Giliell tried to post a comment the other day which I didn’t allow because it didn’t meet rules I had set out for comments.  Given the delay, allowing it and replying now might look like I’m burying it or preventing disagreement.

---

 

Well, I’ll try…I think you’Re argument here is faulty, because you are part of society as well.

I never said I wasn’t part of society, though I don’t know where you get the notion that a childfree home is akin to a hermitage.  Not having kids is no more “opting out of society” than not owning a car, a house, having a pet or being an atheist.  Unless you are a St. Augustus fan (“Any woman who does not give birth to as many children as she is capable is guilty of murder.”), there is no obligation to have children.

You know, I completely support people’s choice to be childfree. I am actually pro abortion because I think that whenever you’re not sure whether you should have a child or not you should go for “not”, but you’re making many faulty arguments here that reinforce prejudices against parenthood, especially motherhood. They are also very close to the faulty and insulting arguments you rightfully complain about when they’re coming from parents and society at large..

No, you are not contributing more to society because you don’t get tax breaks or have children who go to school. First of all, your parents received tax breaks and you went to school as well, so this is in a way paying it forward.

So, by not making use of public schools I pay tax into, I’m taking out more than I put in?  My logic is faulty?  By your argument, you are “taking out more” and misusing public funds by never having to call the fire department that you pay taxes toward.

Secondly, once you retire you will need to rely on younger people still producing things and eventually taking care of you. Those people don’t have to be your children and frankly, I’m not planning to take care of a set of parents and parents in law myself because hey, I got a life, too, but that’s the nice thing about living in a society: somebody does. But that somebody was gestated, born, fed and raised by somebody and while it’s not endless misery and horrors, it’s work. It’s necessary work to keep a society running.

If that were true, why are there people abandoned by their children, put into taxpayer funded nursing homes?  Even those whose children do pay, many never visit, abanoning elders except to visit on Sundays.  If you are arguing that children must take care of elders, does that mean your parents (or possibly grandparents) live with you the way most families used to and still do in most Asian and African countries?

Contrary to what you are claiming, some people do pay for their own elderly care, not their children or taxpayers.  My parents saved for retirement and paid for their own.

It’S patriarchal and completely anti-feminist to claim that raising children is not “contributing to society”, echoing the old arguments that care work isn’t really work, which also contributes to the low wages in jobs that are considered care work and that are mostly done by women. It further reinforces stereotypes that lead to discrimination against all for the potential of having children, regardless of whether they are actually fertile or plan to have any and especially to the discrimination of women who have children.

This violates rule number 5: No misrepresentation of others’ words.  I never said any such thing, nor does advocating the right of individual choice critique the whole of society.  I’m not deleting it to show it as an example.

What is patriarchical is saying all women must have children.

No, I don’t resent that you don’t have to do the work and pay the money and occasionally break down crying. Those are aspects of parenting. They’re not the only ones, but I’m not trying to convince you because I really agree with you that people should think carefully before they choose to reproduce (I also acknowledge that many women don’t get the choice).

Out of necessity, I added rule number 6: No personal attacks, rather than an all emcompassing rule number 1.  You can make your point without them.  I’ve seen you do better.

But they are not the aspects of parenting that are bad. What really gets you is doing this is a society where the importance of the job I’m doing is dismissed, devalued and I am portrayed as somebody who is unjustly receiving benefits from people who claim they don’t benefit from what I and other parents are doing.

Again, rule number 6.

What is really draining is that I have to be near perfect in my job because people not only believe that I shouldn’t get any accommodations, but also interpret anything lass than 150% as me not “putting in the work” because I’m too busy taking care of my family.

Not germane to the discussion, so no answer is needed.

The point of discussing the Childfree life is to end a stigma against it, a stigma that atheists and LGBTQIA people face.  You have not made any relevant arguments showing that individual choice causes harm to society.

And you left out a statement you made in your original attempt to post, one included when I emailed your original post back so you could edit it.  You claimed:

You’re not automatically more environmentally friendly because you don’t have children.

Mindbogglingly misinformed and wrong.  How does fewer people living increase the use of resources?  It doesn’t.

Not producing children (and thus no grandchildren) means there will be roughly five fewer human beings on the planet by 2050.  No amount of “going green” will make up for the fact that there are fewer people consuming food, water, fossil fuels and other natural resources, fewer people creating pollution and waste.