminist" choice.

And in case that last sentence sounded harsh (because it was), I am NOT criticizing working mothers. I plan to be one myself someday. I am just having a strong reaction to what GopherII posted about stay-at-home mothers - she is insulting a ton of women there, and I'm not about to tolerate that.

Oh, I am so sick of hearing about how hormones will make me need babies. So what?

Our lives and emotions are made up of hormones and drives. That doesn't mean that we have to do everything our body tells us to.

Men who rape probably really REALLY wanted to have sex with their victim. I don't actually give a fuck how horny they were, they can choose not to.

I have made an informed decision not to have children. If I were in a financial and emotional space to cope with kids I would love to foster (yes, I know that's damn hard). But having children is unrealistic for me, would most likely fuck my body since I've had joint pain since my early teens and bad circulation, and frankly I don't want to pass on my genes.

I find it frustrating that women on here have interpreted "I don't want children" to mean "people who have children are stupid". There have been some negative comments but those by and large came AFTER people complained about being disrespected.

And FYI, I like children. I do not like babies - I find them ugly, noisy and I'm nervous about hurting them. Once they're big enough to talk they're cute. But I mostly like being able to hand them back :)

"Again, in case it wasn't clear before, thank you for not reproducing."

You're very welcome. *snark*

Reading through this thread, I was nearly able to fill my CF bingo card. 'you'll change your mind' 'who will take care of you when you're old' 'everyone should have children' and of course 'thanks for not breeding'.

For everyone who thinks the CF and CL posters are being defensive, trying dealing with that and more from family, friends and coworkers. I promise, for every dirty look you receive for taking the kid out of the house, we are called selfish. For every busted up sidewalk you have to traverse, it is insinuated that CF/CL married couples are not a 'real family' since they don't have munchkins. (That last comes from my two best friends.)

All in all, the next time you feel a bingo coming on, give it a second thought. It doesn't make you look clever or superior, just silly. I promise, it's been said before and the billionth repetition is not going to change anything, but it will make the CF/CL person you are speaking with less sympathetic towards parental concerns.

Oh, and for the record, I'm childfree and a substitute teacher, which I know strikes many people as odd. A child-hatter(tm) working with children. :) Like I tell the kids, my favorite part of the day is when I give them back.

Pardon me, but I'm a little ashamed of the "children are commodities" feminist crowd that rears its head whenever someone proclaims their right to not have kids like it's some new, groundbreaking idea in the feminist community to control your reproductive rights. Make your decision about how/if to separate sex and reproduction and your feminist peers will likely support you for it, whatever it is.

Unless you parent.

I hate to be a party-pooper, but women aren't crazy, selfish, or stupid for raising children, and I'm really disappointed to see this idea thrown out with so much glee on one of the major feminist blogs on the internet.

Lauren
fauxrealtho.com

Why? One word, easy one. Liability. If you change your mind about a boob job, they can remove the implants. If you change your mind about a hysterectomy, they can't exactly put your uterus back.

Ummm, I think you're a little confused about what "getting your tubes tied" means. It doesn't involve a hysterectomy. It involves tying off the fallopian tubes - hence the name. It's the female equivalent of a vasectomy, and they have similar reversibility (approximately 70% of those who reverse a tubal ligation or vasectomy succeed in getting pregnant afterward).

"Because, due to the wage gap, the salary the woman would be earning would just barely cover, or not even cover, the cost of child care. Seriously. I've known women who have become SAHMs for exactly that reason. They didn't have enough money to carry on working outside the home. And once you've been out for a couple years (if you have only child), it's not that easy to get back in."

I wrote in my post that I knew about the wage gap and why that would affect the woman. Thats why I stated that if they believe a parent is to stay home, it should be the man because of the difficulties mothers have at work, (discrimination, ect)and the wage gap. Personally I dont think either parent NEEDS to stay home. However, I have never heard of women NOT working because they cant afford too. I'm a bit confused about that. I knew that what influenced some women from working was the stress of taking on one full shift (career) and then 3/4 of another 2 shifts (being the kids and household) when they got home. Its fucked that women would be so passive to drop out of having a career rather than make the husband contribute equally. Women like that need to get a backbone. They only perpetuate misogyny by pandering to it and making it convenient for men to enforce in society. I hate not seeing women work. I prefer working with women and feel they offer more.

The government WILL provide for children whose parents can't afford to keep them. It's called adoption.

Ah, so now we're in favor of coercing mothers into giving up their babies for adoption and dumping them into the foster care system--that's clearly such a better use of government funds than, well, just helping to support the kid in its original family. What you're advocating, just to be clear, is that poor women have to choose between giving up their children for adoption, and starving in the streets.

You know, this was done before. Read In the Shadow of the Poorhouse by Michael Katz and Regulating the Lives of Women by Mimi Abramovitz for an overview of how this sort of thing worked

In any case, what you're saying is that being poor automatically makes you an unfit parent, as unfit parents are the only parents we as a society force to give up their children (and economic coercion is still coercion), and so public funds would be better spent in forcing kids through the foster care system and paying for their care and adoption costs, incurring great grief and trauma to the kid's parents (and you can read about the history of this sort of thing--the misery it created became legendary) than simply helping out the original family. How...nice.

Further, what you're saying is that poor people should have to deny their one of their most basic urges and desires (not everybody's, of course, but many people's) and cut themselves off from one of the essential ways people find happiness (again, not everybody, but many people) in order to maintain their proper place in an essentially exploitative economic system, so that you don't have the inconvenience of dealing with some social change. Very nice.

People are not things. This is something that we as feminists have emphasized time and time again. Why is this so difficult for others to understand when the people in question are children? Children are not cars or hot tubs or any other kind of inanimate commodities. The desire to have children is not like wanting a new pair of shoes or a new car or a new hot tub.

What it's like is the desire to fall in love. When conservatives claim that lesbians have no right to fall in love and have sex with and make a life with a consenting partner, they are claiming that an entire class of people should suffer and deny one of their most basic human urges and needs so that the conservatives don't have to accept social change. That is exactly what you are advocating when you say that poor people just shouldn't have children--adults of whom you don't approve should deny their need for one of the most basic human connections so that the social order as you know it shouldn't be changed.

Ummm, I think you're a little confused about what "getting your tubes tied" means. It doesn't involve a hysterectomy. It involves tying off the fallopian tubes - hence the name. It's the female equivalent of a vasectomy, and they have similar reversibility (approximately 70% of those who reverse a tubal ligation or vasectomy succeed in getting pregnant afterward).

Yes, and some more extreme people try to get more extreme methods of sterilization, such as a hysterectomy, or "Essure".

Regardless, a tubal ligation is quite permanent, and some people cannot be candidates for reversal.

Thusly, there is still the matter of liability.

In a field of sue-happy people, and astronomical malpractice insurance rates, 70% is not a good gamble.

Emma,

Your problem seems to stem from a dire lack of imagination. YOU took sex ed classes so EVERYBODY took them. YOU have access to health care, education, etc. so EVERYONE must have the same access.

You were never raped, or bullied, or or or(insert patriarchy here)....so no other woman must ever be in that situation.

I congradulate you on what was obviously not a freak accident of birth, but proof of your superior intelligence and moral wherewithall.

Thats why I stated that if they believe a parent is to stay home, it should be the man because of the difficulties mothers have at work, (discrimination, ect)and the wage gap.

That...doesn't make sense. Because of the wage gap, the family should try to get by on less money?

However, I have never heard of women NOT working because they cant afford too. I'm a bit confused about that.

Childcare costs money. For some families, paying daycare, every single day ends up negating the financial benefit of both parents working.

This is a very simple concept.

I prefer working with women and feel they offer more.

So, in addition to being ignorant, you're also sexist?

That...doesn't make sense. Because of the wage gap, the family should try to get by on less money?

Agreed. That statement was baffling.

I'll genuinely admit that I don't like kids either. Babies are weird-looking, and I don't have the temperment to deal with young children. I'm a mean, cranky misanthrope in general. I don't especially like people overall, and children amplify adults' worst traits, as near as I can tell.

The best part about being a cranky misanthrope is that even when the natalist faction of the crowd gangs up on me, I don't actually feel compelled to give a shit what they think.

That said, I do have one request of the parents in the crowd: Please, for the love of FSM, will you stop bringing your giant SUV-sized strollers on the public transit?! Honestly. Some of us are just disabled enough to find navigating around something that takes up 3/4 of the aisle to be difficult. There are such things as folding strollers (even ones that'll take kids as heavy as 90 lbs or so), so there's no fucking excuse. Seriously.

I honestly don't mind subsidising other people's procreation habits. People are gonna have the little buggers anyway, so I'd rather they were happy, well-fed, well-adjusted, and well-educated. A prosperous, stable population means I don't have to worry about my skin or my property at all times. Funny, that.

Gopher,
"You CANT be a feminist and a housewife at the same time."

spirina,
"That is possibly the most ridiculous and offensive thing I have heard all day, GopherII. I thought you were joking until I read the rest of your comment.
Feminism is about CHOICES, NOT about saying that you can't be a feminist if you want to be a SAHM or a housewife."

Liz M,
"I thought that was satire when I first read it, but no, you're absolutely serious."

I disagree. If its about choice then I choose that women cant be housewives and feminists at the same time. I believe if a woman feels that she should stay home with the kids because shes the woman is believing in some seriously outdated gender roles and ideas. Maybe you dont trealize it, but youre saying that a womans place is in the home.

"who exactly is watching a working woman's child during the day? Oh yes, that's right - in most cases, it's most likely another WOMAN"

But, shes working.....
We all need child care services, and there are those whose specialty is child care, which is the field they want to work in. One less woman not out there working is one less extension of power we as women have in our own society. Perhaps you've had your head to far in a pile of diapers to realize that.

Wow.

I've never had to say this in seriousness yet, but GopherII has to be some kind of troll.

I don't think the message has gotten across to Gopher that it's incredibly anti-feminist to criticise a woman for making her own choices.

I believe if a woman feels that she should stay home with the kids because shes the woman is believing in some seriously outdated gender roles and ideas.

I mean, is it so alien to you that a woman might, you know, love her children and not want a stranger raising them? That she might actually wish to spend time with them, and since she's their parent, for her to be the one raising them?

Is that really such a horrific concept to you?

Another really good reason you seem to be missing: Women breastfeed. Men cannot. Many women are either unable to pump, or unwilling, or many other things.

So they wish to stay home for the early years of their child's life, in order to care for it in a way that they choose to.

You're bordering dangerously close on the tired, broken rhetoric of more radical feminists that says that women can't even be MOTHERS and feminists at the same time.

Forget kids. I wanna unicorn.

Wait a minute everyone, seriously. No one said you have to be rich or middle class to be a parent.

What was said is that you should be able to AFFORD a child.

If you can't goddamn feed yourself once a day, then don't CHOOSE to have a kid. Not talking about an unwilling pregnancy here folks, I'm talking about these 'hormonal' desires we apparently all have.

It's really that simple: cant afford food, clothing, shelter? Don't have a kid, nevermind 4 or 5. I guess it's everyone's right, but I don't think it is acceptable for people to choose to have a child that they know they couldn't feed or shelter.

EG that is not what I said. If a family is so impoverished that they cannot provide for the basic needs of their children, then yes, their children should be taken away and put into foster care. What I WAS saying is that if poor women have a child that they do not want because they couldn't afford an abortion, then they can give it up for adoption. They don't HAVE to keep it.

I'm sure having a child is very fulfilling for some people. But they don't NEED children. If they care so much about their WANT for children that they'll have children that they can't provide a decent life for, then they need to think real hard about who is being selfish here. Just because you REALLY REALLY want a kid doesn't mean you should have one even if the kid will be in poor conditions.

And no, I don't think the government should provide for a woman's child just because she REALLY REALLY wants one.

"Thats why I stated that if they believe a parent is to stay home, it should be the man because of the difficulties mothers have at work, (discrimination, ect)and the wage gap."

"That...doesn't make sense. Because of the wage gap, the family should try to get by on less money?"

I think the point may have been that if we have more mothers in the work force instead of fathers, eventually the wage gap may decrease as a result.

EG, excellent work as always. it is frightening to me to read such absurd statements as "poor people should not have children." you are 100% correct about the state of poverty not being temporary for most poor people and the whole not having anything to look forward to thing.

i'll add to emma that the sex-ed comment was ridiculous. did it ever occur to you that maybe some of the other kids in your sex-ed class came from completely different cultural backgrounds that may have influenced how they interpreted that information?

i'd argue that for some segments of the population, procreation really is seen as a badge of honor or an assertion of one's status in the community. my sister hangs out with a lot of people who are very poor and uneducated--universally jobless high school dropouts from the "wrong side of the tracks." nearly all of them have given birth to or fathered children before the age of 18. it's not that they are all so ignorant or careless, it's that teenagers having kids is the norm for them in that community and it's one of the few things that in the absence of much opportunity to be successful in other ways, that they can feel fulfilled and that they've accomplished something.

After the Supreme Court ruled that states didn't have to pay for abortions for women who couldn't afford their own, Jimmy Carter, then the president, said "Well, as you know, there are many things in life that are not fair, that wealthy people can afford and poor people can't. But I don't believe that the Federal Government should take action to try to make those opportunities exactly equal..." So it was OK with Carter to say that even though in theory rich women and poor women have the same rights, that they don't need to have the same rights in practice: having a right doesn't mean you get to exercise that right if you can't afford to. I bet that not a single person on this board thinks that was acceptable, that poor women don't get to have abortions if they can't afford them.

We claim here to be pro-choice. Pro-choice. Not pro-choice-as-long-as-you-make-the-choice-I-think-you-should-and-otherwise-screw-you.

We all know that if poor women can't afford an abortion, then in a very real way they don't have a choice. They don't have their rights.

But somehow there's a significant contingent here that thinks that the "reproductive rights" we advocate for don't include the right to have a kid. That it's OK to say that all women have the right to have children in theory, but in practice, we don't care if a significant number of women are prevented from exercising that right.

And you know what? This is exactly why poor women, women on welfare, working-class women, and women of color often feel that the feminist movement does not care about their interests. That we're willing to trade away their happiness, needs, and rights. Because it appears that many of us are. Because the rhetoric of "they don't have the right to breed" has been used against them over and over again. Because making it possible for them to exercise their reproductive rights isn't a priority. Because apparently "reproductive justice" doesn't mean that all women should have access to their full range of reproductive choices.

Sorry that this is the third post in a row. This is kind of related to the topic.

I have two younger twin sisters, and one older brother. That's four kids total, plus one of my younger sisters has a severe mental disability. Because of this my mom left the work force and became a SAHM. This wasn't a problem because my dad had a tech job, and made a good chunk of money.

Unfortunately my parents didn't get along very well, and I think the major reason my mom stuck with my dad so long was because she wouldn't be able to support us all. They eventually divorced my sophomore year, and now I get to the point of my story about how stupid the government is sometimes.

So my mom gets a decent amount of spousal and child support, but obviously she still has to get a job. But she can only get a part-time job because my disabled sister can't take care of herself and needs supervision at all times. So she gets a part-time job as an administrative assistant, making only about $10.00 an hour, I think. But the government will pay for a babysitter while my mom is working, and it can't just be the teenager down the street. She's certified with something-or-other. But SHE is making, like $16 dollars an hour (or something) to do a job that my mom has been doing for all of my sisters life. Why? Why do they pay for a babysitter so my mom can work a job where she doesn't make as much as the babysitter? Why can't they just pay my mom? They will only pay for a certain amount of hours each month, why can't they just pay my mom for the hours they would have paid the baby sitter, and probably for less? I just don't get it, it seems so inefficient.

Sorry I know that was long, I really need to cut down on the length of my stories.

Maybe you dont trealize it, but youre saying that a womans place is in the home.

Gee, thanks, Gopher II, I don't feel condescended to at all. I didn't realize that by saying that i believe a woman's place is at work, in the home, on a mountainside, hell, wherever she damn well pleases, what I was ACTUALLY saying was that a woman's place is in the home. Thanks for clarifying for me.

If its about choice then I choose that women cant be housewives and feminists at the same time.

Who appointed you the arbiter of what is and isn't feminist? You can choose what you believe to be feminist, but that doesn't make it automatically not feminist. In fact, I find pretty much everything you're saying to be pretty freaking anti-feminist.

Perhaps you've had your head to far in a pile of diapers to realize that.

Normally I don't get this nitpicky, but you pissed me off. I have NOT had my head too far in a "pile of diapers" to realize anything. I am a college student who does not plan on having children anytime in the next 10 years. And you know what? Implying that mothers have their heads in piles of diapers (and thus aren't capable of what you deem to be intelligent thought) is condescending, offensive, and downright incorrect.

also, the right to procreate (or not) is a constitutional right in this country and i firmly believe in it. there are plenty of things that people do that i may think aren't the "best" or that aren't right for me, but i cherish the idea that i don't get to tell other people what to do. as EG said, people aren't things and the "right" to own a mercedes is not the same as the right to have family.

even if you insist on holding everyone to what are effectively the standards of the wealthy and the middle class, you accomplish nothing by shaming poor people about their reproductive choices. the fact is that people of all social classes have been having children since the dawn of humanity and there is absolutely no reason to believe that will ever change. instead of judging them, our efforts should be spent on improving their lives and ensuring that everyone in this country makes a livable wage, has adequate health care and has the opportunity to lead a productive and fulfilling life. that is both a moral obligation of a progressive, modern society and one that i believe benefits everyone, whether they choose to have children or not.

mild ennui - while it may be statistically true that more people who say at one point that they never wish to have children change their minds, you're ignoring the fact that motherhood has historically been expected of all women and that it has often been viewed as the pinnacle of female achievement (and even a female obligation). further, as times change and contraception has been developed so that women with access can choose to have children or not, the statistics of who changes their mind may very well change and result in more people choosing to remain childless. it's certainly ridiculous to assume that in the context of a patriarchal society and of gender roles as they have existed in our culture, that every woman who has claimed to change her mind on the subject of kids has done so objectively, in a vacuum or because of a biological imperative. it is quite probable that at least SOME women have ended up having children who could choose otherwise (which is to acknowledge that even today, not all women have equal options to exercise their reproductive freedom) have done so for reasons related to notions of gender roles or family and societal expectations. in order to fairly evaluate the biological imperative to reproduce, we must first achieve a society in which all members have meaningful reproductive choice and are free of what most people here believe are outdated and restrictive notions of gender. at that point, or maybe at a point that is close to this goal, we may truly see whether most people who at one time say they never want kids end up changing their mind.

If a family is so impoverished that they cannot provide for the basic needs of their children, then yes, their children should be taken away and put into foster care.

So being poor does mean being an unfit parent to you. So you do think it is more worthwhile to traumatize parents and children by ripping families apart against their will (you say "children"--the plural means that unless you're talking only about twins, at least one of those children will have already bonded emotionally with its parents and be able to recognize them; of course, even a newborn can recognize its mother's voice, and the mother will have bonded with it over the course of pregnancy) than it is to help parents take care of their kids. You don't mind spending the money--after all, foster care costs money, caring for the kid until/unless it's adopted costs money. What you mind is paying the money to the undeserving poor. Because this plan doesn't save money; in fact, it costs more because you'd actually have to pay someone to forcibly remove children. What you want is to use state money and the power of the state to punish poor women who dare to have kids against your better judgment. What you want is to cause suffering--even if it costs more money.

But they don't NEED children.

Right. Just like lesbians don't need to have loving relationships with other women. It's just a selfish want. It's just selfishly wanting to live a life with one's basic emotional needs met. Why shouldn't lesbians and poor women who want children just suck it up and live a miserable, unfulfilled, lonely life in order to make conservatives feel better and relieve you of the terrible burden of whatever miniscule fractional percentage of your taxes goes to TANF?

I think the point may have been that if we have more mothers in the work force instead of fathers, eventually the wage gap may decrease as a result.

Nice theory. Tell you what, you go first. You and your family can decide to live on less and make that sacrifice for the cause.

Thanks, riley. Quite honestly, I'm very shocked. I've always worked with feminists who have been deeply aware of and angry about class inequalities and have advocated for poor women.

Yes, and some more extreme people try to get more extreme methods of sterilization, such as a hysterectomy, or "Essure".

But EG was specifically talking about tubal ligation. Bringing up a hysterectomy had no relevance. And my point in bringing up the 70% was in reference to your assertion that vasectomies are "obviously much more reversible". They are not. They have approximately the same reversibility. And yet men who try to get vasectomies encounter a lower level of resistance than women who try to get tubal ligations.

You're bordering dangerously close on the tired, broken rhetoric of more radical feminists that says that women can't even be MOTHERS and feminists at the same time.

And you're engaging in the tired old rhetoric that women who choose to work don't really love their children, or want to spend time with them. Which is bullshit I got enough of growing up, I don't need to hear it on a feminist site as well.

Oh, and EG, amazing posts.

EG I already said this before, but I'll make it shorter. I think its unfortunate that some women can't get abortions simply because they can't afford it, I don't think that's right. But if they DO have to bear the child because of that, they STILL don't have to keep it, they can give it up. I'm not saying that's the most ideal course of action but the choice is there.

And if a woman is so poor that she can't support a kid, then she shouldn't have one. We may have a right to have children, but not if we can't support them!

EG that's hardly the same. Having a lesbian relationship doesn't cost money, while children cost quite a bit of money.

I don't like the idea of giving money to the poor so they can have children. Giving them money to get an education, sure. Or to get some kind of training for a job. I like efforts to lift them out of poverty. But to have children? I don't really want my taxes to go to people can't afford to support children, yet want them anyway, and expect for the government to pay for their want. And in my opinion, if they choose to have children, knowing that those children will be living in a poor environment, then they are unfit, selfish parents.

I think I'm probably downright Republican when it comes to stuff like this, but there you have it.

I wish I could say I'm surprised at the number of commenters who've somehow taken the existence of childfree people as a direct attack upon themselves and their desire for children. And they're even pulling out the "Silly women, how can you know your own mind?" bullshit.

I do feel that tha majority of mothers within society are benefiting from some form of social privilege. (Typically, this is the SAHM or similar woman, with her hetero partner.) This privilege harms all women, not merely the voluntarily childless, and to demand that people ooh and aah that your reproductive organs work in a discussion about voluntary childlessness is a little too reminiscent of the "what about the menz?" privilege denial/conversation derailing.

I'm 24 years old, Canadian, partnered and childfree. I'm also amazingly lucky to be having my tubal ligation this coming Tuesday. And I had to weigh in on this.

I wish I could say I'm surprised at the number of commenters who've somehow taken the existence of childfree people as a direct attack upon themselves and their desire for children. And they're even pulling out the "Silly women, how can you know your own mind?" bullshit.

I do feel that tha majority of mothers within society are benefiting from some form of social privilege. (Typically, this is the SAHM or similar woman, with her hetero partner.) This privilege harms all women, not merely the voluntarily childless, and to demand that people ooh and aah that your reproductive organs work in a discussion about voluntary childlessness is a little too reminiscent of the "what about the menz?" privilege denial/conversation derailing.

I'm 24 years old, Canadian, partnered and childfree. I'm also amazingly lucky to be having my tubal ligation this coming Tuesday. And I had to weigh in on this.

I wish I could say I'm surprised at the number of commenters who've somehow taken the existence of childfree people as a direct attack upon themselves and their desire for children. And they're even pulling out the "Silly women, how can you know your own mind?" bullshit.

I do feel that tha majority of mothers within society are benefiting from some form of social privilege. (Typically, this is the SAHM or similar woman, with her hetero partner.) This privilege harms all women, not merely the voluntarily childless, and to demand that people ooh and aah that your reproductive organs work in a discussion about voluntary childlessness is a little too reminiscent of the "what about the menz?" privilege denial/conversation derailing.

I'm 24 years old, Canadian, partnered and childfree. I'm also amazingly lucky to be having my tubal ligation this coming Tuesday. And I had to weigh in on this.

Wildberry, your mindset is so sad. You said, "I don't like the idea of giving money to the poor so they can have children. Giving them money to get an education, sure. Or to get some kind of training for a job. I like efforts to lift them out of poverty. But to have children? I don't really want my taxes to go to people can't afford to support children, yet want them anyway, and expect for the government to pay for their want. And in my opinion, if they choose to have children, knowing that those children will be living in a poor environment, then they are unfit, selfish parents."

Your whole way of thinking about this is so messed up. Americans should not tolerate economic conditions or a political atmosphere in which a full-time worker's decision to have a family is deemed irresponsible, and the efforts of reproductive rights activists must be geared toward transforming this nation's economic realities in addition to continuing the fight for the access to reproductive healthcare services. This movement also, then, posits a new conception of "family values." It values the institution of the family as a right and privilege that should be available to all Americans and rejects the idea that only the economically privileged should be entitled to happy, healthy families.

Er, didn't I say that I supported efforts to lift them out of poverty? If those efforts work, then they can afford to have kids. Children certainly aren't conducive to working your way out of poverty. My point was get them out of poverty so they can afford to have kids, not just pay for them to have kids even though they're still living in poverty.

I understand wanting to have kids, but I'm having a hard time trying to imagine a married couple who, even though they can't support a child, just want one SO BAD that they just have to have one anyway. And I don't know why they'd want to add on to their financial woes.

And btw, I think your mindset is sad and your way of thinking messed up. Now will you refrain from insulting me?

I fully support the right to not have children. I believe that contraception and abortion should be available and as publicly funded as any other prescription or medical procedure. I once paid for a friend's abortion when she couldn't afford it, and I was glad I could do that for her. And I am horrified at the classist turn this discussion has taken.

I am eight months pregnant with twins. Right around the time I got pregnant, my husband unexpectedly lost his job, which paid quite well, and due to the failing state of his industry and the specialized nature of his work, has been unable to find another position. My job doesn't pay nearly as well, but it is steady, and I will probably be returning to work within four to six weeks of the birth, because disability and California Paid Family Leave pay only about 55% of my salary, and there's no way we can make our rent on that. After I go back, my husband will stay home with the babies, and I will pump and breastfeed as much as I humanly can, because not only is breastmilk better for babies, but formula is expensive.

For those of you who think the right to reproduce should be restricted to those who "can afford it" (whatever that means), let me ask you: Should I have chosen to have an abortion after two years of infertility, with no guarantee I could ever get pregnant again, because our financial situation suddenly changed for the worse? Or should our children be taken from us and placed in an inefficient, often dangerous, tax-funded foster system before we should be allowed to accept any sort of public assistance? Should my husband take a low-paying job that will not even begin to cover the costs of childcare, just so he's working? Would your answer be different if I were the one out of work, and not he? Or is it okay for us to go ahead as planned, because we're white and well-educated, and there's a chance our financial situation will be better in the future?

It has been my experience that income level is not a predictor of parenting ability.

Well first of all I hope you're not implying that I'm racist.

It was my assumption that we were talking about people who were stuck in poverty and had little hope of their financial situation getting better, at least without assistance.

It's not like I was trying to set up criteria about who is able to afford kids and who isn't. If you think that you will be able to provide for your twins, it's certainly not my place to tell you otherwise. I don't have the life experience to even think I can make such judgment calls.

And yeah, if you're well-educated then you have no reason to think that your situation won't get better. If a poor person just doesn't have the education to get a well paying job, they'll have an even harder time getting an education or a better paying job with kids. Priorities are important...

And yet men who try to get vasectomies encounter a lower level of resistance than women who try to get tubal ligations.

mmmm. still took me ten years to get a doctor to give me one!

Wildberry, my comment was not directed only at you. I do, however, think it's impossible to divorce race from class in this country, and I know that the fact that I benefit from white skin privilege is a factor in my economic prospects.

You say you're not setting up criteria about who is able to afford children and who isn't, but that's exactly what this argument means. It's a cop-out to say "people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them" and then refuse to define "afford."

As to our family's situation improving, it might, but there's certainly no guarantee of that. As you point out, the fact that we are having children right now seriously hampers my chances of getting a job that will pay enough for us to be financially stable. I have a BA and an MFA (much good they've done me); further schooling would be such a financial hardship that I don't know if it will ever be doable - it might mean we'd have to go on public assistance just so I could go to school. My husband's job prospects are dim for a number of reasons, not least of all his age. We may well continue to struggle indefinitely, or even sink into actual poverty. I want to know whether people - not just you, but everyone who feels economic stability should determine who may reproduce - really believe this means we shouldn't be allowed to have or keep our children.

wanderwoman, janet and mild ennui what you said!!!!

In an ideal world people would be able to wait to be in a stable situation where they could afford everything they need for the family they want. That’s certainly what I intend to do. But I had a middle class upbringing and good education and got myself a good career off the back of those things. I also have a partner who really wants a family and will be a 50% (possibly more) participant. Many people don’t have those advantages.

I guess I agree with you that people *should* only have children if they can afford to but I would come at the solution from a different angle. I would support those who need it and instead of advocating poor people not breeding I’d advocate better education, better healthcare options and better welfare to help move towards a society where everyone can get by and ideally get a job and have a family if they want to.

This is a general response not directed at anyone but I will say to Wildberry that I agree with your points about efforts to lift people out of poverty. That’s great and important to focus on. I just don’t think it is reasonable to ask them to wait on having kids until the whole world gets fixed.

Much as rileystclair was saying above.

And thanks EG – I think you have made good points as well.

The only criteria I recall setting up is that the kids have their basic needs provided for. Just because I'm not qualified to make those judgments doesn't mean they shouldn't be made. This is my opinion, I'm not setting up bureaucracy here. Obviously someone is making these kinds of decisions, just because its not me doesn't mean my point is invalid.

I'm only 19. I don't have the experience to even try to give advice on this subject, or set minimum criteria. I just think that there is surely a point your situation is so bad where you just can't support kids the way they deserve, and at that point, you should not be having children.

It's not that I think that they don't have the right to be happy, or are undeserving, because they are poor. It's just a practical matter. There are many other ways to help poor people that I would support before helping them have a family. I don't want to pay for families to have kids. I don't mind paying to help families get to the point where they can support themselves and children if they so desire. There need to be priorities.

By my estimation, these threads about parenthood or being childfree are the most divisive I see.

But this is just so striking: why are current parents or their children blamed as THE drain on society, for allegedly not paying their share of taxes? Have you not been children yourselves to take advantage of government funding and "take" other people's money? Do you consider your parents leeches, too? Can people who send their children to private schools and universities complain about paying for you to go to public school? Can my middle aged childless uncle complain about the drain you've been on him? Looks to me parents are putting out future taxpayers, who will, as a matter of fact, pay taxes to take care of you after you stop working. Young working people will be paying "their" SS, straight into your pockets, until you die.

What's stopping you from blaming "undocumented immigrants" who may be working illegally, and paying no taxes? Why aren't you blaming the low income who are childLESS? Why don't you blame old people, who collect more in SS than they ever paid in, and the retired in general? Why don't you blame the unemployed? Why don't you blame Americans and their foreign families who work abroad, take the Foreign Earned Income Credit, and pay no taxes on the first $78,000 earned? Why don't you blame those who work completely off the books, like casual babysitters and gardeners, or those service sector employees who slip tips straight into their pockets? Why don't you blame tax cheats and frauds, period, like Wesley Snipes or Willie Nelson? Hmmmm? Or is it simply most convenient to target parents in this thread?

We have taxes and government programs, because it there are those in need, and society shares the burden. If everyone "took personal responsibility" and took care of themselves, we wouldn't need taxes. You should have been homeschooled, or read in the library, yourself. You should have moved earth, and laid down that asphalt road yourself. You should get a gun, spend your days and nights walking the streets, and get rid of the police. You should learn medicine, pharmacology and nursing, and get rid of that public hospital, to look after yourself. Health insurance? Why don't you take personal responsibility, and make all your healthcare payments out of pocket, instead of putting a drain on the healthy, those who die suddenly, and those who avoid hospitals?

Our tax system is progressive. Those who have more income, pay more, those with little or none, may pay nothing. Don't like it? It's not the fault of parents. Why don't you take it up with with your member of Congress, as when they make sexist remarks or pass measures against women? Who is supposed to pay for all the programs Democrats and feminists talk about, like women's health, rape crisis help lines at universities, or low income mothers? Can men complain about paying "for" women? Can they complain about female "privilege," like people complain about "mother's" or "parents'" privileges? Fuck them, no?

People who believe they are paying in full for the services they receive are deluded. Observe:

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/01/blog-post_26.html

The top 1% of taxpayers pay almost 40% of all federal personal income taxes. The 50% mark, the "average" is somewhere above $145,283 in gross income. You make more than this? No? Than someone making more money, probably working harder than YOU, is paying "for" YOU. By your reasoning, Bill Gates and his kind could be sitting around moaning all day about how "slackers" below them on Fortune's list of world's richest people aren't paying "their share" and not taking personal responsibility for themselves, i.e., the rest of humanity is a drain on THEM. Why do we have Federal taxes? Because states can't/don't/won't support themselves. Does your state have a debt, like say, California, which has a debt greater than that of entire nations? Then you aren't paying your share to support yourselves, aren't taking personal responsibility, and leeching off the rest of the country, states that balance their books.

Oh, but California's fiscal woes are due in part to those "undocumented immigrants" again. Tsk. Tsk. Why don't we make them the enemy. Oh, but that would be discriminatory, like targeting mothers and fathers who exercise their reproductive freedoms, for which feminists CONTINUE to fight for, so people could make parenthood or childlessness their own damned business.

"Maybe you dont trealize it, but youre saying that a womans place is in the home."

WTF? Simply being a housewife is not saying that all women should be housewives (*some* housewives may say that, but they say that *in addition to* doing their housewife jobs). You know, like the way simply being a female airline pilot is not saying that all women should be airline pilots.

"Further, what you're saying is that poor people should have to deny their one of their most basic urges and desires (not everybody's, of course, but many people's) and cut themselves off from one of the essential ways people find happiness (again, not everybody, but many people)..."

Hmm.

What about when we ask men who can't attract consenting sex partners to cut themselves off from another one of their most basic urges and desires (not everybody's, of course, but many people's) and cut themselves off from another one of the essential ways people find happiness (again, not everybody, but many people) for someone else's sake...?

"What it's like is the desire to fall in love. When conservatives claim that lesbians have no right to fall in love and have sex with and make a life with a consenting partner"

OTOH, is bringing a child into horrible conditions (no matter if financially horrible or financially OK but horrible for some other reason!) who never asked to be born really that similar to marrying a consenting adult of the same sex?

"I want to know whether people - not just you, but everyone who feels economic stability should determine who may reproduce - really believe this means we shouldn't be allowed to have or keep our children."

No. More that you (and everyone else!) needs the reproductive freedom it takes to choose whether or not to a/another child, and the knowledge to ask yourself "if I have a/another child now, what conditions will I probably bring that child into?"

Also, one point some people out there seem to be missing is that often it's the choice between having 2 kids and having 1 kid, the choice between having 4 kids and having 5 kids, or whatever instead of the choice between having children and not having children.

"I'm only 19. I don't have the experience to even try to give advice on this subject, or set minimum criteria. I just think that there is surely a point your situation is so bad where you just can't support kids the way they deserve, and at that point, you should not be having children."

Or at least acknowledging that their being in bad conditions is in part your fault instead of 100% other people's fault.

I'm reminded of how, a few years ago in another forum, I saw some guy claim that contraception is against Islam because it supposedly promotes premarital sex. When someone asked "but what about married parents who want contraception because they feel they can't afford one more child?" he said that every time a Muslim is poor it's Israel's fault (if a married Muslim in America or Somalia impoverishes his family by choosing to have 15 children instead of 3, that's supposedly 100% Israel's fault and 0% his fault). o_O

"But this is just so striking: why are current parents or their children blamed as THE drain on society"

Of course they're not THE drain on society! In fact, whether they're draining society is irrelevant - the effect on the children matters more than the effect on taxation. At the same time, the way corporate welfare and the war in Iraq drains societies isn't as on-topic this time.

Meanwhile, I'm actually cool with contributing to the various social safety nets (thanks for the detailed descriptions you gave so well!).

At the same time, it seems that no matter how much we improve social safety nets, it'll still be sadly possible to impoverish oneself by having 1 more child (for example: if welfare pays enough for every family to raise 4 children well, then someone could still impoverish his or her children by having 20 of them).

"Why do we have Federal taxes? Because states can't/don't/won't support themselves."

That and because some programs are run at the federal instead of state level so they might as well be paid for by 1 budget at a time instead of 50+.

Wow. I go to bed, I wake up and this conversation has gotten ugly.

People are tripping, here. I mean how far back in the family tree do we have to look to find some poor, under-educated relatives, who had they not procreated, we wouldn't be here having this conversation.

And as A male demonstrates, there is barely a family in that US that at some point hasn't suckled off the teat of the goverment in some form of another. I know y'all don't want a history lesson, so I'll spare you.

Now. Since this is FEMINISTING, I'd like to say that I'm grateful for all of the women who came before me, who paved the way for me to be able to choose the size of my family.

PurdueAttorney-

1. Since when did I accuse you of being pro-war?

2. I'm an atheist too, and I fail to see the religious language I used. Oh, you mean the word "worshipping". Yeah, I hate to tell you this, but I tend to think that for a lot of people, "free" markets and nationalism (which I understand you claim not to ascribe to) take the place of religion. You don't get a free "reasonable person" pass from me for not going to church.

3. I like how you say you're pro-immigrant and everything, but I've heard plenty of people claim to be pro-immigrant and then qualify it with something about "the American dream" which no longer functions or "I wish they'd come in legally" which is well-nigh impossible for some people. The fact that you feel the need to tell me how pro-immigrant you are out of the blue has me a little curious about how often you say things which everybody around you perceives as anti-immigrant and how often they try to criticize you for that.

4. I also find it sort of awesome that you, who are (I think) a male American attorney, are like, totally miffed that more of the underprivileged don't flock to your ideology, which I just pointed out favors the rich males of our nation. Please go examine your privilege, thank you.

5. OMG UNIONS ARE CORRUPT. Historically, some unions have been corrupt and some have not, which is true of... just about everything. I do think it's kind of funny that you're pretending no unions existed until the famously corrupt ones came into power though, since it allows you to claim that unions were invented as racist and corrupt institutions.

I was going to list more reasons why you're totally wrong, but it's occurred to me that we're a bit off-topic here anyways, our discussion having somehow devolved rather rapidly into a mess of two people arguing fiscal conservatism vs liberalism. And I'm not even a liberal! Let's rein it in shall we?

It's possible that feminists tend to be liberal and/or radical because those who believe in the ultimate power of all things capitalist keep screwing women (and other underprivileged groups) over economically and then claiming that said women (and members of other underprivileged groups) are just not trying hard enough/not talented enough.

"I mean how far back in the family tree do we have to look to find some poor, under-educated relatives, who had they not procreated, we wouldn't be here having this conversation."

*This* particular argument is pretty weak.

How many of us also wouldn't be here having this conversation if not for lack of reproductive options leading to some of our ancestors' births, forced marriage and/or other rapes leading to some of our ancestors' conceptions, slavery and/or warfare pushing some of our ancestors to where they could meet each other in the first place, etc.?

Mina- Uhm, actually, as hard as it may be for you to acknowledge this, lots of people are ridiculously poor for reasons that are really just not at all their fault. And if you had been born into the circumstances in which most of these people are, you would probably be ridiculously poor today too.

A Male- You rock.

Everybody- Why the piling on top of the poor lady who said she doesn't think housewives can be feminists? I don't think she worded it incredibly well, but housewifery is a patriarchy-supporting activity. Go read The Feminine Mystique please?

Yeah, yeah, I understand it was your freely made choice, but isn't it funny how your freely made choice was based on values inculcated into you from the moment of birth in a patriarchal society, marketed to you by advertisers from the moment of birth? Isn't it funny how your freely made choice just so happens to put you firmly back in a patriarchy-approved territory, supporting the menz who go out and actually do shit in the world? How come most stay-at-homes are women? Am I infringing on your choice by pointing out the likely answers to these questions?

Men may make the decision to be SAHDs, but they do so with the full knowledge that they'll get way more credit for their housework than any woman ever did and that they can go regain their privilege at any point, should they so desire.

"I'm actually cool with contributing to the various social safety nets"

So am I. Even though I am not paying taxes for my own benefit (those with higher incomes pay "my share," thanks, Bill!), I like to think my taxes and donations are used for the benefit of others.

"it seems that no matter how much we improve social safety nets, it'll still be sadly possible to impoverish oneself by having 1 more child"

We call that, choice, no? At the hospital, people pay the price for their lifestyles and choices all the time. We help them, and hopefully educate them, though we might see them in worse shape later. It's often sad, but that's how it is.

OT on:

"Why do we have Federal taxes? Because states can't/don't/won't support themselves."
"That and because some programs are run at the federal instead of state level so they might as well be paid for by 1 budget at a time instead of 50+."

There's that. But for example, schools got just over half their funding from the federal government (in the 90s). States not paying their own way, got paid by taxpayers from other states, through the federal budget.

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

Current Expenditures per Student

Average current expenditures per pupil for instruction and instruction-related expenses were $5,492 in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Expenditures per pupil for operations services (e.g., food services) were $1,475 for the nation.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Overview of Public Elementary and Secondary Students, Staff, Schools, School Districts, Revenues, and Expenditures: School Year 2004-05 and Fiscal Year 2004 (NCES 2007-309).

Forget year to year and constant dollars (available at link), and the fact I graduated in 1986. Just multiply it by 13, K-12 instruction. That's $6,967 x 13 = $90,577.

Hey, all you public schoolers: Did your parents pay $90,577 in taxes for each of YOU yet, JUST to go to school? Or have YOU paid $90,577, "your share" of taxes just for YOU to go to public school ON TOP OF all the other government services you have received and enjoyed in your lifetime? Let's not forget all your university funding, and everything else, prior to you ever working. No? Then let's not be so smug about who is not paying "their share" of taxes, because it most likely means you, unless you are personally making over about $145,000 a year.

OT off.

A male- I know I already said this, but you still fucking rock. I'm going to add another note to the public scholars though.

HOW EXACTLY HAVE YOU CONVINCED YOURSELF THAT YOU DO NOT BENEFIT FROM POOR PEOPLE HAVING THE SERVICES YOU PAY FOR?

A society in which the poor get no services is one in which the poor are that much more desperate because nobody is helping them out on food/housing/healthcare, that much more undereducated because you didn't think they deserved your money for school, that much more hopeless because they have no education to leverage into a job, (in our country)lead-poisoned, and mentally disturbed without any place to go for counseling. Basically, this would lead to the majority of the population being composed of people who were slowly dying horrible deaths all around you, crazy, resentful enough to stab you in the face just because, desperate enough to rob you every time you tried to leave the house, etc.

You think I'm describing some sort of distopian scenario that could never play out in real life? There are still people around who were rich white South Africans in the middle of apartheid. Ask them how much they enjoyed their privilege. I have. The response I got was not very much, since they were afraid to leave the house.

"Mina- Uhm, actually, as hard as it may be for you to acknowledge this, lots of people are ridiculously poor for reasons that are really just not at all their fault."

I totally agree!

"And if you had been born into the circumstances in which most of these people are, you would probably be ridiculously poor today too."

...*and* if I had a child on purpose in such circumstances, it would be my fault my child was in such circumstances - because I would be the one who put that child there. Even if I wasn't also the one who put myself there earlier.

You know, just like the way I didn't choose to be born in America *and* if I have a child on purpose here then it would be my fault (not the fault of my immigrant parents and/or the factors that encouraged them to migrate) my child would be in America.

"So am I. Even though I am not paying taxes for my own benefit (those with higher incomes pay 'my share,' thanks, Bill!), I like to think my taxes and donations are used for the benefit of others."

Right on!

"'it seems that no matter how much we improve social safety nets, it'll still be sadly possible to impoverish oneself by having 1 more child'

"We call that, choice, no?"

Yeah. It helps to acknowledge when it's a choice instead of calling it helplessness.

"You think I'm describing some sort of distopian scenario that could never play out in real life?"

No way! It played out in way more times and places IRL than apartheid South Africa too, right?

BTW, I should have been clearer when I said

"I'm one of Emma's ilk and I don't want their food and shelter to be at the whims of politicians and taxpayers alone"

Should politicans and taxpayers help out enough? Of course! Can they be trusted to, instead of voting to cut support even more? Unfortunately, I'm not so sure.

Mina- Why are you more eager to blame their parents than the people who refuse to make our society one in which every child is cared for?

"Mina- Why are you more eager to blame their parents than the people who refuse to make our society one in which every child is cared for?"

I don't hate children. Therefore, I'm not impressed when someone knows a situation will be bad for a child then still chooses to put a child there anyway.

Absolutely, but people who lived at one point in apartheid SA are way easier to access and speak to for most of those on Feministing- there's tons of them still alive, there's no language barrier, and there's tons of them who migrated to the US.

@ Mina: *This* particular argument is pretty weak.

Um. It wasn't an argument, it was a comment, simply for perspective.

The point that seemed to fly over your head, is that many people don't even have to go back very far on the family tree to find poor family members who survived on the bottom rungs.

Hey, I'll start first. I just have to look back to my parents generation. And I'm talking post-Hurricane Katrina type living conditions for the better part of childhood.

Which is why for me, rocking on the high horse sometimes gets a little old.

p.s.
good stuff, A male!

Mina- That only makes sense

1. if you believe that all people poor enough that it would adversely effect their kids are aware of that fact and making a conscious decision to put a child in harm's way. It's possible a lot of them don't know any way to raise children beside the one they experienced, which was also not awesome financially.

2. if you believe that poor kids = unhappy and awful.

3. if you think that there's no such thing as mobility, so that rich people never become poor and poor people don't have children knowing, or at least thinking they will become richer.

4. if you refuse to ask yourself why it's a bad situation. (Answer: not enough of a social safety net/social safety net which is being rapidly dismantled. Something which has very little to do with the actions of individual parents.)

5. Thanks for trying to tell me I'm some sort of child abuser for thinking poor people are allowed to have kids. That's like two steps up from people who call me a babykiller for supporting abortion, but I digress.

6. Okay, so how much money do you have to make to be allowed to have babies in Minaland?

Oh, and if you believe it's higher priority to train poor people to put their lives and life decisions on hold until they've beat a system which is designed to work against them rather than change the system.

Wildberry: [i]Having a lesbian relationship doesn't cost money[/i].

Bwa-ha-ha-ha! I suppose you're right. I mean, in the same sense that being a person of color "doesn't cost money" either.

I think the point EG was making was that lesbian couples are given the choice between:
1) Making massive sacrifices to have a relationship
-and-
2) Not falling being love

Which, interestingly enough, does seem to be a pretty parallel to the argument that women who wish to have families should be forced to make massive sacrifices or simply suck it up and not have a family.

I'll reiterate, as I have in every thread on parenthood, SAHMs/SAHDs, or being child free, I respect each of those choices (and other lifestyles like that uncle being gay, or my brother being middle aged and freshly single). I just don't understand the sniping I see every time this comes up. The cartoon above is not really witty. It's the truth - children cost money.

http://aol1.bankrate.com/aol/calc/raiseChild.asp

Using their USDA default figures, it costs $190,528 to raise a child to 18, no uni. So instead of having two kids, you can buy a Ferrari, take a round the world cruise, go to medical or law school, whatever you please. Selfish? No, cool, practical, or responsible, as the situation would have it.

"It helps to acknowledge when it's a choice instead of calling it helplessness."

Well, yes. This whole unequal access to women's health services is another issue, isn't it? I don't see how taxes can be claimed to be spent for the low income to have more children (unless to pay Republican lawmakers' salaries), but I can easily see how a *lack* of funding leads to increased unplanned pregnancy and childbirth, and yes, a perpetuity of poverty.

Single parent family, before tax income under $39,100? A cool $118,590 to raise EACH kid to 17, no university, in 2001 dollars.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/family/kids/tlkidscost.asp

Schools in low income communities could use funding for comprehensive sex ed, and to bring their services up to par with those in middle class communities. You need to read or experience to believe how poor conditions are in some inner city schools, like I've read about New York City. One computer per student? Internet? Career counseling? Please. How about textbooks and chalk? How about patching the roof? How about enough teachers, with a license? How about a school principal? In one Hawaii community, a full 40% of the students in one elementary school are HOMELESS, living in tents on a 16 mile stretch of white sand beach with communicable diseases, or under bridges and such. I've been there. You think they have how to improve their futures foremost on their minds? How did their parents get in this mess? The economy, and the sharply rising cost of living, tripling house prices in about five years.

I also see Planned Parenthood receives federal funding. If anything, low income communities need more tax money, particularly for education, not less.

"I'm not impressed when someone knows a situation will be bad for a child then still chooses to put a child there anyway."

Humanity could go extinct, thinking like that. A lot of people think the world is getting worse for themselves and their families, with fears of global warming, peak oil production, recession, job insecurity, terror, and perpetual war. I wonder if our US standard of living in the 80s and 90s will be seen or improved on, again.

BTW, here's yet another point in favor of social safety nets:

Suppose a couple who can raise only 3 children pretty well themselves decide their 3 aren't good enough and choose to have 6 more. Making up the difference by going on welfare isn't as great as stopping at 3 in the first place...*and* making up the difference by going on welfare is way better than paying for the babies' diapers with the preteens' sweatshop wages and/or bride prices. That's yet another reason I like good public schools and other well-run social safety nets.

I think it's sad so many people have to choose between having children and having enough money for basic necessities in such rich countries. It's one thing to not be able to provide a lot for your children. It's another for children to to grow up in an unsafe neighbourhood and go to bed hungry often. I think people shouldn't have to make this decision and the government should make having children more affordable. Recently, parents here can get more money than before from the government if they have children, particularly if they make under 20 000 a year, there is free healthcare, and paid maternity leave.
You know, I wish people would concentrate on making progress for the people who need it rather than arguing.
It's incredible that the American government seems to want people to have children (with being against abortion, birth control etc) but then makes the society a hard place to raise a child financially and otherwise.

On another topic, I think I'd be quite glad to marry someone who is a househusband for a few years. I do know a woman who might've worked full time if her husband did more around the house. But I also know someone who might've stayed at home a couple more years if her husband would live on less money.

"'I'm not impressed when someone knows a situation will be bad for a child then still chooses to put a child there anyway.'

"Humanity could go extinct, thinking like that."

Likewise, I once saw someone claim that homosexuality is evil because if all his children were gay then he'd have no grandchildren.

"You know, I wish people would concentrate on making progress for the people who need it rather than arguing."

How about progress for the people who already had progress and didn't want it?

"How about progress for the people who already had progress and didn't want it?"

I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Sera -

No problem standing down, as you are right, the discussion is a little off the topic at hand. I think we are really coming at this from 2 totally different perspectives.

However, I still think it is an interesting question whether feminism is enough of a big tent to include a small "l" libertarian, but that can be a question for another day.

Yeah, yeah, I understand it was your freely made choice, but isn't it funny how your freely made choice was based on values inculcated into you from the moment of birth in a patriarchal society, marketed to you by advertisers from the moment of birth? Isn't it funny how your freely made choice just so happens to put you firmly back in a patriarchy-approved territory, supporting the menz who go out and actually do shit in the world? How come most stay-at-homes are women? Am I infringing on your choice by pointing out the likely answers to these questions?

Yes, Sera, the "likely" answers to these questions are that many SAHMs did make the choice because of patriarchial expectations. And yes, most stay-at-homes are women, which is certainly a sign that the patriarchy is alive and well. However, that does NOT mean that ALL stay at home mothers are there because it feeds in to the patriarchial expectations, or because they've been indoctrinated. It is completely possible, in my opinion, to be a feminist stay at home mother. Here's a question: Is a lesbian stay at home mother inherently feeding into patriarchial expectations? Obviously the situations are different, but both mothers are making the same decision.

Obviously none of you meant this as a personal attack. But my mother was a SAHM for much of my childhood, and she is an outspoken feminist. I guess you're trying to tell me that the woman who taught me that women can do anything, that our ideals of beauty are sexst and sizeist, and about the history of the women's movement, is not ACTUALLY a feminist, because she decided that the thing that would make her happiest, and contribute the most to society, would be to stay home and raise her children.

It is incredibly condescending to imply that every stay at home mother is a tool of the patriarchy. It is just as bad, in my opinion, as the anti-feminist view that women in the workforce can't possibly be fulfilled because they are a tool of a vast feminist conspiracy. Give SAHMs more credit than that. Some of them genuinely want to be there, and that choice is NOT a direct result of patriarchial indoctrination.

To fishboots:

My comment about sex ed was that I received the same (or less, because my parents didn’t discuss it with me at all) sex education as my classmates. Yet some of them had unintended pregnancies.

“You were never raped, or bullied, or or or(insert patriarchy here)....so no other woman must ever be in that situation.�

Really? I dreamt the whole thing? What a relief! Thanks for telling me what I have and haven’t experienced. And you think –I- come off as morally superior? Look in a mirror.

To rileystclair:

Our sex ed was pretty simplistic. This is how an egg is fertilized. These are the methods to keep the egg from getting fertilized. I don’t see a lot of room there for “interpretation.� But, again, you all seem to have a much clearer view of –my- experiences than I do. I’ll keep that in mind the next time I decide to comment on this blog. So much for sharing and discussing.

To EG:

“That we're willing to trade away their happiness, needs, and rights.�

What about the happiness, needs, and rights of the child they’re going to bring into the cycle of poverty? But it’s the childfree who are constantly told they’re selfish. Meanwhile, people are having kids they can't afford and those kids are going to be at night with growling stomachs.

“It's just selfishly wanting to live a life with one's basic emotional needs met.�

Yes. At the expense of the child. How is knowingly bringing an innocent human being into a family that can't meet its basic needs a good thing? What kind of life is that child going to have? Were I to have a child, I would want the best possible life for that child. I certainly would want him or her to have a better life than I’ve had. How silly of me to assume others would feel the same way about their children.

“Why shouldn't lesbians and poor women who want children just suck it up and live a miserable, unfulfilled, lonely life in order to make conservatives feel better and relieve you of the terrible burden of whatever miniscule fractional percentage of your taxes goes to TANF?�

How about because they are thinking of what would be best for the potential children they would have instead of what they want?

And the lesbian analogy? In that situation we’re dealing with two consenting adults making choices. Having a child brings an innocent life into the picture who had no choice in the matter. An innocent life who is dependent on its parents to care for it – feed it, shelter it, clothe it, and nurture it.

To Wildberry:

Thank you. At least someone understands where I’m coming from on this. Use tax dollars for educational programs, job training, etc. Help people out of poverty before they bring more people into it.

In a volunteer capacity, I worked with many families in poverty whose children had been placed in foster care because of abuse and/or neglect issues. If the parents expressed an interest in regaining custody of their children, then I worked with those parents to help them find programs, training, and employment to allow them to better their own lives and the lives of their children. Some parents were interested in trying to lift themselves up and out of poverty…others…not so much. And those who were not willing to do anything to try to better themselves, help themselves, and provide for their children…IN MY OPINION, should have never had the children in the first place, because while you may have the right to have a children, you don’t have the right to fuck them over.

You’ve probably all heard the saying, “opinions are like assholes…everybody has one.� Well, I’m simply expressing my opinion. I absolutely do not think that people should have children until they can provide the basic necessities for that child. It’s not about the rights of people to have children…it’s about the rights of those children to have food when they're hungry, shelter in which to live, clothing to keep them warm, and parents to love them, care for them, and protect them.

Oh, and if you believe it's higher priority to train poor people to put their lives and life decisions on hold until they've beat a system which is designed to work against them rather than change the system.

Single most perceptive thing that's been said on this thread. It bears repeating. So I've repeated it.

The Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath. If we have an economic system that's causing pain and suffering to people, I do not think the solution is to change the people. The solution is to make the economic system humane, and I am more than happy to pay higher taxes to make that happen.

American "families" already receive financial assistance from the government in the form of all those credits and deductions they get on their tax returns. The childfree? Nope. We don't get those, which means we're already subsidizing American "families." We pay more taxes already. How much more would you have us pay? Should we be put into financial hardship to support the personal choices others have made?

There's a lot of room between what some people are saying "Don't have children if you can't afford them" and the extreme you're painting now "bleed the childfree dry to pay for other people's children". Nobody here has suggested that the childfree should be put into "financial hardship" to pay for other people's children, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise.

Why...especially when we may have made the childfree choice partially because we could not afford to raise a child? And then you want to bleed us dry financially to support others' children?

As someone who is childfree, I have no particular desire to be "bled dry" either. Good thing that's not what I or anyone else was advocating. You belong to a society, and that means that you have certain obligations to uphold your end of the social contract. Part of that is recognizing that there's social benefit to ensuring that children are provided at least a minimally decent quality of life. At the very least, it's in our society's best interest to ensure that children are fed, clothed, housed, and educated.

I'm sorry, but it's completely ridiculous to think that your tax dollars should only go to things that benefit you immediately and personally. Your taxes are to maintain society, and you do benefit from being a part of that society. That you might never personally visit a library doesn't mean that libraries shouldn't be funded or that your tax money shouldn't go to them. And arguing "Hey, if people want books, they can just go to Borders" wouldn't change the social benefit that libraries provide. The same thing applies to programs that help families in need.

And lastly, yes, you should be able to reasonably afford kids before you have them. I don't understand what the problem with this is. You should be in the best position possible... ...No one's saying you need to be rich, but you should at least have some stability. Some savings. Something like that.

The problem with this is that there are a lot of people who will NEVER be in "the best position possible" as you define it. A not insignificant percentage of the population will never have savings or economic stability. They just won't.

Again, I ask: Should the poor just never have children?

If the standard is economic stability and savings, the answer is "no, they shouldn't."

I know some people REALLY want children. Well I REALLY want a hot tub, but I can't afford it... ...I know its not the same, but if you can't afford something, you can't afford it, no matter how happy it will make you. You have the right to PURSUE happiness, not the right to BE happy. There's a difference.

I realize I sounded callous there, but that's life. You shouldn't buy nice houses that will put you into debt that you can't handle, and you shouldn't choose to have children if you can't provide for them. THAT is what is selfish.

Yeah, damn those poor people and their unreasonable desire to have children.

And you know, if you started off able to provide, but later something happens that destroys your financial stability? Well, you either shouldn't have had children in the first place, or you should give them up to someone who can provide for them, because now you're not fit to be a parent.
Yes, I do think that sounds pretty callous.

Honestly, I never thought advocating that people take responsibility for themselves and their choices was so controversial.

I think that there's a difference between "advocating personal responsibility" and "suggesting that the poor shouldn't have children."

See, you're doing both.

And you know what? This is exactly why poor women, women on welfare, working-class women, and women of color often feel that the feminist movement does not care about their interests. That we're willing to trade away their happiness, needs, and rights. Because it appears that many of us are. Because the rhetoric of "they don't have the right to breed" has been used against them over and over again. Because making it possible for them to exercise their reproductive rights isn't a priority. Because apparently "reproductive justice" doesn't mean that all women should have access to their full range of reproductive choices.

Damn, yes, EG. Excellently put.

It disgusts me that most of us live in one of the richest nations on the planet, and we're actually having a conversation where people are complaining about the need to provide economic support to needy families- that there is even a question of whether or not someone ought to have children because of their economic situation. It's disgusting, and I just can't completely get my mind around that. And I'm sick and tired of seeing people called "selfish" for choosing to have children despite living in economic hardship and requiring outside help. The fact that you don't have a lot of money doesn't make you a bad parent. The economic aspect of parenting is a tiny part of the process- it's important, to be sure, but it's only important in a strictly pragmatic "how am I going to afford food" sort of way- it's not the bulk of parenting. It's no more or less selfish to want children than it is to not want them, and I'm sick and tired of seeing either side maligned because of it. What I think is selfish is thinking that a person's place on some financial pie-chart should determine that person's fitness to be a parent. I think it's incredibly shallow and short-sighted to think that THE most important factor determining a person's ability to raise children is the size of their paycheck. The attitude that bringing a child up in poverty necessarily means that you're a terrible person and that your child's life will be horrible is insulting and offensive. Poverty is a big problem, but, you know what? It doesn't automatically make your life total shit, nor does it automatically make you unfit to raise children. It's annoying, to say the least, to see the lives and experiences of the working class poor dismissed as "horrible" or unredeemable "bad for a child". The working class have just as much a variety of experiences as anyone else, and the fact that they live in financial hardship does NOT reduce their lives to nothing but constant "horrible" suffering, or mean that they can't have other things, besides financial security, to offer a child that would make them amazing parents.

Er, didn't I say that I supported efforts to lift them out of poverty? If those efforts work, then they can afford to have kids.

And, meanwhile, in the real world, about a third of the nation should just suck it up and go child free. To speak nothing of the vast numbers of people around the planet who barely eek out livings, and live in conditions of gross poverty.

A coward named Reginleif dug up my email address in order to respond to my comment above, rather than posting openly here. I originally wrote:

It's disappointing to hear so many people, particularly progressives, say that they hate kids. Since when is it OK to hate on an entire group of people, particularly a group of people as profoundly disempowered as children? Kids are individual people. Some of them are fantastic, and some of them are assholes, just like adults.

Reginleif responded in an email:

“ONOES, how dare people hate cheeeldrunn??

Because they're fucking annoying, that's why.

As for being "disempowered," there's a good reason for that - they're not capable of making the same decisions adults do. Let me guess, you're one of those mommies who tries to "reason" with your sprogs as they tear up the supermarket? ‘Now stop that, Snotford and Bratleigh, you're invalidating Mommy's feelings!’�

Reginleif, I’ve blocked your email address, so don’t bother writing to me again. I’ll respond here:

No, I don’t have children, and I don’t plan to. But I still find it offensive that you would malign children as a group. Would anyone here say, “I just don’t like old people�? Children are individual human beings. As I said earlier, some are fantastic and some are assholes, just like adults. The fact that you chose to send hate-mail for the sole purpose of insulting my imaginary children is evidence of the latter.

Your ugly generalizations about all children are only revealing your own discomfort in interacting with them. Of course, Reginleif, based on your email, I think it’s safe to assume you’re not all that great at interacting with adults, either.

Finally, yes, children are disempowered. They have almost no control over their own lives. They’re incredibly vulnerable to exploitation. If children are being hurt, it’s likely caused by the very person/people that they should be able to trust. Why not show a little compassion?

It's an old and tired phrase, but it's fitting: a hand up instead of a hand out.

I'm all for government programs to help get people out of poverty. I'm not in favor of putting more people into poverty.

I rarely write here anymore, for a variety of reasons (hate mail being one), but was going to sign on this morning just to remind everyone that children are PEOPLE.

No one should ever have to defend why she did or did not have children. But to say "I don't like children" is not funny. Nobody decides to be a kid and "children" do not deserve to be categorically considered as a single entity anymore than the rest of us do. So, I am late to the party, and am simply backing up SingOut now, but please think about this. You do not have to PROVE that you are not cut out to be a parent, and maligning kids...well, I would like my feminism w/ a healthy dose of considering all humans as individuals - me, you, and the kid next door too.

Also, remember, if someone questions why you do not have children and smugly suggests you will change your mind, answering them by maligning a whole group of people doesn't in any way communicate that the OTHER speaker has been rude and inappropriate - and you do NOT have to prove that your choice was right for you. You do not have to prove that you are not mommy material. "I don't want children," is all the answer they deserve. If they persist, and insist that you will change our mind, unless that person is your partner, "that's none of your business," even when it seems to be a non-sequiter works well too.

It is true that women w/ kids are treated as "more valuable" than women w/out them. But let's NOT take it out on the kids.

"That...doesn't make sense. Because of the wage gap, the family should try to get by on less money?"

EG,
Hell no! If they feel one or the other parent should stay home then it should be the man. I dont think any parent should stay home. Women and men have worked since the beginning of time while raising kids, so theres no reason they shouldnt work. It was a response to spirinas comment about feeling its her duty to be SAHM.
I feel the more money, the better. You can never have enough.