Kids or No Kids?

[DeadMansFist849]

Firstly, people, evolutionary psychology isn't actually true. The obsession with physical appearance, which applies to men as well (ever hear of guys who exercise obsessively?), has come about because of the false and bad messages in advertising. Women are obsessed with physical appearance because they're told that their looks are their worth from early childhood--and later that gets modified to being told they haven't got bodily autonomy and should "expect" unwanted physical contact if they don't behave. Take a look at everything we label as "female-oriented", in all its pink horror with promotion of biological essentialism, and THEN try to tell me feminism isn't needed in the West. But I digress, this idea that "not having children=worthless" is really hurtful, as well as actually a contributing factor in homophobia, transphobia and misogyny. Childless women are patronized ("Oh you poor dear, you can't have babies, how sad!") as if motherhood and womanhood go together and that the former defines the latter and, as has been said before, childless men are considered to be hedonists.

 

My point is this: some people can't have children physically and it doesn't make them worthless or emotionless, and it's also not a disability, so fussing over those who are childless by way of physical issues as if it is, is trivialising the lives of truly disabled people. Some people also don't want to have children for various reasons, and that doesn't make them bad or abnormal--it's a perfectly valid choice. Everybody, even people with wombs, has bodily autonomy and the choice of childfree people not to breed should not be demonized. This also means that pushing the idea that women are only supposed to be wives and mothers needs to become unacceptable, because everybody is a whole person, with or without children or being married.

[Balagor]

Being a parent is the biggest, most painful and rewarding responsibility a human being can tackle.

 

Wow. Yet another one joins the ranks of those who look down their noses at the childless. I guess the likes of Mother Teresa and others like her who, for whatever reason, have devoted their lives to the service of others, rather than having children of their own, were wasting their time then and automatically rank below those who do have children? And what about our world leaders, irrespective of what I personally think of His Obamaness? I suspect having your finger on the nuclear trigger ranks pretty damned high on the list of most painful responsibilities possible.

 

I am really keen to stress this "infertility/childlessness does not make you worthless" thing because I have seen other people who chose not to deal with their infertility in the manner that I did, namely by accepting and moving on, have their lives destroyed. And it is the pressure from society, and ignorant remarks like the ones we are seeing in this thread, that have led them to undergo gruelling cycles of IVF followed by disappointment, get involved in dubious surrogacy arrangements and crash to financial ruin that can leave them homeless, have their relationships (ironic isn't it?) destroyed, all because they are conditioned to believe that they are less than a whole person, that they are worthless, because they do not have children.

 

 

I couldn`t agree more. Kudos. Having kids is a tiny part of some people´s lifes, a major part for some, and even an obsession for others. :psyduck:

[SpellAndShield]

Firstly, people, evolutionary psychology isn't actually true. The obsession with physical appearance, which applies to men as well (ever hear of guys who exercise obsessively?), has come about because of the false and bad messages in advertising. Women are obsessed with physical appearance because they're told that their looks are their worth from early childhood--and later that gets modified to being told they haven't got bodily autonomy and should "expect" unwanted physical contact if they don't behave. Take a look at everything we label as "female-oriented", in all its pink horror with promotion of biological essentialism, and THEN try to tell me feminism isn't needed in the West. But I digress, this idea that "not having children=worthless" is really hurtful, as well as actually a contributing factor in homophobia, transphobia and misogyny. Childless women are patronized ("Oh you poor dear, you can't have babies, how sad!") as if motherhood and womanhood go together and that the former defines the latter and, as has been said before, childless men are considered to be hedonists.

 

My point is this: some people can't have children physically and it doesn't make them worthless or emotionless, and it's also not a disability, so fussing over those who are childless by way of physical issues as if it is, is trivialising the lives of truly disabled people. Some people also don't want to have children for various reasons, and that doesn't make them bad or abnormal--it's a perfectly valid choice. Everybody, even people with wombs, has bodily autonomy and the choice of childfree people not to breed should not be demonized. This also means that pushing the idea that women are only supposed to be wives and mothers needs to become unacceptable, because everybody is a whole person, with or without children or being married.

 

You make blanket statements asserting that evolutionary psychology is not true without any evidence to support it. If anything, focus on physical appearance in the media and society is merely an exemplification of biological principles. Claiming that women are obssessed with physical appearance because of societal pressure is only partly true as that pressure stems from our biology and evolution. Men compete for dominance hierarchy status against each other, which is why there are many more men at the top AND bottom, whereas most women occupy a middle position in terms of accomplishments and 'status' (DH status is meaningless to women). Men's prerequesites for women have always been youth, fertility and beauty; it was ever thus and shall remain so. You cannot changed millions of years of evolution with socially concocted feminist theory that has ZERO scientific grounding. You can reject biological facts all you want but arguments from emotion do nothing to refute them.

[HeyYou]

Firstly, people, evolutionary psychology isn't actually true. The obsession with physical appearance, which applies to men as well (ever hear of guys who exercise obsessively?), has come about because of the false and bad messages in advertising. Women are obsessed with physical appearance because they're told that their looks are their worth from early childhood--and later that gets modified to being told they haven't got bodily autonomy and should "expect" unwanted physical contact if they don't behave. Take a look at everything we label as "female-oriented", in all its pink horror with promotion of biological essentialism, and THEN try to tell me feminism isn't needed in the West. But I digress, this idea that "not having children=worthless" is really hurtful, as well as actually a contributing factor in homophobia, transphobia and misogyny. Childless women are patronized ("Oh you poor dear, you can't have babies, how sad!") as if motherhood and womanhood go together and that the former defines the latter and, as has been said before, childless men are considered to be hedonists.

 

My point is this: some people can't have children physically and it doesn't make them worthless or emotionless, and it's also not a disability, so fussing over those who are childless by way of physical issues as if it is, is trivialising the lives of truly disabled people. Some people also don't want to have children for various reasons, and that doesn't make them bad or abnormal--it's a perfectly valid choice. Everybody, even people with wombs, has bodily autonomy and the choice of childfree people not to breed should not be demonized. This also means that pushing the idea that women are only supposed to be wives and mothers needs to become unacceptable, because everybody is a whole person, with or without children or being married.

 

You make blanket statements asserting that evolutionary psychology is not true without any evidence to support it. If anything, focus on physical appearance in the media and society is merely an exemplification of biological principles. Claiming that women are obssessed with physical appearance because of societal pressure is only partly true as that pressure stems from our biology and evolution. Men compete for dominance hierarchy status against each other, which is why there are many more men at the top AND bottom, whereas most women occupy a middle position in terms of accomplishments and 'status' (DH status is meaningless to women). Men's prerequesites for women have always been youth, fertility and beauty; it was ever thus and shall remain so. You cannot changed millions of years of evolution with socially concocted feminist theory that has ZERO scientific grounding. You can reject biological facts all you want but arguments from emotion do nothing to refute them.

 

Beauty is awfully subjective though. What I find beautiful, you may think is absolutely horrid... and vice versa. Society does indeed play a role there, in defining just what is considered beautiful...... Not everyone subscribes to what society tries to dictate though.

[ginnyfizz]

Why, Stardusk,aren't you rejecting biological facts yourself? Like the biological fact that some people can't have children, and that therefore the argument that you and others are putting forward that having children is the meaning of life and that therefore those of us who either cannot or choose not to have children are freaks, is not only ignorant and insensitive but also a load of tripe?

 

It's also a biological fact that some of the childless by choice do not have the strong urge to have children that others do have.

[DeadMansFist849]

Why, Stardusk,aren't you rejecting biological facts yourself? Like the biological fact that some people can't have children, and that therefore the argument that you and others are putting forward that having children is the meaning of life and that therefore those of us who either cannot or choose not to have children are freaks, is not only ignorant and insensitive but also a load of tripe?

 

It's also a biological fact that some of the childless by choice do not have the strong urge to have children that others do have.

 

 

Yes, that's true. Some people are born without a biological clock, or without the ability to experience sexual desire at all, some people are homosexual and some people are transgender. Those things are biological facts as well. I am not heterosexual and do not have a biological clock, and I have also got physical problems that make it impossible for me to produce children.

 

Stardusk, where's YOUR evidence for YOUR positive claim that every single person on this earth is cisgender (i.e. not transgender), heterosexual and only ever cares about getting attention from the opposite sex so they can have babies? You made a positive claim. I posted a negative claim saying it's not true. You have to prove you are right, for the same reason one is always innocent until proven guilty.

[draconix]

Because despite the accident of evolved consciousness and intelligence, most things we do are directly and indirectly still geared towards reproduction, mitigated by our evolved intelligence of course. Thus, the constant need to date, the need for men to compete within the dominance hierarchy by doing well financially and being successfull, whilst women strive for (and have) physical beauty. These things are still rampant in society. These rules are millions of years old and whilst we can do things that have little to do with reproduction, we are still animals beholden to our instincts. There might be a time when that is not the case but for now it still is.

 

I do not necessarily want children in a traditional sense but would be very content after having donated sperm to a sperm bank, somehow knowing that some female made use of it and that my DNA would be out there; I need not participate directly in raising that DNA though.

 

The evolution of a mind is no more an accident than is the ability to see, or breathe air. Clearly if this were not the case, nature would have sorted us out. In evolution, accidents are usually met with a quick death, which in turn serves to prevent the spread of the mutation.

 

The "need" to date is only constant for some people, generally we would call those people codependent. Most people date for the same reason we make friends, we are social animals. Also, I don't compete for dominance for the sex, clearly if that were the case I wouldn't be on the internet shutting down your arguments. BlackBaron2 already did a pretty good job already of giving other possible reasons for the evidence you have put forth to support your claim.

 

I disagree that we as a species are collectively beholden to our instincts. There are some who are; feral children, and those of diminished capacity. I believe it is these people who have been unable to learn from society, and only these people, who still operate directly from their baser instincts. However, thanks to the evolution of our conscious mind, we have developed speech, and the ability to learn from one another.

 

Also, humans do want to have sex, and not for children, but for the pleasure of sex, even "instinctually" speaking. We're not the only species that does this. Animals will have sex during times when our instincts know full well that conception is not impossible, such as during pregnancy, and homosexual sex. It just so happens that children are a biproduct for some people who have sex. This is why I wouldn't be content donating to a sperm bank, but would feel plenty satisfied having sex and no children. http://www.thenexusforums.com/public/style_emoticons/dark/thumbsup.gif

[SpellAndShield]

Why, Stardusk,aren't you rejecting biological facts yourself? Like the biological fact that some people can't have children, and that therefore the argument that you and others are putting forward that having children is the meaning of life and that therefore those of us who either cannot or choose not to have children are freaks, is not only ignorant and insensitive but also a load of tripe?

 

It's also a biological fact that some of the childless by choice do not have the strong urge to have children that others do have.

 

The meaning of life is a contrived and fictious question because the question itself has no meaning. I have only spoken of biological purpose and meaning. Because the meaning of life is an invented question one can come up with any answer one wishes to it. For some people it is art, others sport, others making money, etc. It is not a relevant question as it cannot be looked at with factoids. Just because some people are infertile does not change the fact that each and every species, including our own, has a biological purpose in spreading its genes.

[RZ1029]

OK, the question this time is: Do you want children? and Do children bring happiness?

 

Hmmm... probably eventually. Not at the moment, but probably in the near-ish future (5 years +/-). I'll be married in the next year to the most beautiful and amazing person I've ever known. The question is more, if we do, adopt or have our own?

 

More questions: Why do you want children? Does money affect your decision on having children?

 

For this, I shall let a quote sum up my thoughts:

To laugh often and much; To win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; To earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; To appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; To leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; To know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded.

-Ralph Waldo Emerson

 

It's just how I feel about kids in general. They are so amazingly intelligent in their own way, and I find I learn as much from kids I know as I do from my elders. There are other reasons, as well, but it steps into the bounds of a forbidden topic.

 

More questions: What do you miss without children? What if the children become total failures in life, would you still be proud of them or ashamed of them? If children bring only misery to you, wouldn´t it be better to be without them? Should a person working with children/youngsters have children of his/her own?

I wouldn't say you 'miss' anything, really. Your life will just simply be different. You can't miss what you didn't have to begin with.

I believe in the unconditional love for ones child, no matter how bad they screw up. I may not like what they do, but I would always love them.

If you don't want children, don't have children, or let someone who will care for the child adopt him or her. This is a human life we're talking about, not a toy to be discarded if you don't like it. Also, @OP, please, do not call a child an 'it'. That is a human being, even in purely theoretical existence.

Should they? If they want to. Do they have to? No, of course not. It doesn't take a parent to care for a child, but the parent should care.

 

Now, to address some of this hate I see being thrown around:

 

Children or no, it is your choice. Some people cannot, or do not wish to, have children. For whatever reason, it simply is what it is.

[SpellAndShield]

Why, Stardusk,aren't you rejecting biological facts yourself? Like the biological fact that some people can't have children, and that therefore the argument that you and others are putting forward that having children is the meaning of life and that therefore those of us who either cannot or choose not to have children are freaks, is not only ignorant and insensitive but also a load of tripe?

 

It's also a biological fact that some of the childless by choice do not have the strong urge to have children that others do have.

 

 

Yes, that's true. Some people are born without a biological clock, or without the ability to experience sexual desire at all, some people are homosexual and some people are transgender. Those things are biological facts as well. I am not heterosexual and do not have a biological clock, and I have also got physical problems that make it impossible for me to produce children.

 

Stardusk, where's YOUR evidence for YOUR positive claim that every single person on this earth is cisgender (i.e. not transgender), heterosexual and only ever cares about getting attention from the opposite sex so they can have babies? You made a positive claim. I posted a negative claim saying it's not true. You have to prove you are right, for the same reason one is always innocent until proven guilty.

 

Scientists are still investigating the biological purpose of homosexuality in humans. Many species exhibit homosexual behaviour and in some there seem to be mechanisms of explanation, for example gay penguins assisting in child rearing. It is just a matter of time until we find answers to such questions. I never made the claim that EVERY person conforms to this pattern, only most heterosexual people. What can be observed in homosexual behaviour for example are hyperbolic forms of 'typical' male behaviour, such as greater levels of promiscuity, less interest in long term partnerships and much greater accessibility to casual sex, i.e. dark rooms, etc. This is constantly confirmed to me by gay friends. In any event, you are saying that, in most heterosexual people, reproduction on an instinctual level is not a driving force?