Married couples who purposely don't want to have children

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,208
13,801
136
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Part of the reason the child free are becomong more publically vocal is because they feel discriminated against in our child centric society.Guess who gets asked to pick up the slack at work when parents have daycare problems or sick kids... yeap, the child free, guess who gets to work the bulk of the holidays so that parents can have family time, yeap, the child free, if there's a last minute forced overtime guess who gets stuck?

The general consensus seems to be that if you don't have kids you don't have a family... or any sort of a life for that matter.

Our child-centric society? I do think it would be sheer folly for any society to be anything but child-centric. Who takes care of us when we're old?
Any "child-free" person who is bitter about the perceived perks that parents get needs to examine their own perks derived from not having children--more disposable income, more free time, more freedom in general.
 

desy

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2000
5,442
211
106
Once you have kids its hard to imagine life without them.
If you don't have kids its hard to imagine a life with them. . . . .

I understand their point of view but its narrow cause they don't have the experience to truly understand. Also a lot of the arguments are selfish, primarily because we are selfish creatures but once you have kids 'for most' one of the best parts is a lot of your selfish motivations change and you are invested in a little human life.
 

Schrodinger

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2004
1,274
0
0
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Part of the reason the child free are becomong more publically vocal is because they feel discriminated against in our child centric society.Guess who gets asked to pick up the slack at work when parents have daycare problems or sick kids... yeap, the child free, guess who gets to work the bulk of the holidays so that parents can have family time, yeap, the child free, if there's a last minute forced overtime guess who gets stuck?

The general consensus seems to be that if you don't have kids you don't have a family... or any sort of a life for that matter.

Our child-centric society? I do think it would be sheer folly for any society to be anything but child-centric. Who takes care of us when we're old?
Any "child-free" person who is bitter about the perceived perks that parents get needs to examine their own perks derived from not having children--more disposable income, more free time, more freedom in general.

But both sets of adults made their own decision they should be responsible for.

The childfree should not have to pay for the decisions that those with children have made and thats all that Geekbabe is pointing out.

Those who have children and those who are without should be treated completely equal in the particular instances she touched on. If she chose not to have kids so that she has more freedom--why should she have to pick up the slack at work because someone decided to have kids? She obviously didn't make the choice so she could help out.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If I have to work a Saturday because some person with children gets preferential treatment to have the day off--thats not right. We didn't choose the perks of childfree to service you.

It'd be like two brothers who are both given $10 allowance and the first child spends all his on candy while the other child saves all of his. If something comes up and the first child needs money, he shouldn't be able to benefit from the "perks" of the other who has money just because he made the decision not to spend.
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
Its there lives. If they don't want to have children, then more power to them. I can think of many reasons not to have kids. And its not like the human race in is danger of going extinct. Shoot, The Asian population is set to double within a decade or so.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,208
13,801
136
Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Part of the reason the child free are becomong more publically vocal is because they feel discriminated against in our child centric society.Guess who gets asked to pick up the slack at work when parents have daycare problems or sick kids... yeap, the child free, guess who gets to work the bulk of the holidays so that parents can have family time, yeap, the child free, if there's a last minute forced overtime guess who gets stuck?

The general consensus seems to be that if you don't have kids you don't have a family... or any sort of a life for that matter.

Our child-centric society? I do think it would be sheer folly for any society to be anything but child-centric. Who takes care of us when we're old?
Any "child-free" person who is bitter about the perceived perks that parents get needs to examine their own perks derived from not having children--more disposable income, more free time, more freedom in general.

But both sets of adults made that decision. The childfree should not have to pay for the decisions that those with children have made and thats all that Geekbabe is pointing out. Those who have children and those who are without should be treated the same in the particular instances she touched on. If she chooses not to have kids so that she has more freedom--why should she have to pick up the slack at work because someone deserved to have kids? She obviously didn't make the choice so she could help out.

Well... let's just imagine a society that favors the childless over those with children...
Sick kids can't be at daycare. The parent can't get off work because it's not fair to those who don't have children. The kid has to stay at home alone. Awesome. Society benefits.
The kid dies from a complication, since no one was around to take the kid to the hospital. Hope the people without kids are happy they didn't have to do any extra work.
Suppose we make it so people who don't have kids don't have to pay taxes to support schools. Obviously less money for schools--kids get a poor education, and just decide to turn to crime because it's easier. The person without kids just got shot by a carjacker because they drove a nice car. Awesome. Society benefits.

My point here is the same point I made above: anything other than a child-centric society is folly and doomed to failure.
These are the trade-offs we made with women's liberation. None of this was a problem in the past because the mother was always at home for the children.
 

Gurck

Banned
Mar 16, 2004
12,963
1
0
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Well... let's just imagine a society that favors the childless over those with children...
Sick kids can't be at daycare. The parent can't get off work because it's not fair to those who don't have children. The kid has to stay at home alone. Awesome. Society benefits.
The kid dies from a complication, since no one was around to take the kid to the hospital. Hope the people without kids are happy they didn't have to do any extra work.
Suppose we make it so people who don't have kids don't have to pay taxes to support schools. Obviously less money for schools--kids get a poor education, and just decide to turn to crime because it's easier. The person without kids just got shot by a carjacker because they drove a nice car. Awesome. Society benefits.
The school example is a good one, and I agree schools benefit a society rather than just parents (though I'd wholly support school tax breaks for those without school-age children). However, the mentality has been taken way too far. Most people wrongly feel it's society's duty to bend over backwards for their children. Care to comment on my above examples?
 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,199
2,452
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Part of the reason the child free are becomong more publically vocal is because they feel discriminated against in our child centric society.Guess who gets asked to pick up the slack at work when parents have daycare problems or sick kids... yeap, the child free, guess who gets to work the bulk of the holidays so that parents can have family time, yeap, the child free, if there's a last minute forced overtime guess who gets stuck?

The general consensus seems to be that if you don't have kids you don't have a family... or any sort of a life for that matter.

Our child-centric society? I do think it would be sheer folly for any society to be anything but child-centric. Who takes care of us when we're old?
Any "child-free" person who is bitter about the perceived perks that parents get needs to examine their own perks derived from not having children--more disposable income, more free time, more freedom in general.

But both sets of adults made that decision. The childfree should not have to pay for the decisions that those with children have made and thats all that Geekbabe is pointing out. Those who have children and those who are without should be treated the same in the particular instances she touched on. If she chooses not to have kids so that she has more freedom--why should she have to pick up the slack at work because someone deserved to have kids? She obviously didn't make the choice so she could help out.

Well... let's just imagine a society that favors the childless over those with children...
Sick kids can't be at daycare. The parent can't get off work because it's not fair to those who don't have children. The kid has to stay at home alone. Awesome. Society benefits.
The kid dies from a complication, since no one was around to take the kid to the hospital. Hope the people without kids are happy they didn't have to do any extra work.
Suppose we make it so people who don't have kids don't have to pay taxes to support schools. Obviously less money for schools--kids get a poor education, and just decide to turn to crime because it's easier. The person without kids just got shot by a carjacker because they drove a nice car. Awesome. Society benefits.

My point here is the same point I made above: anything other than a child-centric society is folly and doomed to failure.
These are the trade-offs we made with women's liberation. None of this was a problem in the past because the mother was always at home for the children.

we berate people who go on welfare because they cannot support their children but have no problem expecting childfree co-workers to pick up the slack for parents who planned poorly ?

I think everyone in the workplace should be treated fairly,parents and non-parents alike.

 

Nightfall

Golden Member
Nov 16, 1999
1,769
0
0
Let me add my .02 cents on this.

My wife and I have discussed having children, and there are times where we both wouldn't mind having them. However, there are times we are glad we don't have them. In order to be a good parent, you have to be in all the way on this issue. There is no middle ground. If you are kinda wanting them and kinda not wanting them, then the child will suffer. We look at friends of ours who had kids and it is a constant battle for who is going to watch the kids. Sure, they love their kids, but they love their time too.

Anyway, you wouldn't believe all the people who ask why we don't have kids. I have been asked these questions in public.

"Why don't you have kids already? Childless couples just become old fuddy-duddies in the end."

"God would want you to have kids. Don't you believe in the power of our lord Jesus?"

"Do you and your wife have problems? Is that why you don't have kids yet?"

I have pretty much just given into the fact that I live in a very conservative part of the state and most people are like this. To me, I am happy with the life that I lead. My wife is happy too. If we are happy, why change things? We are not closing the door on kids so early in our lives. My wife is 31 and I am 32 so we still have time to change our minds.

This couple who does this nokidding.org site has a right to say what they want. However, I think this should be a decision meant to be private. I compare this to the people who use their kids as a "badge" to prove they are more meaningful or show they should be respected more than those who don't have kids. It shouldn't matter if you have kids or not.
 

Schrodinger

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2004
1,274
0
0
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Part of the reason the child free are becomong more publically vocal is because they feel discriminated against in our child centric society.Guess who gets asked to pick up the slack at work when parents have daycare problems or sick kids... yeap, the child free, guess who gets to work the bulk of the holidays so that parents can have family time, yeap, the child free, if there's a last minute forced overtime guess who gets stuck?

The general consensus seems to be that if you don't have kids you don't have a family... or any sort of a life for that matter.

Our child-centric society? I do think it would be sheer folly for any society to be anything but child-centric. Who takes care of us when we're old?
Any "child-free" person who is bitter about the perceived perks that parents get needs to examine their own perks derived from not having children--more disposable income, more free time, more freedom in general.

But both sets of adults made that decision. The childfree should not have to pay for the decisions that those with children have made and thats all that Geekbabe is pointing out. Those who have children and those who are without should be treated the same in the particular instances she touched on. If she chooses not to have kids so that she has more freedom--why should she have to pick up the slack at work because someone deserved to have kids? She obviously didn't make the choice so she could help out.

Well... let's just imagine a society that favors the childless over those with children...
Sick kids can't be at daycare. The parent can't get off work because it's not fair to those who don't have children. The kid has to stay at home alone. Awesome. Society benefits.
The kid dies from a complication, since no one was around to take the kid to the hospital. Hope the people without kids are happy they didn't have to do any extra work.
Suppose we make it so people who don't have kids don't have to pay taxes to support schools. Obviously less money for schools--kids get a poor education, and just decide to turn to crime because it's easier. The person without kids just got shot by a carjacker because they drove a nice car. Awesome. Society benefits.

My point here is the same point I made above: anything other than a child-centric society is folly and doomed to failure.
These are the trade-offs we made with women's liberation. None of this was a problem in the past because the mother was always at home for the children.

You are taking it to an extreme. If the system was setup correctly then parents could pay for their own childs education completely. Hell, they already do when you factor into the tax they pay for the rest of their life (even when they are old and haven't popped out any for 50 years). But most people wouldn't argue over the tax money. I have no problem paying my share.

If you want me to bend over backwards because I have more "perks" than you, just because I didn't have kids...you can go fly a kite! If you chose to have kids, you chose that you'd have to juggle the same job I would too. That means we each work our share of evenings, saturdays and birthday parties.

I don't get why we need a child-centric society. We already have too many people around at the present.

Further, what you stated was not a "childfree favoured society". Its simply neutral.
 

wfbberzerker

Lifer
Apr 12, 2001
10,423
0
0
right now i'm adamently against kids... but that could change. im still pretty young (18), but i really dont want to have kids later on in my life.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,208
13,801
136
Originally posted by: Gurck
The school example is a good one, and I agree schools benefit a society rather than just parents (though I'd wholly support school tax breaks for those without school-age children). However, the mentality has been taken way too far. Most people wrongly feel it's society's duty to bend over backwards for their children. Care to comment on my above examples?

I was gonna comment on part of it, relating to something I saw on the news yesterday. Apparently the libraries here will let kids check out any of their DVDs, even the rated R ones. All the parents they interviewed said it was fine, because they keep an eye on what their kids get. The library also has a system in place where parents can prohibit their children from getting inappropriately rated movies.
People were still complaining that kids could get inappropriately rated movies.
I don't feel it's society's job to raise kids. Blame Hillary and her damn "it takes a village" BS--it takes parents.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Originally posted by: notfred
What bothers me is that the people who aren't having kids, or who are having fewer kids, are the ones that I'd rather see with children. These people are generally professional, well-educated and financially stable, where the people having the most kids tend to be poor and uneducated.

I'd rather see children coming from intelligent parents who can provide them with good homes, than what we have a lot of right now.

Yep, one of the reasons the Dark Ages happened in Europe was because the educated folks became monks & nuns & didn't breed, the only people who bred were the ones who couldn't even read.

Be afraid, be very afraid of what's happening.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
59,208
13,801
136
Originally posted by: Geekbabe

we berate people who go on welfare because they cannot support their children but have no problem expecting childfree co-workers to pick up the slack for parents who planned poorly ?

I think everyone in the workplace should be treated fairly,parents and non-parents alike.

So parents plan for their kids to get sick, or for their daycare to have some sort of problem? Or was it just poor planning for them to have kids at all?
What is your fair treatment plan?
 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,199
2,452
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Geekbabe
Part of the reason the child free are becomong more publically vocal is because they feel discriminated against in our child centric society.Guess who gets asked to pick up the slack at work when parents have daycare problems or sick kids... yeap, the child free, guess who gets to work the bulk of the holidays so that parents can have family time, yeap, the child free, if there's a last minute forced overtime guess who gets stuck?

The general consensus seems to be that if you don't have kids you don't have a family... or any sort of a life for that matter.

Our child-centric society? I do think it would be sheer folly for any society to be anything but child-centric. Who takes care of us when we're old?
Any "child-free" person who is bitter about the perceived perks that parents get needs to examine their own perks derived from not having children--more disposable income, more free time, more freedom in general.

There are fewer grown children caring for elderly parents with every passing decade,indeed, most adult children are clammoring at the old person's wake waiting for the will to be read to see how much of the dead parent's money they're going to get.

With the instability of social security it is also increasing clear that each of us will be responsible for funding our own old age,not the next generation.


I am a parent and I've had to suck up my fair share of scrambling to make alternate arrangements when kids were sick or childcare fell thru but to expect childless co-workers to cover me repeatedly simply because I have kids and they don't was unthinkable.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
It's called DINK. Dual Income, No Kids. Our society penalizes people for having children. Both financially and in terms of privacy. Add my SO and I to the list of couples who do not want children.
 

Schrodinger

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2004
1,274
0
0
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Geekbabe

we berate people who go on welfare because they cannot support their children but have no problem expecting childfree co-workers to pick up the slack for parents who planned poorly ?

I think everyone in the workplace should be treated fairly,parents and non-parents alike.

So parents plan for their kids to get sick, or for their daycare to have some sort of problem? Or was it just poor planning for them to have kids at all?
What is your fair treatment plan?

You should plan for foreseeable things like kids getting sick (pretty common). Put a few dollars away for a babysitter or make a contingency plan so neighbours/friends can watch them. That should be obvious the day you chose to become a parent.
 

JackBurton

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
15,993
14
81
<- Married, no kids and I'm not planning on having any either. As a matter of fact, I feel sad for the people that HAVE kids. I love doing whatever I want to do with my wife at the spur of the moment. My wife is my best friend and we love doing everything together (we've been together for 14yrs too). The WORST thing you can do is telling me some sob story about your life. "I have 3 kids, and it's really hard to make ends meet. I come home after a hard days work and have to come home to more work (kids). My life is so hectic! I'm just so stressed!" My reply, "Hahahahaha....AAAAAHHHH....Hahahaha. Oh God, that's great. Now if you don't mind, I have to go on vacation for a week with my wife in Hawaii." :)
 

Schrodinger

Golden Member
Nov 4, 2004
1,274
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
It's called DINK. Dual Income, No Kids. Our society penalizes people for having children. Both financially and in terms of privacy. Add my SO and I to the list of couples who do not want children.

You mean society penalizes people for NOT having children :)
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: NFS4
I was watching the local news last night and they were talking about a group of people (all in their mid 20's to early-mid 30's) in the area who are adamantly against having kids. They refer to themselves as childfree instead of childless (b/c childless would imply that they were missing something in their lives).

I'd rather have that than some trailer trash/ghetto mamas who thinks it's their mission to crap out welfare-sapping kids.
 

RaiderJ

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2001
7,582
1
76
If I didn't want to have kids I wouldn't get married - depending on the situation it makes more financial sense to not get married (taxes & all).

Nothing like a legally binding document to say I love you!
 

JackBurton

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
15,993
14
81
Originally posted by: Schrodinger
Originally posted by: Vic
It's called DINK. Dual Income, No Kids. Our society penalizes people for having children. Both financially and in terms of privacy. Add my SO and I to the list of couples who do not want children.

You mean society penalizes people for NOT having children :)

Yep.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
*shrugs*

I know a couple that's engaged and they have no plans to have children. Not because they don't want the financial or time burden, but just because they aren't that good with kids and they don't think it would be good for the children.

I don't see a problem with not wanting to have kids. It's a choice like any other. Now, if they wanted to make a virtue out of it or something, it would be different, but I see nothing wrong with the choice itself. Personally though, I want kids. Even if it would mean giving up some of my "toys".

ZV
 

Geekbabe

Moderator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 16, 1999
32,199
2,452
126
www.theshoppinqueen.com
Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Originally posted by: Geekbabe

we berate people who go on welfare because they cannot support their children but have no problem expecting childfree co-workers to pick up the slack for parents who planned poorly ?

I think everyone in the workplace should be treated fairly,parents and non-parents alike.

So parents plan for their kids to get sick, or for their daycare to have some sort of problem? Or was it just poor planning for them to have kids at all?
What is your fair treatment plan?


That if it's your turn to work forced overtime or Sat or Xmas that you do so rather than go on and on about your kids. I'd also expect a working parent to have a backup arrangement in place to handle things like sick kids,school vacations, babysitter cancelations, to not have alternate arrangements in place isn't fair to anybody particularly to the kids.

Btw, attitudes like yours smack of a hostage taking one "help me or the kid will be home sick alone" as if the child free person and not an irresponsible parent was somehow responsible for shortsightedness.. I find blame shifting really offensive.

 

EyeMWing

Banned
Jun 13, 2003
15,670
1
0
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Originally posted by: notfred
What bothers me is that the people who aren't having kids, or who are having fewer kids, are the ones that I'd rather see with children. These people are generally professional, well-educated and financially stable, where the people having the most kids tend to be poor and uneducated.

I'd rather see children coming from intelligent parents who can provide them with good homes, than what we have a lot of right now.

Yep, one of the reasons the Dark Ages happened in Europe was because the educated folks became monks & nuns & didn't breed, the only people who bred were the ones who couldn't even read.

Be afraid, be very afraid of what's happening.

Humanity is on a course to end itself. Nothing new.