glossolalia
2006-03-29 08:00 pm (local) (link)

I always figure that part of it is "well, we have to live around them, so it affects us" (which makes sense to THIS parent).

But that fails to address the phenomenon of constantly looking around for shit to get pissed-off about. I suspect that part of that is biochemical: rage does fun stuff chemically, and people get addicted to it. It's part of what has made--and keeps---Rupert Murdoch rich as Croesus.

And, well, some people (many of whom are NOT childfree) are just limp jerks who probably need a hobby.

(Reply to this)

fuzzyfruit
2006-03-29 08:03 pm (local) (link)

Being childfree does not automatically equate to wanting nothing to do with kids. Some childfree feel that way, some adore children but have decided not to have their own, and many fall to the middle of the spectrum.

As for why childfree feel they have a say, not having a child also does not automatically equate to ignorance of parenting or of what should be produced by good parenting. It doesn't require being a parent to realize that a shrieking child in a restaurant whose parents are not removing it or attempting to pacify it out of consideration for the other diners and for the benefit of the child itself (since it is a parental responsibility to socialize the child to behave properly in public) has been landed with poor excuses for parents. It does not take being a parent to recognize that abusing or maltreating a child is bad. It does not take being a parent to recognize that children must be taught certain things and learn to behave in certain ways to function in society. Parents are not the only ones affected by children, now or later when they grow up - not having children does not automatically remove one from being in society, and we are therefore affected by the other members of society.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

akivakitty
2006-03-29 08:12 pm (local) (link)

not having a child also does not automatically equate to ignorance of parenting or of what should be produced by good parenting.

Um unless you plan on involving yourself with kids, why should you care?

It doesn't require being a parent to realize that a shrieking child in a restaurant whose parents are not removing it or attempting to pacify it out of consideration for the other diners and for the benefit of the child itself (since it is a parental responsibility to socialize the child to behave properly in public) has been landed with poor excuses for parents. It does not take being a parent to recognize that abusing or maltreating a child is bad. It does not take being a parent to recognize that children must be taught certain things and learn to behave in certain ways to function in society. Parents are not the only ones affected by children, now or later when they grow up - not having children does not automatically remove one from being in society, and we are therefore affected by the other members of society.

And why do these seem to suddenly be "CF" issues...they are human issues. It seems like CFers act like they discovered that sometimes parents screw up (since they are human after all) and sometimes kids are noisy.

We are all a member of a society..and we affect eachother. It is good to see someone mention that :) We don't live in a bubble.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

	fuzzyfruit 2006-03-29 08:13 pm (local) (link)
	I'm framing them as "CF" issues because they were framed in the initial question as being directed at CFers and perceived attitudes. If it weren't framed as a CF/parent question to begin with, we wouldn't be in this comm, and I wouldn't be framing it as such. (Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

	akivakitty 2006-03-29 08:15 pm (local) (link)
	It seems however that CFers spend a disproportionate amount of time discussing parenting issues - probably more than many parents do. This seems odd to me. I can understand reading the occasional article - but to focus on it daily makes no sense to me. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Deleted post)

akivakitty
2006-03-29 08:09 pm (local) (link)

Well unfortunately it's the loud ones who tend to define a group isn't it?

As I understand it - childfreedom is SUPPOSED to be "I choose not to have kids. Ever." Great. I support that. Heck, less competition for my kid in the future.

I don't understand why CF also seems to equal "bitch about kids and parents, make judgements on how they should look, act, behave, what they should receive, etc..etc..etc.."

Because sometimes kids and people in general are annoying? guess what? CF didn't make that up and they don't own it.

(Reply to this)(Parent) (Thread)

	fuzzyfruit 2006-03-29 08:15 pm (local) (link)
	I have to ask: where are you drawing this generalization from? What led you to draw this conclusion? Is it the CF comms here? Because that will give people a skewed perception of the CF population. (Reply to this)(Parent)

suziecroft
2006-03-29 08:05 pm (local) (link)

Um... some of the louder ones, maybe, but not all of us. Promise.

In fact, this particular CFer? Has no real problem with her tax money being spent on programs to help kids, esp. disadvantaged ones. Yes, parenting is a choice, but that doesn't mean that parents should be denied help with parenting because of this. TBH, I think that the attitude you describe in your post would probably have more to do with the political leanings of the CFer in question, then CFdom itself.

(Reply to this)

ehartsay
2006-03-29 08:07 pm (local) (link)

One thing is that I don't think it is so much not wanting to help kids that is the issue so much as the heavy inequality between programs to help kids and those to help adults who really need help. (One example I remember was a story about a developmentally disabled young man who was taken care of up until he turned a certain age (18?), at which point most if not all of the programs that had been in place to help him were not available to him, even though he was no more developed or able to take care of himself than he had been before he turned the magic age.

And even though some people might not want their money going to those things - it does anyway.

Another thing is that, when people DO mismanage their kids, it is not something which is restricted to those parents and does not spill over into the public sphere. It often becomes somehting which DOES impose on the lives, space and rights of other people.

I think also, that sometimes, the people who want to judge or have a say in what they percieve to be bad parenting may be people who have heard a bit of the 'it takes a village' sort of mindset, and have come to the conclusion that if their contribution as part of the 'village' is demanded when it comes to things like issues in the workplace, finances, lifestyle accomodations, etc that then the village also has a right to make a contribution in terms of oversight.

And then there are the sort of people who just have to have a say in the way that other people lead their lives. THese sort of people show up in all camps in all issues.

(Reply to this)

couchtiger
2006-03-29 08:08 pm (local) (link)

Maybe because the behavior of kids can sometimes affect their life? Misbehaving children can have an impact on anyone around them, really.

My question from your post is this: many childfree people seem to resent their tax dollars going into programs for kids, or school programs, etc. etc. - but oftentime, those are things they themselves used as children. Why *some* of the childfree to quick to dismiss their childhood?

(Reply to this)

socktree
2006-03-29 08:08 pm (local) (link)

The only reason why I would state I wouldn't want to pay for kids is when someone who is a parent says we don't contribute to the next generation at all (because we don't want to have kids, leaving out the childfree doctors, inventors, scientists, teachers, etc.), and so we should not have certain rights.

That is when I would say "fine, if you really think we don't contribute, then we'll stop paying taxes for your kids' schools." However, I'm all for kids' educational programs.

(Reply to this)

kikayume
2006-03-29 08:10 pm (local) (link)

Perhaps because you don't neccesarily have to be part of a group in order to have some common sense about what the group does? There are a lot of things that I'm not, that I have some common sense on. I'm not a computer support person, but I know that opening every email your recieve without reservation is a great way to get a virus. Just like I'm not a parent, but I know that being indulgent to a bratty kid is a great way to reinforce bad behaviour.

(Reply to this)

bites_the_sun
2006-03-29 08:12 pm (local) (link)

There isn't a default CF stance on taxation and public-funding for child and parent-related stuff issues as far as I'm aware. That depends entirely on the individual's political stance and seeing as Cf-ers covers the full political spectrum it's rather pointless to talk about the 'average' childfree person.

The reason why CF-ers care what parents do is obvious. Bad parenting, resulting in anti-social behaviour, impacts on everyone. A poorly-parented child being disruptive in a restaurant ruins everyone's dinner, literally and metaphorically.

(Reply to this)

sirriamnis
2006-03-29 08:12 pm (local) (link)

This question will probably burst into flames soon, but not from this CF.

I have no issue with paying for schools, and often donate school supplies/buy band candy, etc... because education IS so vital. I can't believe anyone is anti-education. That just amazes me, but I read people bitching about having to pay taxes for schools constantly. I think education taxes are the only ones that I DON'T bitch about paying.

It is not solely the childfree though. My mom used to do the door-to-door thing for school levies. And when we lived in Idaho, it used to drive her nuts because repeatedly she would get, "Well, our kids aren't in school anymore, so why should we support the schools?" Although her favorite was, "An 8th grade education done good for me, why do they need so much more money now?"

As far as people who concern themselves overmuch with the very children they propose to want nothing to do with, the people who actively LOOK for things to be pissed off about do it because they get some kind of payoff, whether it is biochemical or the validation of peers on an internet forum or in real life.

And just as there are some places where it is not appropriate to take small children (adult themed movies, opera, etc...) there are also places where it is not appropriate to get your knickers in a wad because children are present (fast food restaurants, the mall, Chuck E. Cheese's).

(Reply to this)

	MOD ACTION terajjin 2006-03-29 08:17 pm (local) (link)
	This post is being deleted for being generalizing. Please re-word and post it again, something doesn't generalize. (Reply to this)

(Post a new comment)