i'm unmarried, and i dont have kids.. do i somehow not count as much?

[toddzilla]

Anyone else get this vibe from the world of "adults"? i'm unmarried, no kids, and i get the feeling that my time is deemed less valuable than my married with children acquaintances.. "you don't get it, you have to have kids" is spoken to me far too often.


I don't fucking want any kids.. i'm not married because i'm a disaster, and if i found someone i'm not sure i would even care if i was married to them or not..



*sigh* i need another planet to live on where people make sense.

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. Well, you're obviously immature and openly defying God's order

for nature.

:eyes:

Sad, isn't it? How people seem to know what will make you happy, as opposed to letting you decide what makes you happy? Especially the obnoxious breeders.

[mhr]

2. Yes, All The Time - It Gets Worse As You Get Older

Married people do no interact with singles to any great degree - once they have kids it ends completely.

As you get older, you don't fit in anywhere in society.

[Freebird12004]

76. very true

[patcox2]

168. Its because they don't have time, believe me, nothing to do with you.

God, I have just read this thread and what a bunch of resentful whiners the childless are. You think about your status far more than I could be bothered to, I couldn't care less about whether someone has kids or not.

[StopTheMorans]

198. looks like the childless don't have the market on resentful whining

cornered after all...

[hickman1937]

3. I envy you.

I've got two kids. I'll trade my life or yours. Even swap though, I can't throw in any money.

[Biased Liberal Media]

4. I'm married and have one child

and there are days where I feel I'm nothing to anyone or anything...including my family. That would be today.

There's nothing wrong with being unmarried or having no children. Enjoy the freedom man...LOL...that's all I have to say.

[Sandpiper]

5. A lot of Married people suffer from Married Hubris

They think somehow that they are more righteous, virtuous, selfless, etc. because they decided to get married.

[smirkymonkey]

99. Usually, they are just more miserable

and want everyone else to suffer along with them. (no offense to DU happily married couples.)

[Longgrain]

6. I'm unmarried and want kids...

And somewhat relate to all you're going though...

[barb162]

7. to many marrieds with children, you are verboten

The questions about when are you getting married and or having children all indicate that you are NOT doing things as they see fit. Because you don't do as they do, you are viewed as a threat or as if there is something wrong with you.

I can't tell you(!!!) in my neighborhood, after you introduce yourself, the next question is how many kids do you have. I am serious. When you say none, they don't know what to respond. They never talk to you again.

And yes, you literally don't count as much, if at all, to many of these people.

[rwenos]

8. It's Not Being Married, It's Being a Parent

It's the toughest and best job in the world. You watch a human form in front of your eyes. You realize how many childish tricks adults play all day long. It's ASTOUNDING! Power trips, tantrums, pouting -- adults do them all. And they resent like HELL when you point out they're doing the same thing your four-year old does.

But once you are one, you know something a non-parent doesn't know. It isn't about biology. It's about responsibility for a truly helpless person, who is utterly dependent on you to make the right calls. This will sober up most anyone. How anyone can walk away from it is beyond me. But it's the strongest thing in my life, bar nothing.

I wouldn't call it hubris. But it is a knowingness.

[Biased Liberal Media]

14. No kidding!!!

[Spinzonner]

9. Then you get to look forward to taking care of your parents

because, after all, you don't have children to be responsible for and have the time.

Of course, I'm lucky because I'm an only child also and don't have to deal with siblings with the above attitude.

Note that the above attitude is something I've heard from others', not experienced, and am rather grateful that I don't have that conflict over responsibilty to deal with. It's mine, always has been and always will be.

The unmarried understand responsibility too, in ways perhaps others don't appreciate.

[Freebird12004]

~

[Freebird12004]

80. all alone since I was 24

and that was over half a lifetime ago that my Dad passed away. My Mom has been gone since before I was 2 and I was an only child.

I have enjoyed my single days and most of my single nights, too. BUT --- I'm still "fighting the single woman out to supper alone - war" Restaurant owners should court our business too.

The older I get - the more that I'm sure my decision not to have children was the right choice - but there are times that I miss not having grandchildren.

I am alone in a world of "parents & children" - without either one.

I have always been the "responsible one" that my friends turned to for advice.

After all .... Who was there for me to turn to - I had to be responsible for *me*.

[babylonsister]

10. Toddz, here's a

:hug: My favorite unk died a few years ago. He never got married, never had kids, and he was fabulous!

[crispini]

11. I get the same crap.

Ignore them, be happy, find single friends. There are plenty of single people around, although depending on your age you may find yourself hanging out with younger or older people. I don't care much, they're usually more interested in the same things I am -- movies, books, plays, politics, music -- rather than just wanting to rabbit on about their kids.

[The Great Escape]

12. You Are Expected To Work In Their Place...

on Halloween, Thanksgiving, XMas and so on and on......I draw the line at the Super Bowl.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

26. That's not necessarily true.

I worked on holidays while I was married and pregnant. I had a crappy job (Blockbuster) at the time. Then I got a job as a teacher after my son was born. I worked all the time for that job (days, nights, weekends, vacations) and I didn't get paid for a lot of my work.

My dad often worked on weekends and holidays when I was kid too.

[Freebird12004]

82. not a bad thing

as long as I get to pick my special days too - like the Super Bowl - or even better My Birthday

[Thor_MN]

13. You got it, somehow most companies think you not worth as much either

You aren't taking time off to go to school conferences, watch sick kids, transport them to appointments, music lessons, sports, etc, etc. So you really should be more valuable to the company, shouldn't you? But, since you don't have a family to support, you don't need as much money do you?

You pay as much as your neighbors in property taxes, so you are subsidizing their kids education. They get deductions for each and every one of their kids for income taxes, you just keep on paying in the full amount.

Is the US really hurting for more population? Would people stop having kids if all the fiscal incentives were dropped?

[Rabrrrrrr]

17. That SOBing tax credit for having children has to go

It simply has to go. Talk about an unfair tax!

Hey - I have an idea - let's levy fines against all the childless people, but, since we can't call it a fine for being childless, let's call it a tax credit for the people with children!

Fuck that. Either tax everyone fairly, or, if one must do something extra about the children, then ADD MORE tax to the people with children since they're using more of the country's stuff, like schools.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

22. They give people who have children a tax credit

because it costs a lot to raise a kid. Also, they are raising the future of this country. The credit isn't for all that much anyhow. I don't really understand what you are so upset about.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

27. Gee.. I understand why you are single. n/t

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

32. Sorry,

since this thread was about single childless people, I assumed you were one of them.

I have to say that you sound very angry and bitter in your posts. I hope you aren't like that in reality.

[Rabrrrrrr]

36. Not angry and bitter in general, no. I'm a pretty happy, Taoist-like

go-with-the-flow generally happy kind of guy.

But I also have a strong sense of justice - fining people for not having children is unconscionable, IMO. And people who whine about the expense because they fucked have no sympathy from me.

I'll happily support whatever taxes are necessary for schools - and as I said, I'd pay more to have free state university education - but don't unfairly fine me just for being childless.

[Biased Liberal Media]

37. The system is not perfect. But don't get pissed at people who

have children and chalk it up to "being responsible enough to have children". it doesn't always work that way. Not to mention it's insulting. There are plenty of people out there, single AND married, who are working hard to make ends meet. It's just a lot more tough with a child/children.

[Rabrrrrrr]

42. But you see, that's such a bullshit argument,

"It's just a lot more tough with a child/children."

Well, then, don't have them. Or have fewer.

Why this insane willingness to let people get away with irresponsibility when it comes to having "OMGhe'ssocutelookathim" children?

Not that I want any child to go away starving or without medical care, but if you can only afford to have children by levying fines against the childless, then you need to rethink your selfishness and grow up.

Yeah, maybe it is a lot more tough with children - too fuckin' bad. if it's tougher, then don't have 'em if you can't afford 'em.

[Biased Liberal Media]

44. Excuse me?? Irresponsiblity??

Sometimes accidents happen and some people don't believe in abortion for themselves. Sometimes people ARE prepared but then lose a job.

You can NEVER be too prepared.

If anyone is bitching the most, it's you.

As a person who had a child not being completely prepared for her, I'm completely insulted by your insinuations here. You sound like the Freepers I have debated on other sites who chalk it up to "personal responsiblity". Yes, it's not a good choice, but get the hell over it. I decided to KEEP my child over aborting her and it's not something I regret, whatsoever. In fact I'm lucky to have her as I now deal with infertility!

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

50. I never felt that way about supposedly paying

more taxes when I was single and childless. Frankly, we paid less in taxes back then because we made less money. I don't think those tax breaks are that significant. You just said that you don't want to see any child go without medical care. Well if that's so, why complain about the minuscule tax breaks parents get? Shouldn't you be more concerned about tax breaks given to large corporations and wealthy folks?

[Biased Liberal Media]

53. Ex-freakin'-xactly

[Pithlet]

128. Thank You!

Complaints about tax credits for kids and twisting it to make it appear as a "penalty" on the childless makes about as much sense as complaining about welfare (a penalty for those who aren't poor).

[REP]

67. A-Fucking-Men, Brother

Filled up my Bingo card reading this thread. Lots of things are hard. Having children is one hard thing that is a self-inflicted hardship. Hard to be reeeeeeal sympathetic.

[Nile]

74. Maybe your parents should not have had children.

:eyes:

[Rabrrrrrr]

114. And by what data do you come to that very rude personal attack conclusion?

:shrug: :wtf:

Gosh, I guess I've quite soundly debated into the ground with that statement. Yep, I definitely lost this one. "Maybe your parents shouldn't have had children." That was perfect! That was sheer perfect unadulterated perfection when it comes to the debate. "Your parents shouldn't have had children." My God, man, how can any come back against that? Talk about a resounding victory for you, O Eloquent One! I bet you were on the debate team, you so rapidly and uttterly dissolved any chance I had of offering my point as valid. Crushed, I am. Absolutely crushed! BAM! I was talking, a few of us were debating, and then, out of nowhere like John Wayne coming to save the town, you saddled up and rode on in and immediately dismembered by argument and left it bleeding on the ground, to die a painful and well-deserved death. Bravo, man! Bravo!!

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

145. The poster was making the point that none of us

would be here now if it weren't for our own parents deciding to have children (only they pointed you out specifically because you appear to very adamantly against the idea of tax credits for parents). If you value your own existence, then you should also be able to see why our society (and I think almost every society) values children and families. The reason why single people receive less in tax credits is not that single people are valued less, but that people with children often need more assistance. This is why they are offered a child tax credit.

I think the poster's brief comments were effective in getting their point across too. Some people don't find it necessary to go on and on when they can summarize in one quick statement. It's just a matter of personal style.

[Pithlet]

133. Great. Let's just make having kids a privilege for the rich only

That will make society a hell of a better place. And when those who have them anyway out of sheer defiance have them anyway, the kids can pay. After all, their parents weren't a member of elite society. They shouldn't have had them. Who cares if that means they go without?

You pick an awfully inconvenient time to make such an "argument" with the middle class shrinking. As time goes on, it is more and more the haves and the have nothings. Without things like child tax credits, child poverty will increase.

Your logic twisting it into a penalty on the childless is ridiculous. We are ALL members of society, whether we have children or not. And it benefits ALL of us if people are able to have children even if they aren't independently wealthy. It is an incredible financial burden to have children. If you aren't in the upper income brackets, even if you make decent money, having kids puts a heavy burden on that. Is it truly fair to leave raising children only to the rich?

When I was single and childless, I did NOT begrudge tax credits for people with children. I did not then, and I do not now understand those who do.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

139. I totally agree.

You make good points.
:yourock:

[redqueen]

212. Do you really not see how your logic falls apart?

I could afford to be a stay at home mom before the economy tanked.

So, should nobody have any children unless they're independently wealthy, since one day someone might lose their job?

Honestly!

:eyes:

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

55. True..

Some people have sweet jobs and have kids and everything seems fine, until one day one parent gets unexpectedly laid off. It happens all the time.

But I guess they should have been able to predict those future hardships, and they should have been responsible and never had kids. What bad, bad parents!

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

47. Well, I'm glad you aren't an angry person.

Seriously, I am.
I think you expressed yourself better in this post. :) Your other post was kind of offensive.

[patcox2]

181. Oh, yeah, you're taoist-like.

If taoists were bitter, jealous, and self-pitying. I never read about those aspects of taoism. Must be a gap in my education.

[Biased Liberal Media]

30. Wow. When you have a child maybe you'll understand

You sound like a Repuke when you say that. I would expect that from a Freeper who bitches about how they are taxed to death- but not by a DUer who strives to help out others!

For your information not ALL families get the child tax credit. I believe the cut off limit is $27,000 a year for a family with children. A family of 3 making under $27,000 a year could certainly benefit from a child tax credit.

This post sounds about as bad as those Freepers out there who bitch and moan about welfare and assistance for impoverished families.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

33. But you still get deductions for each child

:shrug:

[Biased Liberal Media]

35. And??

Do you even know how much daycare costs?? Those deductions can help with a family who is trying to work AND put their children in daycare.

[Rabrrrrrr]

39. Okay, then - I really like having computers.

Computers are expensive.

Give me a tax credit so I can support my need to have computers in the house.

Or my fish - I'd love a tax credit (that is, a fine against non-fish owners) because, shit, fish can be pricey.

And yeah, I knew these hobbies were expensive when I got into them, but I still think the government should help me out because... well... I'm a fuckin' selfish whiner who didn't feel the need to do a cost analysis before I started and see no reason why I should be punished for my shortsightedness, not when there's a great big daddy government out there with plenty of money.

[Biased Liberal Media]

41. What is your problem??

[Rabrrrrrr]

43. Problem? Not a problem - an issue.

And I think it's obvious - I don't see why the child-having should be allowed to levy fines against the child-less in order to support their need for children.

What do they say at the buffets? "Take all you want, but please eat all you take."

Well, how about "Have all the children you want, but please only have what you can afford."

I don't think that's rocket science.

[Biased Liberal Media]

46. There are some people out there who have children one after the other

and yes, maybe they should stop...but that's none of your OR my business. Whatever happened to REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM?? And yes, that has EVERYTHING to do with it. By telling a person they should "only have what they can afford" is like telling someone who gets pregnant who is not financially prepared to have an abortion, thus taking away their personal choice.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Biased Liberal Media]

52. It's none of your business

Whether you or I agree or disagree with it, it's not something that is our business. Again, reproductive freedom.

Doesn't mean we have to agree with it. And yes, the system is broken and needs to be revamped.

As for your assanine comment comparing children to computers, pets or a crack addiction...apples & oranges. BIGTIME. HUGE difference.

[Rabrrrrrr]

54. Ah, but it IS my business once people start asking me for money

I have every right in the world to say that people should have only what they can afford - whether it be children, hobbies, cars, or homes. Only what they can afford.

There is no holy grail of "reproductive freedom" that allows unrelentling childbirth, willy nilly, without limit and without social critique.

I have freedom of speech, but I can't yell "fire" in a theater.

I have freedom to own a gun, but that doesn't mean I can shoot it downtown.

I have freedom to have as many cars as I want, but that doesn't mean I can park them in my lawn and in my neighbor's lawn and perpendicular in the straight, etc.

I'm getting the impression that you think that the right to reproductive freedom is so sacred, and so absolute, that to limit it or criticize it in any way is to embrace the most unholy thought possible.

All freedoms have two ends; they are not one-ended absolutes - there is the reproductive freedom to which all people are entitled, and should be entitled; but there is also society's freedom to say "stop".

[Biased Liberal Media]

56. Nobody's asking you for a handout...the government is telling you

and taking it out of your taxes. If it wasn't going to be child welfare or something like that, it would be something else that you would bitch over. Edited to add: When I was single I had taxes taken out too, but I didn't bitch over people getting child tax credit. It's completely stupid of me or anyone else to say who should and shouldn't have children or how many children a person SHOULD have...because frankly, it's none of my business. Ponder this, if you're pissed about having to take out taxes period...there IS something you can legally file and refuse to pay taxes. But when you needs the cops or ambulance to assist you when you need them, you're going to have to pay them for it. Are you going to whine about that??

It'll be there when you have children and it'll be there when you get older and have to rely on the government for help. At least we hope so.

What's next?? Bitching about elderly people who rely on social security??

[Pithlet]

144. Social security. A penalty on the young!

I'm not old. I don't need any of that stuff that old people need. I happened to be born in 1972. It's not my fault they were born way before that. It's not my fault they didn't save enough to take care of themselves. Why penalize me? It's not fair!!! *stamping foot*

[gollygee]

103. Children cost money, but don't make money

so do senior citizens, and they get social security. Children are not pets, or cars, or computer parts. They are people.

I pay taxes for lots of things I don't like. I don't like that I pay property taxes but churches don't have to. But I pay the taxes anyway.

You're insistence that you are being fined to pay for children sounds a lot like when I hear freepers say think they're being fined to pay for food stamps for people to buy snickers bars and pepsi.

Society doesn't have the ability to tell people to stop having children any more than society has the ability to compel people to have children.

[Nile]

75. The problem is called society.

Apparently you do not care to be a part of it.

[petite_dynomite]

63. Comparing a child/children to a hobbie???

I can't believe that was even said, was that your argument?

If I was BLESSED to have a child, I myself would keep him/her and worry about my financial plans in the meantime. Whether or not you feel it is unfair you'd be paying taxes for something else if that wasn't what your tax money went too, would it be an issue to pay on SSI if you had a benifits plan for your retirement? What if you were laid off and that was taking away? If you are too old to keep the same carrer you'd need SSI to help you eat, have a roof over your head, and/or transportation. It wouldn't seem like such a senseless expense then would it? What if hypothetically your birth control didn't work, and your wife/lover wanted to keep the baby, and you lost your job, again just hypothetically, would you use the assistance that is there for you at that point? What all I mean is that these are not neccessarily situations that were under your control, why there are ppl who abuse the system, there are many that need it very badly to surrvive. My mom had just me and paid taxes for these things during her 80 hour work weeks and still needed assistance with food and medical. We have the right to chose our kids due to emotion before finances and it might be viewed different if you ever had to be in that situation, I hope that never happens to you but for those who need it, I'll pay for it!

[hfojvt]

69. well, I made the same argument

so I think it is fair, they are both voluntary expenses. Having a child is something that can be controlled, for the most part, in this day and age. If accidencts happen, keeping a child is also a choice. We are not really talking about disasters or what-not. We are talking about a system where one person making $20,000 is taxed about $1400. That is not that big a deal to me, until I find out that people who make $20,000 or $30,000 more than I do are taxed far, far less. You think $1350 is no big deal, when they have twice my income? One person with one child and making the same income as me is not only going to pay nothing in income tax, they will get an EIC of $1549.
I am not against the tax credit. When it was $200 that was fine, but when it got bumped to $1000 it became outrageous. Worse so because that benefits people with higher incomes more than it does lower (when the credit was $600 per child two child couples making less than $30,000 or so were already paying $0 in income tax, so increasing the credit and making sure it was non-refundable did nothing for them) When Congress voted to extend the credit to families making $150,000 - $250,000 then it became really outrageous.

[petite_dynomite]

232. I understand completely the point made,

I still pay that, tax and having needing that financial help as a child I have no problem with that whatsoever if it helps someone, never crosses my mind to be upset paying that tax, because when I marry my fiance and have the child taxes and/or have a child of my own, I'll either have my tax dedution coming back to me or I will make enough to not need the taxes, either way If I make 20,000 single, I need less to survive than a family with 2 kids who make twice as much but have more mouths to feed it to me makes sense and is the circle of life. JMO, but that's what works as far as having a choice to keeping a child that's what it is exactly, a choice not everyone agree's with abortion and/or adoption. again JMO.

[Biased Liberal Media]

235. Sour grapes

I don't know if you're a female so I'll put it this way. When a woman finds out she's pregnant something changes. You become more aware of your body...(at least some) and the choice to abort or give up becomes a lot harder.

The EIC is for families who make under $27,000 if I recall correctly. Do you realize how many families can use that to their advantage?? Let me tell you a true story. Last year Mr. Biased Liberal Media was laid off due to icy conditions and we were scrounging everything we had. We relied on the food bank, we had nothing and we were facing eviction (we have a young child). If our tax return (Earned income credit and all) didn't come in, we would have been without a roof over our heads. You want to know what our gross was last year??? $14,000 for a family of 3. So there is NO way ANYONE should be bitching over the fact that families who make less are entitled to the EIC. It benefits a LOT of those families. Luckily we are not anywhere near that nowadays...but I'll tell you how grateful we were to have money to pay our rent, put food in our refridgerator and pay our bills. You have NO idea.

Now if it's true that it's been extended to those making over $150k a year I can understand why people are upset...but for the most part, those under $27k could certainly stand to benefit from it. That's living paycheck to paycheck...and this could help many. Most people in that bracket don't have any KIND of medical insurance so perhaps the EIC will help pay for medical expenses??

[Amaya]

96. This has got to be the most absurd post ever

are you really this dense? Because, damn...... :crazy:

[MissMillie]

110. Your computer will never become

a tax-paying citizen....

Some of us are willing to give birth and raise the humans who will eventually be working and paying taxes and Social Security.

That's what we get the tax deduction for.

[Rabrrrrrr]

120. So? There's no guarantee your child will, either.

Some of your children are going to end up in prison. Some will die at an early age, maybe even childhood. Some will end up addicted to narcotics.

Some of your children are going to kill other people in a drunk driving accident.

Some of your children are going to set a national forest on fire.

Some of your children are going to embezzle money.

Some of your children are going to die in a drug related crime.

Some of your children are going to die of cancer, HIV, malaria, downs syndrome, or tuberculosis.

Some of your children are going to be CEOs and other officers in companies that legally and illegally pollute the environment around the world, employ slave labor, and shift their accounting off shore so they don't pay taxes.

I don't take the "my kids are gonna be paying your social security" argument as valid at all. Who cares? And not all of them are going to, anyway. I probably won't get social security anyway, so pfagh.

You should have children because you feel called to have them. Not for selfish reasons, not for reasons of having someone to take care of you in old age (talk about selfish and cynical!), not to be taxpayers. Have them because you feel called to have them, and because you know in your heart you have the skills to form and grow and raise a wonderful human being who will help evolve the species up another notch.

I'll happily pay taxes to put the kid through school, provide some healthcare, give him/her a bus to get to school, and fight to keep the air and land clean enough that they have a nice place to live when they're older.

But don't be asking for a reward just because you were able to mate with someone else.

[StopTheMorans]

121. I agree with your last two paragraphs, and think it is more representative

of the argument you were trying to make earlier :thumbsup:

[MissMillie]

127. The tax deduction is NOT "why" I had a kid

I had a kid because I wanted one.

And overwhelmingly, these kids ARE going to become working, tax-paying citizens. (I'll bet you can't make the same argument computers.)

It's not a reward. It's meant to keep people as consumers. If having children negatively affects my ability to consume products (homes, cars, etc) then that affects the economy overall.

[Rabrrrrrr]

131. I never said it was why you had a child.

Anyone dumb enough to have a child for that reason probably DOES need a lot of government help.

But our government DOES reward people for having children, in the form of the tax credit.

And what's the difference whether you are given a reward so that you can go consume more, or if the childless are allowed to keep their money so that THEY can spend it? Either way, it gets spent. I don't think you offer a good argument there at all with your "consumer" thought.

[MissMillie]

134. There are more people with children

Therefore you keep more consumers by providing them with the tax credits and deductions.

It's like this: Do you give 80% of tax-payers a couple hundred dollars a year, or do you give 20% of tax-payers tens of thousands of dollars?

Which method will produce more consumers? It's kind of like the Dole and Bush tax cuts. When you give a very small percentage of higher earners the bulk of the cut, it has a less positive affect on the economy. When rich folks have a lot of extra money, there is only so much of it they will spend here in the U.S. The rest of it they are likely to invest, and these days, with a declining dollar, they're going to invest it somewhere else.

[Amaya]

138. Do you honestly have a point?

because you seem to just babble on and on and on and on....

"But don't be asking for a reward just because you were able to mate with someone else. "

May I ask, who is asking YOU for a reward?
You seem like a very bitter person.

[Pithlet]

135. Your computer is not going to contribute to society

Your computer isn't going to work. Is not going to take care of us in our old age. A human being and a computer aren't the same thing.

[Midlodemocrat]

141. Okay, but don't you think that the tax helps to subsidize

the fact that this current crop of children will be the next policemen, firemen, pharmacist? I have kids, but had them fairly late and even when I didn't have kids, I didn't get that argument. Paying taxes for good schools means that the next generation will be educated enough to determine which medication you need to treat your heart ailment in your old age.

[greendog]

147. I don't have a problem with the tax credit...

...or the property tax to support schools. As a single person without kids I don't mind paying more than my share.

But I do think it should be called what it is: Socialism. If you accept the redistribution of MY income to support the lifestyle choices YOU made you are a socialist.

And if you don't mind sharing MY income with YOUR family, surely you won't mind helping me with my healthcare, education, and retirement. After all, if socialism is good enough for you it should be good enough for me too.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

184. Sure...

I'm all for that. What's wrong with being a socialist anyhow?

[greendog]

196. Nothing at all...

...unless you're the type of socialist who takes the benefits for yourself and denies them to others. Real Socialists consider that to be bad form.

On our tax returns any tax deduction that isn't available to everyone should have the word (socialism :)) printed next to it. Just to make certain people think.

[Biased Liberal Media]

236. I wish our country was more socialist

instead of being so damned arrogant and greedy. We have gotten help so many times from the community or from the government when we were poor...now that that has changed I want to give back as much as possible. Mr. Biased LIberal Media doesn't get it. I have to drive it in to his head...but he's starting to realize we should take care of others who are in need.

No one (single OR married) should have to deal with worrying about where their next meal is going to come from, or if they will have a warm place to sleep. NO ONE.

[patcox2]

182. Hey, lets all get sterilized, think how much we'd save.

Thats a great idea. I assume you don't mind the fact that you were born, too bad you are angry and want to penalize those who are willing to endure the cost and work and lifetime commitment involved in letting someone else be born and grow up and become a person with their own thoughts and dreams and who can express their idiotic opinions on a message board.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

185. LOL

:yourock:

[Xithras]

193. I hope you've never taken a personal exemption on your taxes

Otherwise you'd be a hypocrite.

The personal exemption is there for a reason. The progressive tax system in the US essentially "gives" you some of your income, tax-free. Why? The belief is that a small percentage of your income goes to cover "living expenses" like clothes and food. The government doesn't want to tax money that's required for you to simply survive, and they give you a way to exempt it.

The dependent exemptions are simply the same thing. Since multiple people are now dependent on that income to simply survive, you are granted additional exemptions to cover them.

If you think those exemptions come anywhere NEAR the cost of actually raising a child, you are seriously misinformed.

Besides, I think that single people SHOULD pay more taxes. In a properly tuned system of progressive taxation, those with more money should pay more taxes. Singles, with far fewer expenses, typically have far more funds available to them than couples with children.

[warrens]

15. When you have a kid, your life changes

Some people are obnoxious about it, but seriously, you find a whole new level of love. It makes you a lot more cynical about romantic love, when you see the real thing.

[Rabrrrrrr]

18. Ah, but now you are projecting your experiences onto all other people

You can't use the "you" word in those things you said.

All you can honestly do is speak from your own experience, thus:

"When I had a kid, my life changed.

Some people are obnoxious about it, but seriously, I found a whole new level of love. It made me a lot more cynical about romantic love, when I saw the real thing."

Not everyone's life changes when they have kids; not everyone's life who does change, changes for the better. You are taking your experience and making it normative for all people.

[patcox2]

167. Yes, everyone's life changes, except maybe the filthy rich.

Your life changes because you have a kid. I am not preaching some spiritual epiphany here that makes you better than people who do not have kids, I am talking the relentless work, the 24 hour a day drudgery, the absolute responsibility, absolute, a responsibility that does not go away, there are no breaks, you can't call in sick or take a day off. The loss of freedom, its profound.

You may have a right to be resentful of people telling you that parenthood makes you "better" or that you are immature or imposing whatever judgment they want, but your in denial about it changing people, it does, big time. A Bush could probably hand a kid over to servants and never pay the least attention to it and not change, but any person who really has to raise a child cannot escape some change.

[Rabrrrrrr]

238. Yes, but his/her point was that the change is always for the better,

always good.

That's blatantly not true. S/he took the unscientific tack of taking her/his personal experience and making it normative and universal.

I'm mostly speaking against his/her bad use of English, since I think it was just mostly sloppy usage, using the generic "you" instead of "I" or "people" (a bad language usage I didn't learn about until I was in junior high), as opposed to erroneous thinking.

[Skittles]

57. yes, and we are sick of hearing about it

really, and I see and hear about plenty of parents who apparently feel no such love towards their children.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

61. I think the majority of parents do have this love for their children.

[amazona]

159. well I don't necessarily agree

My mom told me outright many times as a child that she felt no love for me, and she is not a monster, heck, she voted for Gore and Kerry. We're fine as adults but when you invite an unknown child into your home, the point is, a stranger is coming with unknown illnesses and personality, and there is simply no guarantee that you will automatically like the person or even be able to get along.

Not all mothers get that chemical dump into their brain that makes them forget what it was like to be a kid themselves and feel nothing but ooshy-gooshy toward being a slave to dirty diapers. A good proportion of women, the chemical dump doesn't work right, and they actually end up with severe post-natal depression. The natural process of brainwashing just doesn't work that well on all women. Hormones and their churning is a tricky thing.

And what if you didn't want your brain and life changed to begin with?

The post about turning away from romantic love because now the person understands "real" love...that is the very thing that destroys so many young marriages! The woman is suddenly changed and doesn't care about sex or her husband any more because she is all caught up in baby. Those women are scary and unattractive to me. I would never want to become someone who could spend her whole lunch hour swapping stories about the consistency of baby shit.

Let's be honest. Some women hate babies. They smell bad. They scream.

Having a child is not a wonderful transformative process for everyone and if that is what you are expecting, it is WAY too much pressure on the child you're bringing into the world.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

166. I said the "majority", not "all". n/t

[ikojo]

140. Omayn v omayn Skittles!!!!

Some parents treat their kids as extensions of themselves. They have kids to do the things they never did as kids.

[StopTheMorans]

108. please, stop treating your personal opinions as fact. you cannot

extrapolate your personal experiences onto every other person, and frankly, you're being extremely condescending.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

118. That poster was not presenting their ideas as fact anymore

than you or the rest of us do.

[StopTheMorans]

123. i have to disagree with you

that poster said, in completely certain terms, " Some people are obnoxious about it, but seriously, you find a whole new level of love. It makes you a lot more cynical about romantic love, when you see the real thing." It logically follows that romantic love is not worth as much or is not as valid as the love that you have for your children. And, it can be inferred that all people who have children WILL find a whole new level of love when the opposite is also true (i.e. many people will have children and will sexually/physically abuse them, will not care for them properly, etc...). many of the rest of us couch our posts in at least the fact that they are our opinions, or that maybe, just MAYBE, our experiences don't apply to EVERYONE else on the board...

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

149. My point is that you can infer whatever you want...

but what you infer isn't always what they writer intended for you to get out of their message. "In completely certain terms"...It's not like they were writing a legal document or something, geez.

Every post is obviously a personal opinion. There's nothing to debate there.

[StopTheMorans]

151. yes, but all that we can tell about someone's points are what they post

and no, every post is not a personal opinion. some actually contain facts, and some contain evidence to support the conclusions that the posters make. others, like the one i was referring to, contain a conclusion with no evidence whatsoever, other than the poster's personal opinions. opinions are fine, as long as you add some evidence to back them up. if not, then the person deserves to get called on acting as if their opinions are facts...

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

154. Opinions are opinions

They require no evidence to back them up in an informal setting such as this message board. Why do you hold that poster to a higher standard than everyone else any how? I see no one else here siting scientific studies and surveys to support their opinions.

[StopTheMorans]

157. you're acting as if one example naturally applies to all other posts

i'm not arguing that. most people don't state their opinion as fact in SERIOUS discussions (as is this one, i'm not talking about the inane posts that make up most of the lounge). for instance, the great majority of posters on this board, when arguing the genuine merit of having pets, would not say the following: "When you have a pet, your life is just better. People without pets can't understand that. Their lives will never be as full as my life is right now." Most people have more tact than to state things in that way; they would say something like "Since I've had a pet, my life has been better; however, I can see why people do not want pets." I'm not using "scientific studies and surveys" to support my opinion, nor am i asking that others do. I'm just asking that people do not state their opinion as fact without ANY supporting evidence. It doesn't make for good and productive discussions, and it wastes peoples time...

[Rabrrrrrr]

237. Especially when they're making such BROAD statements, and offering them

as facts, such as the aforementioned "everyone's life is better after they have children" or "everyone loves their children" etc.

That's not an opinion - that's just blatantly false and blatantly unscientific. (as you mentioned).

And that's the guy way back in this subthread was doing.

(I'm not preaching to you, StopTheMorans, but to the others)

[hfojvt]

16. well at tax time you count for way more

Married couple two kids, income $40,000 - income taxes $45
single guy, no kids, income 20,000 - income taxes about $1400
and don't forget the property taxes you pay, to pay for other people's kids to goto school.
Did you ever notice how the Public Library in alot of small towns closes earlier and on Sundays during the summer. Why is that? Answer, because there is no school. The Library is there for the kids, not for tax paying adults (not even the ones who have kids).
But I guess in one sense we all got the benefits from this when we were kids, except my parents did not get the huge tax deductions of today.

[Spinzonner]

19. Don't forget you're educating the kids who

will be employed as adults and paying into the Social Security system that will be supporting (at least in part) your old age - whether you have children or not.

And better educated will be higher salaries and more taxes and higher SS revenues - unless Shrub screws up the system, of course.

[hfojvt]

28. that was more true of my father's generation

because they jumped the taxes way up almost right when I entered the workforce in 1983. WE are supporting the older generation. Because our massive tax dollars are also being spent on the deficit, we will need to be supported by the next generation. However, Bush is right in that we get a piss-poor return on the money we paid in. There is nothing that can be done about that, unless we pay for current SS expenditures with the money that is otherwise going to Bush's farging permanent tax cut for the wealthy.
There are certainly social benefits to education, but as a childless person, I think my costs are greater than my benefits compared to families with children. If anything, I should get an income tax credit to offset that.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

23. I never noticed the thing about the libraries.

I have never felt that the library is just for kids. I still go there often. Perhaps I'm just childish.

[LeftyMom]

51. Not all kids got to taxpayer supported schools

I pay out the nose for other people's kids to go to crappy schools whose methods I don't approve of, then turn around and pay AGAIN for my own child's educational needs. I don't even get to deduct the expenses a public school teacher gets to even if I buy the same freakin' materials from the same supplier for use in LeftyKid's education.

I get a credit (I think it's $1000, but don't quote me) for LeftyKid but I also have to pay for the *many* expenses that go along with having a kid and my income went down when I had him and hasn't entirely recovered.

Sure, single people with no kids pay higher taxes (I remember being floored by the withholding on my paychecks when I started working) but they also have fewer expenses.

[hfojvt]

68. I hate the expense argument

Say I have a $100 a day cocaine habit (or worse yet, I could be buying an SUV). My expenses could be way higher. I do not ask the public to subsidize my cocaine habit (or any other hobby I might waste my money on) but I am expected to subsidize other people's childrearing expenses???
You do have the option of utitlizing the crappy schools or moving to a school district where they are better, but there is no single-land where I can go to escape the expense for which I receive only tangential benefits (although I fully support the idea in theory anyway).

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

117. Since when did a cocaine habit become

comparable to raising children?

Why would the government subsidize a cocaine habit? Someone's cocaine habit has no positive effect over society. It's far more likely to impact other people negatively. A child can have a net positive impact upon society. People who are cynical about the value of people and society would tend to think that having a child is a negative thing.

[hfojvt]

161. well it is an expense

The argument seems to be "I have kids, kids are expensive, so people who do not have kids should be forced to help support mine". That is what is happening when a $20,000 person with no kids pays $1400 and a $40,000 person with two kids pays $45. Worse yet, a person making $150,000 also gets a $2,000 deduction for their kids, so I am even subsidizing those rich people with their expenses.
I think the point has been made that children do not necessarily have a net positive impact on society either.
As for the disadvantages of the single life, Shari Motro wrote an column in the NYTimes that summed it up pretty well:
"Research consistently shows that unmarried Americans are on average poorer, sicker and sadder than their married counterparts. Yet they are denied perks given to married couples who, in many cases, neither need nor deserve them. Though gay couples certainly lose out as well, singles of any preference pay a triple price for not finding love: they don't enjoy the solace and support of a life partner; they don't profit from the economies of scale that come from pooling resources with a mate; and they effectively subsidize spousal benefits that they themselves can't take advantage of."

[Pithlet]

163. Kids are people and are members of our society

That is what you're missing, here. And, just like any human and any member of society, they require resources. Government, whether you agree with it or not, provides for its members of society to a certain extent. Because children cannot take care of themselves, it would make no sense to give money directly to them. So, parents are given that money instead in care of their children. It isn't stealing from you any more than any other benefits anyone receives from taxpayers money.

[LeftyMom]

160. Are you comparing my child,

an emerging human being, and a rather interesting one at that, with a coke habit or a supremely ugly vehicle?

I'd like to think my son will do the world more good than your hypothetical coke habit. My son isn't a hobby. He's not bad for the enviornment. He's a person. The child-free types tend to get so wrapped up in the idea of paranting as a lifestyle chioce they don't make that they seem to forget that children are *people.*

Actually, I object to the way institutional schooling works, and the only schools that use an approach I approve of are private and still few and far between. I can no more move to "we all read Holt and Gatto and decided our children deserved better land" than you can move to single-land. There's no CO status for subsidizing institutional schools. For that matter, I pay for a lot of other things I don't need via taxation such as animal agriculture and a grossly overinflated military.

[InvisibleTouch]

20. I get some of that, but I don't care.

I'm happy with the choices I've made, so I don't really care what anyone thinks of me. I'm always of the mind that, if someone objects to the way I want to live my life, given that I'm not infringing on their life, then the problem is theirs, not mine.

Do what's right for you. No one else can legitimately make those decisions for you, nor do they have the right to object, judge, or criticize. Yes, that includes well-meaning but misguided relatives, too. If they get in your face, tell them so. Let them worry about their own lives.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. I hear ya!

When I was teaching, it was assumed that we single professors could take on endless extra duties. No excuse was acceptable other than being deadly sick.

The married professors were extempt, because "they had families."

I think that deep down, married people believe that single people don't have lives.

Yes, I know that married people need to spend time with their families, but if there's that much extra work to do, why not hire some more people instead of expecting the single people to turn into workaholics against their will?

Now don't get me started about how until I was 35, my older relatives treated me as a kid because I wasn't married...

[Withywindle]

25. Yes, and politicians only care about "families"...

...whatever happened to "citizens"? I mean, I have a family--parents and aunts and uncles and cousins and all that. We're just not financially interdependent anymore and don't live together.

I don't mind paying for schools and all that: seems a reasonable and fine social investment to me.

The sense of moral superiority I get from some--by no means all, really only a very memorable few--married-with-kids acquaintances is my only beef and it's a big one.

The worst one I've ever heard: "Well, raising the next generation is the most important job...I mean, my kid could grow up to cure cancer."

The only possible answer to that is: "You know, your parents probably said that about you too - maybe your kids will just pass the buck to the next generation like you did." Parenting is great, but I'll save the cancer-cure respect for people who are actually doing, you know, research in the field (and yes, the folks doing both!).

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. That was one thing that bugged me about the presidential candidates

Of all the health care plans offered by the Dem candidates, only DK's would have actually covered everyone.

The others were all about covering "families," even though a lot of married couples have at least one person who is eligible for medical coverage through their job.

To a single self-employed person over fifty (e.g. me), Kerry and the rest either offered exactly what I already have (high-deductiable insurance that I can deduct from my taxable income) or didn't mention single people at all.

Most children these days rarely need anything but routine maintenance, although I realize that there are exceptions.

It's those of us who are too old for cheap insurance and too young for Medicare who are being squeezed.

[Biased Liberal Media]

34. I honestly think we should adopt a system like Canada has

Basic Health care for EVERYONE, single, married, widowed, child, man, woman...etc. People shouldn't have to worry about being able to pay for a physical or check ups when they are sick.

[imenja]

40. I have the same frustration

I get sick of it. Tax credits for families, this and that for families. Your point about our all being citizens is right on target. A large section of the American public is unmarried and we also vote.

[imenja]

38. certainly to politicians you're less important

as am I. I get tired of politicians sneakingly exclusively about Americans as "families" with spouses and children. A large section of the American public is unmarried.

[jdots]

45. just got back from Zimdar,jeez the whole place went bongo

they don't have kids and marrage there ,but they just got this stuff they call money( dirty green wrinkled paper ) relax the fools that say they have kids and a marriage don't realize that the kids and marriage have them.

[last_texas_dem]

48. To me, no; to American society and government, yes

I think the majority of Americans learn somewhere along the way growing up... from their family, from society, etc. to value the idea of being married and having children. While I believe there is value in the concept, I don't think societies should, in essence, put the institution on a pedestal. Myself, I am not anti-marriage and would like to someday if I truly fall in love with someone and they are in love with me, but I don't think not marrying and not having children makes me or anyone else who doesn't any less of a person. In fact, I think some people put so much emphasis on marriage and raising children that they shut themselves off from the rest of the world, from the positive things they could do and positive contributions they could make, and try to live within their family or try to live through their children. I think this is a less healthy way of living than staying single, as long as you don't isolate yourself as an individual (which, sadly, speaking from personal experience, it can also be easy to do as a single person).

I think the emphasis some put on marriage as its chief purpose being to bring children into the world through a union recognized as proper by society, "God", etc. is silly. I actually think it cheapens the value of what the institution should be about. It takes very little work for most married people to have children; it takes significantly more to bring them up. At least to bring them up properly- the one defining "properly" being myself. :-) (Certainly such a judgment is subjective; I simply believe that a number of the people who decide to marry and have children would be better off doing neither, but I definitely wouldn't deny this opportunity to anyone.) I think the reason so many Americans (and I'm sure this is true, to more or less of a degree in other cultures as well) put such an emphasis on marriage is simply because it is seen as a way to give more order to society and more order to how people live their lives. And the main reason, maybe the only reason, people think they need such order to the way they live their lives is simply because they would be scared of what to do without it. And I suppose the reason the government puts such emphasis on "marrieds" over "singles" is simply because there are more married people than single people in America and, proportionately, they also vote at greater percentages.

Anyway, just kinda rambling here.... maybe there's something valuable in whatever I just wrote. Or maybe it's just junk...

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

58. I most of my friends are still single and

unmarried. I don't care whether or not they get married or have children. I only care that they are happy with their lives. I certainly don't find them less valuable as a friend because they are single and childless.

[Lenape85]

59. I don't know if I ever will have kids

I'm too unlovable

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

62. That can't be so.

:loveya:
:hug:

[Spider Jerusalem]

70. Yeah, the Asperger's makes the whole relationship thing difficult...

believe me, I can relate...

[Freebird12004]

86. me too

I've dated a few Aspies and it was a good thing.

[Spider Jerusalem]

95. You have AS?

Never dated another Aspie, myself. The male/female ration makes it kind of difficult...heh

[Freebird12004]

112. 4 to 1

and - only slightly - which is manageable, except for the "oh no - slip of the tongue" which made me think "why the heck did I have to say that". As a teenager - I didn't know I had made a slip of the tongue until I saw the look on other people's faces.

[Spider Jerusalem]

125. Yeah...I had problems with that, too...

that, and not realising I'd said something hurtful/"rude"/etc...I'd say something honestly, and people would get offended, and I'd have to figure out why...very frustrating. Quite often I felt (and still fell, really) like an alien, or a sociologist trying to figure out the behaviour of a strange culture...

[Freebird12004]

165. I have said "There is no one else like me"

but - now I know that's not true. It's easier for me now that I know. I'm 56 and this is a life-long problem that I never figured out until a little over two years ago when I was dating a man who told me about his son having Asperger's Syndrome. I went looking for answers and found more than I expected. It's really OK because it answers so many questions for me about *me*.

[Spider Jerusalem]

177. I felt the same way...

never fit in in school, almost always happiest with my own company, "odd", "strange", generally lost in the universe inside my own head. Then I saw an article on Asperger's in Wired, and there was a self-test...(the "Autism Spectrum Quotient Test"). A score above 32 indicated a strong likelihood of autistic spectrum disorder...I scored 47 out of 50. Made me start looking into it, and it was eerie...some of the personal accounts I came across online read like someone else had been living my life. Suddenly I felt not alone. And not so strange anymore. Got my "offocial" dx 2 years ago this June (I was nearly 100% sure, but I wanted it confirmed).

[geniph]

169. I'm one of those rare female Aspies

and believe me, society looks askance on a woman who doesn't understand how to relate socially even more than they do a man. See, women are supposed to KNOW how to do social shit. I sure as hell don't.

I refer to myself as having "TMI Tourette's" - basically, I don't have the normal cautionary governor on my tongue. If I'm thinking it, I'll say it. Freaks people out.

[Spider Jerusalem]

179. Yeah...at least us guys can get away with...

being the "strong, silent type"...and I do pretty well in one-on-one situations, but social groups are something I'm not built for. Generally ended up being the guy sitting alone in a dark corner near the stereo at parties. My general disinterest in socialising killed more than one relationship, too...but, that's for the best...if I couldn't be me, then I didn't need to be there...

[Freebird12004]

189. being alone has benefits

but - connecting with my first Aspie boyfriend was truly like coming home. I was never more at peace with anyone. A true Soul-mate.

[Spider Jerusalem]

194. Be nice if I find that, someday...

but I enjoy my own company enough that it won't matter too much if I don't.

So, you're from Georgia, originally? (Saw your other post about wandering the shores of Lake Lanier. I've lived in GA since 1986, myself.)

[Freebird12004]

200. yes, and be-careful what you wish for

I was born in Atlanta way before it had a population of a million people. There were still houses on the bottom of the lake when my family had a houseboat there.

When my Aspie boyfriend moved on to his next love {as most Aspies do at sometime} it took over 2 years for me to stop crying everyday about missing him. I'm not sorry that we knew each other - I've learned so much - but the loss is also greater than anything I've ever known. I think I know better than to allow myself to fall so deeply in-love ~ again.

I will always value my time alone. I go out riding my Honda Goldwing Trike when the weather is warm enough. The wind in my face when I'm alone still makes me smile. I used to go out sailing alone for the same reason.

[Spider Jerusalem]

204. Yeah...

my last relationship (with a neurotypical) ended almost 2 years ago, and I'm just now really getting over it.

And I've noticed that tendency with relationships, to some extent...it seems like it's like it is with almost everything else...once I learn everything there is to know about a person I get bored, lose interest, move on to something else...it seems like I perseverate on relationships, when I'm in them, but it fades. I think it might work out differently with another Aspie, since we're harder to get to know than neurotypicals, it seems...not quite so open with ourselves. It takes a little longer to peel the onion, to use a metaphor.

Ah well.

[Freebird12004]

228. balance

I find that a part-time relationship works best for me and also looking for new things to discover when we are together.

[Freebird12004]

191. and other women

really didn't understand or like me. I had more in-common with their boyfriends as I would rather rebuild an engine than shop for clothes.

I wandered the shores of Lake Lanier when it was new, it's a man-made lake, and life was simpler and safer way back then.

[KT2000]

60. For sure

the rumopr is that adults with no children will be thrown off the state health insurance plan in Washington because that is what they have already done in Oregon.
I don't know if it will happen but it sucks if it does.

[Spider Jerusalem]

64. More than you would unmarried and WITH kids...

especially female, unmarried, and with kids...

[BikeWriter]

65. I was 27 before I married. I wanted to have a craft and then settle down.

There's nothing that says you have to.

[cleofus1]

66. yeah well

I modeled my life after Charles Bukowski when I was single. I drank took drugs and had sex with just about anything that moved. I paid more in taxes and worked all the holidays so the married folk could break bread with the wife and kids. I didn't give a shit...as long as I got some tall boys in the fridge and occasionally hit the pussy jackpot.
Well sometime in my mid thirties I got married and started to have kids. I stopped drinking and smoking and womanizing. Don't miss it...I have too much important stuff to concentrate on. Cooking lunch for the kids. Meeting them at the bus stop in zero degree temperatures and watching them play in the snow on the way to the front door. Taking them to the doctors to get flu shots and having to hold down son while the nurse jabs him in the ass. Dentist visits, trips to the park in the summertime, waving to son and daughter as they wave to me from between the bars of the giant spaceship at valley of the moon park.
Then of course I have to consider them at all times when it comes to the official stuff. The job, legalities, religion, family, grandparents, the law, and what cartoons to watch on the weekend.
To hear some people describe children as some sort of commodity that gives people an advantage at tax time, or job wise is a slur on humanity. The family is the basic element of our culture...it has been since the beginning of humanity. So do not be bitter if society rewards those who would parent children. It is a time honored endeavor that should be respected and admired...not belittled and held in contempt.

[Dirk39]

71. You're Avantgarde....

Let them exploit one another, let them outsource one another, let them privatize one another.

To be (even) more serious: I guess the worst hell on earth is created by those, who had children, because they had to have children and those who got married, because, well, you have to get married.

Being desperate or unhappy, because you're on your own might be hard, but being unhappy and desperate, because you're not alone, might be harder.
Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[cleofus1]

72. boy o boy

The cup is just half full for the narcissus crowd. Most people get married and settle down because they feel the time is right to start a family. You can put as much a negative spin on marriage and children, but the more you try to twist the paradigm the more you reveal your own selfishness and cynicism.

[Spider Jerusalem]

73. I'm sick and bloody tired of hearing that not wanting kids is "selfish".

Much smug self-righteousness there?

[cleofus1]

77. sorry spider

but I'm not attacking you or anyone else per se...I am defending my lifestyle from the attacks that have been posted here. If you cannot see that then you need to get a new pair of granny glasses. on this post people have compared having children to having a cocaine habit...and you and others have described parents as being smug and self righteous...i don't give a fucking rat's ass if you have kids or not...that is your own decison and it does not effect the way i think about you one little bit...like i could care less...from what has been written here it is apparent that most of you would make lousy parents anyways (heh heh {mandatory self righteous dig})
the whole premise of this post was that people with kids are lording it over you poor put upon single people...cry me a fucking river...sounds like you're the ones who are looking for a shoulder to cry on. and i don't need any self righteousness to see that...

[Spider Jerusalem]

81. Doesn't bother me if someone wants kids.

Hell, some of my best friends have kids. The "self-righteous" comment was a response to your "selfish cynicism" comment. And I happen to be autistic, which means there's a strong likelihood that any child I fathered (especially any male child) would be (my father and several other people in my family have autistic characteristics, and there's a definite genetic factor). I'm also self-aware enough to realise that I would probably make a lousy father.

And if you're not attacking anyone, you sure picked the wrong words to not do it with.

[cleofus1]

85. as they say

the best defense is a good offense...and as someone else once said..."I'm just telling the truth...they just think I'm giving them hell"

the selfish cynicism comment was in response to my perception that the comments on this thread seemed to reflect a certain defensiveness of individual narcissism.

[Spider Jerusalem]

90. No, you're just sharing your personal opinion...

which you perceive as the "truth"...for you, it may be. But for other people, the "truth" is something different.

And how less selfish or narcissistic is it to bring more children into this already overpopulated planet with strained and depleting resources, just because YOU want to reproduce more than you care about either the good of the society or the well-being of future generations?

And exactly how is it constructive to respond to nasty generalisations with MORE nasty generalisations? "Well, gee...these people are being bastards. I'll be one too...easier than being rational."

Doesn't do much for my faith in the human race or my opinion of the value of reproducing, I'll tell you that...

[cleofus1]

98. your logic is flawed

you are blinded by your own cynisism...your world is a cold dark place where children are considered a drain on the planet...where true people chose to be alone for the sake of the survival of civilization. You have lost faith because people choose love and family? I pity you...

the world is a bigger better place than the dystopia you describe.

[Spider Jerusalem]

102. If you want love and family...

why not adopt? If your motivation is, as you say, love, why not give it to an orphaned child who needs it and might otherwise end up in abusive foster care?

And as to my "cynicism"...there are nearly seven billion people on the planet; things like fresh water, arable land, and petroleum stocks for fertilisers and pesticides (which enable the modern agriculture that feeds all these people) are in decline and will soon be incapable of sustaining even our present population; not to mention the fact that things like the violent crime rate, rate of mental illness, frequency of war and conflict, and so on have been shown repeatedly to increase in direct relation to increases in population. You ncan call it cynicism if you want to; I call it realism. This isn't "dystopia", this is the world your children will inherit.

[cleofus1]

104. geez spider

if you want to adopt you should adopt...
personally I chose to have my own children...my choice and not something that someone should push on someone else...

your logic sounds so desperate. maybe it's just my age, but i remember back in the '60's listening to greenies talking about the end of the world by the year 2000...(pick a year..any will do) and guess what despite the predictions of the end of the world we still get up in the morning as the sun rises in the sky...

and yes it is good to work for cleaner technologies...i support putting resources into alternate energy sources...becouse I have a vested interest in the future....my children....

[Spider Jerusalem]

109. See, though, I don't weant to adopt...

because, as I said, I realise that I would NOT make a very good father. I wouldn't inflict that on a child. You really ought to come to grips with the fact that no, not everybody feels the way you do about it, and not everyone is going to agree that parenthood is the most wonderful experience you can have...works for you, that's fine. I'm happy for you. My best friend has a child, I'm happy for him. But trying to rationalise fulfilment of what is generally the strongest human biological drive after self-preservation...pair-bonding and breeding...as anything but what it is seems a little silly. It's a basic species-survival mechanism, not the ne plus ultra of human existence.

[geniph]

172. *applause*, Spider

I quite agree.

I don't condemn most people's choice to have children (although there are surely folks who shouldn't be permitted to raise them!). I wish to hell I got the same consideration for my own personal decision NOT to.

[Pithlet]

174. But, you do.

You do get that consideration. Honestly, there are a few loudmouths who make comments to childless and/or ummarried people. But, that's because they're crass loudmouths. NOT because they're parents. They were probably bores even before they had kids. They're probably like that about other things, too.

I've always given consideration to other people's decisions. I've never judged people for their life choices. And most parents I know, at least the ones I choose to associate with, do not either. We don't turn into selfish, incosiderate assholes the moment we give birth.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

129. This is exactly how some of the posts in this thread

sound to me too.

[Rabrrrrrr]

116. Oh, I don't know - seems there's some selfish shoulder crying from a few

of the people with kids. "We need government help, because kids are expensive!" Or the other hilarious one I saw up thread: "Children cost a lot of moneg: my child's private school is so expensive!"

That's pretty selfish, if you ask me.

"I really want kids, and because it's not okay to tell me whether I can reproduce or not, I think all of you should help me pay for it."

Nothing against kids - but I don't like the child worship that makes people feel entitled to gov. handouts and subsidies.

Having a child is a choice - an important choice, for sure. And while a child is not a computer or a thing, since it is a living human being, I still think the responsible action is to look into the future and the present, just as one does when buying a car or deciding to take up SCUBA or something, and say, "Can I afford to do this? Is my calling to be a parent stronger than my calling to do ....whatever else. Am I willing to make the sacrifices necessary to make sure this child is raised in love, health, and happiness?"

[Sandpiper]

78. Delete

[Sandpiper]

79. Wanting kids is one of the most selfish desires there is

Human beings are hardwired with a desire to mate and produce offspring so that their genetic line will survive.

What's more selfish than a biological urge to see a part of yourself live on after you've died?

[cleofus1]

84. damn...

I thought I was the most cynical man on earth...my cynicism pales in comparison with some of you people....
can you guys really believe that raising and loving children is an act of selfishness?
you guys are just baiting me right? you're putting me on...

self denial and sacrifice are the cornerstones of child rearing. what strange world views you have if you really believe such things...

[Sandpiper]

87. I'm not saying that raising children doesn't involve love

I'm saying that at the most basic level, the desire to have them has zilch to do with love.

The desire to produce offspring is fundamental to all living things.

So what I'm saying is, the basic desire in human beings to have babies has as much to do with love as:

Cats' desire to have kittens

Dogs desire to have puppies

...You get the picture.


Yes, good parents love their children and sacrifice a lot for them.

But to say that the desire to have kids is purely out of love is like saying the desire to have sex is purely out of love.

Not being cynical about it, just analytical.

[cleofus1]

89. no i don't get the picture

how can you prove what you say? The desire to have children has everything to do with love...in my case leastways...
you are making statements that you may believe..but certainly those statements are not necessarily factual...yes i am an animal...but my brain enables me to consider abstract philosophies and profound discourse. That I believe that love exists and that it involves people's choice to have children has just as much validity as your statements.
In my expert opinion...more so....
;)

[Freebird12004]

88. you have a very good point

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

178. I think parents are also sick of being

told that it was selfish of them to have kids.

[Vektor]

83. I'm married with no kids..

..by choice, I just have NO interest in being a mother, my husband agrees he is just not interested in parenting either. We like kids, and have nieces and nephews that we love, but just have no parental urges. People are always stunned by this, but I have no idea why...

I'm happily married, and can totally afford kids, but just don't want to have them.

You're cool. It's a personal choice. Not everyone wants kids. No big deal.

[asthmaticeog]

91. It's the time commitment of children, it's probably not personal.

My best friend just got married a year and a half ago, and they started spawning right away. I don't get to hang with them as much anymore unless I visit them, but I haven't become persona non grata, they're just busy as hell chasing down a kid who's just figured out how to crawl, and has embraced her new skill with great vigor. (Plus my house looks like a cyclone hit a record store, it's not a very good place to bring a kid, anyway.) I HAVE noticed that his wife has started taking a rather disturbingly keen interest in how my love life's going, but their lives have changed forever and will never be the same as mine again, so her newfound interest in who I spend my free time with and how I spend it might just be vicarious. Unless the couple in question actually is one of those hatefully self-absorbed couples who seem to genuinely believe that the world must now bend over backwards for them in every way because they've reproduced (like emitting carnal produce is itself an act of great skill and herosim), I tend to cut families a lot of slack, because frankly it's true - I don't get it, because I don't have kids.

[BiggJawn]

92. I reproduced, and I'm still marginalized.

I went from being a Dad to a Cash Machine (non-custodial single parent) to an oddity (single father with teen-aged daughter) to an empty-nester.

My job is done, I no longer count for anything. Shit, even if I got married again, in the eyes of the Religious Right, I wouldn't have a "family", because we're not popping out little future "Holy Warriors" for PNAC...

[SarahB]

93. Apparently, it's just the opposite.

I have never seen such smug, sanctimonious, hatred as I have on this thread. Un-fucking-believable. How about we get rid of public schools? I mean, after all, people chose to have children- their problem! How about Social Security? People chose to grow old? After all, people could technically all euthanize themselves at 65 saving everyone the expense. How about people who chose to smoke and overeat and our health insurance and Medicare costs are high subsidizing health-related effects from their lifestyles choices? How about the person who chose not to wear a seatbelt or a helmet when driving a motorcycle and society shells out thousands upon thousands for their chronic, brain-injured care?

Why do we take care of our own and most vulnerable? Because this is a civilized fucking society and doing so benefits us all as a whole. We are actually far behind most first world countries as far as maternity and family benefits. Nearly one third of our children live in poverty. People are always going to have children and hopefully, they will be as responsible as they can and should be, but that doesn't make the children disappear.

To me, that's what being a progressive person is all about. Being willing, to a degree, share some of what one has with those who need it more and then one day, when you need it, it will come back to you. Republicans believe in personal responsibility in terms of "sink or swim" no matter what the situation and government getting out of our lives as much as possible. I suggest many of the short-sided, sanctimonious people join up and go lobby for your flat tax. You'd be a lot more satisfied probably than where you are with how it stands now.

[SarahB]

113. In addition...

I hope all the folks who do not want children, especially the males, have all gotten sterilized in order to not perpetuate your genetic material. If you haven't, and are not celibate, parenthood is a possibility for you as well. Birth control is not 100% effective. For now anyway, women have choice. Males do not as it lies with us. Play, and you may pay yourself. Think about that.

It won't be my problem either.

[eyepaddle]

175. I certainly don't want to put words in other's mouths

--certainly none of the posters (or should that be postors? at any rate) here, as I do not personally know any of them, but most single people don't really want to be single. You'd have to check with a psychologist, but anecdotally I don't think there would be so many dating services if there weren't a LOT of singles who wish to change their status, and yet for some reason (maybe shyness, maybe they are unattractive, maybe they just have really high standards--who knows?) are unable to do so.

Look at it this way, you're single, you don't want to be, maybe you're a little torqued by that AND then married people with children assume something such as: 1) you're too selfish 2) you just don't know what you're talking about 3) When you finally have children then you'll know......etc. That's bound to pour a little salt on some wounds.

Before I get lit up, I once again want to state that I am IN NO WAY SPEAKING FOR ANY OTHER POSTER ON THIS THREAD. Their reasons for posting what they have posted are their own, but a fair anount of "single angst" is just annoyance with how life is working out.

I am single, and childless--in my own personal case I'd imagine it's because I have standards far higher than any personal merit (on my part) would seem to justify ;) but I do remember bridling at suggestions that I would'nt mind going out of town, or working 65 hour weeks shouldn't bother me because I "was single." I remeber thinking "yeah, and if I work 'till 10:30 every night that'll never change." And empathizing with other singles who were effectively being punished for being awkward around the opposite sex.

(Gay dating...whew, I don't really have an informed opinion there, but I'd imagine if there is a group that can be legitimately enraged with how things like this play out it it'd probably be the GLBT community)

Okay everybody time for a :grouphug:

[SarahB]

187. Yeah, well...

I wonder too how much of this thread is childless people venting about their mom, Aunt Martha, or whomever bugging them about their personal reproductive choices. There's no excuse for the rudeness of people to bother others about such deeply personal questions. Plus, if their bosses are being unfair, they need to have the gonads to take it up with their bosses directly. Employers will squeeze what they can out of all of us. That's just a fact and many aren't above whatever manipulations they need to do so. Angry people like to throw out blame (I've been there in different ways I suppose) and instead of doing it at their annoying relatives or manipulative employers (which takes more guts), they throw it out to easy targets- strangers on a message board who happen to have different life experiences regarding a particular topic. Not too hard to psychoanalyze there. :D

[eyepaddle]

190. Speaking for myself

I brutally disabused my boss of any notion that I was fair game for whatever shit they felt like sending my way. I totally tore him a new one over the classic "you get to go to North Dakota for a week tommorrow" gambit he pulled. I didn't realize he had me on speaker phone though--I probably would've backed off of some of the more colorful aspects of my "statement." I'm chuckling thinking about it now--there were a couple of people in the office who looked at me differntly for a few months!

On the positive side, the office tries to accomodate ALL workers' schedules evenly, we all get jobbed from time to time, but not any one group more than the rest. Sometimes it's good to remember both who needs who the most (they needed me more than I needed them) and last--don't underestimate the power of the F bomb when dealing with your boss! :D

[MissMillie]

130. Thank you, Sarah Belle

You're not only right, but you're eloquent.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

132. Right on!

I feel the same way. :yourock:

[Pithlet]

143. Yes!

:yourock: I can't add anything more. You said it perfectly.

[redqueen]

208. RIGHT ON, SISTER!

:yourock:

[cleofus1]

94. I'm overdosing on all this analytical cynicism

so i must go...

do i really treat single childless people differently than married with children...

no...i just i ignore...

[Dastard Stepchild]

97. I've never taken this personally...

I just say "uh-huh" when someone tells me about how I'll understand things better when I have children. The logic dosn't pan out for me, but I'm just not that committed to believing what other people tell me. Life will be roses and sunshine and true enlightenment upon the birth of a child. Uh-huh.
Yes, it changes you. All life-altering changes force you to adapt to new ways of being. I get it. I can relate. :)

[cleofus1]

100. it's like walking thru a door

and straight into a different kind of perception...not always roses and sunshine...but the love that is pure renews your faith in the world and like green lanterns ray...overpowers everything before it.

[Dastard Stepchild]

101. Uh-huh

;)

[Rabrrrrrr]

122. Ooh, nice way to consistently make your experience the obviously

normative one.

Yay for blanket generalizations! Nicely said. And thanks for telling us what we all feel.

What you should have done in your post is use "I" instead of "you". Then it would be personal, and then it would be true.

[gollygee]

105. I agree with you to some extent

I'm married and have a child, but my sister is unmarried and doesn't have children. I know she gets passed up for the good vacation times (around holidays) because she doesn't have kids and is single. She needed surgery just before Christmas this year and her boss got angry with her for taking up a holiday when she "doesn't have a family." Uh, first of all, she *does* have a family! I should know, I'm part of it. Secondly, was she supposed to just die or something so as not to "waste" Christmas? This wasn't an elective surgery - it was something that she needed desperately.

Having said that, I'm a bit irritated by some of the posts in this thread - not from you. Children are not hobbies. Children are not cars, or computers, or whatever else. Children are *human beings* and we take care of them as a society because they are human beings.

[cleofus1]

106. your sister's boss is an asshole

which has nothing to do with having or not having children...:hi:

[geniph]

173. I don't have any problem with the idea of society taking care of kids...

...my problem is with the idea that those with kids should get MORE care, MORE attention, MORE benefits from society than single childless folks. We're human beings too.

[Pithlet]

176. If a childless person needs more care

Then they should get it. People with kids DO require more resources tha those without. It isn't because they've been deemed more worthy. It's because it is the way it is.

[Phentex]

107. I remember being in your shoes exactly! And it didn't get any better...

until I married. My family acted like I had no life, and all kinds of free time to do their bidding. I was never allowed to host anything, decisions were made around their schedules and not mine, and I constantly heard, "Well, you don't have kids."

Then I got married and it somehow gave me a free pass! Oh, she has a life *now*. UGH!!!!

My niece isn't married and they try to do the same to her. I tell them, "Why don't we ask her first. She has a life ya know!"

And of course now that I have kids, I understand all about their schedules and needs but it's still NO excuse to treat a single person like they have no life.

[seaglass]

111. Generally those without children have more uncommitted

time. It doesn't mean your time is any less valuable, it's just assumed that you have more time in which you can choose to do what you want to do.

I'm not really getting why you feel others think your time is less valuable because you didn't get into specifics. If someone is demanding something of your time that you can't accomodate, just say no, don't get offended.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

115. i dont want to sound like a bitch

but i think there are two issues...one is society doesnt understand why peopel dont want kids...and its very annoying...which i understand..


as for time...single people do have more of it.

[toddzilla]

137. is it worth less though?

i do have more time than my married with children friends. It was and is my choice. i'm not unmarried by choice, although i could probably get married and have the co-dependent disaster marriage like so many i know, but i'm trying to evolve past the cycle of dysfunction in my family first. Which brings me to another point, so many that have kids SHOULDN'T yet they still act like they are high and mighty despite their meager or even embarassing parenting skills.

[Midlodemocrat]

146. It most certainly is not worth less.

In my extended family, my children are the eldest. They have very demanding academic schedules which my siblings don't seem to get. We seem to always be the ones traveling and taking time off from school. Personally, it is far easier to travel with a child who has no restraint on their time than with two teenagers frantic about the work they are missing.

It is not a question of whether or not your time is less valuable, it is a question of fairness for all concerned. I have noticed as the siblings' children start attending school, the requests for us to travel have diminished.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

164. in a way your time is less valuable

as you simply have more of it.

things are precious generally cause they are rare.

[redqueen]

207. Logic... amazing! I heart Lioness!

:loveya:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

223. sadly i bet most people think thats heartless to say

but i think mymother has way less time than i do what with raising a 7 year old

adn my single friends have all the time in the world

[redqueen]

227. How is it heartless? It's simple LOGIC for goodness' sake!

:crazy:

[ikojo]

119. You are not alone...I too am unmarried, have no kids and own no

property...talk about getting reamed at tax time.

I don't feel like I don't matter because I have never inculcated the cultural message that I am less of a woman because I am unmarried and childfree.

I've never wanted kids because to raise them takes a lot of resources and the last thing I ever wanted to do was have a kid and not be able to pay bills. It sucks being a kid and knowing that your parent cannot afford the basic necessities of life like heat and food (I should know because there were times in my childhood where we had no food or heat). I basically feared that if I had a kid it would fare no better than I did as a child.

I do hate how non property owning single unchilded people are not considered when discussing budget issues and such. We have a harder time financially because it is only us, there is no second income to fall back on. Single people IMHO bear a greater tax burden than do married people.

[Bertha Venation]

124. Toddzilla. You count.

:hug: I don't know what else to say. FWIW, I understand the frustration; you're not alone in it.

Don't let this world force you into a box.

[Pithlet]

126. Just look at some of the comments about people with kids

In this thread. We all get bullshit about our life choices. It's time we all started respecting other people, even if they don't live their lives exactly the way we would. I know your post was a vent out of frustration, and there is nothing wrong with that, but these things always bring the worst out of some posters. I get the "worthless breeder/overpopulater/don't take your kids out in public/your life choice disrupts mine, wah wah wah!" vibe here at DU all too often. The next time someone gives you crap about your choice not to have children, give them hell.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

136. You're right.

:yourock:

[Midlodemocrat]

142. I don't think you don't count.

and I have three kids. My dearest friend in the world is unmarried, no kids and I think she is the greatest. I truly value her opinions, thoughts, etc.


People who say you don't get it because you don't have kids are stupid. You also don't get an empty bank account and the headaches that go along with kids.

I love my kids and wouldn't trade them for anything, but having them doesn't make me superior, or inferior. It is just the way it is.

People are always trying to one up each other. You don't get it because you don't have kids, a job, a traveling husband, a dog, blah, blah, blah. It applies to a lot of scenarios.

[msgadget]

148. You're FREE! Now, just do what you want and set straight

those who selfishly disrespect your time priorities.

You set the tone for your life and won't be valued if you don't value yourself.

Edit for wording.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

153. Good message!

:yourock:

[Droopy]

150. To kid or not to kid

I don't want to have kids. It doesn't make me a bad person. I have a very good reason not to want to have kids. I have a severe mental illness that is genetic. I wouldn't want anybody to experience what I've been through, especially a loved one.

Other people like to have children. My next door neighbors have two kids and they are nice people. I get along with them just fine.

I don't understand why people would want to look down on each other because of their choice on whether to have children or not. It takes all kinds to make the world go around. That's why I don't understand some of the comments in this thread. If you put us all in a room together at a party, chances are that we'd all get along just fine.

[TXlib]

152. The *ONLY* reason your married friends bug you

is that misery loves company.

They can't stand that you are happier than they are.
They can't stand that you can come and go as you please, spend your money as you please, and be answerable to nobody but yourself.

They're jealous.

And the reason your parents are disappointed you don't have kids is that you are depriving them of their revenge. You were hell on them growing up. (Don't be insulted; we all were.) They wanted you to go through the same hell.

And your employer wants you to be married with kids. Married people are more stable; they don't rock the boat or take risks, because they really can't afford to lose their job.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

155. In the end, my only beef about married people with kids

is that many of them seem to pretend that we single, childless people don't exist or are to be avoided socially or can be asked to take on endless responsibilities.

[Pithlet]

158. It must be perspective

Because most of my childless friends dumped me like a hot potato when I had kids. It's as if suddnely I couldn't be part of their circle because I couldn't just drop everything and join their plans every single time.

I guess I was just lucky. As a childless person, I was never asked to take on endless responsibility from those who had children. I had no problem with saying no to anyone who asked more of me than I could or was willing togive, whether they had children or not.

Honestly, we parents are not all jealous, selfish people who want to suck life and resources away from those who have no children. Some people are needy, soul sucking people without children. I don't think either side has a monopoly.

[SarahB]

192. I was dumped like a hot potato too.

I was 20 when I had my daughter and was really dumped like a hot potato by all my young friends, then patronized by all the 30-ish moms I met back then (even ones in which I was more educated). I knew no other young, intelligent, progressive moms except in bits and pieces through magazines like HipMama and the book by founder Ariel Gore back then. My husband was 10 years older than me. I was a social f*cking island for a long, long time. Then in my late 20's, once my old friends started having kids themselves, they decided to look me up again. Really nice. :eyes:

Even if the mom world things suck. I was very much hanging with many La Leche League crunchy Earthy birthy types for several years, but when my attempted homebirth turned into a 3-day fiasco that ended in a repeat cesarean almost 4 years ago, they dropped me like a hot potato too.

Frankly, I've yet to find my niche in the momworld and I don't think I ever will. Such is life I suppose. I'm too glam for the crunchy types. Too crunchy and down to Earth for the Stepford types. Too much a progressive individualist for the church ladies. I still love children though. Much more sane than most adults. :)

[amazona]

156. misery loves company

Many people who have kids made a very expensive mistake and now they can't admit it because it's one of those irreversible mistakes so they have no choice but to make the best of it and pretend it's somehow a great and unusual thing to have popped out a kid like everybody else.

I let such comments glide by and pay them no attention. My life is much more fulfilling than it would have been in a previous age where forced childbirth until I died of popping out babies would have been my certain lot.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[Miami Liberal]

162. I know exactly what you mean

And as a woman it's even tougher. I'm not totally opposed to marriage and kids, I just don't want any of it right now. My family is always pushing me to get married and have babies because if I don't then my life will mean nothing. The funny thing is, the more they pressure me the less I want to do it. I have some friends who got married with men they weren't in love with just so they can be married. :crazy:

[txaslftist]

170. If you had kids, you might understand.

bwahahahahahaa

[txaslftist]

171. You can have sex with anyone you want...

being critical and disparaging toward you is our only revenge.

[eyepaddle]

202. We CAN!?!?

Damn I must've missed the memo! Anyone? In that case I'll take Elisabeth Shue--she's really cute and seems nice! :P

[Ganja Ninja]

180. Your a minority that means no one has to pander to you.

Believe me, I've been there and done that. I'm single and I'm not miserable but you can't convince others of that. It's always all about getting married and having kids even though it most often ends in divorce. I've got a friend that's been married three times and he's working on a fourth. He still can't get it through his head that you don't have to get married. He's never been without a live-in girl friend for more than six months.

[progmom]

183. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Society does seem to be programmed that way. I'll say "I'm sorry I couldn't make it to ______" and the response is often: "Oh - that's ok - you have a family to take care of!" Well, yes, I do, but gosh, I think we should all, family or no family, be held to similar standards of conduct?

Having a child has been a wonderful experience for me. I feel like I've never been happier with my life. But I do understand that it's not for everyone.

[patcox2]

186. I want to reject the values of the majority, and I demand they like it!

I am outraged that the majority of people who engage in the natural biological process of procreation dono't like the fact that I think they are disgusting breeders and I demand that they reward me for despising me and like me for insulting them. I have a right to be different and everyone must like it. I demand it.

[StopTheMorans]

197. way to take all of the posters points totally out of context.

he said nothing of the sort; just that a sizeable amount of people (both here and in the real world) tend to view people without children as some sort of freak, and, whether you like it or not, adults who do not have children ARE PENALIZED by our current system for not having children. You really didn't address any of those points, and you twisted the posters words around in your post.

[Pithlet]

199. You're wrong about the penalized part.

Acknowledging that raising children takes more time and money, and addressing that is NOT penalizing others who don't have children. Childless people are not penalized because others have children. If anyone in society is penalized, it is the children themselves. America doesn't give nearly the resources needed to ensuring our children grow up healthy and educated, because too many of us who are already grown and established are too resentful of any resources that don't benefit us directly.

The post you just responded to was over the line, but consider the posts in this thread. Posts comparing children to computers and drug habits, for example. Posts coloring people with children as selfish. Posts that paint parents as meddling loudmouths who judge those without children. It's easy to see how such a reaction could come about.

[StopTheMorans]

201. people who don't have children are penalized by having to pay much higher

taxes than married and/or child-bearing couples. if having to pay more money for not having children is not a penalty, than i'm not certain what constitutes a penalty. i can see where your reaction comes from, and i can understand that. I also tend to feel that you should only have as many children as you can support, or that you should not have children until you are ready for them (financially, emotionally, and otherwise). however, if the situation arises where this is not the case, then society should shoulder the burden. i don't feel that most people who are having children fit into this category; although some do. while i have no problem with allowing a child credit for the poor, i see no reason for it for upper-middle or upper-class families.

[Pithlet]

203. Children are people.

It's all well and good to say that people should not have children they can't afford. But, our society, economically and socially, is changing to where only the very wealthy could afford to raise children without help financially from other sources. I do not want our society to become one that will stop helping children because they happen to be born of parents who do not belong to the wealthy elite. Having children is not a hobby. Having children is producing new citizens that will grow up to be the foundation of civilization in the future. It's not as if you're telling someone not to buy a computer because they can't afford it. It's just not the same thing.

Parents do not get tax breaks to penalize anyone. They get them because society has chosen to recognize that raising them takes all kinds of resources. They've deemed that it is socially beneficial to all to ensure that people other than the very rich can do so successfully.

Children are citizens just like adults. The tax credits are for them. The reason it doesn't go to them directly is because they can't spend it for themselves and take care of themselves. The logic that these credits "penalize" the childless is about as twisted as a freeper's claiming that taxes that go to help poor people are penalizing them for not being poor.

[StopTheMorans]

206. your logic doesn't make sense, and i'd disagree with the fact that most

people can't afford to have kids these days. maybe some can't, but i'm 25, and wasn't raised on a whole lot of money (my parents combined made less than 35K until about 6 years ago), and i had two brothers. you can't afford to have kids today if you pay for their college, buy them a car, etc... but, those are not necessities, and as such, i don't think that the rest of society should pay for them. i find it hard to believe that most people can't afford to raise children and give them the care and love they need (minus the superfluities) on an average middle-class salary.

[redqueen]

210. Many, many people can't even afford housing, let alone children.

[Pithlet]

211. You find it hard to believe

because you don't understand just how much money it does take. You do not understand how many children go without in our country. You seem to forget how many families are struggling. I'm not talking about extra costs, like cars, and college. I'm talking about the necessities. Food. Clothing. Daycare for many. Health care costs. That's just the bare minimum. That's thousands and thousands of extra dollars a month on top of what it takes to support oneself.

My household income is well above average. I don't know how people with average income do it. They surely don't do it without considerable sacrifice. For example, my sister, who's at about the median income, pays over 800 dollars a month just for child care. 800 dollars a month. And that isn't even as high as they can go. How many people can just come up with money like that without seriously crunching their budget? If you think a good percentage of people in this country can, then you're mistaken.

As far as your comments about cars and college... Do you really think that the tax credit covers all that? I think you might be a little misinformed about how much that "childless penalty" really is. I'd be willing to bet that most families who fully fund their children's college and their cars are NOT average. Times are different from when the adults of today were raised. Much different. And, I'm sorry, but I don't agree with those who think that parents should just suck it up because they chose to have children. Because, if no one made that choice, or even far fewer, then society would stagnate.

And, I'll just say it again. Calling tax breaks for parents a penalty on the childfree is just as convuluted as freepers whining about taxes for social programs.

[redqueen]

215. A-FUCKING-MEN!

"Calling tax breaks for parents a penalty on the childfree is just as convuluted as freepers whining about taxes for social programs."

Holy shit! Hallelujah! Where's the Tylenol?

:crazy:

[StopTheMorans]

217. you took a lot of my post out of context

i wasn't saying that the child credit covered anything; rather, that it wasn't necessary for people who make a moderate income to raise children. as i said before (and this is the last time i will type this), my parents raised me and my two brothers making under 35K for our whole childhood, and i turned out just fine. it's not an impossibility to do it, and i refuse to accept the fact that people making a certain salary range that is reasonably high for the person's given area should not be able to raise children on their own...

[Pithlet]

222. I got you

I just don't agree. I don't know how old you are, but I'm assuming your at least a young adult. Someone raised in the 70's and 80's, possibly part of the 90's. Things have changed a lot since then.

Also, you're arguing against something I've never said. I did not say it was impossible for anyone who wasn't rich to raise children. My contention all along is that it is a struggle, and that sacrifices are made. I don't think there is anything wrong with the government acknowledging that and helping out. It certainly isn't a penalty on anyone else, let alone childless people that it does so. Your initial contention was that the credit was a penalty on the childless. THAT is what I've been refuting.

[StopTheMorans]

224. i was raised in 80's and 90's, i'm 25. the standard wasn't that

different then. however, i see where you're coming from, and can accept that. i have to leave work now anyways :D

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

234. I'm 25 too.

My parents raised two kids and they never made more than $20,000 in a year.

I disagree. I think things have changes a lot for our generation vs. our parents' generation. It is now even harder to be successful. For example, both my husband and I have college degrees (they're engineering degrees too). We are struggling much harder than our parents (who never went to college) ever were and we are working much harder too. My dad was able to get nice benefits (health and dental insurance for the whole family) with his $20,000 job. We can't even afford these type of benefits for our family on $30,000 a year now. We barely have any money left at the end of the month because rent is so expensive in this area. And we have college loans too, something our parents never had. It's rather pathetic, don't you think?

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

231. Your parents also got the child tax credit then too.

Why don't you go ask them for your money back?

[redqueen]

209. Isn't that the same "logic" rightwingers use

to claim that the rich are overburndened by the poor?

How far are you willing to take this?

Don't think it stops with child credits and school / property taxes... it spills over into other things as well.

How many things that are part of 'the commons' that you don't personally use would you like to stop paying for?

[StopTheMorans]

213. no, please see my reply to that post

in fact, i'll copy most of it right here: "i'd disagree with the fact that most people can't afford to have kids these days. maybe some can't, but i'm 25, and wasn't raised on a whole lot of money (my parents combined made less than 35K until about 6 years ago), and i had two brothers. you can't afford to have kids today if you pay for their college, buy them a car, etc... but, those are not necessities, and as such, i don't think that the rest of society should pay for them. i find it hard to believe that most people can't afford to raise children and give them the care and love they need (minus the superfluities) on an average middle-class salary."

my parents raised 3 boys on a salary that was less than 35K (i don't know how much less, but i do know that the first time my parents made more than 35K combined was 99, 2 years after I'd started college). i think it's horseshit to claim that MOST people can't afford to raise kids. sure, the tax credit helped my parents, and they were at the lower end of the scale. however, i don't feel that people making over a certain salary range really need that help. if we can have a progressive tax system, then why doesn't it apply to richer families with children?

[Pithlet]

216. Then why don't you say that?

If you had said "Rich people shouldn't get the tax credit" then that would make sense. But, stating that a child tax credit is a penalty on the childless makes absolutely no sense.

[StopTheMorans]

220. it is a penalty on the childless, we have to pay for rich people to have

kids too, and i don't think that we should have to. people who can afford to have kids on their own should do so, and the people who need help to should get that help. however, i don't think that it is right that i should be forced to subsidize a person who is already well-off and doing much better financially than i am to have children.

[Pithlet]

225. But, it is not a penalty

Your contention that it is does not make it so. Your problem is with tax cuts for rich people. Believe me, I'm with you, there. It's possible that the government doesn't make that distinction because it sees all children as equally deserving of that particular tax cut, regardless of what their parents make. I don't know what the reasoning behind equal tax credits for all, is. I would definitely like to see bigger cuts for people with less income, and smaller ones for those more fortunate.

Your insistence that it is a penalty on anyone else is ludicrous. I'm sorry. Your arguments that rich people shouldn't get them are valid, but have nothing to do with the fact that a tax credit does not penalize others. The reason I'm being such a stickler here is that I hear so many times that childless have to suffer in so many ways because of those of us who have children. And the "Tax credit penalty, or the "Public school penalty" are usually just people whining that they have to share the burden of living in society. It appears that isn't the case for you, as you concede that those who need it should get it.

[redqueen]

219. I saw it and responded.

I'm not going to argue whether "most" people can't afford children, but I will tell you to go look up how much money you have to earn just to be able to afford a roof over your head - and that's for SINGLE, childless people. It's alarming.

All this nitpicking about cars and college is ridiculous.

[StopTheMorans]

221. cars and college don't matter, i know what it costs to put a roof over my

head, and i live in one of the most expensive cities in the country. i'm just saying that maybe, just maybe, people could prioritize SOME of their expenses a bit, and that, from my life experience, i've seen that it can be done on a very low income.

[redqueen]

226. Isn't it possible that situations might change for people over time?

As I told someone upthread, I was able to afford being a stay-at-home mom until the economy went to hell. Now, not so much... now we struggle to make ends meet.

I didn't ask you what it cost to put a roof over your head. I was referring to the FACT that many can't even afford that, let alone children.

Even people who were making substantial amounts of money fairly recently are now facing hard times. You can't fault people for not seeing the future. Or I guess you can, but IMO that makes you seem a bit freeperish.

[Burma Jones]

188. If we don't have kids, then we don't have a next generation

of tolerant, liberal, educated people. So, in one respect, those of us that are raising children are making a sacrifice to raise people with our shared values. At the same time, fundies are breeding like rabbits and sharing their values with their broods.

If educated, tolerant, liberal people are going to have smaller families, or none, we will slowly disappear. We have to raise kind and caring Children.

However, you bring up something that bothers me in a big way. I think people, particularly employers, like to see that you have children because you then have much more to lose than someone on their own. This makes parents much more vulnerable to bullying. I think there's also some sort of idea that if you aren't willing to settle down and have a family, then you must be too unstable to be trusted. This is of course, bullshit.

Parents envy their single friends. But at some point, we have to part company. Parents want to hang out with people that suffer the same constraints that they do. Parents can't help being the wet blanket in an atmosphere where once they may have been the party Gods and Godesses. So, we have to be with people that will not resent us for the restraint we must show in order to be good parents.

[goddess40]

195. You have to be a filthy rich republican to matter in the USA

so according to those standards none of us matter

[redqueen]

205. Maybe they're not saying you don't count as much

maybe they're saying, as it appears based on what you wrote above, that there are just some things you don't understand because you don't have kids.

[Catbird]

214. Choice and acceptance

I may be biased (toward my own species), but I like the idea of people continuing to enjoy this word indefinitely, dancing and crying and trying to figure out why we're here. For this to happen, obviously some people need to have children. But there is going to be some sort of control on the population because we (as a species) are capable of reproducing way beyond the carrying capacity of our planet. Having some folks choose not to have children (for whatever reason) or to have fewer children seems to be a much more desirable control mechanism than government edict, famine, war, or disease.

(I don't want to get into a discussion of whether we are below, at, or above earth's carrying capacity for human beings. What's important is that there is one.)

One of my major concerns with the current administration is they are moving in all the wrong directions on this. Its policies are clearly moving toward more government control of reproduction, more war, and greater income/wealth disparity. There is no concern for population levels and sustainability. There is less emphasis on social responsibility; they are too concerned with "family values" and not concerned enough with human values.

I realize that this post has moved somewhat from the issue raised by the original poster, about attitudes toward those who are unmarried and without children. We should be glad that there are some who have chosen this path and others who have chosen to have children, whether married or not. Let's hope that we can continue to choose our own paths and accept those of others.




.

[MissBrooks]

218. I've asked that question quite a bit.

For example, when someone meets you and they find out you are single/no kids - they sort of snub you.

[Freebird12004]

230. it's not odd to enjoy your own company

specially - when ya look at all the kooks out there.

[buddysmellgood]

229. Wow...and they let you post here?

[orpupilofnature57]

233. Sure you are, your just not franchised, your a precious commodity

An individual, a damn hard thing to be.