Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The assumption that all women want to have children really bothers me.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
lightningandsnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:49 AM
Original message
The assumption that all women want to have children really bothers me.
I know this might possibly change when I get older, but I'm pretty sure I never want biological children.

I might want to adopt at some point, probably when I've experienced enough of my own life to know I'm ready to do it. Possibly in my late 30's or early 40's. But the idea of having biological children, of giving birth, just really does not appeal to me. This is not to say that there's anything wrong with wanting biological children - I just don't.

And I'm really sick of people definitively telling me I will change my mind as I get older.

Also, I think it's a sexist assumption. Nobody assumes all men want to be fathers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. Good for you! Every child has the right to be wanted. Nothing is sadder than seeing
the situation that develops once all the hoopla is over and parents are stuck with a kid they had only because it was what was expected of them!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Colors Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
2. I'm 47, childless by choice, and glad
Not everyone changes their mind when they get older.

Really funny thing is that the only people who would always give me that, "Oh, you'll change your mind later on" nonsense were people who didn't know me very well. I never got that from my family AT ALL ... because they knew me. I have a sister-in-law who did that when we first met, but stopped it pretty quickly.

I agree that it's only women who get told this so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
comrade snarky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
64. I think it was Tallulah Bankhead
Who said "I'm not childless less darling, I'm child free"

I'm male and what I get is the assumption that it's a token selfishness that will transform to joy as soon as I'm informed my partner is pregnant.

You are right though, less of that garbage comes your way if you sport external genitalia.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lucinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
3. I didn't either, and I never had them. I always thought that
I would make that decision when I found someone I wanted to spend my life with. I didn't have any great desire to have children, but I would have discussed it if my husband had wanted them. He didn't want to have children either, so that was the end of the discussion. The odd thing is that we both ended up with other people that had kids, so we're parents now anyway. Just not full-time in my case.

Don't let anyone else tell you what you want! I heard the same thing from a lot of people. My mother was one of the few that supported my choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texasgal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
4. When I was younger I told everyone that would listen
that I had no desire to have children.

I am in my 40's now and the desire to have children is still not there. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillieW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #4
20. Same here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
5. Not all women want to have or to adapt kids.
Some know or at least think they would not make good mothers. Some don't want the responsibility for a wide verity of reasons.
You're correct it is a sexist assumption, just as the same people assume most men don't want to be daddies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lies and propaganda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
6. my boyfriend and I are house hunting right now..
I am 28 and he is 36, though I barely look 21, and EVERY freaking person asks where my kids are!

And then the looks when you tell them you dont, like its a personal affront.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Howler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
7. I never wanted kids either!
I am 49 now and I don't regret not having children.
I also have 4 girlfriends that have made the same choice we are all happy and healthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Crunchy Frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:05 AM
Response to Original message
8. I had an overwhelming urge to have children
which is why I'm about to have twin boys, while turning 46 in a couple of days.

That's just me though. I would never try to extrapolate from myself to other people. I would, however, highly reccomend to anyone who thinks she might want to have biological children later on, to get some of your eggs frozen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maru Kitteh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
87. CONGRATULATIONS Crunchy Frog! I know EXACTLY how you feel, minus the joy of twins.
No little ones here, but I haven't given up the dream.

I totally support anyone's desire to have more children and I totally support anyone's desire to remain child-free. What an improvement we would see int he world if every adult were empowered to make these important choices for themselves and every single child was born into a family that wanted and cherished them.

Hugs and kisses to your little boys. I'm so happy for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geckosfeet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
9. I am glad that you mentioned the idea that every man wants to be a father is bogus as well.
It's just not true. I have never wanted children although I almost came to accept the idea that it "was the right thing to do".

I am glad that I came to accept (if not fully understand) my own feelings about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
10. One of my contributions to this world has been to forego having children.
My parents probably shouldn't have done it (yes, that puts me out of existence) and I learned from them you don't have children b/c society expects you to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 01:10 AM
Response to Reply #10
98. Amen.
Society needs to go fuck itself where this issue is concerned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteelPenguin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #98
156. Isn't that how more kids are made?
:hide:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #98
193. Right. Society should not judge people who don't want kids, NOR get in the way of the self-righteous
people without them when they feel the need to pontificate against the rest of us "spawning".

Yes- don't judge me and my choices, now excuse me while I judge the fuck out of you and yours.

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #193
202. My not breeding doesn't harm an innocent child.
Edited on Mon Jan-26-09 06:46 PM by thecatburgler
Irresponsible breeding does.

Big difference. You're good goddamn right I'll judge irresponsible assholes who breed children they don't really want and aren't capable of being decent parents to. And I will judge nosy control freaks who pressure and browbeat people into having kids they're not sure they want.

Assuming that you are one of the good parents I'm going to remind you once again:

This.

Isn't.

About.

YOU.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #202
283. Actually, the thread isn't about your fatwa against smug yuppie breeders, either.
It's about one person's assertion that she should be able to make up her own damn mind, which I agree with.

It's funny-- these "smug, self-centered yuppies" that you're so sure are pumping out way "too many" kids.. got any demographic data to back THAT up? Because, it's already been established that you don't want to hear how the population explosion on planet Earth is generally confined to third world countries, instead of the US and Europe-- and you certainly don't want to hear how the population 'problem', as it is, in the US is due to immigration, not birth rates.. See, bringing up where overpopulation due to high birth rates means one is a 'racist', and mentioning immigration is similarly taboo to some elements of liberal orthodoxy...

But I find it fascinating that you're so sure that there are millions of "smug yuppies" pumping out 'litters' of babies, then presumably giving them SUVs and arming them with flamethrowers to send them into the rainforest to start celebratory bonfires on their 16th birthday. It's sort of like how the right wing, in the 80s, was convinced that there were legions of black 'welfare queens', having babies and eating bon-bons while taking limosuines to the welfare office to pick up their checks. No amount of factual evidence was ever provided, and no amount of demographic information to the contrary could convince those docker clad proto-dittoheads that this Reaganesque fantasy was just that.

Similarly, I guess you know that the country is overpopulated by Escalade-driving screamingly selfish yuppie broods, all giving the finger to you and your righteous sensibilities as they force your favorite hipster radio station to stop playing Ani DiFranco and start playing the Wiggles. Anyone mentioning the fact that most of the people with large families- i.e. more than 2 kids- in this country probably aren't "smug yuppies" at all, is probably wasting their time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #283
289. Wow! That was some tirade.
However, I think you are channeling your anger toward several other posters at me.

But I find it fascinating that you're so sure that there are millions of "smug yuppies" pumping out 'litters' of babies, then presumably giving them SUVs and arming them with flamethrowers to send them into the rainforest to start celebratory bonfires on their 16th birthday. It's sort of like how the right wing, in the 80s, was convinced that there were legions of black 'welfare queens', having babies and eating bon-bons while taking limosuines to the welfare office to pick up their checks. No amount of factual evidence was ever provided, and no amount of demographic information to the contrary could convince those docker clad proto-dittoheads that this Reaganesque fantasy was just that.

Oh. My. God. :wow: You did NOT just compare your experience with a few comments on a message board with the Southern Strategy! You've got chutzpah, I'll give you that.


Similarly, I guess you know that the country is overpopulated by Escalade-driving screamingly selfish yuppie broods, all giving the finger to you and your righteous sensibilities as they force your favorite hipster radio station to stop playing Ani DiFranco and start playing the Wiggles. Anyone mentioning the fact that most of the people with large families- i.e. more than 2 kids- in this country probably aren't "smug yuppies" at all, is probably wasting their time.

And the cliches and stereotypes keep coming. The lesbian baiting was a nice touch. :thumbsup:

Sadly, I'm still not going to genuflect before you because you procreated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
misanthrope Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #10
102. I know my parents shouldn't have bred...
...the only reason they married was because my mother got knocked up, then miscarried after the vows. She got pregnant again not too much later, then had another kid after me.

Dad didn't want to be married, much less a father. He became scarce when I was entering grade school. He left for good around the time I was 10. He never remarried in the 35 years since.

My mother is nuts and the divorce brought out every crazy iota in her. Among her histrionics were things like trying to involve my sister and I in her suicide attempts, giving us front row seats to hysterical episodes in public places and endless nights of psychological games and manipulation. It didn't take long to realize she saw me as a surrogate for my father and harbored some resentment toward me as a result.

And all of this started not long after I was molested by a relative.

The subsequent decades haven't been too much better in a lot of regards.

My father's father was a greedy bigot who tried to control everything and everyone around him. His father was a jerk as well.

At least I'm finally exercising the foresight to put this string of misery to an end by remaining childless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Muttocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #102
120. Some people really aren't cut out to be parents
my parents included, though not as bad as yours.

:hug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #10
139. And with Americans using 5x the resources of the developing world...
...that means you've probably saved a lot of lives.

Shame the selfish "I can have as many kids as I want, fuck you if you don't like it" types outnumber awesome people like you.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #139
155. So, ballpark figure- how many lives would be "saved" if the U.S. Population dropped to Zero?
Just a guess?

Yes, as a matter of fact, people CAN have as many kids as they want. This isn't fucking China.

I respect peoples' right to CHOOSE to have kids, or not to have kids. Funny how a thread about "don't judge me for not having kids" inevitably turns into an excuse for the anti-breeding brigade to march in and start judging people FOR having kids. Okay.... Just don't judge people who don't.

Do I have it right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #155
163. Yes, I judge selfish people who think they're the only ones who matter.
I make no apology for that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #163
191. And I judge people with such limited vision and self loathing that the only "solution" they can
come up with for the worlds problems amounts to, essentially, "we all suck, and should die".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #191
204. And I judge people who are so consumed with narcissism and grandiosity
That the only response they have to the horrific destruction that our species is causing to the planet, and the attendent threats to our very own survival as a species is, "human beings are awesome, let's make lots more of them!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #204
228. You know what should humble the biggest egos?
The only species that could disappear tomorrow and make no difference in this world is our own.

The world would go on.

It would probably be better, to tell the truth.


I myself would hate to see Mankind end. Well, most of the time. Sometimes I really hate human beings for being so stupid and thinking they are God.

But yeah...humans could disappear from the face of the earth and it would probably be for the best for all other creatures, and the earth itself.

That knowledge alone should put us all in our places...


;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #228
274. You two must be a blast at parties.
Edited on Tue Jan-27-09 02:28 PM by Warren DeMontague
"But yeah...humans could disappear from the face of the earth and it would probably be for the best for all other creatures, and the earth itself."

Oh, for fuck's sake.

Define "best". The Planet Earth has survived a shitload worse than us-- like a giant meteor strike at Chixiclub, for one.

Did you ever consider that maybe, just maybe, Mother Earth knows what she's doing in having an intelligent, technologically advanced species on her surface, even one that causes a measure of environmental damage? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #274
290. I can see you hanging out with Ben Stein at a party right about now.
I'm sure you guys would have a fascinating discussion about Intelligent Design, the global warming hoax, and the myth of overpopulation.

But sorry, I don't believe in fairy stories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 08:58 PM
Response to Reply #155
165. Can't speak for the other person, but I would imagine the point is not
that the US population should "drop to zero", but that population growth should drop to zero. That means maintaining a steady population.

Oh, and I don't agree that people should be able to have as many kids as they want. I don't personally see what the benefits are in allowing everyone to spawn kids just because they possess the necessary "equipment" for making them.

We've got alcoholics, drug addicts, abusers, etc., all spawning kids that will, sooner or later, become victims...either of their parents, the System, or both. A great many of them will also come to victimize others.

I have a SIL who was taking in foster kids from the state until a brain tumor made it necessary for her to stop. You know what it was? Basically a stopping off point until the kids got old enough to be released into society where nobody gives a shit what happens to them. The parents have kids, then don't know how to raise them. Then they become Society's problem. Society's scapegoats, in a manner of speaking.

Not fair to the kids, not fair to Society.

Fuck the parents. I don't give a rat's ass about them, or their "rights" to have as many kids as they want to.

I'd like to see some better standards applied toward people who want to inflict their children on the rest of us besides the inescapable fact that they are "able to have them".



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #165
168. You pretty much nailed it.
NT!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #165
192. And do any of the people pontificating on this subject know what the pop. growth rate in the US is?
Or care?

The third world is where the population growth problem is. The US population grows through immigration more than it does through selfish yuppies "spawning", as you put it.

But don't let the truth get in the way of a good 15 minute hate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #192
203. It's not zero.
With our current growth rate of .9%, US population will double before the end of this century. The world's population is set to double in about 35 years at the current growth rate of about 2%.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #203
209. But Warren DeMontague does have a point. It's mostly immigration.
I believe that the population growth in the U.S. is largely because of immigration. Americans are barely breeding enough for replacement. In Japan and western Europe, they have negative growth, and there is massive concern about what will happen to their economies -- not to mention their growing elderly population -- when the younger population shrinks so much that social welfare systems can't be funded.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #209
214. Immigration accounts for 1/3 of it.
Without it, we'd be at .6% growth. Which means we'd double our population in about 116 years using the algorithm of 70 (divide the percentage of growth into 70 to determine how long it will take to double).

I believe that the population growth in the U.S. is largely because of immigration. Americans are barely breeding enough for replacement. In Japan and western Europe, they have negative growth, and there is massive concern about what will happen to their economies -- not to mention their growing elderly population -- when the younger population shrinks so much that social welfare systems can't be funded.

I'll let the good people of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (I'm not endorsing their organization's goal but they have some good information) answer that:

Q: Who will pay our social security when we're old?

The new demographics that are causing populations to age and to shrink are something to celebrate. Humanity was once caught in the trap of high fertility and high mortality. Now it has escaped into the freedom of low fertility and low mortality. Women's control over the number of children they have is an unqualified good -- as is the average person's enjoyment, in rich countries, of ten more years of life than they had in 1960. Politicians may fear the decline of their nations' economic prowess, but people should celebrate the new demographics as heralding a golden age.

~Editorial from The Economist January 7, 2006

Despite the wisdom of the above quote, it is a rare expression of lower birth rates' positive side. Those who benefit most from an increasing population density -- identified in the previous Q & A -- also happen to own or finance major media outlets. As a result, we are regularly told that an economic crisis looms if we don't breed more future workers. A Washington Post reporter wrote of countries struggling with the threat of zero population growth.

Although most systems of providing for retired citizens are financed by taxing working citizens, the concept of needing younger people to support older people is obsolete. If used responsibly, products from the industrial and technological revolutions could satisfy our needs without selling our children into wage slavery.

Social security systems are artificial, so adjustments for changes, such as a reduction in the number of potential workers, can be made.

Automation removes more workers from payrolls than birth control does. Owners of the machines gain the wages formerly paid to workers, without paying a percentage into pension funds. Adjustments could be made.

Unemployment reveals that we already have enough potential workers. Increasing employment and increasing wages will increase funds paid to social security.

In the USA, a pea-and-shell game is being played on taxpayers. More money is taken in for social security than is shelled out, but the remainder vanishes instead of being invested for future pensioners.

The solution to having our nest eggs stolen isn't to lay more eggs.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #214
277. "voluntary human extinction movement"
Like I said. You must be a fucking blast at parties.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #277
291. Shorter Warren DeMontague:
"I'm a parent! Worship me! Wah!" :nopity:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #214
281. I also like how they make sure to include "voluntary" in the organization's name.
Makes them sound so, you, know, reasonable.

As per the article you post:

Women's control over the number of children they have is an unqualified good

I notice they didn't say "it's an unqualified good as long as they only have as many kids as I, personally, think they should be permitted to have"... and isn't it funny, that people in developed countries with high standards of living, access to contraception, and freedom, seem to limit reproduction on their own, without endless amounts of harangues from voluntary human extinctionists, even? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #281
293. Awww, whatsamatter Warren, is the big bad website scawing you?
Yes, it's a voluntary movement. You should read the site. Really, it won't bite you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phillycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #209
218. So we should have children to support ourselves or some older generation?
How about we just save all the damned money we'd spend on the kids and pay for our own old age?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #218
223. It is pretty awful, isn't it?
"You are obligated to produce children to be sacrificed on the altar of commerce."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #223
275. No one is "obligated" to do anything.
Edited on Tue Jan-27-09 02:31 PM by Warren DeMontague
As you may have noticed, pretty much everyone in the thread agrees with the OP, that anyone who doesn't want kids, more power to 'em.

Unfortunately, as could have been predicted, this thread has been hijacked by the "you fucking selfish yuppies should stop breeding" Brigade.

Just make sure to include the asterisk when you describe yourself as "pro choice", as in "I'm Pro Choice*"

* So long as I personally, agree with your choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #275
295. I would describe you as:
"Praise my choice or I will whine incessantly"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #218
240. Pay whom? If the younger generation doesn't exist?
Who is there to take care of you?

What is left out in all this narcissistic rambling (and is there any bigger narcissist than the person who doesn't want to bother with raising kids because they require too much effort?), we forget the joys of parenthood. Namely, the opportunity to bestow unconditional love on another human being, and to see the future in young faces.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #240
249. Some people recognize that they would not make good parents
Tell me what's such a great idea about people who know they wouldn't make good parents having children they don't want.


Maybe someone can explain to this little girl:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haleigh_Poutre


that she was brought into this world because her mom was afraid she'd be accused of being a narcissist for not having children. The mom gave her up to her sister, and that's when the beatings started.

If you haven't seen the photos, count yourself lucky.


Thank goodness the kid's mother is dead...killed by HER mother in a murder/suicide. Had she lived, poor Haleigh wouldn't be able to care for her, as she's a near-vegetable now. If Haleigh is ever able to contribute to Society, it will be a near-miracle.

I'm not suggesting that this would happen in all cases.

Having children should not be a "right". It's a responsibility that should be taken VERY seriously. Some people realize that they are not suited to that responsibility. Why try to shame them for recognizing that it's a responsibility they can't/don't want to take on?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #249
252. I absolutely agree. But they shouldn't condemn others as "breeders."
That's my beef with some of the posts here, condemning parents as selfish, narcissistic destroyers of the earth. If you don't want kids don't have them. I'm with you there 100%.

As for the sins of "breeding," I have lived abroad, where I've witnessed the joys of multigenerational families caring for each other. Grandparents doting on grandchildren, relatives who enjoy shared history and recipes and stories. Those who come from happy families simply want to replicate the joys of their childhoods and have happy families of their own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #252
255. Yeah, you're with us 100%. After you call us immature narcissists, of course.
And don't pretend it's because of what's been said on this thread. I'll bet you've thought that about people who choose not to be parents for a long time. I'll bet you've told it to people to their faces before. You are EXACTLY the kind of person the OP is talking about. One who ASSumes women should be mothers and thinks there's something wrong with those who don't want to be. Now your fee fees are hurt because of some of the things you are reading here. Good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #255
258. The "breeders" were called narcissists way up-thread.
So now you're upset that someone responded. Sheesh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #258
260. Some are narcissists. Some are not.
Just as some childfree people are narcissists and some are not. You said: "and is there any bigger narcissist than the person who doesn't want to bother with raising kids because they require too much effort?" That's pretty categorical statement since the number one reason people are childfree is because the effort of raising kids doesn't appeal to us. We have the self-awareness and maturity to realize that and make the responsible choice. The least people could fucking do is respect that but no.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #260
276. I respect people who don't want kids.
Unlike some folks, I don't waste a whole ton of time worrying about other people's life choices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #276
285. But you do waste a ton of time demanding to be worshipped for yours. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #252
261. I don't see where people are condemning others for having children
At least, not having children responsibly.

Responsible childbearing means you care enough about our planet to have children only to replace yourself and another person. Zero population growth...at least that way.

The people I call "breeders" are the ones who indiscriminately pump out kid after kid after kid because, in their words, "I can afford them". Or, more repulsively, "It's my right".

And my biggest disgust is for people who have kid after kid and then foist them off on the system, either because they can't afford them financially, or they are alcoholics or drug addicts. I'm probably going to piss off a lot of people with my opinion, but I seriously think such people should undergo mandatory sterilization...either surgically, or through monitored medications.

Fuck them and their "rights". Every child has a right to be born into a world where it's going to be wanted and cared for.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phillycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #240
279. Yes, there is.
There is a bigger narcissist than someone who doesn't want to bother with kids. The bigger narcissist is the person who has kids without knowing why they're having them or what will be involved in it. And there's freaking BILLIONS of them.

"The joys of parenting" is subjective. Looks like abject misery from this angle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #192
224. Let's talk a little about hate
because it sounds like you're a little resentful of the people who weren't born in this country and virtually pointing to them as being the main cause of the overpopulation problem.

Like they don't have the right to come here and add to the population, whereas REAL citizens can have as many kids as they want to.

Maybe I'm wrong, though.

I don't know what the population growth is, or was, except that at one point I remember it was around 200 million and now the population is at, or over 350 million. Some of that is due to selfish people in this country having kids because they think it's their god-given right to.

whatever.

Call it "pontificating" if you like. This is a discussion board and I was giving my opinion, just like everyone else.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #224
241. Hate? It's a statistical number. I could just as easily say you hate children.
And I'm the daughter of immigrants. It's immigrants who keep this country afloat, and immigrants who keep western Europe functioning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #241
248. I don't hate children
In point of fact, I hate the people who think it's their god-given right to populate the earth with the fruits of their own DNA...or the people who don't plan ahead, having four, five, six, or more children based on the "NOW". Then something happens and they're running around trying to support those children when times turn bad. Who suffers? The kids.

I also don't have a problem with immigrants. Nearly all of us are immigrants of a sort anyway, aren't we? Except for the native peoples. The truth of it is, if we look back far enough, nearly all of us have ancestors who came, recently or not so recently, to this country from someplace else.

Americans are still among the most fortunate people in the world, to live as we do (most of us). I'm happy and proud to share the benefits with others who come here looking for a better life. If doing that means the rest of us have to take a little responsibility and not have litters of children so we can sustain a stable population (i.e. one that doesn't strain the limits of our resources) then that's what we have to do.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mainer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #248
253. Most Americans aren't having "litters."
On average, they're having two point one kids. So other than that weirdo family with the 20 kids, why are parents in general such targets of disgust here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #253
262. I think you're reading something into posts that doesn't exist
I don't see where people are directing disgust at ALL parents.

Only the irresponsible ones.

I haven't checked the statistics, so I don't know how many children people are having these days, on average. If it's 2 or thereabouts, I'm sure nobody has a problem. I know I don't.

But there are still lots of people who are having more than the number of children required to maintain a steady population.

I call those people selfish and self centered.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #241
254. No dear, we don't hate children
We hate parents who are smug, annoying, entitled-acting, attention-whores. We hate parents who thoughtlessly pop out kids without considering the environment or their own fitness to be parents. Why would we hate kids? It's not their fault so many of them were brought into the world by selfish idiots.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #254
273. Bullshit. Hate.
Right, when you grouse endlessly about "popping out kids", you don't do it because you have some kind of fucking problem with the whole thing. Right.

The birth rate in the USA is 2.05 children per woman, which is statistically indistinguishable from zero population growth. So to make you happy, what should the birth rate be in this country? You know, so we "smug, annoying, entitled-acting attention whores" will know what to do? Please, Stalin, guide us-- tell us how to live our lives!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrreowwr_kittty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #273
288. Uh, you might want to take remedial statistics.
We have .9% population growth. If that remains unchanged the population of the US will double in 70 years.

What should the growth rate be? IMHO it should be negative.

Speaking of hate, you have revealed your own bigotry in a few posts. Don't like them furriners and brown people much, do you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-29-09 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #288
304. I'm going to sum up my responses into one post, because really I don't have time for this noise.
Edited on Thu Jan-29-09 02:16 PM by Warren DeMontague
Particularly not every one of your "I know you are but what am I" responses in this thread. Whatever.

Let me simplify: Reducing population growth in the United States will not address the population problem in the third world. The lesson to be taken away from the FACT that Developed Western Nations have reduced their birth rates on their own is that when people with a relatively high standard of living and a high degree of freedom to make their own decisions (I know, a pretty repulsive concept to those advocating "voluntary extinction" and mandatory sterilization for people who have "too many" kids) ... people limit birth rates on their own, with no help from hectoring anti-breeding advocates, even. You have a problem with population, talk to the Pope or the other "authorities" who want to keep contraception and information out of peoples' hands. Pointing out that the third world is where the population problem remains is NOT racist- and if you look at the reasons why people have so many kids, you might learn something. See, all over the world, the #1 reason people have lots of kids isn't because they 'feel entitled', it's poverty-- paradoxically, because a larger family may increase their chances to get by. But it also increases the general societal burden. Improving the conditions for people in the third world- and improving their access to contraception- is the way to address the "population problem", such as it still exists. That is not a "racist" point of view. And trying to argue that hectoring Americans or citizens of other developed nations to reduce their reproductive rate further-- when they've done a perfectly fine job of it on their own, TYVM-- it's just idiotic, and it does NOTHING for the people in the 3rd world you claim to care about so much.

Furthermore, the fact remains that population growth in the US is more due to immigration than it is to birth rates. That doesn't mean I 'don't like furriners', but then I'm not the one running around like I'm on fucking fire about some imaginary population problem in the US that doesn't exist. I'm a Californian, I know how important immigrants are to the economy. Personally, I think if we're going to 'address' immigration at all, it needs to be in enforcing laws on the employers who hire them. I don't see much point in us having a minimum wage or other worker protection laws if we're going to allow companies, hiring illegal immigrants, to get large amounts of cheap labor without paying it or following them. (and no, that does NOT mean I'm 'against the minimum wage')

I'm still waiting for some link to where I expected anyone to worship me for breeding; :7 :thumbsup: Nevermind, like the shit elsewhere in the thread (maybe it was yours, maybe someone else's) railing against 'entitled yuppies' 'popping out litters', don't let the facts get in the way of a good 15 minute hate. Yeah, me and Ben Stein, really.. we hang out ALL the time. :crazy:

Speaking of which, I'm not the one who asserted that a mass human die-off would be 'good for the Earth'; but if people want to Anthropomorphize nature or the planet, then I think it's entirely reasonable to ask why 'she' knew exactly what she was doing up until the moment a technologically advanced civilization appeared on 'her' surface. If you ask me (and I know you don't) it's just a re-framing of the old "original sin" crap-- everything was hunky dory until along came humankind, the sinner.

Lastly, I *like* Ani DiFranco, who I note has recently joined the ranks of us selfish obnoxious breeders. Maybe that makes me a Lesbian? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-29-09 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #304
308. "because really I don't have time for this noise"
does this mean you're finally through spewing into this thread?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-30-09 01:52 AM
Response to Reply #308
309. Thanks for your input.
Actually, short of this ridiculous (and yet shockingly predictable) anti-breeder grousing noise, it would seem the thread has run its course.

Pretty much everyone agrees that if the OP doesn't want kids, hey, more power to her.

Maybe those of you looking for 'sacred, protected space' in which to complain about the grand parenthood conspiracy should consider starting a new one?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #192
227. PS...
and yes...some people do care what the population growth rate is in the US.

Especially people who are scrabbling for limited resources. Like in certain places in the south, hard hit by recent droughts. People...whole towns...fighting over water.

What if a huge Dust Bowl hit the mid-US like the one in the 1930s?


People think they can just keep propagating and the earth will just keep providing for them. That's as stupid as believing that one can fit 10 ounces of toothpaste in a 2 ounce tube. The earth is finite. It cannot continue to support unrestrained population growth.

If the US...alleged "leader" of the world, can't even demonstrate sound, responsible behavior with respects to our environment, how can we expect others to do it? What is this...do as we say, not as we do?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
11. Never say never
It is quite common for attitudes to change quite radically as you get older, especially towards children. In fact, I would venture to say that the vast majority of people's attitudes do change. Mine certainly did. As you reach a certain age, the desire to have children becomes quite strong in most people and I do think that desire is probably stronger for women than it is for men. That's not really being sexist because I don't really see it as devaluing women. It just reflects reality. I don't see anything inherently wrong with either wanting children or not wanting children, and I think that's a good way to look at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Berry Cool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. I think it's too big an assumption.
If it's true that "most" people want children as they grow older, why is that? Because they really want to raise people to adulthood and to contribute to society, or because they're facing mortality and see a piece of themselves as living on if they have kids?

If it's only the latter, their motivations are purely biological selfishness, and anyone who doesn't give in to or feel them is to be commended.

And yes, it IS devaluing of women and sexist to say it happens more to women, because it implies women's primary value is as baby makers--and that it's OK that they should feel the call more than men because men aren't primarily baby makers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:35 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. In some instances
it's also the case that people do it because of strong pressures from family or society at large. It is seen by some as the human duty of all those of breeding age to have as many children as possible (ignoring the obvious fact that this trend could not continue forever) or as their religious duty not to artificially interfere with the process. The ultimate result is too damn many people having children that don't want them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #14
35. I think you're missing the mark here
IMO the biggest reason for having children has nothing to do with anything you've suggested. The biggest reason for having children is how much they enrich your life from the day they are born throughout their adulthood. Perhaps those are selfish motives, but I think you would have a hard time justifying having children with any motives that aren't selfish to some degree. That doesn't mean it's wrong. None of us would be here if our parents didn't have selfish motives.

I also feel that expecting women to think exactly like men and vise versa is one of the biggest forms of sexism out there. It's both demeaning and devaluing to women to expect them to conform to gender neutral values. It ignores the physiological and psychological differences between the sexes. It is possible to recognize those differences without having the attitude that women should be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen. Where sexism comes in is when you discriminate or belittle one sex or the other for not conforming to some predefined expectation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jazzgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #11
39. I don't agree.
Most of the people I know that made the same decision I did have never changed their minds. In fact, I don't know any of them that changed their mind. They might be in relationships where the other person has children but they never opted to have any. I am sure there are people that do change their minds but I bet most don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #39
43. I see it a bit differently
My experience has been the opposite, but both of our accounts are purely anecdotal and not necessarily reflective of society as a whole. As far as your friends that are in relationships with others who already have children, I would say they did opt into them at least to some degree, just not by proxy of their seed or womb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #11
83. i said never, so did my sister, and several of my friends are child-free
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MajorChode Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #83
86. I have a friend that said never. Now his wife is knocked up with their 6th
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 09:08 AM
Response to Reply #86
181. did HE say never, or did SHE?
if it was HE, he should have gotten a vasectomy if he was really serious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #11
132. An interesting comment given the "hobby" you have listed
in your profile.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukasahero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #11
183. And stop telling people what they will feel based on your own experience
It's fucking arrogant to tell someone that they will change their mind when they "grow up". I'm 45 and never wanted, still don't and never had children. People used to tell me that would change as if I didn't know my own mind. It's insulting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarge43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #11
184. Can't speak for others, but as I aged the more certain I became
that not wanting, let alone having, children was one of my better decisions. Gosh, wrangling teenagers in mid and late middle age; that has real appeal.

Yeah, I experience the urge, heard the bio clock ticking. All living creatures have the desire to reproduce. However, I'm also self aware with a functioning brain. I knew, still know, there's a hellva lot more to successful parenting than merely reproducing and that I wouldn't be a good parent. A child does not need to be on the receiving end of any one who really didn't want him/her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukasahero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #184
185. "All living creatures have the desire to reproduce."
Good grief, was that necessary? I NEVER felt the 'desire to reproduce'. That's the whole point of the OP - not telling other people what they feel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarge43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #185
186. I was talking about biological imperatives, not conscious cognitive decisions.
If living entities did not have a drive (a better choice than desire) to reproduce, this planet wouldn't be pulsing with life. As Carl Sagan pointed out, it's what hydrogen atoms do, given 15 billion years of evolution. We are also self aware, thinking creatures and make decisions also counter to inherit instincts, such as aggression or xenophobia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #186
189. the drive is not to reproduce ... the drive is to have sex n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #189
210. No, the drive is to reproduce. Having sex just for the sake of sex is a fairly new concept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #210
242. for the majority of human history, people did not know that sex lead to reproduction
the drive is to fuck, which leads to reproduction. if we didn't have the drive to fuck, if it didn't feel good, we wouldn't do it. i sure wouldn't do something so seemingly ridiculous if it wasn't pleasurable.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DutchLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #242
303. I doubt that. I think that on a subconscious level, reproducing has always been the goal.
Of course I'm not a biologist...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phillycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #184
220. I think mine's broken.
My biological clock just blinks 12:00, 12:00, 12:00. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
otohara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
12. You Might Change Your Mind
hormones have wrecked havoc on my body and mind my entire life. Then when I was in my 30's after years of not ever wanting children, something changed, the hormones took over. The proverbial clock kicked in and my desire to have a kid took over. So I had one, just one.

Then prepare yourself for a midlife crisis that kicks in when those hormones start slipping away.

Hormones, can't control em, can't live without em ...until you have to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phillycat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-25-09 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #12
178. This statement is so insulting.
And sexist. We can't be sure about something because we're women and our hormones rule our lives?? Bull. I'm 36 and my alleged "biological clock" has yet to make an appearance.

Other women have FINALLY stopped with the fucking "you'll change your mind" now that I'm past 35. Thank heavens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
otohara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #178
187. Oh Please
I said you "might" change your mind.

If you want to dismiss the experiences of us much older than yourself, that's your prerogative. I remember a time (when i was in my 30's) when I thought I knew everything the future had in store for me and it sure didn't include a husband and a now 21 year old son.

Hormones are a powerful force and do rule many aspects of our health and mind. To deny that is naive. Biological clocks do exist, even in our male counterparts. There's a whole host of articles about hormones and behavior at your disposal.

Estrogen, progesterone, testosterone, luteinizing and follicle I miss them all.

And one more thing from this old gal, if you ever might think you have a hormonal imbalance...take Vitex, works like a charm on most women.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lukasahero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #187
194. "dismiss the experiences of us much older than yourself"
Speak for yourself, please. There are plenty "old gals" also in this thread saying just what the OP is saying and we never changed our minds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
otohara Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-26-09 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #194
198. How's This
Some women make decisions about not having children and stick to it.

Some women have life altering experiences after making the same decision and after years of thinking and saying there's no fucking way I'm going to bring a kid into this world... she changes her mind!

Peace fellow old gal sister, peace!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-27-09 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #12
257. I changed my mind....
only in the other direction.

When I was a child, I loved being with my dad's family because he had so many brothers and sisters (actually half bros and sisters, but that's beside the point). Holidays were really special as we all sat around the table and I felt safe and warm and fuzzy. I used to think, "When I grow up, I want to have seven...no, twelve kids".


Then I grew up. I had three, one of whom died in infancy.

I'm now glad I never had those seven or twelve kids after all.

Raising children is one of the toughest jobs in the world, and I'm glad a lot of people take it seriously and don't have children just to satisfy their own, or someone else's, fantasies.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:20 AM
Response to Original message
13. I have a sister that decided not to have children. No biggie.
I've also heard other people call childless women "selfish" for making their choice. Ridiculous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maru Kitteh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
88. Calling people "selfish" for not having children is just as ugly as people who call women "selfish"
for having them. Both are ridiculous. I'm sorry people have said that about your sister and her personal choice, because that's what it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:22 AM
Response to Original message
15. Leaves you more time to contribute to the future in other ways.
Never wanted kids, never had them, never regretted it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
16. I'm 55, do not have children, do have a good job, and
yes, my life is a lark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inkyfuzzbottom Donating Member (293 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
17. It is so irritating, isn't it?
I just turned 50 and never wanted children. I love kids but I never wanted any of my own. I could never find a doc to give me a tubal because they always insisted I'd change my mind. Finally, at 40 I found a female gyn and she was happy to do it. I got so sick of people wanting to know when I was going to have a baby. Even worse were the ones who assumed I couldn't have children and proceeded to feel "sorry" for me. Fortunately my parents NEVER pressured me about giving them grandkids. In fact, they always said they didn't want to be forced to take care of grandkids or for me to assume they'd be built in babysitters if I decided to have kids. I've never regretted being childless by choice. I have so many friends stressing over their kids problems or struggling to raise their grandchildren because their own children can't seem to get it together and raise what they have spawned. No thanks. Call me childless by choice and loving it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top