Remember working women, you’re pathetic unless you have a child…when everyone else wants you to.
| April 29th, 2005This post was removed by request of the author.
168 Responses to “Remember working women, you’re pathetic unless you have a child…when everyone else wants you to.”
Leave a Reply
If you have questions about the moderation policies here, please read this post. Short version: treat other posters with respect.
If your submitted comment fails to appear, without even an error or "waiting for moderation" message, then our spam-blocking software may have blocked your comment. Please contact the moderators immediately so we can rescue your comment. If this happens repeatedly, you might visit Akismet's comment form to tell them they're falsely identifying you as a spammer.
April 29th, 2005 at 1:26 pm
I had a tubal ligation when I was 27 because my husband and I had decided we did not want to be parents (whichI thnk is not the same motivation as not wanting to have kids). I’ve never been the least bit sorry. And to all those people (e.g., my mother) who kept saying “but what if you’re wrong about having kids”, we would just say “better that than to have the kids and find out we were right.”
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2005 at 1:27 pm
Pseudo-Adrienne: This really bugged the piss out of me before I had my daughter, and you know what? It still does. Being a woman over 25 in the Midwest and saying that you not only don’t have any children, but have no plans for them either, makes people look at you as if you’ve said, “…and in my spare time, I like to grill up filet of child.”
The flip side of this is, of course, that once you have that child, you don’t gain that aura of “legitimacy” that mothers supposedly have….no, you just segue into a “bad mama” stereotype if you don’t resemble June Cleaver (and who does?).
Just shows you how many battles we still have left to fight, ya know?
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
Y’know, thinking about body parts that aren’t being used….. we need more news items about the poor unused nipples on most men. One assumes, if one assumes such things, that the gods put them there for a purpose, so get to it! While we’re at it, I’m sure there’s a bunch of other anatomical parts that aren’t being used….
This comment was written by Poppy.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
La Lubu is right! Right before we got married, I was appalled at number of so-called friends who were angry when I explained that we weren’t sure about having kids. I thought explaining that my husband is a cancer survivor would shut them up–hey, I’m glad he’s alive, so I’m not going to bitch about fertility problems–but they continued to look like I also “grill up filet of child.”
Now that we want to have kids, this talk is equally painful. It would be so much easier if people minded their own damn business. Instead we get comments like why haven’t you had a child yet? Don’t you like kids?
Argh!
This comment was written by Lisa.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
I’m amazed at the pressure on females to have babies. I had no real interest in marriage and babies until I hit my early-mid 30’s (which shocked the shit outta me, to be honest). I thought the folks who were quick to pressure kids were in my parents’ generation, and thought the folks who grew up in the 50s/60s wouldn’t put the same pressure on their children. My cousin is 48, her older daughter is 24 (and not in a committed relationship). . .just last week my cousin’s ex husband told the daughter that he doesn’t want to wait too much longer for grandchildren. (My cousing and I both flipped when the daughter mentioned this at our Seder on Saturday - what the hell is worng with this man??!?)
This comment was written by Ol Cranky.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2005 at 4:12 pm
Argh. I’m only 22, out of college a year and still unemployed, and people ask me when I’m going to settle down and have children. Why am I single? Don’t I like children? If I dare explain that I happen to prefer being single, and no, actually, I don’t like children… well, you’d think I’d just confessed to being the genetically-engineered love child of Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Then comes the “It’s different when it’s your child” comments. Yeah, maybe so. But if it isn’t, I don’t want to find out the hard way.
It doesn’t help, of course, that I know 6 or 7 people my age who are getting married within the next year, and two women younger than me who already have kids. Not to mention two brothers who are similarly disinclined, which makes my mother put extra pressure on me. It’s my job, after all, as I’m the sentient incubator.
Not that I’m bitter.
This comment was written by Suzanne.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Now, I do like to grill up filet of child. Is this a bad thing?
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Me, I prefer toddler ghanoush.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
God, it’s too late in the week to even make a decent pun.
Can we just all pretend I got that right? Please?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2005 at 7:03 pm
piny: sure :)
Amanda: deep fried would be a bad thing, grilled is perfectly fine
This comment was written by Ol Cranky.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2005 at 8:04 pm
I agree with AndiF and Suzanne about not wanting to find out the hard way that I’m not mommy-material. Children are not sweaters that we can return to the store if we decide we don’t want them after all.
A married woman I know found out that she was infertile. She (and her husband I presume) thought for a moment about fertility treatment - and then decided that she would do just fine without having children.
More people should resist the pressure to have children.
This comment was written by Princess of Cybermob.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
Is there anything more irritating than hearing people say “you should have a baby,”? “why haven’t you had a baby,”? “you’ll make a great mother,”? “have a baby already, sheesh,”? and/or “have more babies!”?
Yes. Hearing people say “Why did you have a baby?” or “Did you have to have so many babies?” or “There are already too many babies in the world,” which they generally do in earshot of your baby.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2005 at 10:18 pm
I notice that some people are saying, “We’ve had that said to us,” whereas Pseudo-A’s post spoke of women in particular. Men, by themselves, just don’t get asked that, except as part of a couple (”When are you guys . . . “). It’s particularly troubling when it comes from feminists: a feminist celebrity in her Seventies asked me and my wife, “Have you had children yet?” At that point, I was on the verge of making one of the unforgivable remarks mythago cites above. At least my wife and I are lucky in that our parents all think we are too immature to raise children and don’t ask us to.
This comment was written by Mr Ripley.Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2005 at 11:04 pm
You can’t imagine the shit my husband and I get–
This comment was written by emma.We did want a baby, but rather than pump myself full of fertility drugs and spend thousands of dollars on in vitro, we just opted to adopt. Now, you would think that just having a baby would be good enough for the baby police, but no. Everyone was just tremendously appalled that we weren’t even going to try fertility treatments so we could get pregnant and have our “own” baby. We not only got this from annoying family members, but also from nurses, acquaintances, etc. When I tell these clods how much I love adoptive parenting, and how glad I am that I didn’t have to go through pregnancy, they all think that I am either a pathetically deluded liar or an unfeminine monster. And since our child is a different race than we are, even strangers who have no idea whether we tried fertility aids or not get to comment. If I had a nickel for every time a complete stranger asked me why I don’t have “real” children, I’d be rich enough to hire a great lawyer to defend me against the charges of the well- deserved assaults I’d like to make to these morons. : )
Report this comment to the moderators
April 29th, 2005 at 11:08 pm
Oh…. and I almost forgot the icing on the cake:
This comment was written by emma.I am the sole bread-winner of my family while my husband is a stay at home dad. Imagine the hell I get when I tell people that, no, this is not just a temporary arrangement, that I choose to work, and have no desire to stay home with our daughter. Again, I’m either a liar or a monster.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 30th, 2005 at 2:45 am
Someone did make the “you’re pregnant AGAIN?” comment to me when I was carrying my (gasp) second baby.
Along with women having the freedom to choose not to be mothers, or to postpone motherhood until after a career, I want to see our society make it more convenient for women to pursue motherhood and their professional or educational goals simultaneously if they choose to.
More flexible schedules and on-site day care in businesses and colleges. More support for telecommuting and job sharing. And less expectation for employees to work tons of overtime and take work home in order to get ahead professionally.
This comment was written by LAmom.Report this comment to the moderators
April 30th, 2005 at 5:18 am
LAmom: from your keyboard to G-d’s eyes!
This comment was written by Ol Cranky.Report this comment to the moderators
April 30th, 2005 at 9:12 am
I don’t have children because I live alone and can afford to support myself only and save a little. There is no way I could buy an infant clothing and diapers let alone pay for its medical etc bills. So I just don’t have someone I can’t afford to support.Plus I do shift work which would make daycare difficult.
This comment was written by Janice.Report this comment to the moderators
April 30th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
I’m 20 and I’ve been quite vocal about not wanting to get married/ have children. Yet, no one believes me. They all roll their eyes and pat me on the head and say “when you grow up you’ll feel different” blah blah blah. I’m pretty sure I’m already grown up, and my oppinion’s not gonna change.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
April 30th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
Why does anyone feel they have a right to an opinion about anyone else’s choices in this area? Even before I considered myself a feminist, I would have considered such nosiness rude. Shut up, stupid people.
I do remember Miss Manners addressing such questions with this advice: when people ask you an inappropriate question such as this, you respond with a smile “Why do you need to know?” and just keep repeating it. They have no good reason to know, and if they offer a lame one, you can just say “Oh, that’s just not something we feel comfortable talking about!” and don’t cave.
What I find hard is when you’re not prepared for such rudeness; one person asked me if my pregnancy was “planned” which, if you think about it, is none of their damn business. I mean, what if it wasn’t, and I was scared shitless? Anyway, in my surprise at being asked I just blurted out “Yes” instead of sidestepping the question.
This comment was written by emjaybee.Report this comment to the moderators
April 30th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
I want to see our society make it more convenient for women to pursue motherhood and their professional or educational goals simultaneously if they choose to
I’d like our society to make it more convenient for everyone to combine professional, educational and family life.
I can imagine, emma. I recommend the Icy Stare of Death.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 30th, 2005 at 8:43 pm
You know, I get baby pressure from people, and I’m not even married. There have been a few times when people have gone off on me for having the gall to answer their rather inappropriate question (Do you want children?) honestly (No, I don’t.).
Not my parents, who don’t think it’s their business or anyone else’s. They’d be pleased as punch if I got married and had a kid if that’s what I wanted. As long as I’m happy and I’m living ethically, they’re happy for me.
Now, if only I could get some other people who aren’t even related to me to follow their example. . .
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
May 1st, 2005 at 12:02 am
It’s very easy: don’t answer their questions.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 1st, 2005 at 6:02 am
I am a proud childless, husbandless concert flautist and want to remian so. There is nothing selfless about not wanting to have a child. Hell, there is just as much about having a baby that is selfish . I am a transsexual anyway, and I won’t have my uterus for long. It enrages me the lack of respect for women’s personal choices. Women are looked down upon a great deal more often for having an abortion than for have seven kids they can barely care for? *Vomits.*
Pro-choice, people, whatever that choice is. Love it and leae it be.
This comment was written by Lucio.Report this comment to the moderators
May 1st, 2005 at 6:54 am
Lucio you’re 15, I sure as shit hope nobody has actually had the audacity to ask when you plan to have children!
This comment was written by Ol Cranky.Report this comment to the moderators
May 1st, 2005 at 5:37 pm
Actually, I have had quite a few people ask me that, including my father when he is in a sentimental fervor, and needless to say, my nuclear family-obsessed peers. Of course, I just stick to my convictions that I have a different goal in life. And I’m lovin’ it! A major in flute and pipe organ, plus a large home all to myself with the occasional visitor.
This comment was written by Lucio.Report this comment to the moderators
May 2nd, 2005 at 7:27 am
Another kind of baby policing.
This comment was written by Emily.Report this comment to the moderators
May 2nd, 2005 at 9:51 am
Agreed with everybody. I do think that the world could stand to be less populated; but from what I’ve read, that seems to have less to do with the people who choose to have a couple kids than it does with people who can’t get family planning services, or are pressured by their culture into not using them. And yes, it’s VERY rude to stand there in front of somebody who’s just had a kid and say that there should be fewer babies. It’s also VERY rude to ask somebody what they plan to do with their reproductive system. [What worries me is the possibility that it might never end: in 30 years, I might be 58 and postmenopausal, and getting constantly asked why I didn't have children when I had the chance.]
I too get tired of being asked when I’m going to get married and reproduce, and of hearing the “it’s different when they’re yours” spiel [yeah, but is it different enough?] and the “you’ll regret it if you don’t” spiel [what if I DO and regret it? I can't put it back]. On occasion, I’ve been asked if I don’t like children, and responded by asking the person if they owned a lion; upon hearing “no,” I’d ask them if they hated wildlife, the point being that not everybody that likes lions likes them enough to take care of one. Sometimes that works. If it doesn’t, I just tell them I can’t handle the noise, which is true, and leave it at that. Either they can deal with it or they can’t.
I’ve read people’s reasons for having children, and for not having children, and I think there are plenty of selfish AND unselfish reasons for both. And those reasons weigh differently for everybody, so you can’t decide for somebody else what they should want, or presume to be able to predict–better than they can–how they’ll cope with parenthood.
This comment was written by Frida.Report this comment to the moderators
May 2nd, 2005 at 11:04 am
Minor quibble:
I think there are plenty of selfish AND unselfish reasons for both.
What exactly are the “selfish” reasons to not have a child? In order to make this claim, you’d need to assume that there’s a person out there that would be disappointed if you didn’t give birth to it. You can’t be “selfish” unless you’re depriving someone of something, and seeing that the child you might have had does not exist, it’s logically impossible to be “selfish” in choosing not to have kids.
I suppose one could claim that a woman who decides not to have kids is depriving society of something, but that still assumes the existence of something that doesn’t exist–namely, the child you might have had who might have improved or contributed to (or destroyed, for that matter) the world.
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
May 2nd, 2005 at 1:23 pm
I agree with pretty well everyone here!
I’ve always been pretty vocal about my aversion to motherhood, and I don’t know why people think this is one thing they are free to comment on.
Just this evening my 22 y.o. neighbour said to me ‘oh, in five years you’ll change your mind’. How would she know? If I said I was making any other type of life choice (where to live, career, etc) I wouldn’t get any of these comments.
This comment was written by Katrina.As if motherhood or the biological clock is something women have to succumb to, regardless of what our personal choices might be.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 2nd, 2005 at 4:05 pm
“But give me the crappy studio apartment in NYC, . . . ridiculously high rent, . . . and the 9 to 5 job any time over children.”
Pseudo-Adrienne — if you don’t have children you can work 9-5 and afford an apartment in New York City? Damn where have I gone wrong? If I had known being childless can allow me to work 9-5 . . .
I have to go now. I have to get rid of my kids. I guess my wife will have to go also. Oh and anyone else for whom I have a responsibility. I can’t believe I fell for that crazy “duty to produce good citizens for the betterment of society” crap my mother, grandmother, and teachers told me about. I knew they were wrong. Dammit! I knew I should have just done what was be for me and f**K everyone else. I guess it is all for the best since I “procreated” with a mate of good genetic makeup :-)
(I hope no one takes this seriously — East Coast Cynicism).
[From Pseudo-Adrienne--I have no clue as to what you are trying to say. I have East Coast relatives by the way, so I know that particular brand of cynicism, but I have no idea as to what you are trying to say. Elaborate, please...]
This comment was written by jstevenson.Report this comment to the moderators
May 2nd, 2005 at 9:58 pm
IAnd yes, it’s VERY rude to stand there in front of somebody who’s just had a kid and say that there should be fewer babies. It’s also VERY rude to ask somebody what they plan to do with their reproductive system.
Sentence #2 is the same as sentence #1–telling somebody “you shouldn’t have kids” IS telling them what you think they should do with their reproductive system.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 5:36 am
I think it’s possible that people say “Oh, you’ll change your mind” because it happens so often. This does not reduce the annoyance factor of someone saying it, of course, but it’s something to keep in mind. I’ve been a personal witness a few times to people doing a complete 180 about kids. So while I would never say “you might change your mind” to anyone directly, I have started thinking it.
People change their minds about things all the time in their life, both about having kids and deciding not to have kids.
Maybe the best answer to someone who says such a comment is “Perhaps you’re right, but there are plenty of women out there who’ve lived their lives and never regretted not having kids. I could easily be one of those women.”
Or, depending on the context, the best answer could be “mind your own beeswax”. :o)
This comment was written by Barbara Preuninger.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 8:37 am
I know someone who changed her mind about wanting kids when in her 40s (she fought her way into a tubal ligation in her early 20s). She still didn’t regret having had the operation, and she chose to adopt.
This comment was written by wolfangel.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 8:45 am
Leslie Stalh had a very insulting piece about silly young women who don’t have babies when they are young after Hewlett’s book came out. She had a panel of rich successful New Yorkers saying how they had all been duped by feminism into losing their fertile years at work. I was furious! And when I tried to stir up controvery about it at a family gathering, everyone agreed with Leslie Stahl-”these girls think they can just wait”, etc… It was crazy- they didn’t have kids because they weren’t ready, and they were foolish for not being ready? Huh? Women have always had children in their 30’s and 40’s, only it usually wasn’t their first. My husband’s mom had him at 45.
But childless people should cut the pro-fertile people some slack, and roll their eyes instead of being offended. They love their children, and want to spread the joy, and it is a joy, around. Privacy and decisions should be respected, but people are sometimes rude for what seems like happy reasons to them. This coming from a mother of an only child ( talk about social disapproval!).
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 9:09 am
My paternal grandparents had my dad when they were in their forties, my maternal grandparents had one of my aunts in the forties as well. My mother has (or had) uncles who were younger than her,as my great grandmother was still having children when my grandmother married etc. They were RC and didn’t use contraceptives
I would like a baby now, but it would be selfish if I did,as my financial resources would not support one.
This comment was written by Janice.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 9:26 am
Modern paradox: the thoughtfullness that makes some people childless would also make them great parents.
Does anybody else feel suspicious whenever David Brooks and others talk about the dangers of falling fertility rates?
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 10:36 am
Elena,
I’d have to disagree with your paradox since I believe that our ideas about why we weren’t suited to be parents would quite right which means that we would have not made good parents. OTOH, we’ve often thought that if most people put the effort into thinking about being parents that we did, there would be no kids.
Re Brooks: I’m not all at suspicious, I’m certain that they are worried that white women won’t have enough babies and they will be outnumbered.
To all of you who are tired of being asked about having children, people will eventually stop because after you hit a certain age, they figure you don’t have kids because there is something wrong and they don’t want to be hurtful. Of course, this does not include your mother who will keep bringing it up until you hit menopause (apparently, in my case, believing that she could make my tubes grow back through the proper application of guilt. But I would just remind that she used to always tell me that “some day I would have kids of my own and then I’d be sorry”. So clearly this was all her fault).
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 6:47 pm
Elena:
I will cut pro-fertility people some slack only when they stop making comments like “one hug from a three year old and all the worlds troubles go away, you’ll see, you just have to have one.”
There are those of us who do not wish to fertilize the earth with our spawn. And there are those of us who wish others would stop fertlizing the earth with *their* spawn.
This comment was written by Nio.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 8:00 pm
Humans are only DNA’s way of reproducing itself. Thus, from DNA’s perspective, if you aren’t reproducing, then you don’t deserve to be alive. Somehow, humans have internalized this molecular message.
Just tell that nagging bit of DNA to bugger off.
This comment was written by Ruby2.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 11:41 pm
I have never wanted kids. I didn’t like kids when I was one. When I outgrew some toy or other and it was offered to a cousin for her smaller child, she said ‘oh, no, you should hang on to that for her kids.’ Little five-year-old me piped up something along the lines of ‘I’m not going to have kids, and anyway we can’t keep everything or we’ll not be able to get in the door.’
This comment was written by Random.I’ve pretty much stopped getting asked, now, by people I know, but my mother gets it. ‘Got any grandchildren yet?’ She’s got so fed up with saying no and explaining to the ‘oh she’ll change’ people that she’s perfectly fine with me *not* sprogging and that she really doubts I will change my mind, that she’s started to tell them about the beautiful 2-year-old with her black hair and big brown eyes. She then pulls out a picture of my boyfriend’s rottie. It upsets them less than saying ‘well she might change her mind about jumping off tower bridge as well.’ Not by much, apparently.
Most of the people asking seem to think that working is something you do until you manage to breed and the state has to keep you. I encountered more than one young girl who thought having a kid would be *easier* than working on a supermarket checkout. I told her I was far too lazy to have a kid, five minutes after telling her about the week of 16 hour days I’d just done and she thought I was joking. 9 months later, she understood.
Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2005 at 4:17 am
I will cut pro-fertility people some slack only when they stop making comments like “one hug from a three year old and all the worlds troubles go away, you’ll see, you just have to have one.”?
Eeeeugh! No, that is completely wrong. It is the opposite! Having children makes you much more unhappy about the state of the environment and the world, because we’re leaving it to them (and we all bear a minute amount of the responsibility for the world’s fucked-upness.)
But pseudo-Adrienne, you fall into a trap when you cite career and college as an argument for remaining childless. Note this isn’t an argument either way for having kids / not having them - but if you don’t have them in order to further your career or enable you to study, that is not a 21st century solution- that is the nineteenth century solution! Men don’t have to choose between having children (if they should want them) and having a career or getting a degree, and neither should women.
This comment was written by Helen.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2005 at 5:49 am
The sad think is that having a child doesn’t get you off the hook with the baby police. As soon as the baby is one people start asking you when you’re having a second. You can’t (gasp!) mean to have an only child! (Actually, yes, I do. My pregnancy was 9 months of nausea and fatigue and I don’t want to repeat it. The kid seems happy, I’m happy, my partner is happy, where’s the problem?)
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2005 at 8:06 am
You know, if this were really true, there wouldn’t be so many happy childless people out there. There wouldn’t have been so many happy childless people all through the ages, either.
I really don’t buy into the attempts to impose genetic/biological explanations on human behaviour (except for things like breathing, eating, sleeping etc.), because there is far, far too much variation in that behaviour to make them plausible.
Despite all the propaganda to the contrary, I have never not once heard my biological clock ticking or had an uncontrollable urge (or even controllable, really) to get myself impregnated. Never. If I had some sort of genetic coding driving me towards reproduction, wouldn’t I have had at least a few twinges? Like, lots of them instead of, well………none?
Nahhhh, I just do not buy it.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2005 at 8:48 am
Thus, from DNA’s perspective, if you aren’t reproducing, then you don’t deserve to be alive.
DNA is a molecule. It doesn’t have a ‘perspective.’ From the standpoint of evolution, your siblings share your genes, so if you’re helping your nieces and nephews it’s all good. In fact, it may be better.
And there are those of us who wish others would stop fertlizing the earth with *their* spawn.
And then there are those of us who are happy to let you decide whether or not you wish to spawn, but would prefer that you were happy in your choice without sneering at everyone else’s. As Elena said, “Privacy and decisions should be respected, but people are sometimes rude for what seems like happy reasons to them.”
One reason I suspect people say “you’ll change your mind” is that (to be fair, because of all the pressure) people often disclaim that pressure in absolutes: I will NEVER want kids, I will NEVER get married, I would NEVER have that kind of a job. And of course, people do change, and it’s hard to predict whether you will NEVER want or do something.
By the way, why is everyone talking about getting into extended discussions about whether you will or won’t want kids? Anyone who tries to argue your choices is being an ass.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2005 at 9:48 am
Yes, but if someone’s harassed, daily, about having children, sooner or later they’ll have a long conversation about it.
Does the “selfish gene” argument remind anyone else of what Marx said about commodity fetishism? That is, talking about the decisions of actual people as if they were the decisions of non-sentient or abstract entities?
This comment was written by Brian Vaughan.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2005 at 7:39 pm
Does anybody else feel suspicious whenever David Brooks and others talk about the dangers of falling fertility rates?
Elena: you bet your sweet ass I do! I’ve debated “Pro-lifers” who keep pointing this out and am perplexed by the implication that having more babies will, indeed, save this country. It was a faulty argument when it was used in Romania and it’s equally erroneous now.
One reason I suspect people say “you’ll change your mind”? is that (to be fair, because of all the pressure) people often disclaim that pressure in absolutes: I will NEVER want kids, I will NEVER get married, I would NEVER have that kind of a job. And of course, people do change, and it’s hard to predict whether you will NEVER want or do something.
Mythago - I agree wholeheartedly. I (truly) had no interest in marriage and babies. It’s not that I didn’t like children, it was that I fully planned on being married to the lab and feared that I would not be a good parent. When I first started having thyroid problems as an adolescent, my doctor ruled out exposure to radiation because it could lead to significant fertility issues and he was sure that, since I was 13, I would change my mind about wanting to have children (he completely ignored my assertion that if I did change my mind about having children, I’d adopt - 25 years later I still don’t understand some people’s need to have a biological connection to hteir child). This being said, I was careful about my terminology even back then . . .it wasn’t never, it was I don’t expect/plan, I can’t imagine, I doubt I’ll change my mind, etc. When I got pregnant at 19 and was considering my options I came to the realization that I would be willing to re-consider parenthood if I was in a stable, loving relationship conducive to raising a child in a warm, nurturing environment. I’m still single, therefor still childless (unless psycho the wonder puppy & barfo the cat count as children). I don’t rule out single parenthood completely, I’d just limit it to adopting a child that doesn’t seem to have the option of what I’d consider a more ideal environment. Sadly, it’s taken my family ages to understand and respect that.
This comment was written by Ol Cranky.Report this comment to the moderators
May 4th, 2005 at 10:12 pm
Yes, but if someone’s harassed, daily, about having children, sooner or later they’ll have a long conversation about it.
Preferably with the idjits doing the harassing.
Brooks’s spew isn’t novel. Anyone else remember The Birth Dearth?
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 7:21 am
I think another related issue to this one is the people who do NOT have children but feel they have the right to involve themselves in issues regarding children…that’s never discussed much…
I mean you should have a stake in the game before you give yourself the right to make judgements on other people and their children.
For instance, I know many men and women who chose NOT to have children themselves, yet have non-stop opinions on laws and public policies that will affect the rest of us who have chosen to take the leap of faith and have children ourselves…
So that’s the flip side of this issue…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 8:00 am
I mean you should have a stake in the game before you give yourself the right to make judgements on other people and their children.
You don’t need to be a parent to care about children. Even if you don’t have nieces and/or nephews, and even if your friends and neighbors don’t have children, and even if you don’t work in a field that affects children, you can still be concerned about them. In fact, parents may be too close to their children to really understand what’s good for them; it may take an objective outsider’s perspective to make sure they get what they need. (I don’t really believe that, but it’s the parallel argument.)
Besides, if we limited (valid) opinions only to experts, well, we might as well dismantle our society. Most people vote without knowing much, if anything, about their party’s platform and legislative history and what real impact their agendas will have on their lives.
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 8:08 am
Also, we as a culture tend to criticize people who think, “Well, this issue doesn’t affect me, so I won’t bother getting involved in it.” Lots of things that affect children affect a society as a whole–early childhood education and health care for kids are the ones that have been getting the most attention lately. It’s actually irresponsible to dismiss these concerns just because you don’t have children.
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 8:29 am
I understand what NYMOM was getting at, though I do have to agree with Hestia that we shouldn’t take the attitude that only those things that concern us personally should interest us.
I do think there are a lot of people who are childless by choice because they *dislike* children, and then feel they shouldn’t have to pay for public schools or other services that benefit children and parents. Or who are constantly criticising parents when they have no idea what caring for a child is like. That I find wrong.
But I don’t find it wrong that someone like me, who is childless by choice, but who has a lot of respect for children–and people who are parents–should be interested in how children are treated in our society. It may not affect me directly, but it does affect me in some way.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 10:00 am
“But I don’t find it wrong that someone like me, who is childless by choice, but who has a lot of respect for children”“and people who are parents”“should be interested in how children are treated in our society. It may not affect me directly, but it does affect me in some way. ”
But then people can say the same thing about a women’s decision NOT to have children…It doesn’t affect them directly but it affects us ALL in some way. For instance, fewer people paying into the social security system for a pension (which they are now estimating might require 9 McJobbers paying taxes in the future for ONE decent pension)…
I mean why should my two daughters and granddaughter have to pay extra for someone else’s pension; when that person chose not to have any kids and spent their money on new clothes, nice vacations and condos that I could not afford since I was raising the future citizen/taxpayers who were going to pay for these things, like retirements or nursing home/medical care, etc.????
Fewer nurses, police, firemen, etc., are all repercussions of these private choices.
Plus I personally find it outrageous that so many policy makers, judges, professors, etc., are NOT mothers, but feminists who have already decided they do NOT want any children, yet feel it is okay to make public policies and laws negatively affecting other women who are mothers…
I think that if you have decided to remove yourself from the game and have no stake in the ultimately outcome, you shouldn’t be allowed to have a say in the process that will impact other women and their children…
This is what leads to men having an unfair advantage since they speak for their own gender neutralized interest and then have many women, who have opted out of childbearing, speaking for their interest too…
Sorry, but THAT should NOT be allowed…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 10:40 am
NYMOM,
I am absolutely dumfounded by your statement and can only hope that you really don’t mean it quite the way it is coming out. Following your principle, the number of things I am not allowed to care about is huge. I can’t be concerned about abortion rights because I can’t get pregnant, I can’t be upset about racism because I’m not black, I can’t care about the quality of education in America because I don’t have kids, etc. Apparently I will have to limit my concerns to those that directly involve short, post-menopausal Jewish women who live in Indiana.
Well, I think not. However, I would agree — if this is what you are getting at — that the opinions and ideas of those who are directly affected by an issue have more value and authenticity than those of individuals who are not.
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 10:42 am
NYMOM: “I mean why should my two daughters and granddaughter have to pay extra for someone else’s pension; when that person chose not to have any kids and spent their money on new clothes, nice vacations and condos that I could not afford since I was raising the future citizen/taxpayers who were going to pay for these things, like retirements or nursing home/medical care, etc.????”
*****
most of the people i know who do not have children do not live in this life of luxury that you imagine. i don’t have children #1 because i don’t want them and #2 because i have a parent to support. it’s not ALL tropical vacations and convertible BMWs for those of us without children. i actually live paycheck to paycheck and supporting a child would throw us both out on the street.
NYMOM: “Plus I personally find it outrageous that so many policy makers, judges, professors, etc., are NOT mothers, but feminists who have already decided they do NOT want any children, yet feel it is okay to make public policies and laws negatively affecting other women who are mothers…”
******
i don’t know of ANY feminists who support laws that harm women and their children. in fact, i would think that’s the exact OPPOSITE of what feminists support.
NYMOM: “I think that if you have decided to remove yourself from the game and have no stake in the ultimately outcome, you shouldn’t be allowed to have a say in the process that will impact other women and their children…”
*****
actually, i think EVERYONE has a stake in the ultimate outcome of children. i choose not to have children of my own but i still have a stake in how other children turnout because they will eventually be the adults running the show. therefore we ALL have a stake in making sure that other people’s children are taken care of, fed, housed, educated, nutured, respected, etc.
it’s not like all people who don’t have kids wish the worst for everyone elses. in fact, it seems to me that the majority of people making policies that negatively affect women and children are those people who DO have children and don’t feel like they should have to sacrifice their own children’s abundance to share with those less fortunate.
(just my 2 cents coz it’s annoying when those of us who are childless are painted as cruel and heartless too.)
xoxo, jared
This comment was written by ms. jared.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 11:16 am
“I am absolutely dumfounded by your statement and can only hope that you really don’t mean it quite the way it is coming out. Following your principle, the number of things I am not allowed to care about is huge.
I can’t be concerned about abortion rights because I can’t get pregnant”
You can care about it but surely you must admit your imput into the decision-making process should be limited precisely because you can’t get pregnant. You cannot and should not be the final authority on abortion, that should be limited to the people who CAN GET PREGNANT…
“I can’t be upset about racism because I’m not black”
Again, you can care but surely you would agree with most African-Americans who want to be the final decision-makers on their own programs and communities…
“I can’t care about the quality of education in America because I don’t have kids, etc.”
Again their parents are and should be the fnal decision-makers in this area as well…
Just as you do NOT want people making either comments or decisions regarding your life choices, we would like the same respect…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 11:25 am
NYMOM wrote:
By this logic, I, a childless persyn, should not have to pay higher property taxes* everytime teachers need to buy pencils. As a matter of fact, all taxes should be individualized so I don’t have to pay taxes for any services I don’t use. Itemizing *everyone’s* taxes, that’ll fix the problem! /sarcasm
Nio
*In NH, where I live, school funding comes from property taxes. Towns such as Hollis, NH, where the cheapest house is $300,000 and property taxes are incredibly high, have fantastic school systems. Funding from this source creates a disparagy (sp?) in education. But, hey, I don’t need to worry about that, I don’t have kids! /sarcasm
This comment was written by Nio.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 11:28 am
“…just my 2 cents coz it’s annoying when those of us who are childless are painted as cruel and heartless too…”
Not at all…I respect your decision not to have children but you have to understand that should, by rights, limit your input into the rights and decisions other women make who chose to have children…
Why should we live and be judged by women who have chosen to be childfree…Yet have no problem forcing other women to place our kids in all kinds of gender-neutralized custody arrangements, MANY of them approved and implemented by feminists and MRAs supporters…
As, you must admit, that feminists are the authors of our current gender netural custody laws and thus the ‘mothers’ of the fathers rights movement…
Chosing not to have children yourselves ,you should NOT be leaving other mothers to labor under the burden you’ve place on us by your ideas on children…
That’s all I’m saying, it works BOTH ways…
No, people should NOT be pressuring women who wish to be childfree to have children, that is wrong. But the flip side of that is you should forfeit your rights to force those of us who DO chose to be mothers to follow your gender neutralized ideas about motherhood…
However, I do NOT think you are cruel or heartless if you chose NOT to be a mother…it’s your decision and should be respected…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 11:43 am
NYMom, I don’t care if someone has children. I’ve followed this discussion mostly just to see how people assess this issue in their own lives. I’ve seen women change their minds, and I’ve seen women stay the course with decisions they made early in life not to be parents.
But you’re grinding your axe against the wrong kind of stone. Gender neutral custody arrangements are not being foisted on the world by child free women. Please. As one who has done research in this area, I can tell you that gender neutral custody arrangements are all but required by notions of equality between the sexes, and are pushed most often by fathers, not women who don’t have children, who, I imagine have other things on their mind. Yes, feminists do generally support such measures, but most feminists actually do have children.
I am a mother and I can’t sit here and say that I am the better parent or that I would deserve primary let alone sole custody of my daughters. Not all fathers can say this, but my husband more than stepped up to the plate to share equal parenting duty. How will men ever be encouraged to become stronger parents if they are legally presumed to be inferior?
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 11:59 am
But women who choose not to have children–particularly the career women you keep referring to–sometimes choose that way because their options are limited by laws hostile to motherhood. Why should they not be able to influence policy decisions that might make motherhood possible for them or women like them? If you as a mom decide to quit your job because it’s perfectly legal for your employer make your job unbearable, would you then lose the right to complain about the laws?
And this is just plain inaccurate. Father’s rights people, aka anti-feminists, do not believe in neutral custody laws, for one thing. Father’s rights movements are part of an anti-feminist backlash. Blaming feminists for them is like blaming NARAL for Operation Rescue. And no feminist has ever said that women should be treated as though their circumstances were in all respects equal to men’s. If that were true, EC and abortion wouldn’t be feminist issues, because feminists would be incapable of recognizing the unique impact of both on women’s lives. They wouldn’t even be able to recognize the problem of sexism overall, since the impact of misogyny is nothing if not disparate. Nor do any of the feminists here seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that parenting carries the same social meaning for women as for men.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 12:19 pm
I’d like to hear, NYMOM, more about the ways in which you think feminists oppose mother/parenthood. I really don’t think there are any. Feminists support women’s choices regardless of whether they’re mothers or not. I think you’re speaking from a stereotype that simply isn’t true.
I respect your decision not to have children but you have to understand that should, by rights, limit your input into the rights and decisions other women make who chose to have children…
I wholly disagree. You’re suggesting that even though I support public schools and parental leave and tax credits for dependents, you’d dismiss my opinion if my neighbor, who’s a mother, opposes all these things. You’re also implying that, for example, people who aren’t actually involved in politics (including you, I assume) shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Right?
I believe, on the other hand, that an individual’s personal life is basically a moot point (until you get to hypocrisy, but that’s something else). What matters is the argument itself and the issue in question. There are a wide variety of opinions regarding the raising and care of children among both mothers and women who don’t have children. In some cases you’ll agree with a mother; in another you might agree with a childless woman. It has nothing to do with these categories in and of themselves.
(For the record, I don’t have kids but I work in the field of early childhood education.)
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 12:23 pm
Never wanted children. Never regretted not having them. I’m glad other women want them and have them, but that’s their choice. That’s what fminism is about: choices that are right for the individual, and not imposed by outsiders.
however, in the fate-loves-a-jest category, now I’m in a relationship where I am functionally a step-parent to a coupla surly teenagers. ouch.
This comment was written by it.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
The U.S. in general has a nosey culture. I guess the Europeans are right when they say we are square! In one corner, we have the people who think they are the center of the universe and therefore everything they think and do needs to be broadcast to the masses. In Corner #2, we have the people who think they are entitled to know everything about anyone they decide to be interested in. In Corner #3, we have the people who fiercely protect their privacy. And in Corner #4, we have the people who try to keep from knowing too much about those around them. At one time or another, most people live in each of these corners. The conflicts arise when people from opposite corners try to interact.
I tend to live in corner #4 most of the time, with visits to #3 as necessary. Maybe I’m sticking my head in the sand, but I don’t really want to know what The Runaway Bride has to say, or what form of sexual gratification my neighbor prefers. So even though I’m occasionally curious about when or if I’ll be an aunt, I wouldn’t dream of asking my siblings or their partners about their baby status is. This decision should be theirs alone, and so what if they keep it to themselves.
But unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to matter to people living in corners #1 and #2 what life stage you’re in - they have an opinion they want to “share” with you (which of course means you have to agree with them, which gives them positive strokes and a pleasant feeling of superiority because they’ve enlightened you). If you’re a teenager, you have to know what you want to do when you grow up. When you’re in your twenties, you have to settle down with someone. If you haven’t had kids by the time you’re in your thirties, then you hear all about how you have to have babies. (One thing I find sad and amusing at the same time is how some parents are so desperate for grandchildren that they don’t actually seem to care how many parents the poor things will have.) If you actually do get pregnant, then you hear about childbirth; once the baby actually appears on the scene, then you hear about how it should be brought up. And so on.
I agree that women should be able to build a career independent of her childbearing choices. I also think that men should be able to fold family obligations in their worklives. It’s just as condescending and discriminatory to tell a woman she has to cut back at work or quit her job when she has kids as it is to tell a man he can’t take time off from work to take care of his children. I also think it’s discriminatory to expect someone to work overtime or handle the high-maintenance projects at work just because they have no children. People should be able to do their jobs independently of their home lives but also with consideration for whatever their home lives happen to be. And it shouldn’t be anybody’s business what your choices are, unless you’ve filled out your tax forms wrong, of course. :)
On the public policy level, obviously what we decide impacts society as a whole. If I decide to reproduce and am successful, I have added another human being to the pool, for good or for ill. If I don’t have children, then that affects the future of the pool as well. Ms. Jared is right that we all have a stake in what happens to the children. But children aren’t sacred objects - they are human beings. We shouldn’t idolize babies and children to the point where the whole culture is obsessed with making life perfect for them; that’s impossible. And being a parent shouldn’t entitle us to High Priest(ess) status, either. We should just do our best to make the world a better place for everyone, and the rest will follow.
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
“But you’re grinding your axe against the wrong kind of stone. Gender neutral custody arrangements are not being foisted on the world by child free women. Please. As one who has done research in this area, I can tell you that gender neutral custody arrangements are all but required by notions of equality between the sexes, and are pushed most often by fathers, not women who don’t have children, who, I imagine have other things on their mind. Yes, feminists do generally support such measures, but most feminists actually do have children. ”
No…if you look back on early feminists writing, you’ll see that gender neutral treatment of men and women vis-a-vis children has been around long before our legal system began treating mothers and fathers exactly the same…and feminists were the first ones to push the idea…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 1:09 pm
“But women who choose not to have children”“particularly the career women you keep referring to”“sometimes choose that way because their options are limited by laws hostile to motherhood. Why should they not be able to influence policy decisions that might make motherhood possible for them or women like them?”
Well we were discussing women who has decided not to have children more or less permanently as I understood the discussion…not ones who had delayed to get laws changed…
“Father’s rights people, aka anti-feminists, do not believe in neutral custody laws, for one thing. Father’s rights movements are part of an anti-feminist backlash. ”
No…fathers rights advocates are strong supporters of gender neutral custody as are feminists. The Fathers right movement is NOT part of the anti-feminist backlash (not on the surface anyway) but the logical conclusion to feminists pushing for gender neutral treatment of mothers and fathers…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 1:09 pm
NYMOM,
You can care about it but surely you must admit your imput into the decision-making process should be limited precisely because you can’t get pregnant. You cannot and should not be the final authority on abortion, that should be limited to the people who CAN GET PREGNANT…
Again their parents are and should be the fnal decision-makers in this area as well…
Of course, I have no right to say anything about other people’s decisions about their kids or their pregnancies but that’s true whether or not I have kids or can get pregnant. But no, I don’t see that being able to get pregnant makes anyone the final authority on abortion rights — she is only the final authority on whether she has an abortion or not. And no, I don’t being a parent makes you the final authority on education; I think it makes you the final authority on the education of your children.
Just as you do NOT want people making either comments or decisions regarding your life choices, we would like the same respect…
Hey, comment away; I’m a big girl and I can take it (if my mother can’t scare me, nobody can). Though I don’t think I made any comments about your choices and I can’t imagine why I would. Nor I did I see anybody in this thread making comments against women with children. [Okay I have made a couple of remarks about my mother but, trust me, she can take it, too. :) ]
This comment was written by AndiF.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
“I’d like to hear, NYMOM, more about the ways in which you think feminists oppose mother/parenthood. I really don’t think there are any.”
No…most feminists by their support of gender neutral custody have caused millions of mothers to be separated from their children, even the US census shows that previously well over 90% of mother had custody of their children, this has now fallen to between 67 and 70%…and fathers getting custody of children from mothers is growing by leaps and bounds, so it will grow even more causing more mothers and children to be separated…
Feminists must accept responsible for this, on every level, even giving intellectual support to the fathers’ rights movement as well as actual support through female judges, attorney and other public policy makers who have assisted men in this area…
As I said earlier, feminists are the mothers of the fathers’ rights movement….they spawned it by their rhetoric…it’s not a backlash at all but a logical outgrowth of feminist rhetoric…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
“…however, in the fate-loves-a-jest category, now I’m in a relationship where I am functionally a step-parent to a coupla surly teenagers. ouch…”
Yes, bonding with teenagers as infants makes raising them later, tolerable…I can’t imagine interacting with a surly teenager without the early memories of mellow babyhood to tide you over…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
“Hey, comment away; I’m a big girl and I can take it (if my mother can’t scare me, nobody can). Though I don’t think I made any comments about your choices and I can’t imagine why I would. Nor I did I see anybody in this thread making comments against women with children. [Okay I have made a couple of remarks about my mother but, trust me, she can take it, too. :) ] ”
No…I thought the point of the thread was women who chose to remain childless being annoyed that others felt they had the right to comment on their decision…and I agreed with them, no one had the right to make a comment on another women’s decision to remain childless…
I was just curiously as to why so many professional women, who chose NOT to have children think it’s okay to be so intimately involved with the lives of mothers and their children…making public policies, laws, etc., writing columns, etc., when they chose to NOT take the leap of faith to have children themselves…
It works both ways was my point…
Also with fathers…one of the most popular fathers rights advocates has no children himself (Angry Harry) yet he’s constantly telling other men who are fathers about how they should live their lives…
I kind of think it’s the sort of thing you need to experience first before giving advice to others on this aspect of life.
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
“There are a wide variety of opinions regarding the raising and care of children among both mothers and women who don’t have children. In some cases you’ll agree with a mother; in another you might agree with a childless woman. It has nothing to do with these categories in and of themselves.”
I missed this…
Just like very other advocacy group you should have input but the critical decision-making regarding children should belong to the women who actually made the investment in motherhood…not the ones who just do it as a career opportunity.
Sorry…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
“No…most feminists by their support of gender neutral custody have caused millions of mothers to be separated from their children, even the US census shows that previously well over 90% of mother had custody of their children, this has now fallen to between 67 and 70%…and fathers getting custody of children from mothers is growing by leaps and bounds, so it will grow even more causing more mothers and children to be separated…”
NYMOM: Divorce causes parents to be separated from their children. You give no chronology for your statistics, you give no source (other than unspecified US Census data) but even if it is true, I am trying to understand why I or anyone should accept your apparent presumption that the mother child bond is more important than the father child bond. Early feminists did agree that gender neutral custody arrangements were appropriate, however, more than one state law imposing a presumption in favor of the mother was overturned by state courts on their own in keeping with the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution. And what the heck this has to do with child free women is still beyond me. And if a child free woman is a teacher (like my sister) can she still have a say in policies affecting children? What about aunts and and other assorted friends and relatives?
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
“And what the heck this has to do with child free women is still beyond me. ”
That many of the women making these decisions like Judge Arlene Goldberg (of Bridget Marks’ fame) for instance, are feminists who never married or had any children…probably Goldberg’s best friend is her cat. Thus I feel women like this should have NO right to participate in decisions that impact mothers or their children…
I don’t consider it just a ‘legalism’ as you appear to paint it when this happens…but a sundering of the most important bond any child has or probably will ever have, the mother/child one…
Feminist support of gender neutral custody under this ‘equal protection’ clause is wholly responsible for these developments in western civilization….Even the language of ‘equal protection’ serves as a smoke screen really to obscure what is really happening….That many feminist women, who have nothing at stake as they have chosen NOT to have children themselves, persist in making and enforcing public policy that supports a vast gender-neutral social-engineering experiement, which has been foisted off on mothers and their children.
So my initial point is that if you haven’t invested anything in motherhood, you should NOT be allowed to impose any of the rules on others women who have… you have no rights in this area…I don’t care how many degrees you have been awarded…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
most feminists by their support of gender neutral custody have caused millions of mothers to be separated from their children
You keep saying this, but provide absolutely no evidence that it’s true. Since everything I’ve heard is to the contrary, I can’t believe this unless you give some real, contemporary (versus “early feminism”) examples.
You don’t seem to understand that feminism isn’t about supporting all women all the time, regardless of the situation. If that’s what you think it is, then of any time a woman opposes another women you’re going to blame feminists. That’s unfair and plain wrong.
I don’t buy the “MRA derived from feminism” argument. Just because it was created in response to feminism does not mean that feminism is to blame for MRA’s actions. Are you responsible for every decision your (adult) children make?
Just like very other advocacy group you should have input but the critical decision-making regarding children should belong to the women who actually made the investment in motherhood…not the ones who just do it as a career opportunity.
Despite what you think, I did not take a low-paying job in the non-profit sector to further my “career.” I actually want to help people. Why are you trying to alienate someone who’s on your side?
You’re blaming women who don’t have children and feminists for problems they didn’t create, don’t support, and aren’t enforcing. But I guess if you see it that way, you won’t mind my holding you personally responsible for the destruction of the environment, not only now but in the past and future as well. By having children, you’re creating consumers, and they’re breathing my air and eating my food and poluting my rivers.
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 2:49 pm
Hmmm, an interesting possibility just occurred to me: why is it that NYMOM thinks child free women have no right to make decisions that affect mothers but hasn’t said anything about men, child free or otherwise making such decisions? Most judges were and still are men. Were literally none of them involved in this miscarriage of justice and wholesale evisceration of the sacred mother child bond? (And where is that explanation of why the mother child bond is so much more important than the father child bond?) No, it’s the fault of a female judges (only one of whom is named) — who not only didn’t have children, but apparently had no concept of the most important social relationship in the history of mankind (what an irony that is): the mother child bond — what, did they have no mothers either?
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
“You’re blaming women who don’t have children and feminists for problems they didn’t create, don’t support, and aren’t enforcing. But I guess if you see it that way, you won’t mind my holding you personally responsible for the destruction of the environment, not only now but in the past and future as well. By having children, you’re creating consumers, and they’re breathing my air and eating my food and poluting my rivers. ”
You’re right and many of my neighbors DO make this argument and I have no rebuttal…many of them feel ANYONE in western society should have children as one of our kids uses like 30 times what a kid in another society uses in the way of resources…and just because I decided to ignore them and have children anyway doesn’t make their entire argument invalid…
OR mine…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
“…many of them feel ANYONE in western society should have children as one of our kids uses like 30 times what a kid in another society uses in the way of resources…”
I mean to say many of them feel NO ONE in western society should have children…
Typo…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
NYMOM, you should be grateful to all of those pioneering feminists (male and female) who gave you any rights at all with respect to your children. The mother child bond has not been sacred throughout history, in fact, it barely gained a nod of acknowledgement through the course of time.
From that bastion of radical female judges, the Alabama Supreme Court (most citations are omitted.)
At common law, it was the father rather than the mother who held a virtual absolute right to the custody of their minor children. n1 This rule of law was fostered, in part, by feudalistic notions concerning the “natural” responsibilities of the husband at common law. The husband was considered the head or master of his family, and, as such, responsible for the care, maintenance, education and religious training of his children. By virtue of these responsibilities, the husband was given a corresponding entitlement to the benefits of his children, [**7] i.e., their services and association. It is interesting to note that in many instances these rights and privileges were considered dependent upon the recognized laws of nature and in accordance with the presumption that the father could best provide for the necessities of his children
* * *
By contrast, the wife was without any rights to the care and custody of her minor children. By marriage, husband and wife became one person with the legal identity of the woman being totally merged with that of her husband. As a result, her rights were often subordinated to those of her husband and she was laden with numerous marital disabilities. As far as any custodial rights were concerned, Blackstone stated [*689] the law to be that the mother was “entitled to no power [over her children], but only to reverence and respect.” 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England 453 (Tucker ed. 1803).
By the middle of the 19th century, the courts of England began to question and qualify the paternal preference rule. This was due, in part, to the “hardships, not to say cruelty, inflicted upon unoffending mothers by a state of law which took little account of their claims or feelings.” W. Forsyth, A Treatise on the Law Relating to the Custody of Infants in Cases of Difference Between Parents or Guardians 66 (1850).
[There follows a discussion of the evolution of the tender years presumption beginning in the mid-19th century, and its continued viability in 1981, at the time of the decision.]
It is safe to say that the courts of this state, like the courts of sister states, have come full circle in resolving the difficult questions[**20] surrounding child custody. At common law, courts spoke of the natural rights of the father. Now they speak of the instinctive role of the mother.
The question we are confronted with is not dissimilar to the question confronting the English courts over 150 years ago: Is it proper to deny a parent the custody of his or her children on the basis of a presumption concerning the relative parental suitability of the parties? More specifically, can the tender years presumption withstand judicial scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as construed in recent decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States?
* * *
In Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 59 L. Ed. 2d 306, 99 S. Ct. 1102 (1979), the United States Supreme[**21] Court held that any statutory scheme which imposes obligations on husbands, but not on wives, establishes a classification based upon sex which is subject to scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment. The same must also be true for a legal presumption which imposes evidentiary burdens on fathers, but not on mothers. The fact that the presumption discriminates against men rather than women does not protect it from judicial scrutiny. Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 50 L. Ed. 2d 397, 97 S. Ct. 451 (1976).
* * *
Having reviewed the historical development of the presumption as well as its modern status, and having examined the presumption in view of the holdings in Reed, Frontiero, Orr and Caban, we conclude that the tender years presumption represents an unconstitutional gender-based classification which discriminates between fathers and mothers in child custody proceedings solely on the basis of sex.
* * *
Admittedly, the State has a significant interest in overseeing the care and custody of infants. In fulfilling this responsibility in child custody proceedings, the courts of this state, in custody determinations, have applied the “best interests of the child” rule. n8 Brill v. Johnson, 293 Ala. 435, 304 So. 2d 595 (1974); Carter v. Harbin, 279 Ala. 237, 184 So. 2d 145 (1966). We are convinced that the tender years presumption rejects the fundamental proposition asserted in Caban that “maternal and paternal roles are not invariably different in importance.” Caban, supra at 441[**35] U.S. 389. Even if mothers as a class were closer than fathers to young children, this presumption concerning parent-child relations becomes less acceptable as a basis for judicial distinctions as the age of the child increases. Id. Courts have come to rely upon the presumption as a substitute for a searching factual analysis of the relative parental capabilities of the parties, and the psychological and physical necessities of the children. The presumption has thus become what one writer refers to as an “anodyne” for the difficult decisions confronting the court.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
You might also note that when this decision was issued, in 1981, only one other court in the entire country had determined that the “tender years presumption” violated the U.S. Constitution. About half the states had abolished it via statute, or as a result of the state’s own constitution. It is simply false to say that female judges, child free or not, were the primary instrument of change to laws governing divorce and custody.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
“Hmmm, an interesting possibility just occurred to me: why is it that NYMOM thinks child free women have no right to make decisions that affect mothers but hasn’t said anything about men, child free or otherwise making such decisions? Most judges were and still are men. Were literally none of them involved in this miscarriage of justice and wholesale evisceration of the sacred mother child bond? (And where is that explanation of why the mother child bond is so much more important than the father child bond?) No, it’s the fault of a female judges (only one of whom is named) … who not only didn’t have children, but apparently had no concept of the most important social relationship in the history of mankind (what an irony that is): the mother child bond … what, did they have no mothers either?”
Well, I didn’t mention men as we weren’t talking about single men being pressured to have children but women, who were complaining about others who chose to get involved in their personal choice on whether or not to remain childless…but if I have to be honest the patriarchs on the bench (the ones feminists wanted to be chased off so we could replace them with women who were supposed going to be fairer to us) well those patriarchs have proven to be more supportive of mothers then other women once they get into positions of power…
“And where is that explanation of why the mother child bond is so much more important than the father child bond?”
There is no father child bond…
There never has been one.
Fatherhood, unlike motherhood is entirely a social construct and is whatever the surrounding society paints it as, nothing more, nothing less…
For older children and fathers, a bond exists, of course, built up over time and everyday interaction and affection. I would never deny it…but that’s not what I’m talking about right now…I’m talking about young children, even infants, being deprived of their mothers and these children maybe never seeing their mothers again, due to her lost of custody…and why…so some gender neutralized female social engineer can prove a point to herself of how everyone is exactly the same, there are no differences worthy of note in this situation. Or worse, to mine the reactions of these people to submit a paper to some psychological journal, talking about how women are neurotically engaged with their children. I consider these ‘professionals’ to be nothing more then parasites really, feeding off the misery of some poor woman who just lost her kids, so they can earn some research money from writing about her situation…
AND btw, there’s thousands of other professional women just like Arlene Goldberg, she’s just the first that came to mind…she’s a good example, however, of an entire generation of feminists who have managed to securely insulate themselves from life and thus feel safe from the misery they encourage to be inflicted daily on other women…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
“You might also note that when this decision was issued, in 1981, only one other court in the entire country had determined that the “tender years presumption”? violated the U.S. Constitution. About half the states had abolished it via statute, or as a result of the state’s own constitution. It is simply false to say that female judges, child free or not, were the primary instrument of change to laws governing divorce and custody. ”
BTW, I wouldn’t care if GOD the father came down and pronounced as the 11 th commandment that a mothers’ right to her children violated the constitution…I wouldn’t care…it would still be wrong…just to let you know my opinion on the constitutional claims for this…
I’ve lived long enough to know that tomorrow or next month, year, whatever we’ll get a whole new Supreme Court and everything that was a God given right today will be turned on it’s ear tomorrow…
Just to let you know that constitutional rights bs means NOTHIING to me…
AND I never said it was ONLY female judges, lawyers and other professionals who were responsible for so many mothers losing custody of their children, but I did say feminists were historically responsible for the premise behind gender neutral custody, that there were no basic differences in the physical, psychological or emotional lives of women and men…that everything about us was just a culturally imposed norm… that is feminist doctrine…though and though…feminism invented that…not fathers rights advocates…although they did lift it from the feminist playbook for their own purposes…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 4:24 pm
“NYMOM, you should be grateful to all of those pioneering feminists (male and female) who gave you any rights at all with respect to your children. The mother child bond has not been sacred throughout history, in fact, it barely gained a nod of acknowledgement through the course of time. ”
…the wife was without any rights to the care and custody of her minor children. By marriage, husband and wife became one person with the legal identity of the woman being totally merged with that of her husband. As a result, her rights were often subordinated to those of her husband and she was laden with numerous marital disabilities. As far as any custodial rights were concerned, Blackstone stated [*689] the law to be that the mother was “entitled to no power [over her children], but only to reverence and respect.”? 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law of England 453 (Tucker ed. 1803).
Everything you just said is a distortion of our history…and applies to the small propertied class who had anything of value to be merged as you call it…
Feminists and fathers rights advocates have been pushing this bullcrap theory of history since the 80s when child support enforcement suddenly became an issue and everyone and his grandmother wanted ‘custody’ all of a sudden…since that designated who paid child support to which parent…
This is the exact premise every single fathers’ rights advocates uses…like mothers never raised our kids, it was a gift given to us by men and/or feminists…Please…you cannot use the rare example of divorce for a small group of women who had children who were worth something to reflect most of us who were worth little or nothing, married or divorced… and then extrapolate from that minscule group of divorced women to say that no mother ever had custody of her children…
Mothers who divorced were as rare as hens teeth. I think it would be safe to say that custody was not an issue until recently as I was never in any formal legal custody when I was a child (1950s), nor was my older daughter ever in custody (1970s) same thing…
My youngest, however, was legally in my custody since by the time she was born in the 80s every kid HAD to be in some sort of custody since mothers no longer automatically had the rights we’ve had for thousands of years…as in every society MOST mothers raised their own children, even today…it’s a small propertied class that has all these rules you refer to…
So what does your small group of divorce women say about the millions of other mothers. NOTHING…
This is nonsense claiming that mother never had legal ‘custody’ and thus implying that we never raised our children. Most children were in no form of custody unless they had an inheritance or an estate of some kind…so then a conservatorship of sorts (which you can see an echo of in Texas’s name for a custodial parents, conservator) was assigned through the court.
So this is feminist bullcrap that you ‘gave’ women rights to our children…when children were worth nothing, except to their mothers, women always raised their own children…you gave us nothing we didn’t already have…Actually you took away the presumption from us that we would always have rights to our own children without going to court, it was always a mothers’ right unless she was unfit…
NOW, every mother has to prove herself perfect in a court of law in order to be entitled to her children…that’s what feminists gave mothers…a big expensive, stressful pain in the rear.
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 5:42 pm
NYMOM, you have said in the past that at one time you were a stay-at-home mom. Do you feel that mothers who do not work outside the home should have no say and no vote on issues involving employment discrimination against women? Or on issues involving anything that could be considered of substantial interest to employed women, such as family leave benefits, health insurance for their children, etc.? Because my feeling is that if you were to take that position, “yep! it’s none of my business, I’m not employed!” you would be contributing to your own oppression, and the oppression of other women.
Some of the women who are childless will never change their mind. Some of them will. Some of them are childless for medical reasons. Some of them are childless by circumstance. Doesn’t matter. They still live in this world, and if this world is a hostile place for children and their mothers, that will affect them too (provided they don’t live isolated in some remote cave somewhere).
I’m a mother. I’ve got a dog in this fight. However, I don’t think my opinion on our educational system, family leave, access to health care, environmental policy or anything else related to the raising of children is any more relevant now that I have a child, than before I had a child. I still wanted to see the types of laws and social policy enacted that benefit children, the same way I want to see laws and social policy enacted that benefit the elderly even though I’m not old yet! Assuming that because a person doesn’t have children, that they don’t give a damn about children is ludicrous. Hell, there’s plenty of people who’ve had many children, yet don’t give a damn about their own, let alone children as a class.
I also think it’s ridiculous to hold female judges who haven’t given birth up to a higher standard, or higher level of criticism, than male judges, none of whom have ever given birth.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 5:50 pm
What LaLubu said.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
NYMOM, you are entitled to your opinions, but those who make custody decisions have to apply the law, whether you find it appealing or not. Your views on motherhood clearly do not jibe with mine, and I’m a mother too. There is lots of unfairness in world of custody disputes, where judges have to play Solomon every day, but none of it serves as a justification for accusing those women who aren’t mothers of being so lacking in empathy and so full of spite or bias that they should have no say in what happens in custody decisions (unless it’s to award custody to mothers). To look at the evolution of custody law over the last 30 years and come out gunning for female judges without their own children brings to my mind the late medieval European world, when young mothers were the most frequent accusers of older women of witchcraft. Wherever it is in the world, however it comes about, there are some people who cannot but blame social upheaval and distress on women, and usually, women with any degree of status or power.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 5th, 2005 at 6:42 pm
“To look at the evolution of custody law over the last 30 years and come out gunning for female judges without their own children brings to my mind the late medieval European world, when young mothers were the most frequent accusers of older women of witchcraft. Wherever it is in the world, however it comes about, there are some people who cannot but blame social upheaval and distress on women, and usually, women with any degree of status or power. ”
Well unfortunately it’s general female Judges behind MOST of the more spite-ridden decisions…Glenn Sacks said it himself regarding the Bridget Marks’ case…so it’s not just ‘witchcraft’ as you put it, I mean let’s just turn on our TV sets to see how that crazy Judge Judy treats most young women who come in front of her…picture her in family court (where she spent many years working here in NY) and you have a picture of what many women here experience when they enter a courtroom. The NY Chapter of NOW has come out against New York changing its fault laws on divorce, btw, for precisely that reason because of the bias women face in the NY courts and, sadly, I have to say MUCH of it come from other women…
Many of the worse decisions emanating from our family courts in NY and across the country are spite-filled, politically correct, hateful to mothers rulings coming from feminist Judges…
Sorry to say it, but it’s the truth…
I was as shocked as anyone when I realized it…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 4:10 am
NYMOM, cite one study, law review article or whatever that systematically tried to demonstrate sex-linked bias of female judges in custody cases and no or less sex-linked bias among male judges, (and that controlled for whether or not the judge had children). Because the only bias I can discern here is your bias against women who haven’t devoted more of their lives to their own family, even if they spend countless hours in service of others. My sister-in-law handles a lot of custody cases (no, she’s not a judge) and this is one complaint she’s never made — indeed, the only complaint of bias she’s ever made is the fact that it’s impossible for fathers to get custody in one of the rural counties where she works. Her experience isn’t universal, it can’t even be extrapolated to other counties, but neither is yours. Put up or . . . whatever.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 7:12 am
“NYMOM, cite one study, law review article or whatever that systematically tried to demonstrate sex-linked bias of female judges in custody cases and no or less sex-linked bias among male judges, (and that controlled for whether or not the judge had children). Because the only bias I can discern here is your bias against women who haven’t devoted more of their lives to their own family, even if they spend countless hours in service of others. My sister-in-law handles a lot of custody cases (no, she’s not a judge) and this is one complaint she’s never made … indeed, the only complaint of bias she’s ever made is the fact that it’s impossible for fathers to get custody in one of the rural counties where she works. Her experience isn’t universal, it can’t even be extrapolated to other counties, but neither is yours. Put up or . . . whatever. ”
Typical response…when you have no defense demand a study…
AND your sister in law is lying to you btw, as there is NO WHERE in the US that fathers don’t get custody…Actually litigation favors them as has been pointed out in countless studies…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 7:52 am
Of course, you don’t even know where in the country my SIL lives, HINT: it isn’t New York , it’s not even close, and yet YOU KNOW that she’s lying. Typical response, make completely unsourced allegations that you have no way to back up and then get your back up when someone asks for something approaching validation. As I suspected, this is all about your bias, no one else’s.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 8:00 am
BTW NYMOM, evidence wouldn’t be hard to come by. You would start by simply determining the percentage of times that female versus male judges awarded custody to a mother or a father. You would have to define various types of custody arrangements, and you’d probably need some sort of “alternative, nec” arrangement bucket, but even knowing raw numbers would be a way to start assessing what you are alleging. You would need to have judges working in the same court system, with the overall same sample of parents (e.g., demographic and income differences could make a big difference even within the same metropolitan area, and certainly within the same state, as my SIL can tell you firsthand).
You would investigate discrepancies by pulling a number of random cases and try to come up with a check list of factors and note how judges handled them, by gender of judge and gender of parent awarded or denied custody. It would be hard to do it without bias when you know whether the judge is male or female, but you can at least make a prima facie case. That is, if you were interested in improving the system or educating those who work within it instead of just basking in the righteousness of your bias.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 10:04 am
NYMOM, you have also failed to account for a very clear phenomenon that occurs in custody cases: most custody cases are not contested and in most of these the mother has primary custody. It is entirely possible that many of the remaining cases are contested precisely because a father views a mother as an inferior parent (if he didn’t there would have been a higher likelihood of consensus on custody). Thus, it is entirely possible that a higher percentage of children of divorced parents live primarily with their mother even as a higher percentage of children in contested cases are awarded to their fathers as primary guardian. There are a lot of potential lurking variables in something this complex.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 10:30 am
What county your sister in law lives in I think you meant to say…as if it’s a different country obviously anything is possible…but our census covers everywhere in the US, not JUST New York.
Although everywhere but western society the cases that GO to court (where propertied children are involved) men win…and NOW we have feminists and fathers rights advocates ensuring that the same thing pretty much goes on here in western societies as well…but now it includes ALL children, as every women now is required to be ‘approved’ by people like your sister in law in order to continue being a mother to her children…
A new ‘right’ that feminists won for women as you stated in a previous post.
One we should be grateful for, thanks…
I wonder what the next new right is that you have in store for us…being drafted probably, that will be next…
AND no, it’s not so simple to get these figures as you say since Judges and others cover up pretty well what goes on in family courts…pretending to be concerned about the privacy of children…
AND of course, I’m biased, I never said I wasn’t…
I consider a mother to be the natural and best guardian for her children, just as it has always been since we first crawled out of the primal mists…why should we ‘fix’ something that isn’t broken just because men, encouraged by feminists gender neutral propaganda, decided they want to try something different now…so everyone has to happily jump through the hoops you all set up…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 10:43 am
NYMOM, you have also failed to account for a very clear phenomenon that occurs in custody cases: most custody cases are not contested and in most of these the mother has primary custody.
Yes, that USED to be the case…but now (because men are more assured of victories due to gender-neutral feminists along with fathers rights advocates’ propaganda) more and more custody cases are being litigated.
It is entirely possible that many of the remaining cases are contested precisely because a father views a mother as an inferior parent (if he didn’t there would have been a higher likelihood of consensus on custody). Thus, it is entirely possible that a higher percentage of children of divorced parents live primarily with their mother even as a higher percentage of children in contested cases are awarded to their fathers as primary guardian. There are a lot of potential lurking variables in something this complex.
Oh, of course, MORE mothers have custody NOW…but you’ve left a mine field for young women going forward…where none of them is assured that she’ll be allowed to continue mothering her own children…What do you think I’m involved with this for myself…I’m a grandmother, my children are grown…it’s concern about the legacy feminists have left for them and other young women going forward, that’s the main problem…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 10:45 am
Let me explain to you I’m not interested in studies to do a paper or book on so I can submit to some Journal…that is NOT what this is about…
Okay…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 10:56 am
Still waiting for some evidence to back up your seemingly baseless claims, NYMOM. Don’t you have any?
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 11:24 am
No, it’s clearly not about getting studies or evidence to back up claims of bias.
I did 10 minutes of web research and found the following:
1. Studies show no overall systematic bias against mothers by judges, except by age, which is to say, that older judges favor the mother. No category of judges would admit a bias in favor of fathers.
2. There are no allegations (much less findings) that judges of either gender are especially likely to show bias. (This was NYMOM’s main point.)
3. There are allegations of systematic bias by advocates of both mothers and fathers but neither seems to have conducted robust studies (at least not recently).
4. There may be a problem in states that “outsource” custody evaluation to supposedly neutral parties who aren’t really neutral. Many individuals may feel that this personal bias translates into systematic bias.
5. There is not enough tracking to test propositions 1 thorugh 4 with any degree of real confidence.
6. Many women who litigate contested custody disputes where there are allegations of domestic violence feel threatened and intimidated particularly where they are forced to engage in mediation. They may give up rights out of fear. Some judges do not take such violence into account in assessing fitness or the impact of custody decisions, and the law often provides very little guidance, particularly where there has been no conviction.
7. Whatever statistics exist point to contested custody disputes resulting in the father getting greater custodial rights 40-70% of the time. Now, I don’t know about you, but that leaves me with a lot of questions. Assuming equal parental involvement, one might expect a number in the range of 50%. But that’s a wide swing and suggests that someone hasn’t organized their data very well (or the data isn’t very good).
8. Bias against either mothers or fathers is a problem if it exists. But there is just no evidence that whatever bias that exists is attributable to female judges, much less does it depend on whether a female judge has children.
9. Dressing up a problem of inherent bias against mothers in custody disputes, if it exists, as the result of female achievement and rejection of gender stereotypes is pathetic.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 11:26 am
Not okay, not if you want anyone to take you seriously.
It’s about offering proof–any proof–of the claims you keep making. No one is insisting on footnotes, or parenthetical citations, or a peer-review. A couple of links, please, or an article, or a section of some law somewhere. Something. Anything. That’s not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is your apparent belief that repeating something often enough is the same as substantiating it.
Prove:
1) That more men are getting custody because of gender-neutral custody laws.
2) That feminists as a class prefer gender-neutral custody laws, or even that some prominent feminists do.
3) That female and/or feminist judges believe in gender-neutral custody laws or in giving women less presumptive custody.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 11:48 am
Whether or not custody laws are gender-neutral, parents are still forced into taking adversarial positions over who gets custody. As awful as it is, it is still better than automatically handing the kids over to either parent. Maybe someday we can come up with a better system!
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 1:02 pm
“Prove:
1) That more men are getting custody because of gender-neutral custody laws.
2) That feminists as a class prefer gender-neutral custody laws, or even that some prominent feminists do.
3) That female and/or feminist judges believe in gender-neutral custody laws or in giving women less presumptive custody. ”
Well you only have to look at our last census (2000) to see that father custody has increased by 67%…I didn’t THINK there was any disagreement about that issue, that more fathers are getting custody…
The other two are pretty self evidently true.
I mean must every comment someone makes be followed by a study…
The sky is blue…where’s the study citing that…
Let’s get real please…
Feminists DO support gender neutral custody, they invented it actually…that’s a given…and this has NOW led to EVERY woman having to justify keeping custody of her children…every mother has to accept that we can be taken to court at ANY time for ANY reason or NO reason at all and be forced to justify being allowed to have custody of our children…it’s very simple…
Custody of our children has now morphed into a club against mothers which can be used at anytime against us….
I wish feminist would just accept that this has happened and accept SOME responsibility for it, instead of endlessly trying to deny it…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
Well damn people! Yes I am alive by the way. I’m finally finished with my first year of college and moved back home for the summer. Interesting discussion. Thanks for the feedback on this topic.
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
NYMOM, if you refuse to acknowledge the fact that feminists did not invent, nor do they all automatically support, “gender neutral custody”–if you can come up with no examples of feminists ruining mothers’ lives beyond this completely specious claim–if you refuse to back up your posts with any evidence beyond “Because I said so”–then that’s pretty much it, isn’t it?
You’re calling the sky green, and apparently no one can convince you otherwise.
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
Never mind. You can’t be expected to provide a few links, because you can’t even be expected to read what I write.
This is what I asked you to prove:
Correlation. Causation.
These claims your making are much more contentious than the color of the sky.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 5:36 pm
“Well damn people! Yes I am alive by the way. ”
Well I expected you to show up and say SOMETHING before the 100th post at least…
LOL…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
“1) That more men are getting custody because of gender-neutral custody laws.
Correlation. Causation.
These claims your making are much more contentious than the color of the sky. ”
Well what would you say it’s due to???
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
A lot of feminists, at least in the academic community, have favored gender-neutral custudy laws. I favor them myself.
(In particular, I favor an idea called the primary caretaker rule, a gender-neutral rule that would create a presumption that the parent who was the primary caretaker should be awarded custody. I first encountered this idea in the writings of Martha Fineman, who is a feminist.)
I don’t think that more fathers having custody is in and of itself a bad thing, considering how low the father-custody figures were to start with.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 11:10 pm
Oh my gosh!!!
Someone, quick, call the MRAs and tell them that the feminists are on their side! NYMOM says so, so it must be true.
Snark aside, I am appalled at your comments, NYMOM, in which you deny the existense of a “father-child bond”. You seriously believe that you can claim that there does exist a mother-child bond, but that there exists NO such thing for fathers? Why on earth not? Are you assuming this “bond” is a purely biological one that can only work with female biology? Is it because of giving birth? What about adopted children? Is there no “bond” there? Or are you actually implying that men can’t parent as well as women? That they love their children less? I find that incredibly anti-male and insulting.
Actually, you are right. Despite the horrible things that MRAs say about feminists, it seems that I (and most feminists I know) am on their side here. I fully support the theory of gender-neutral custody. You (anti-feminist) call it “ruining mothers’ lives”. I (feminist) call it “supporting equality of the sexes”.
Note to MRAs: See? Feminism IS good for you. (Unless you aren’t really interested in equality, and merely like to bash women.)
This comment was written by emma.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2005 at 8:51 am
”
I will cut pro-fertility people some slack only when they stop making comments like “one hug from a three year old and all the worlds troubles go away, you’ll see, you just have to have one.”?
There are those of us who do not wish to fertilize the earth with our spawn. And there are those of us who wish others would stop fertlizing the earth with *their* spawn.”
When you use words like “spawn”, you sound a little hostile, a little like a person who doesn’t like children, and a lot like someone who just doesn’t get how much parents love their children. Some of them are clods, some of them have too many children which is in a way greedy and irresponsible, and a few of them might even not love their kids. But if you’ve ever been in love, then you have a small taste of what most of us feel for our vulnerable, noisy, aggravating and amazing children. So stop using words that equate them with something evil or something animalistic and yes, cut overzealous parents some slack, because most of them have only kind motives, however myopic they can be.
This comment was written by Elena.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2005 at 10:12 am
This is a frustrating thread to read, and I think everyone likely would have sympathy for NYMOM’s situation (if we knew what it was, since her comments seem to be related to what’s happened toher), rather than her resultant views.
It all brings back what a mentor told me my first summer in law school when I worked for a non-profit that did some family law: never have children with someone you don’t want to have daily contact with for the rest of your life. (actually, he said “never have children with assholes — it’ll drive you insane”), but the cause of the insanity is having to deal with them forever.
This comment was written by halle.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2005 at 10:59 am
halle, I understand what you are saying, but reflexive disdain for accomplished women by those who feel themselves aggrieved and powerless has a long and storied history — someone complaining of bias and unfairness in custody decisions has my sympathy, somebody lashing out at female judges, and then feminists generally, as the source of all the inequity in our still quite uneven playing field of gender relations just makes me mad.
Amp, not to hijack this thread further, by my family law professor (a big proponent of joint custody) had issues with the concept of the primary caretaker presumption. A short synopisis: given the choices that men and women make, this essentially operates as a presumption in favor of mother custody, and while it can be defended on reasonable grounds as being in the best interests of the child, after divorce, a person’s role as a “primary caretaker” cannot be replicated as it was before divorce — they must spend a greater proportion of their time on generally work related responsibilities, and children (and in her view mothers) would be better off with more evenly distributed parental responsibility so the primary caretaker has a chance to make up for a previous lack of commitment to these other responsibilities. Her view was that “primary caretaker,” like all de jure or de facto presumptions in favor of maternal custody tended in the long run to reinforce female loss of income after divorce, and subsequent dependence on male breadwinners. Just giving you an alternative perspective (I’m not sure I agree with her, but she was a very astute lady).
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2005 at 11:18 am
But “primary caretaker” reinforces female loss of income during marriage as well as after divorce. It’s not as though the bite only comes when she’s married.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2005 at 11:30 am
mythago, of course you are right. But unlike during marriage, after divorce, the court expects a certain level of effort at economic independence by each of the parties, and the money is no longer considered “unified” — it never really was, but it certainly isn’t any more. There is no doubt that women drop out of the work force at their economic peril.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
Right, which is something that child support is supposed to include; you’re not just paying for shoes and lunches, but for the other parent’s reduced economic opportunity because she has the bulk of childcare.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 7th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
Well, I guess support is supposed to include that, but I don’t think it really does, not for most people. Most people don’t have enough income to offset the additional money required to maintain two households after divorce.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2005 at 7:10 am
Barbara,
I completely agree with you — my only point was to say that when you have kids with someone, there’s no way you’re going to be able to get them completely out of your life afterward. And it’s not the “court” or “women judges” that are forcing you to deal with that person — it’s the fact that you had a child with that person.
I have a male friend who has a child with a woman (never married). She beats the child (leaving marks); he has brought this to the court’s attention yet the court warns her and leaves the child with her. No doubt this is because it’s a male judge??? Anyway, custody is sticky and messy and all supposed to be focused on what’s best for the child. Which is hard to determine.
-h
This comment was written by halle.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2005 at 7:33 am
Halle, true, having a baby with someone guarantees that you are going to have to deal with them for at least a long time, just like divorce (or permanent break up of the relationship) more or less guarantees in most cases that one parent is going to suffer a diminished relationship with their children. No judge, however, fair, is going to rewrite the essential script you already wrote for your life and give it a fairy tale ending. If only there was an easy way to assess someone’s asshole potential when you have stars in your eyes. I’m sure we all have some fairly eye-popping and jaw-dropping stories to tell about revolting divorce related behavior.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2005 at 8:39 am
“I don’t think that more fathers having custody is in and of itself a bad thing, considering how low the father-custody figures were to start with.”
No…I don’t think any father would think that’s a bad thing, since men invest little or nothing in the entire process anyway, so whatever the legal system rewards you with, after the fact, is gravy…
The question is what do the mothers think about it; since we are the ones whose actions will essentially drive the processs going forward. If women are content with the current system as it evolves, no problem. I don’t ultimately think they will be, but others obviously feel differently, so we’ll see what the future hold…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2005 at 8:55 am
“This is a frustrating thread to read, and I think everyone likely would have sympathy for NYMOM’s situation (if we knew what it was, since her comments seem to be related to what’s happened toher), rather than her resultant views.”
As I have already said many time, my children are ADULTS…they lived with me their entire lives and I raised them alone…I am a grandmother… so no, it’s not for me that’s I’m on a crusade…but for my daughters, grandaughter and other young women, our future mothers…
BTW, this situation is definitely being driven by feminists. Of course men are reaping advantage from it for economic reasons, but what’s driving it is women like Barbara who writes:
“Amp, not to hijack this thread further, by my family law professor (a big proponent of joint custody) had issues with the concept of the primary caretaker presumption. A short synopisis: given the choices that men and women make, this essentially operates as a presumption in favor of mother custody”
So as you can see from the above comment, even a compromise would NOT be favored by feminists…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2005 at 9:57 am
Actually, I was explaining the views of a professor of mine and at the end I said that I was not sure I agreed with her, and this is extremely clear in the context of the post. In your world, apparently, all women mimic the Holy Mother and men get married only to spread their seed and move on, and make efforts where children are concerned only to thwart and hurt their ex-wives.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
I mean why should my two daughters and granddaughter have to pay extra for someone else’s pension; when that person chose not to have any kids and spent their money on new clothes, nice vacations and condos that I could not afford since I was raising the future citizen/taxpayers who were going to pay for these things, like retirements or nursing home/medical care, etc.????
Hey. Why should I pay taxes that go towards public schools and child health services, help the government give tax breaks to those with children, or be support them if they need to go on social welfare?
Oh, that’s right — because it’s my duty as a citizen. How about that.
This comment was written by miss p..Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
NYMOM: “I don’t think any father would think that’s a bad thing, since men invest little or nothing in the process anyway…”
Oy Vey.
NYMOM, do you not see how prejudiced that statement is? I feel very badly for you that your experiences and worldview have led you to believe that fathers invest nothing in the process. It must be horrible to have seen multiple men abuse custody and divorce vulnerablities. However, I also feel outraged that you feel so easily justified to tar all fathers with the same brush. What you are doing is as bad as the MRAs that claim that all women are bitches that want custody just to punish the man. Honestly, I have half a mind to think you are an undercover MRA making these horrible statements as an attempt to demonize women who fight for custody!
This comment was written by emma.Report this comment to the moderators
May 8th, 2005 at 9:26 pm
Saving Cells for later [Cancer, donors, etc.]
http://www.wirednews.com/news/print/0,1294,67452,00.html
This comment was written by JoE.Report this comment to the moderators
May 9th, 2005 at 5:58 am
NYMOM, I do know men who invest very little of themselves in their children. I, and many other women I know, would never marry and raise children with such a man (assuming predictive capability). No presumption in favor of awarding custody to the mother may seem galling to a woman in a marriage where both spouses agreed to assume very traditional gender roles. And where a husband is a true jerk, he may be willing and able to exploit the mother’s fear of losing custody to make unfair demands and impose real sacrifices on his ex-wife and his family.
But surely it is just as unfair to impose a contrary presumption in favor of the mother where the spouses did not agree to such a narrow, gender based stratification of their family roles. Your characterization of all men as being more or less the same is offputting, to me, as a female who knows many men who are not like your cartoon character fathers, and to the many men whose appreciation of fairness would lead them to conclude that custody should in a given set of circumstances be awarded to the mother.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 9th, 2005 at 9:57 am
NYMOM - you seem to have very strong beliefs regarding mother-child bond. I do not know where you personally are coming from, but it really is bothering me. I have always considered myself a feminist - I mean, I grew up in a country where equality of genders was one of the important bits of Constitution from the birth of that country. I did always think that mothers have a special relationship with their children until I moved to US.
The most this “mother-child sacred bond” myth suffered for me when I met my future husband. I do not want to clutter this board more than it already is, and if you want a detailed account, please feel free to e-mail me at elfinity7_at_yahoo.com, but in short, I can tell you this - my step-son’s biological mother has never cared for her born son in any capacity other than a tool of manipulation, personal toy, or status symbol. She has hurt him and emotionally abused him to such a degree that I used to cry, because I couldn’t do anything to help the boy.
My son is exceptionally bright and sensitive. I care for him more than any words can describe. The sacrifices I’ve done for him I won’t talk about, because they are not relevant other than to say that just because I didn’t give birth to him doesn’t mean I don’t love him.
However, I can openly state that just because I did not give birth to that child, I have ZIP legal rights in regards to him. The woman who is the cause of a couple of mental disorders for the boy, on the other hand, has every possible right to continue to screw him up.
My husband an I fought a big custody battle (we were still paying our lawyer a year later) because apparently the fact that my son was repeatedly left alone with his mom’s then boyfriend who is a sex offender was not enough for the judge (as far as I know, a proud mother of one) to say, wow, I don’t think this woman should be allowed to be around her son. It was also not enough for the judge that she shipped her son off to us in the middle of February with no warm clothes and disappeared for about a year - among many other things.
Also, one of the kids in my son’s daycare has divorced parents. The mother doesn’t really care about the kid, but wouldn’t give up custody. As a trade-off, the dad has given up the house, the car, and pays alimony, even though the child is with him all week except for Tuesday and Thursday. Also, I know a guy whose wife got into drugs, and refused to go into rehab, which caused a divorce, but the kids still stayed with her, even though the reason the guy wanted the divorce in the first place was to get the kids away from that athmosphere.
We can sit here and sling mud on either gender, but the truth is, there are bad fathers and bad mothers, and if we, as society, keep looking at custody matters (or any child matters) from gender perspective, we will never get anywhere, and the ones who will keep suffering (make no mistake, they have always been) are the children. As much as this system LOVES chanting child-protecting slogans, the kids are the ones who are worst off.
Also, I think this society is hurt by this obsessive way a woman’s worth is measured by her ability to be a mother. I think many women, who only become mothers because of pressure of society or those around them, would benefit if they didn’t feel that need to prove their worth. Not to mention how many children would benefit if such a presumption were removed.
This comment was written by elfinity.Report this comment to the moderators
May 9th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
I’m not really very interested in continuing this discussion…
Everybody has their own opinion obviously and I’m not going to change anybody’s else and you’re not going to change mine…
Regarding the one step-person who responded; I’m not really very interested in your opinions on this issue…
Thanks anyway…
Peace everyone else…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 10th, 2005 at 1:55 am
Wow. I…wow.
I don’t know quite what to say. elfinity, I’m just a lurker here, but I wanted you to know that I, at any rate, very much appreciated your input.
This comment was written by Elkins.Report this comment to the moderators
May 10th, 2005 at 10:44 am
Thanks, Elkins,
I was not trying to impress anyone, or rub anyone’s nose in anything. But I have been learning all my life not to presume anything, no matter what one’s personal experience is. Even the things ones knows to be “facts”.
NYMOM - I do not believe you ever wanted to have a discussion, unless it went your way. I find it interesting that you threw in the towel after someone had concrete personal life experience that was contradictory to your ideas that - to an open-minded person - could have been an eye-opener. It certainly made my mother to reconsider her views on the motherhood.
This comment was written by elfinity.Report this comment to the moderators
May 10th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
No…
I just got bored with the 125 replies, no one saying anything contrary to the basic premise except me…
Not ONE of you even commented on the similarities between MRAs and feminists on gender-neutral custody…you just responded by well, my sister in law said or I helped my husband get custody…yada, yada, yada…
I’m not that interested in your personal situations as I wanted to discuss the BIG ISSUES here not every individual custody ruling and situation…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 10th, 2005 at 1:36 pm
NYMOM, many of us discussed the big issues without reference to personal anecdotes. You seem unable to paint except with a very broad brush. If you think there are similarities between feminists and MRAs, give some sources or quotes that show the similarity. Most of the feminists I know hate MRAs. No one here is bound to accept everything you say just because you say it.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 10th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
…I’ve never met a feminist who didn’t loathe MRA’s.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 10th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
NYMOM, the reason I didn’t mention any similarity of MRA with feminist gender-neutral custody laws is because there is none. MRAs take the view of old English common law, where the children and the wife are the property of the husband. In the event of divorce, the children remain his property. Feminists tend to be strong proponents of the primary caretaker view (although some, as Barbara pointed out, object to this as an assumption of women’s custody, and women’s “proper” roles). NOW, as Trish has pointed out umpteen times on her blog, has been strangely quiet on the issue over the years.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 10th, 2005 at 3:35 pm
…Right. Plus, there are two different definitions of neutrality in play here. Feminists who advocate the “primary caretaker” standard believe that it should be applied gender-neutrally: if the husband happened to be the primary caretaker, he has greater rights to custody. MRA’s who advocate “neutrality” frequently argue that neither parent should have greater rights even if one was the primary caretaker. They believe that the “primary caretaker” standard is evil and unfair to the extent that it tends to favor mothers. They feel that the court should work to correct any gender-related disparate impact issue, no matter how it affects the child.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 10th, 2005 at 4:15 pm
“NYMOM, many of us discussed the big issues without reference to personal anecdotes. You seem unable to paint except with a very broad brush. If you think there are similarities between feminists and MRAs, give some sources or quotes that show the similarity. Most of the feminists I know hate MRAs. No one here is bound to accept everything you say just because you say it. ”
I don’t have to quote other people, my own thoughts and quotes are sufficient, as should be the case with most discussion…This fixiation of people today with citing sources is really a way to limit discussion that you don’t disagree with by setting the bar too high for anyone to say anything…
Anyway, feminists might hate MRAs, as you say, I have no idea, but their support of gender-neutral custody aligns up very nicely with the MRA world view…
I happen to think most feminists understand this very well and how this hurts women. So to counterbalance this, feminists have chosen (NOW and most womens’ rights organizations as well) to become overly emeshed with the issue of domestic violence.
It has morphed into a method for feminists to pretend that they support mothers, while at the same time undermining us by supporting gender neutral custody which hurts mothers…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 10th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
“…I’ve never met a feminist who didn’t loathe MRA’s. ”
Perhaps it’s like the difference between communism versus socialism…or military dictatorship versus religious theocracy…a difference in degree only…but many basic themes very similar…like men and women exactly the same vis-a-vis children, the army, any sort of work, emotional life, recreational sex, etc.,
Men are women are NOT interchangeable, emerging exactly alike from the same cookie cutter process…and both MRAs and feminists push this theory…if you read both of them carefully you will see the same underlying themes….
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 10th, 2005 at 4:41 pm
This only makes sense if you believe that no feminist is a mother…
Can you explain what you mean by ‘overly emeshed’?
This comment was written by Spicy.Report this comment to the moderators
May 10th, 2005 at 4:48 pm
“Carefully” or “selectively”? Or “senselessly”?
This is not true. The comments threads on this blog go over this accursed meme every single time a feminist issue comes up; it’s been a favorite strawman for anti-feminists and feminist-bashers since before the ERA Fight. The last big battle was over the Larry Summers flap.
Feminists do not believe that men and women are the same. They believe–generally speaking–that men and women are not innately different. They believe–generally speaking–that most if not all of the differences between men and women are socially created and maintained. The fact that women are overwhelmingly the primary caretakers of children, for example: that disparity requires a society that burdens women with childcare and tells men that attentive fathers are pussies.
Feminists do not ignore that disparity, and they never have. Greater social support for child-caretakers has been a dearly-held cause for feminist activists since day one. So has greater social valuation of childcare. Why? Because feminists care about women. The people taking care of children are overwhelmingly female. Therefore, feminists care about people who take care of children.
MRA’s, on the other hand, do ignore this disparity. They think that sexism and power imbalances, current and historical, should be ignored. They think that society should be gender-blind, even in cases where sexism has created an unequal partnership. All of that is antithetical to feminism. The two groups are not shoots off the same branch. Their philosophies are polar opposites.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 10th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
actually, I’ve always thought the reason MRAs and feminists don’t get along is because MRAs make an active attempt to demonize feminists and indeed women in general, even if ultimately, the goals of feminists are really in the best interests of the MRAs.
after all, proper gender neutrality would make a gender neutral version of primary caretaker just as likely to side with women as with men. So the goal of feminists would help any MRAs.
it’s sort of like how the klan always demonized unions, even though the klan primarily tries to recruit blue collar factory workers in rural areas, the people who would benefit most from a strong, national union.
This comment was written by karpad.Report this comment to the moderators
May 11th, 2005 at 3:52 am
Not to mention that most MRA groups usually consist of members who are simply, personally, and often viscerally angry at the way they were treated in custody and support proceeding. So far as I can tell, there is no larger goal except to harass and demonize the perceived female bias within the system. There’s no effort, for instance, to increase society’s acceptance of men in the role of primary caregiver by advocating for family friendly workplaces. No, it appears that the average man in MRA groups is perfectly happy with the “system” until he walks into court and is shocked to find that it strives for fairness and frequently does accept a primary caretaker view of custody (or for instance, that domestic violence really is wrong). Equality can be perceived as unfairness when you are used to something “better.”
Whatever you can say about feminism, it is larger than custody fights with a much wider goal of helping women.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 11th, 2005 at 10:36 am
“Whatever you can say about feminism, it is larger than custody fights with a much wider goal of helping women.”
I hate to rock your world by telling you this but there is NOTHING larger for a woman once she becomes a mother then whether or not she be allowed to raise her own children…NOTHING…and MOST women will eventually be mothers.
So looking at the numbers here, this issue ALONE, could ultimately prove to be the “Waterloo” for the entire womens’ movement…since all those other ‘rights’ you keep telling women to be grateful for are going to be meaningless if we lose our children because feminists supported men in this whole gender neutral social-engineering custody experiment…
Meaningless…
I’m sorry to have to be the one to hit you with the bad news…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 11th, 2005 at 10:42 am
“The two groups are not shoots off the same branch. Their philosophies are polar opposites.”
I hate to tell you this, but yeah both groups are offshoots of the same twisted branch…
Sorry to disappoint you but feminism is the seedling where much of the bs that emanates from both MRAs and the Fathers Rights movement springs….
Feminism is their twisted mother…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 11th, 2005 at 10:46 am
“Can you explain what you mean by ‘overly emeshed’?
Making the issue of domestic violence the only legitimate reason for NOW and other womens’ groups to say anything regarding custody issues and how they impact ALL women…
As most of us are NOT victims of domestic violence maybe just victims of greedy men who use custody of children as a club against women to further men’s financial interest…so who speaks for those women????
So far it only appears to be the IRS….
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 11th, 2005 at 11:02 am
No, that would be sexism. Sexism is responsible for devaluing motherhood and childcare. Sexism is responsible for the sense of male entitlement that leads MRA’s to demand itemization and “choice for men.” Sexism is responsible for men who think of divorce as revolt and loss of custody as theft. Feminism is responsible for getting women the equity they currently have–you know, the kind that allows them to leave marriages that are unpleasant, period, because of abuse or not? The kind that sees marriage as a partnership between two essentially equal people, rather than as an owner-chattel arrangement between a man and his brood mare, excuse me, wife?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
May 11th, 2005 at 11:33 am
NYMOM, I’m not child free. I’m a mother of three and nothing you say is going to “rock my world.” Like I said, you paint with a brush as big as a house.
Divorce not custody disputes is the cause of diminishing parental relationships. Someone almost always loses in a custody proceeding, and you apparently assuage yourself with the idea that it just doesn’t matter if the father is the one left out. I don’t see how you can say that, especially for boys. I also notice how you keep fixating on the mother child bond with the emphasis on mother. Custody isn’t supposed to be about the parent, but the child. It isn’t clear to me that from the child’s perspective the bond with either parent is more important.
Second, custody is always wrenching, but it is not an issue in the majority of marriages that don’t end in divorce. Moreover, there are many women who are child free — or have “aged out” of any concerns they might have once had that pertain to custody. To say that custody is the most important issue for all women is hyperbole.
Most of the divorced mothers I know do have primary custody of their children, and as far as I can tell, most (not all) have managed to make some kind of peace with their ex-husbands. I am never going to take a position that any mother who wants custody should get it 100 percent of the time. I don’t think it’s true.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 11th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
NYMOM, are you ever going to list “the similarities between MRAs and feminists on gender-neutral custody”? This is an absolutely essential question for your position on the issue, and by continuing to not answer it you’re slamming the door on conversation.
Just fill this out, please, and then perhaps we can get on with the discussion in which you express such interest:
Regarding gender-neutral custody, both feminists and MRAs believe that _____.
I [do/do not] believe that mothers should always get custody of their children regardless of the circumstances.
Here, I’ll do it, too:
Regarding gender-neutral custody, feminists and MRAs have completely different opinions. Feminists believe that rules and regulations should never discourage a court from awarding custody to mothers simply because they’re women, and they believe that custody cases must take into account everything about the individuals involved and their relationship. MRAs, on the other hand, believe that fathers should always get custody.
I do not believe that mothers should always get custody of their children regardless of the circumstances. I believe that, in some cases, the mother would be a worse choice for custodial parent than the father. I do not believe that this is true for all cases–in fact, it’s often just the opposite–nor do I automatically assume that it’s true in any case.
From what you’ve been saying, you (not-feminist mother) and I (not-mother feminist) are in perfect agreement. Which kind of demolishes everything you’ve been saying.
Looking forward to your response.
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
May 12th, 2005 at 1:34 pm
No, that would be sexism. Sexism is responsible for devaluing motherhood and childcare. Sexism is responsible for the sense of male entitlement that leads MRA’s to demand itemization and “choice for men.”? Sexism is responsible for men who think of divorce as revolt and loss of custody as theft. Feminism is responsible for getting women the equity they currently have”“you know, the kind that allows them to leave marriages that are unpleasant, period, because of abuse or not?
But feminism gave with one hand and then turned around and grabbed back with the other…
As what women is free to divorce if she runs the risk of having to leave her children behind…thus the choice women have now is equivalent to “Sophie’s choice”…which is really none…
It’s like a paper right now, which women can’t exercise unless they want to risk losing their children…so what’s the good of it????
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 12th, 2005 at 1:54 pm
“Most of the divorced mothers I know do have primary custody of their children, and as far as I can tell, most (not all) have managed to make some kind of peace with their ex-husbands. I am never going to take a position that any mother who wants custody should get it 100 percent of the time. I don’t think it’s true.”
Yes, most mothers DO have custody of their children NOW, but that is changing…as feminists have given men a new ‘club’ to subvert every right women THOUGHT we won…a club given to them by people like you to use against women…
You’ve created a minefield that other young women will have to negotiate going forward due to feminist foolishness…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 12th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
“NYMOM, are you ever going to list “the similarities between MRAs and feminists on gender-neutral custody”?? This is an absolutely essential question for your position on the issue, and by continuing to not answer it you’re slamming the door on conversation.”
Well you’ve just answered your own question…both feminists and MRAs support gender-neutral custody…there is no good support versus bad support on this issue…ANY support of this hurts women, ANY support…
I mean were their good support of racism versus bad support…Could you be a little bit racist, same principle…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 12th, 2005 at 2:02 pm
I haven’t read all of this yet, so here is a question: what exactly is NYMOM so enraged about?
This comment was written by someone.Report this comment to the moderators
May 12th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
“NYMOM, are you ever going to list “the similarities between MRAs and feminists on gender-neutral custody”?? This is an absolutely essential question for your position on the issue, and by continuing to not answer it you’re slamming the door on conversation.”?
I almost hate to encourage this post by saying this, as I think it’s time it died a natural death at 146 replies…thus I feel somewhat guilty, unfortunately, not guilty enough to NOT say it…
To re-open the door: feminists MUST even take responsibility for that chowder-head Warren Farrell…
Yes, you must…he is your deformed, bastard son that you keep trying to deny…
All that crap he sprouts has been lifted from your own playbook…At his last book review he was sprouting a line of crap that being a mother was no different then being a marine…nothing particular special about what draws you to either field…
Straight from Feminism 101…or Yes, Virginia: why everyone is really exactly the same…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 12th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
And so NYMOM, what do you propose? Unlimited custody rights for, and father visitation only as consented to by, the mother? I honestly have no idea. You have presented no coherent view of what should replace notional equality in custody disputes. From what I have read, your position is that fathers should be presumed to be the equivalent of nonentities in the lives of their children.
I once read that in nearly every society, suicide increases along with literacy rates. Under the kind of logic you are using, people who advocate for universal literacy should be blamed for individual suicides. Equality (as imperfectly it has been achieved) is what lets women have any expectation of leaving a bad marriage at all, let alone an expectation of raising a child as a single parent in something other than abject poverty. That it has some nasty consequences is unfortunate, and I’m all for increasing fairness in custody and support disputes, but I am not willing to throw out an ideal because it doesn’t always satisfy everyone’s expectations.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
May 12th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
NYMOM: Bullshit. Feminists had nothing to do with Warren Farrell. He called himself a feminist, but so what? I could call myself the Pope and it wouldn’t make it so. Warren Farrell is supportive of incest perpetrators; feminists were the people who ended the silence on incest, organized counseling and resistance groups for incest survivors, and fought for stronger laws and longer statutes of limitations so perpetrators can be put behind bars where they belong.
Feminists aren’t asserting that men and women are the same. We do insist that individual men and women not be held to fascist essentialist standards. In other words, we aren’t out to revoke the “real woman” cards of women who enjoy working out, or the “real man” cards of men who enjoy baking cookies. You are free to limit your own talents and opportunities, but feminists prefer that everyone be given free rein to develop all their talents and abilities rather than be required to stunt their intellectual and creative growth.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
May 12th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
I almost hate to encourage this post by saying this, as I think it’s time it died a natural death at 146 replies…
Then stop trying to get the last word in, and let it die. Stop with the “I wish you would all shut up but you force me to speak” crapola.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 12th, 2005 at 9:55 pm
“I almost hate to encourage this post by saying this, as I think it’s time it died a natural death at 146 replies”
I decide when this post “dies,” as Amp has given me the authority to close down a thread when I feel like it. And if people want a thread to “naturally die out” then they’ll stop posting comments. Which means if you want this thread to stop then you too will have to stop posting comments as you, NYMOM, are the one who started the anti-feminist/pro-feminist flame war within the replies. All on a thread that was SUPPOSED to be about all the bullshit women get whenever they say they don’t want children, or they don’t want children until a certain point in their lives, or when society gives them crap about “not being the perfect mother“.
No, the last dozens upon dozens of comments have been nothing but of your bashing of feminists, bastardization of the women’s rights movement, and over-generalization of what feminists supposedly did or didn’t do in regards to child-custody issues and Family Law. Or what “all feminists” supposedly believe when it comes to motherhood and raising children, as if we “all” think alike. And other comments have been from women defending made by feminism/women’s rights movement and it’s gains for women.
Damning feminism/women’s rights movement won’t fix the fucked up state of Family Law and child-custody issues. Participating in activism within the legal system will. You’re just adding momentum to the F/MRAs’ viciously misogynist movement and “arguments” against women period. Which for their “arguments” pretty much sums up to; “blame those feminist-bitches for everything that has gone wrong in Family Law and child-custody cases! Discredit them and their movement with hateful rhetoric, and force the Legislature to discard all the things they have given women!” Such as more legal and political power than ever.
You can’t damn feminists and MRAs, and have it both ways. If we keep bashing feminism/women’s rights, shaming professional unmarried childfree women for being so (ie: calling them “selfish”, “unfeminine/unwomanly”, “whores”, “immoral”, “family-hating-bitches”, etc.), use feminism/women’s rights as a convenient scapegoat for all of life’s problems, we’ll just go back to the days when women practically had little or no say in what happened to her children and her rights as a parent. And when women had little say about pretty much everything else.
Sorry for the long comment, but it had to be said. Now, continue with the discussion……..
This comment was written by Pseudo-Adrienne.Report this comment to the moderators
May 13th, 2005 at 8:07 am
Well you’ve just answered your own question…both feminists and MRAs support gender-neutral custody
Wow. Do you really not understand that this doesn’t mean anything? I’d thought it was completely obvious.
You aren’t interested in discussion at all. You haven’t addressed my questions. You haven’t commented on what I’ve said that both I and other feminists believe (as if you, anti-feminist, know more about it than all the feminists here). You haven’t supported your opinions in any way, shape, or form, not with facts or even other opinions. You haven’t said anything beyond that one sentence, over and over and over.
I feel like I’m trying to hold a conversation with a brick wall, and I have no further interest in wasting my time.
This comment was written by Hestia.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 6:50 am
On the topic of being pathetic unless you have a child: I sympathise with this article a great deal. As soon as I passed age 24, the ‘grandchild’ comments started, and now that a good half of the women I work with have at least one child, the suggestions are getting more obvious all the time. I deal with this by polite insult.
OTOH, there’s one thing I really can’t deal with at all: the well-meaning suggestions that my co-workers make to each other about their childrens’ gender. For example, after one colleague came back from maternity leave, one woman asked her, “So was it a boy or a girl this time?”
The colleague responded, “Another girl”, with a comically disappointed expression on her face.
“Oh dear”, said the woman. “You’ll just have to keep trying”.
What is this, the middle ages? Trying to ensure a succession, are we? What is there about the genitalia of my colleagues’ two daughters that make them unacceptable to the office sense of satisfaction? Bah.
This comment was written by arivne.Report this comment to the moderators
May 18th, 2005 at 8:50 am
Sounds like you need a different office.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 19th, 2005 at 10:18 am
When I wanted to respond kindly, I would let the inquirer know that, “My kind doesn’t breed well in captivity.”
When I started getting annoyed, the inquiry, “Why don’t you have children?” would be answered with, “My kind eat their young.”
Good answers to “Don’t you like children?”
“Yes. Other people’s.”
“Yes. Boiled, roasted or fried.”
Good answers to general breeding inquiries: “Why on earth are you so interested in my reproductive capacities???”
This comment was written by Dolley.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2005 at 4:42 pm
NYMOM: I consider a mother to be the natural and best guardian for her children, just as it has always been since we first crawled out of the primal mists…why should we ‘fix’ something that isn’t broken just because men, encouraged by feminists gender neutral propaganda, decided they want to try something different now…so everyone has to happily jump through the hoops you all set up.
Really, NYMOM? Tell that to all the countless children who were abused and murdered by their own mothers - natural and best guardians my foot! The best guardians for our children are the caring adults (with or without children) who take the time and effort to educate, feed, love and support children. Be it their natural parents, their adoptive parents, their childless aunts, their childless teachers.
NYMOM sounds like she has a chip on her shoulder. Perhaps the men in her life were losers. Perhaps NYMOM envies that women made choices and she just decided to have kids because that was “just the thing to do” and is envious of all the other women who chose otherwise.
I am a mother and am ashamed of your ignorance. You do not represent mothers - definitely not me! You are not only a disgrace to motherhood, but your close minded prejudices and ignorance make you a disgrace to women in general.
This comment was written by Terri.Report this comment to the moderators
June 27th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
I agree wholeheartedly that women should be able to make their own decisions, but it drives me crazy to see a post like the one you excerpt where the author laments other people shitting on her choices, but then shits on the choices of others. “6 half-pound translucent babies” is such a disgusting, dismissive, over-the-top generalization of the results of IF treatments…even I know that, and I’ve never tried to get pregnant by any method. The author is making a decent point in general, but it’s harder to take someone seriously when they’re doing the exact thing they’re ranting about being victimized by.
This comment was written by beth.Report this comment to the moderators
June 28th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
I guess we live in a country of busy bodies, asking questions or being concerned with things that are none of our business, like people asking why you don’t have children don’t you like children (which has been asked of me several times by my long term friends) or other questions that are personal.
I think worries about high taxations has nothing to do with goods and services to people (child care nursing homes etc)but rather injustices and corruption in governments that spend money where it is not intended or overtaxing people to make up for taxes they wasted or used for their wealthy friends or whatever. let’s not forget the politicians have their pet projects that have nothing to do with the common good of the tax payers and legal ways of stealing taxpayers money.
someone having a child or not is irrelavent in that regard, especially since the government keeps cutting services to the poor and middle class anyway.
it is an inescapable fact that what we do effects others directly or not, and there is no way to avoid it, or even minimize it, there is no way to change laws or times or seasons to avoid that, and taxes inevitably will be used for things that we dissapprove of, such as child care benefits to working people, or nursing home care for the poor or schools etc.
I don’t have children and don’t mind paying taxes for schools, I just don’t like the way they fund it, but that is something you deal with, one’s property should not ever be used to fund anything, that is what income taxes, sales taxes etc are for.
anyway I bet it gets annoying when people bug you about children, wish people could learn to not ask questions that don’t pertain to them.
RR
This comment was written by roberta robinson.Report this comment to the moderators
September 8th, 2005 at 9:55 am
I recently heard about a company called Extend Fertility (www.extendfertility.com). They help women take control of their biological clock using an egg freezing technology. I’m 35 and single and considering this procedure. It will allow me to save my eggs now, so I can use my healthier and younger eggs in the future when I’m ready to have a baby. Has anyone had their eggs frozen or know more about this?
This comment was written by Lori.Report this comment to the moderators
December 3rd, 2005 at 7:03 pm
Theres this woman named Janey at my church she has been married since she was 18 and now shes 24 and I really want her to have a baby because I know she would make a great mom. Is it ok for me to think this and not tell her?
This comment was written by Chelsea.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2006 at 8:05 am
PLEASE READ AND COMMENT!!!
This comment was written by John.I live in Sweden. Here the pressure to upon the woman exist but it is much less than in US. It is absolutely normal for a woman to be in her early 30´s and not have a child. In any case, I did not want to talk about that. I am in an terrible situation. I do want to have childrens (at least 1), but my grilfiend (5 years together. I am 32 and she is 34) does not. Since one year ago we are been talking about this issue.
After all this pain, I fully understand and respect most of her ideas. I could write a book or make a documental about all the things that I have been throu. Thus, what I am wrinting here is something deep and very well thought:
I do respect her decision, woman or man, to not want to be parent. And I go beyond that: many couples having children do not know in what they are going into. Many couples are not prepared for that, resulting in child abuse, frustration, anger and psychological pain within the couple. Thus, I really do respect people that have make a thoughtful decision about have or not children. I see this has a positive evolution of our society.
The problem starts when you take a decision because you have the wrong idea about something (this goes for both prochildren and childfree arguments). One example: I come from a normal-happy family (we are 3). As my father, my mother has work all her life having different interests and friends. In her side, her mother left her univ. studies to become a very unhappy and frustrated housewife, passing all this bad feelings to my girlfriend. For her, marriage & children is equal to woman oppression. And you know, I’ve always been a good guy (not just for her), totally different from her father (I do dishes, cook, laundry, being a loving partner). I thought I was demonstrating her that not all the relations are predestined to failure (or to the oppression of the woman if she wants to have a family). Time to time we talk about the “issue”, telling her that I would like to have at least one baby, and that I was going to take all my paternal-leave (here in Sweden is a year long) About half a year ago I realize that all my efforts were unsuccessful, and for worse and sad, I was making her point: we could have a happy life without anyone else around. One evening we got call from a close friend: she was pregnant and super happy, after I hang the phone she started with the same woman-oppression speech….in summary, we have split up.
In summary, no matter how wrong or disorientated view of the family she has, I could not change her mind, therefore she took a decision (I am sure she will never have children in her life) based on wrong view of what is family. or maybe she is right? I do not think so!!
HELP!!!
Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Reading this post made me think of all those crazy christian families who have 15 children–Ther was one family in PA (???) where the woman had her 15th kid and they were all named with the letter “J” (as in Jesus). And then there was an episode of “Wife Swap” where this woman had 8 kids and homeschooled them all. Well the point I want to make is I think all the wrong people are having kids–these fundie families are spitting out fundie kids who will grow up with the fundie beliefs that we all love so. While the smart, savvy women who know what’s up with how bad socieity treats women have the sense to know that they might not be good mothers and/or don’t want kids will probably not have kids, I kind of wonder if it’s a disservice to the fight for equality.I get scared when then news does a “human interest” story praising the latest breeder. They are doing what socieity is telling them what to do, and they are going to pass this down to the daughters and the cycle continues. And if there aren’t any really cool feminists out there to educate these clueless girls I fear we are at a loss.
Shorter version: I’m glad that there are women who are fine without having babies and that we have access to contraception (despite people trying to take that away), but we got to remember that the fundies are breeding like rabbits.
I read the comments here and I think the women here are very eloquent and I so wish I could say what some of you guys say, and I’m not sure if I am getting this out clear. If the smart, clever women who fight the status quo don’t want to have kids can we make like a stealth Feminazi unit that kidnaps daughters (and sons) of the fundies in the middle of the night to some secret commune so that we can have troops to fight the Patriachy?
This comment was written by SDB.Report this comment to the moderators
February 15th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
If the smart, clever women who fight the status quo don’t want to have kids can we make like a stealth Feminazi unit that kidnaps daughters (and sons) of the fundies in the middle of the night to some secret commune so that we can have troops to fight the Patriachy?
It’s called “college”.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 16th, 2006 at 8:15 am
john, if it’s so important to you to have kids (and i fully understand if it is) and it’s equally important for her not to have kids, then as much as you both might love each other, it’s time to call the relationship off.
you may “convince” her to have a kid eventually, with enough pleading and cajoling and arguments that she’ll come around once she has the kid and sees that life is different from her family history. but if she really never wanted kids, she’s going to resent the heck out of you and the kids both.
lots of people think that the “maternal instinct” will take over once the woman is pregnant and/or sees the actual baby. but this is a truism that isn’t true at all. there really are some women who don’t have a desire to have kids. and if you can’t accept that, then you’ve got a recipe for disaster if you force the issue.
if you do stay together and manage to convince her to have a kid, be prepared yourself for what might happen. you will wind up being the kid’s primary caretaker and source of emotional support. your wife may react in a way that is like the traditional 50s style husband: interacting with the kids for a few hours on the weekends and maybe a little while every day after work. but if she has to give up her interests and time too much for the kids, expect resentment, sullenness, and arguments as you try to get her more involved and she resists.
i knew my wife didn’t really want kids and despite the fact that now they’re here she does love them in her own way, i knew from the beginning that i would be the primary caretaker and source of emotional support for them. so expecting that from the beginning, we have an arrangement that works for us. sure, i wish she’d be a bit more involved, and there were a few rough months when the 4 yr old didn’t understand that mommy has do be gone pretty much most of every day of the week. but that eventually passed and she’s accepted that mommy has to work & go to school and have outside solo activites. i do insist on one family activity day per week, or at least a major part of that day. not that i particularly care, but for the kids to see that their mom is involved in their lives.
yes, she’s become more accepting and involved as the years have passed since our first daughter was born, but that was only through the fact that i put no demands on her to be involved and let her involvement with the kids develop at her own pace.
so unless you have a clearly discussed plan for childrearing and you are 100% ready to accept whatever she decides, you’re best off leaving the relationship and finding someone else who wants the same kind of family life you do.
This comment was written by stay at home dad.Report this comment to the moderators
August 31st, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Having children, wish that I had had the option of not having any children, but I have 3. I feel that I am not a great parent (39f). I have raised my children for the last 11 years on my own, my oldest is just now in college (18m), the next is going into 10th grade (15f), and youngest going into 7th grade (12f). There has never been enough money, time, energy, etc. I have struggled and struggled, working full time and in an educated/tech field, had daycare nightmares, sick child issues, no support from family, bills that go unpaid for years, cars that break down, bad credit, power or phone being shut off, the list goes on. I make just a tad too much for any sort of help (DSS), yet still qualify for the earned income credit. My kids have learnt that things aren’t always easy, but in the long run I haven’t done that bad of a job raising them, as they say that their lives have been and still are better than the lives of most of their friends. But in the overall picture, none of my kids want children, they have seen the sacrifices that need to be made on a daily basis, the responsibilities that come with children, and the freedoms that are given up. I do not think that my kids are wrong in their thinking, and I accept that they don’t want kids, I didn’t either when I was their age, I just wasn’t quite smart enough to think things thru and make appropriate descisions for me, I never put myself first nor did I set any goals or dreams for me to attain. But my children all have goals and dreams, dreams and goals that are attainable, lifestyles that they would like to live. The oldest wants to write code and design video games (and is currently pursuing his Computer Sciences degree), the middle child wants to be a sound engineer and is looking at attending Berkley College in Mass., and the youngest wants to be a chef (her idol is Emeril Lagasse and Julia Childs) and she has been watching Emeril, the Iron Chef and Julia Child reruns for years. I am proud of my children.
In the past few days I have had an addition to my family, another teenage girl (16) who had no place to go. I met her parents at their home the other day and my only thoughts are just how did this child survive, the abject poverty, the emotional blackmail, the verbal attacks of never being good enough. While I have felt that I wasn’t a very good parent, I have come to realize that there are parents out there that should never have had any children. While poverty isn’t abuse, neither is filth to some extent, but the parents are home all day long and the family is on Public Assistance, and still can’t seem to take care of the kids in a proper manner. The girl that is now living with me has two older half siblings (girls that were raised by their mother in a different state), two younger brothers (13 and 6) and two younger sisters (9 and 6). The youngest two (boy & girl) are twins and the boy has mental retardation and physical issues, but the girl is bright and smart. The oldest boy appears to be a little slow, but has no physical disabilities and the other girl is smart and bright. Now I am being burdenned with thoughts about how the remaining children in the home are going to survive.
To me this is a case in point where sterilization might have been a better choice, or for someone to decide to not have more children. However, this girl that is living with me doesn’t want to have children either. I think that children who have seen the struggle, and are driven to make something of themselves are more likely to not want children nor have children. It isn’t selfish to think of yourself or to put yourself first, it is your life not anyone elses.
If I never have any grandchildren that is fine with me, my life is complete without grandchildren, and I wish that my children do what is best for themselves, because in the long run it is their life and a life that makes them happy and complete is all that I can wish for.
-Trouble
This comment was written by Trouble.Report this comment to the moderators
August 31st, 2006 at 8:52 pm
My husband and I are childfree. We respect other people if they choose to have children. They do not seem to have the same respect for our choice not to reproduce. For that there is no excuse. But that’s o.k. Let them be appalled, huffy, offended, upset and keep trying to persuade us. We are still not going to have kids because we choose not to. We aren’t buying into the hype that is parenthood. And I’ll continue to blog about the ignorance and assumptions of the childed - and the childed to be.
If any woman or man isn’t strong enough to withstand the pressure to reproduce and continue to add to our overpopulated planet, perhaps they should simply go with the flow. Have babies. The rest of us childfree will just tell the Nosy Parkers to butt out and mind theirs.
This comment was written by Britgirl.Report this comment to the moderators
September 1st, 2006 at 11:48 am
Another reason it’s unspeakably rude to ask someone when they’ll have babies is… what if that was their lifelong dream, and they never had the opportunity, or they went into bankruptcy over fertility clinic bills, or they would if not for their miscarriage? They’ll probably make up a vague reason why they chose not to, and never let you know the size of the can of bitter worms you just re-opened for them.
This comment was written by saltyC.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
[...] Note - this isn’t a hysterical rant, but a justly angry and well-thought out post re: pressure to have kids and how everyone seems to think it’s their business. Written by someone who seems to be clearly childfree. From Alas, A [...]
This comment was written by Child-Free Zone (v2.0).Report this comment to the moderators