Thankfully, This is a Problem That Solves Itself

Let me first warn you that I’m saddling up the high horse.

I have no problem with the childfree — if you don’t want kids, don’t

have ’em — but geez, are the human-only-by-biological-classification

folks in the Childfree LiveJournal community seem as petulant, self-centred and simple-minded as the children they despise.

84 replies on “Thankfully, This is a Problem That Solves Itself”

It’s a total misnomer. It’s not a community of child-free people, it’s a community of people who hate all kids and, apparently, want to see humans become extinct…?

While I won’t defend the childish antics of those in the Child-free Community, I do find it personally galling the extent to which parents expect the whole world to bend over backwards for them just because they decided to reproduce. From mandatory paternity leave to the child tax credit to increased property taxes, I feel I am being asked to subsidize someone else’s expensive hobby. I’m not saying that people shouldn’t have kids, I’m just saying I wish parents wouldn’t act like the world revolves around them.

Hey Joe!

I’m kind of split on some of the parent issues that come up. I’m all for comfortable space for breast-feeding, and stuff like that, but the tax credits and things kind of piss me off in a time of overpopulation and widespread homelessness and things.

*head splits in two*

One: Define overpopulation. In countries with a minus replacement rate (Canada, most of Europe), it’s a slipper concept, innit?

And how is there a direct link between children and homelessness. Surely there are other factors that play a more decisive role?

Two: Considering that every new child is a)a future taxpayer b)a considerable expense, you can argue that tax credits are simply a good investment by the gov’t, like the old baby bonus.

I don’t currently live in a place with a minus replacement rate. I live in a place where there are kids who don’t have FOOD.

Look at places like Sub-Saharan Africa, India, or most of Asia. I think in places like that you can make a pretty decisive link between overpopulation and general poverty (of which homelessness is a symptom). But even in places like the US, Canda, and Europe I think it’s pretty well established that poor, ignorant people are just going to have poor, ignorant children. By denying these people access to reliable common sense information about family planning, we’re only exacerbating the problem. I realize that flies in the face of the “Handmaid’s Tale” society we seem to be trying to build here in the US, but there it is.

I realize that it’s in the government’s best interest to help people breed up more little draftees and taxpayers, I just don’t like the idea of subsidizing it. But then there are so many other things I wish the governement wouldn’t spend my tax money on *cough* Iraq *cough*

I dunno about those folks, but when I reach retirement age and I’m visiting the doctor more often than I go to the 7-Eleven, I want to have a healthy pool of young taxpayers out there.


Joe, you sound more than a bit paranoid, and I’d have said that even if you didn’t include the Handmaid’s Tale allusion.

And in Sub-Saharan Africa, India, Asia, you can make a link between general poverty and bad government as well. And the unfortunate fact that it’s a bad idea to have big families or to even live in a desert.

Instead of “reliable common sense information about family planning” – which might work for university students but seems to generally fall flat in most other social milieus – why don’t we conentrate on improving their governments, discouraging corruption, perhaps even taking a strong stand when those governments take rather draconian population control tactics like slaughtering or starving their population?

And about the Handmaid’s Tale thing – please explain. How is that rather imaginative scenario anywhere close to realizing itself? Try to answer my question without using the words “religious wackos” or “fundamentalists”. And keep in mind that George W. Bush is a Methodist, not a Falwell-type Baptist.

And that the person asking you to explain yourself is religious.

Redhead, I assume you live in a place where there are food banks, charities, food stamps programs? (I’m assuming you’re talking about Boston.) If the people you’re talking about – in a general sense, I assume, perhaps even in a “I’ve read about this in the paper” kind of way – are in dire straits and can’t take advantage of these programs, it’s both tragic and criminal. Why have kids if you haven’t a clue how to provide for them? Or perhaps there’s the little matter of a culture of dependence that encourages people to wait for catastrophic circumstances to leverage their position for aid? I’m sorry if that sounds cruel, but it happens.

That said, what do you propose? A means test for child-bearing women and their prospective spouses. Confiscation of children by the state? Sterilization? These have all been proposed/utilized in the past, to rather horrific outcomes.

Not simple, is it? And are you proposing that these people (the so-called underclass) be denied tax breaks, public aid, etc., because you resent their fecundity. Because if you do, you’re sounding like a carticature of a conservative.

Let’s take a look at why family planning seems to “fall flat”. Here in Minnesota we have abstinance only sex education in public schools and the 24 hour wait law, a law that requires a 24 hour waiting period before a woman can recieve an abortion. These initiatives were introduced by a conservative Republican legislature and govenor more interested in ideology than what is reliable or common sense.

I don’t think the establishment of a theocracy (as seen in “The Handmaid’s Tale”) in the US is as far-fetched as you might think. It would take something extraordinary to push us over the edge, but the building blocks are there. Everywhere I look, I see the steady errosion of the line between Church and State. From “Faith-based Initives”, to the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, religious ideologues seek to advance their adgends through the government. Is that a cynical view? Yes, but I haven’t seen a reason to think otherwise.

Hi, folks! Joey here, just taking a quick peek at the bllog. I’ve been working all weekend, so I haven’t been able to jump in, but it looks as through the back-and-forthing continues apace without me.

Just remember to keep it civilized and keep in mind that everyone in the discussion so far (save arcane) is a friend whom I know in real life, not just via TEH INTARWEB.

I’ll be frank, Joe – neither of the options you’re telling me about seem that sinister. Abstinence is the only proven way of preventing unwanted pregnancy last time I checked, and a 24-hour wait law is hardly an immovable impediment to a woman who really wants an abortion – hardly a sign of the theocratic apocalypse.

And here’s something that may surprise, you, Joe – most of the women I’ve known who’ve had abortions don’t look back on them with fondness. Some actually regret their decision, and wonder if they may have done it differently given more time to think. I find it funny that the same people who enthusiastically support gun control laws that impose week-long delays on purchasing firearms so bitterly resent a day’s delay in the taking of an unborn life.

But then, that statement just marks me as a religious zealot to you, I’m sure.

And what’s wrong with “Faith-based intitiatives”? Are initiatives somehow virtuous if they’re “secular-based”? A constitutionally-inferred separation between church and state doesn’t imply a ban on all activities by religious groups. They’re voters, they’re citizens – and they’re exercising their right to influence government as much as “non-faith” groups who have – by and large – been enormously successful in influencing legislature for the past two generations.

What you see as a steady erosion, some others view as an attempt at balance. Bush might have attempted a ban on gay marriage – as a sop to his more conservative supporters, perhaps, or maybe even an expression of his own beliefs – but he knew that it wouldn’t make it out of the House. As it didn’t.

You see that it would take “something extraordinary” for a theocracy to take root in the U.S. That would suggest that what you’re talking about is a dark fantasy, and you know it. So why base your rhetoric on it? Argue from positions of knowledge, from the facts – not using dystopic scare scenarios painted by writers whose political acumen is spotty, at best, even if their worldview compliments your own. That’s called an echo chamber, and it’s deafening.

Sorry, Joey – just read your post. I’m probably ramping up the heat here, but sometimes it’s just hard to hold back, especially when you drop in on conversations that presuppose what “the other side” believes, that begin from a far-too convenient set of definitions of, say, “religious conservative”. And there’s always something a bit off about listening to people who don’t have kids talk about what people who do, should do.

You all may find that your opinions may be challenged one day when you have kids. It’s a real blast of cold air, I can promise you that.

Hey, Rick!

Quite all right. I don’t might a little verbal sparring, and we’re going to use the rest of the blogosphere as a yardstick, it’s been downright civilized overall. I don’t wish my blog to turn into some kind of WWE wrestling ring, but neither do I want it turned into The Smurfs.

As far as issues of religion go, long-time readers may recall that I took the unpopular (at least in my circles, anyway) stance on World Youth Day back in 2002. Alas, I have yet to find a way to import the comments for that piece (it appeared on my old Blogware-based blog and the comments were hosted by Enetation) — we had some really interesting and lively debates.

Before you Buddhists get all smug — oops, too late! — you may want to check His Holiness The Dalai Lama’s stance on abortion and homosexuality. And of course, should the Chinese ever let Tibet go, it will become, well, a theocracy.

I do believe that governments — at least the way we understand them here — work best when they’re secular — and I’m going to go with the definition presented by the Dalai Lama when he spoke here in April: “Not rejection of religion, but respect all religion and respect non-believer”.

As far as opinions go on matters family-ish and kid-related, anyone who’s seen me with the rest of the deVilla clan know how close we are (and Wendy will attest to this): family dinner every weekend, keeping an eye on the little nephews and all that general closeness for which Filipinos are renowned. That’s why I was so annoyed by the LiveJournal Childfree community; some of them couldn’t even bring themselves to attend a nephew’s or niece’s birthday party or complaining about couple bringing babies to weddings. They’re like mopeygoth caricatures of the Baroness of Vulgaria from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang.

Anyhow, the hour is late, and I have more work to do. Carry on!

Hmmm…..bringing up the Big A is kind of like calling somone a Nazi on Usenet. It’s a signal for the conversation to end. While I am always up for a heated arguement, this is not my house. In deference to our generous host, I suggest we take this conversation off his board. If you would like to continue, please feel free to email me: joe(at)arioch(dot)org.

I think the conversation is still within this blog’s rather-fuzzily-defined boundaries of acceptability — maybe one more response from each?

Nice. Have you actually been on an 11 hour flight from Frankfurt to Portland whilst some insane toddler screams every time there’s a bit of air turbulence? Or even a 6 hour flight from Portland to Newark whilst a small child repeatedly kicks your chair because Mommy and Daddy aren’t on the flight with them?

How about being virtually gagged every god damn time some smal child wails in a dining establishment that costs more than 20 dollars for a main course? That community is meant to be a place where people can go ‘my god, does this suck.’ Admittedly, it’s not without its dickheads, like anything else. I discovered this myself after describing someone as looking Muslim once and was immediately branded a racist.

The thing is, kids seem to be getting more and more out of control, yet every day folks have very little room to breathe when it comes to actually telling them to shut up. I do, but that’s mostly due to some insolence towards society that I haven’t been able to shake since adolescence. The rest of people who are nice and sane, don’t really have the opportunity to shake their angry fists at people who can’t control their offspring. On top of all that, whilst women aren’t scowled at for being childless, it’s also not entirely accepted. The lack of makes us some kind of mutant in a lot of people’s eyes still. I can’t even tell you the number of times I’ve been patronized for either not wanting children, or not wanting them right now.

So, yes, perhaps in your world we seem petulant and simple minded but there’s a whole lot of issues surrounding children and a whole lot of reason to be petulant and simple minded. (Though one wonders, really, were you expecting to find a broad assortment of opinion and social commentary on a community dedicated to remaining child free and the reasons for it? Seems like you were kind of setting yourself up for defeat there.)

vulgarcriminal on livejournal.

Incidentally, that U2 song? It really sucks.

Um, just so you know, it’s a RANT community. Go check out other communities about ranting. They might seem silly and simple-minded, but it’s because people are there to vent and growl, not have intellegent discussion. Many of those people at Childfree also civily debate with parents over child topics on at other forums. Conext, people, context.

Sorry Mate, but you are WRONG…

100%, completely, totally wrong…..

Parents KNOW that the world does NOT revolve around them…

Thats the first thing you *REALISE*.

The world revolves around your kids.

When you have kids, your LIFE finishes. Your Kids lives start.

That may sound like a manifesto for this stupid “childless and proud” group but it aint.

Your job as a parent is to equip your child or children with all the skills tools and advantages that you can in order to ensure that they get a good start.

As for population…

Do you realise that for instance, in the UK the state pension system is NOT funded… as in, the money that you pay today into the state pension systems goes out tomorrow to current pensioners. This is a big problem as the demographic mix of the population swings over to an aged population.

Be thankful for other peoples children, for they are the people who are going to support you in YOUR old age. hmmm, maybe parents should sponsor an amendment to the pension laws so that only parents can claim!

There are two issues here…

you seem to be talking about children behaving badly in public places.

That is fair enough and I will wholeheartedly agree with you.

there are a lot of parents nowadays that feel it is reasonable for their children to make pests of themselves and generally annoy everyone around them while maintaining their rights to do so.

Well, I believe that thats wrong.

Kids everywhere should act civilised. if they don’t then it is up to any adult (preferably their parent or supervisind adult) to assert discipline.

Never confuse the two however.

Kids just being kids in a reasonable manner and not disturbing anyone. should not affect anyone

Kids being unholy terrors and not being admonished by a responsible adult is something else entirely.

Joey, hi. Your breederbrain has addled you to the point you cannot even read the simple words of a Buddhist.

The Dalai Lama tells us gays nothing we don’t already know.

Penis to penis or vagina to vagina doesn’t fit as well as penis to vagina does. We KNOW that, and we manage around it. There’s more to sex than just sex organs. And he also had no actual comment on loving homosexual relationships. You need to read a little bit closer next time.

And also, gee that’s funny…his opinion on abortion is mine, too. Only I additionally believe that no government has a right to tell any woman what she can or cannot do with her body in that respect. But as he did not comment on that specific aspect, I can only assume babyriffic Western reporters with your mindset just jumped on what they wanted to hear and ignored the rest.

It is tragic that you are so small-minded, you must resort to insulting a religion that wouldn’t think of insulting you.

Ignorant religion remarks aside, one could play a good game of Breeder Bingo off you. I think I get a car if I fill this card.

Furthermore, if it f’ing bothers you, don’t f’ing read it.

I bet you’re the type that will whine to the FCC about a tv show instead of changing the channel, too.

Quite the opposite: I change the channel. You’ll note that nowhere did I say “These people should be locked up,” or “Has someone notified an LJ admin?” or “Close LJ down now!”

But I will say: “You know channel X? It’s crap.”

You all may find that your opinions may be challenged one day when you have kids.


Childfree means not having kids. And yes, many of us ARE sterilized, so don’t be counting on any accidents to change that status.

This is really out of hand. You can’t assume, based on one blog post and its comments, that you know someone.

I would not be with Joey if he were what you say he is. I started being a pro-choice activist at 15, out on the streets of Boston every Saturday. And, having had a varied history sexuality-wise myself, I couldn’t bear it if he were a “breeder” in the vicious way you mean it. Plus there are solid reasons that, should we stay together, we might not end up having children ourselves. But that’s really none of your business.

This conversation drives me mad. If you don’t want children don’t have them is fine, but it’s more complex than that. Access to birth control is a problem; we are innately driven to have sex, but our health plans are not innately driven to cover contraceptives. Access to food in parts of the world is a problem. Religious beliefs come into the picture in varied ways. I love kids, I love Joey’s nephews, I make goofy faces at babies, etc. etc. etc. But only when I am 100% sure, and know for absolute certain that I am healthy enough and have enough money to raise a kid properly, will I ever, ever have one.


If only people really valued difference. If only people really valued each other, in a larger sense.

Actually, I have no quarrel with Buddhism, but some of its practitioners. And if you check, one of the links in my previous comments is to my notes on the Dalai Lama’s presentation when he last passed through town — not for “fisking” or debunking — but because I think we he says is pretty much right-on.

I think that was addressed to me, specifically (and I haven’t said which way I lean on wanting or not wanting kids).

It’s nice to know that you researched that statement *rolls eyes*. The childfree community on LJ has all different kinds of childfree people, from people who like children (but don’t want any of their own), to the militant childfree who despises children and anything associated with them. Additionally, there are quite a few parents who belong to the community.

What you don’t seem to realise that it’s a ranting community, designed to let out frustration on things relating to being child free. Therefore, there’s a lot of negativity in there. And that’s fine. What’s wrong with ranting?

Get your facts straight buddy.

Alternatively, you could save money now for unforeseen events in the future and live as healthy a life as possible. It’s called responsibility. Tax dollars are never going to provide enough care for everyone. The solution of more children just leads to bloating. What will be the solution when all those children are older? More children and more children and more children? There needs to be a different solution.


I agree — having kids is an extreme solution for building the taxpayer base to cover your Social Security bills. Better by far to put away a little money each month into some kind of investment vehicle (preferably a “sane” one) and use the power of compund interest and dollar cost averaging.

Of course, you open whole can of worms with the Social Security debate, and I’m on a one-can-of-worms-per-blog-entry diet.

Hey, vulgarcriminal!

The complaints on the Childfree forum about getting heat for not wanting kids — ever or for the moment — are reasonable in my eyes. It’s just that a large number of the postings are pretty misanthropic.

Yeah, poking a hornet’s nest like the Childfree community (“as seen on!”) is asking for trouble, but it’s a far cry from setting oneself up for defeat. For that, I’m setting up a web server on Windows.

(Oh c’mon, was the U2 single that bad?)

BTW, ending your comment with that “by the way, that single you like sucks” line might’ve been meant as a mild barb, but it gave me a laugh. I suppose it’s the best kind of barb, so I’m not complaining.

The world revolves around your kids.

No. No no no no no. YOUR world revolves around YOUR kids. I understand it’s hard for someone with children to get past that “the whole world is separate from me and should not be infringed on just because I happened to breed” thing, but trust me, there’s a world of learning out there.

Honestly, I used to argue with people like you. Now, I just take the “baby parking only” space at the supermarket and smile when I see one of you deluded shits out in public, all irritated because your snotling won’t behave, or acting like you’ve shat a brick of gold because your snotling will. (Or, preciously, dragging upwards of four kids along, snot running down two of their faces, two of them screaming, the whole entourage (sorry — group) smelling like a mixture of vomit and shit as they go by. I’m happy you ignorant shits are having kids, because I get to take advantage of it in so many ways that are not, at all, related to pension.

If there weren’t a few thousand idiots like you and your children eating McDonald’s every friggin’ day, I wouldn’t get to have them once or twice a week. If it weren’t for all your retarded kids and the retarded people who try, retardedly, to bring them to bars and such, there would not be laws that prevent that and keep you friggin’ breeders out of fun places to be. If people like you didn’t whine so much about the chyyyyylllldren, I wouldn’t be able to call Child Protective Services on brain-damaged parents when I see them doing something retarded, in order to prevent me having to view the tragic loss of an unwanted human life.

People like you may be having very nice kids. Your lives are controlled by them, and your kids, generally, have the intelligence of paste. People like you can be controlled through your children, and it’s always entertaining to watch.

If you’re on welfare, stop having kids. Now. If you have more, they will be taken away. You will not get any money. Have another, and we will give you the choice of voluntary sterilization or loss of benefits. Now shut the hell up and keep your goddamn kids out of the street.

Simple. Unpopular, especially with those who advocate having as many kids as possible, but screw unpopular. It’s about time someone did something unpopular and worthwhile, instead of just unpopular.

I can’t help but ask — could it be that all the females you know are indoctrinated into your wonderful “faith”? I seem to remember a quote…

That’s called an echo chamber, and it’s deafening.

Perhaps your faith is deafening you to a reality — some people take a logical course of action and are happy they did it. Some people take a logical course of action and feel sad about it later for sentimental reasons. Some people just do the sentimental thing and then pretend they are happy the rest of their life.

I find it funny that the same people who enthusiastically support gun control laws that impose week-long delays on purchasing firearms so bitterly resent a day’s delay in the taking of an unborn life.

Odd. I find it funny that the same people who enthusiastically support the death penalty want to make sure nobody slaughters those same people before they’ve had a chance to convert them. Could it be that would prevent a Pyrrhic victory of numbers?

Before you even ask, I support both — get rid of the gun laws, get rid of the abortion laws, unwind the whole damn thing. I think laws in general are wrong, but these two types of laws, as complex as they are (one complex in terms of technology, and one complex in terms of biology), should never have been touched by people so categorically ignorant as legislators.

(Aw, Christ — don’t tell me. You’re a religious lawyer, aren’t you? Shit…)

And what’s wrong with “Faith-based intitiatives”?

Cultists tend to run them, people entrenched in their belief that They Are Right. (Not that I’m saying you are entrenched in such a belief!) While it’s nice for cultists to gaggle in a pile on their own, it bothers the whole rest of the world, the majority of which does not give two warm shits about the fights over God that you people have all the time. You bother us. Go away. You’re trespassing on our goddamn nerves, and while we do not believe in your Maker, we will certainly bring you closer to Him in your eyes.


I was content to just sit back and watch you idiots fling shit at one another. Until I read the above comment. Joey, I think this individuals prove your point.

I was neither here nor there in regards to children and/or breeding (whatever your word choice may be), but there is one thing I don’t understand:

Why do you define yourself as “Childfree”? I mean, I don’t like McDonalds or Dogs or whatever but I don’t define myself as “Dogfree” “McDonalds free” etc.

The term “childfree” was coined in response response to “childless”. “Childless” has a negative connotation, implying a flaw or lack, whereas “childfree” does not. In my opinion, that’s quite fair.

My wife and I had this conversation years ago, and I came to agree with her statement that the relationship between husband and wife is more important than the relationship between parent and child. If the husband and wife are united, the parent-child relationship will take care of itself.

Yeah, whatever. i don’t buy it.

Why do they insist on being “defined” by what they dislike? Why do they go on and on about something that they claim they want to be free of? Sure, we’re all annoyed by some loud and crying baby/child in our lives, but i don’t dwell on it.

I went to their “community” and didn’t see anything that would illustrate a thoughtful and intelligent debate on being childless (“childfree” , whatever), in a society that would otherwise have us producing future consumers.

the thing i hate about people who hate children is that they seem to forget that they were once one. maybe they just don’t like it when they see that they aren’t at the center of the world anymore? maybe they just hate to be reminded of their immortality? i don’t know, but in either case it seems to me that these people have incredibly large egos.

Thing is, “childfree” – at least to me – has the same connotation as “pollution free” or “mercury free” – something undesirable is left out. Not liking kids (or some kids, at least) I can understand, but dismissing them altogether as being unwanted – that is, unintelligent, disgusting, misbehaving scum (as the more memorable on that LJ group seem to) – is, to me, a mischaracterization at best, and deranged at worst.

Then again, I come from a large family (by North American standards) – 3 siblings, 9 first cousins on my Mother’s side, 4 on my father’s side, 9 aunts and uncles on my Mother’s side, and 4 on my father’s side. Everyone gets along pretty well, and we’re basically all in Southern Ontario, so we see each other somewhat often.

As the oldest cousin, I’ve seen all the others grow up, from the cutest little babies, to toddlers, to first days of school, to high school, and now some are starting university (as I grow close to finishing it). I still love them, and though the younger ones are still cuter (and some act up more than others), I think they’re all pretty cool. (They also seem to put up with me, which is a plus)

So I may just like kids from sheer repetition – but I still like kids.

Out of curiosity, how can someone “look Muslim”? Can they also look Christian, Catholic, Buddhist, Agnostic, or like an Atheist?

Or did the person look as though they came from the Middle East?

Assuming a religious belief based on appearance alone may not be racist, but it is somewhat prejudicial* – not necessarily a bad thing, but it can work against you.

As for the airline thing… I’ve been on flights:

  • with people in front of me who insisted on reclining the whole time (so I got no work done on the whole 5 hour flight – this PowerBook has trouble fitting on the tray table as it is),
  • where the guy behind me fiddled with his tray table incessantly,
  • where the woman sitting across the aisle from me managed to hit me with her carry-on, twice, without acknowledging such, let alone apologizing,
  • and where the guy in front of me managed to sour the flight attendant’s attitude to our row as well as his.

The point is, jerks come in all shapes, sizes and ages.

Well, thats exactly my point…

when you have children, you realise that you are not the most important person in your life anymore. This child or children is/are.

I was pointing this out as a previous post seemed to state that a person with children is selfish or self-centered. This is not the case, they are anything but.

I take offence at people who put themselves first in everything stating that I am self-centered or selfish.

And, I would like to point out that not all kids act out in public all the time. This is a stupid “child-free” myth. most of the time most children are perfectly reasonable when out and about in public.

As for taking parent and todler parking, well all I can say is…



Have a nice day. (for yours are numbered)

Redhead, I am sorry to tell you…

but you are never 100% sure.

Even if you where, you’re probably mistaken.

There comes a point where the want/need outweighs the uncertainty.

Having kids is a big gamble, the healthiest most prepared woman can die in childbirth.

The best easiest pregnancy and labour in the world can result in a child with problems (downs, brain damage, any number of things)

This is something EVERY prospective father knows and something EVERY prospective mother chooses to forget.

There was some uncertainty when my son (Alex now 6) was born, he was in some distress and I could tell that the midwife was getting a little “stressed”, but I had to keep it from my wife at the time as she had more important things to do and think about. I had to just be supportive and keep out of the midwifes way.

I am constantly proud (and astonished) at what she did on that night (and when Amy was born). The risk she took and the work she did (its not called labour for nothing!)

There are no sure things, there is no PERFECT time.

Our society has problems, it enforces that the best time financially and the best time medically do not coincide.

You do the best you can and hope that fate/luck will provide the rest.

Or maybe I remember that I was an obnoxious, self centred nuisance as a child? Having been something in the past doesn’t mean you have to like it now.

I don’t mind children when they’re quiet and well behaved, because for the most part I don’t notice they’re there. It’s the ones who are actively making my life more unpleasant I have a problem with.

That community isn’t about debate, it’s a bizarre internet form of ‘COMMUNITY’ (hence the name, you see the logic?)

We choose to define ourselves by a lack of children primarily because it’s antithetical to what expecations still are. You are severely limiting us though by insinuating that’s our only interest. For me, being childless is simply an aspect of my life I appreciate as much as I also appreciate insane Edwardian paleontologists.

Not all of us necessarily dislike children. We dislike some children, social expectations of having children but not the children themselves. I have friends who have kids (I am getting to that age) who call for me ‘TIFNAY’ if we go to the pub. I don’t mind, I take their tiny little hands and walk around with them so they can poke at whatever. I like these kids. What I don’t like, is the idea of having them myself.

I find it mind boggling as well, that people who would insinuate we’re of a certain myopic breed would pigeonhole 2000 people. That strikes me as being very funny.

We want to remain the most important people in our lives. (Excepting significant others, family and friends of course) that’s why we don’t have them, or one of the reasons. Has the thought come into your mind, that perhaps we are being responsible by being childfree? In my case, I don’t really think I’m suited for motherhood, no matter what my biological clock says, so I make sure protection is used when having sex.

The parents and toddler parking is patronizing and idiotic at best. Would children really fault from walking a bit further at the supermarket? Really?

vulgarcriminal on livejournal

I think, the point I was trying to make was there are a lot of bad parents and a lot of bad kids in the world. That community serves as a sort of ‘BLAHAHAHAHHA’ forum so we don’t end up raging about it on train platforms.

Personally, I’m not a kid hater, due to a certain amount of little cute darling well behaved tykes who have taken to me over the last few years. (I’ve reached that age where my friends have kids or cats.)

I appreciate a good amount of pokage. 😉 The Anne Rice thing is now, SO LAST WEEK.

You are right, the misanthropy runs rampant on that community. What I didn’t appreciate and a lot of the other gals and guys didn’t seem to either, was being tarred with the same ALL KIDS ARE THE SUX0R brush. I don’t think that way, I know a lot of lovely kids created by lovely people who, for some odd reason, seem to like me. 2,000 people are on that list and whilst I might be petulant and self centered, probably not in the same way that would inspire that kind of ire.

It is the powerlessness of situations like the flights/trains/ASDA/anniversary dinners that make me want to rage like that. Surely you’ve had the same thoughts? Or seen the episode of Family Guy where Brian starts crying back at the baby “WAHAHHAHAHAHA, you just tune that out don’t you? Well, tune this out! WAH WAH WAH WAH!” Or even become slightly revolted at the sight of every ‘celebrity’ on two continents with fashionable strollers?

LJDrama has gone way downhill lately, they’re too up themselves.

Didn’t you find, with that song, that they’re trying very hard to sound like all the nice little indie bands poking out of BritPop? (I’m thinking Libertines, Kings of Leon) I’m trying very hard not to dislike it intensely but for a band who people who usually derive from, to become derivative themselves… Bad Bono, BAD.


Fair point — not everybody in Childfree should get painted with the ALL K1DZ ARE TEH SUX0R brush, and to those folks, I extend my humble apologies. I meant to pimp-slap the misanthropic members of the community, not those who getting heat from their parents that it is their sworn duty to give them grandchildren.

With regard to rude children, unless there’s some kind of physiological problem, their parents are to blame. Parents with manners and discipline tend to raise kids with the same. The problem is that we’ve got a rudeness epidemic going on in North America.

As for U2, I think what happened is that they ended up sounding like the young indie bands that they influenced. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; I thought it worked for Killing Joke when Millennium came out.

Yeah, actually I have a problem with that too – kids should be better behaved. I didn’t make it clear enough, I guess, but I was actually referring to the Livejournal Childless community – where people refuse to go to their nephews birthday parties or whatever purely on the grounds that “their parent seems to love them too much.” That’s a little extreme, if you ask me – if you don’t want to go, don’t go, but you don’t have to be a dick about it (not referring to you in particular, obviously, mostly the people from that community).

Alternatively, you could save money now for unforeseen events in the future and live as healthy a life as possible. It’s called responsibility.

Except, under a completely privatized system of health care, you can’t really save enough to prepare for the effect that a truly debilitating illness can have on your life. Long bouts of cancer, for example, could run your medical bills into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even tens of thousands can play havoc with the long-term financial planning you’re going to require in order to live above the poverty line once you’re too old or unable to work. Perhaps you’re the type to pick up your battered copy of Atlas Shrugged and go about the painful business of “being responsible” but if you get really sick, all the libertarianism in the world won’t be able to get you out of bed. So fine: we fund the “big stuff” such as chemotherapy and organ transplants and emergency medicine and make everything else a “pay-for-play” proposition. Sure, except a lot of the “everything else” includes measures which prevent most of the “big stuff” from happening. Yeah, “ya gotta draw the line somewhere”, but where?

I’m not saying that I know where to draw the line between individual and societal responsibility, but my own experiences with long term illnesses suggest to me that a statist health care system is more humane than the rat race of a completely privatized one. And that goes for things like Social Security. Remember, they arose, not as a tool for increasing government control, but out of a reaction to the way people were forced to live.

I agree with Rick. Society does have an interest in raising and educating children. When I didn’t have children, I was perfectly glad to vote for a local tax increase to support schools, because I want to live in a society of educated people.

Oops, misattribution, I meant to say I was agreeing with arcane. Some of the basic issues I have with the “childfree” point of view as expressed here are the same issues I have with libertarianism. I really do believe that we humans *are* in the same boat as a society and that we do have an interest in the well-being of other members of our society. Some people believe that a pay-as-you-go society, where everyone pursues their own self-interest would be a more efficient (or perhaps moral) way to distribute resources, but I don’t actually think it would work.

Having a cooperative society brings up the problem of free riders — that is, sometimes you have to pay for the results of behavior you don’t like. But libertarianism means you have to pay retail for everything — no group purchase of roads, streetlights, education, public safety, etc.


It was meant to be funny. 😀 That single has been prodding my brain lately.


I was a kid? Really? Well, I was sick once too. Doesn’t mean I like the taste of vomit, would want to do it again, or enjoy being around others who are sick at the time.

No one said they were perfect as a child, or even as an adult. They realize they were probably horrid at some point. The horrid-ness is the reason for many that they dislike children, in fact.

I thought that the rudeness thang was limited to the US, then I came to the UK. Northerners don’t open doors for people, or say thank you or please. Even the Southerners are lacking in places like Milton Keynes where its gargoyle denziens will look at you funny if you say ‘thank you.’ It’s far worse than Portland ever was.

It’s sad that Canada seems to be experiencing it as well. One of the best experiences I’ve ever had airport wise was at Toronto where FIVE different men offered to help me carry my suitcases and none of them looked like they were going to try and run off with them. (Wouldn’t have done them much good if they had, all my bags were pretty much filled with Scotch anyway.)

I’m interested in the rest of that U2 album after the shock wears off. I was expecting another long, drawn out, Stereophonics boring single like ‘Stuck in a Moment.’ Perhaps it’s just the rapid change that stunned me. Like throwing a cat into cold water. There’s a band over here that you might like called Muse if the new indie guys appeal. They do an oddly timed virtuoso piano performance in the middle of one of their singles that’s pretty cool. They have guitars too.


She was wearing a Hijab. That’s how she looked Muslim. Strange that, considering it’s traditional wear for women of that faith, yes?

Your reaction, right now, is exactly what started ‘you’re a racist thing’ in the first place. I am fully aware of equal opportunity jerkdom. When I was a misanthrope, I liked to point out that hatred of humanity leaves no room for discrimination. If I’d said that some Chinese, or Orthodox Jews or Persian looking person had done it, would you raise these questions? Or is it because we’re all paranoid of looking like ignorant right wingers? Hmmmm?

Since I couldn’t actually verify that she was Muslim, having had a short conversation with her that consisted of ‘tell your child to shut up’ and other associated phrases, it seemed unfair that the primary antagonist of my short tale should be labelled with a religion she may not have been involved in. By saying she looked Muslim, I implied a certain stereotype which drew out images in the minds of those reading the post. Whether or not it was a *good* descriptive device is an entirely different issue.

It was a descriptive device. Imagine having this terrifyingly thin woman, with ashen skin in a Hijab shouting at you in a language you don’t know whilst her child wails every time the plan shudders a bit.


I had not visited over at “childfree” for a while. Thank all the gods that those spoiled, self-centered, whiny malcontents have made a commitment NOT to reproduce–we’d be picking up the therapy bills for their brats for decades.

And the nauseousness of equating pets of various species with their children or siblings! It leads to this–animal rights terrorists and brainwashers.

Intimidation and thought control.

Enjoy the ride, “childfree” folk. Oh, and when you get old and feeble and can’t care for yourselves….hope you are still willing to starve to death in your own dirt, because you didn’t want to be saddled with “children”. It is other people’s children who would care for you.

Yep, that’s a great, selfless reason to have children – so they’ll look after you when you’re old. Don’t you even see how hypocritical you’re being?

You’re right about the pet thing, though. That’s just freaky.

You really didn’t listen to a word I said, did you? Just heard me say “I’m religious” and went off from there. Where did you get the assumption that I support the death penalty? (Joey – you might wanna explain that little Catholic doctrine to your rather over-enthusiastic readers).

“I think laws in general are wrong.”

Wow. I’ve really got to think about something like that. On the other hand, no, I don’t. You’re an idiot.

“You bother us. Go away. You’re trespassing on our goddamn nerves, and while we do not believe in your Maker, we will certainly bring you closer to Him in your eyes.”

Ah, that well-documented tolerance of the secular. THAT’s how you’ll usher in a world of peace and love, I presume?

For instance, I’m one of the childhaters from the CF LJ community. I hate children, for many reasons. I can tolerate a well behaved child. I have even been fond of children who were exceptional. I don’t harm children. I’m as much against child abuse as I am against animal abuse. However, I’m just one out of many. Several of them love kids, but don’t want any. Yet, any someone who loves kids can sometimes go into a rant about ill-behaved brats.

We have some parents in the community. Some of those parents post rants about ill-behaved brats. They feel that if they can control their children, other people should be able to control theirs. The CF LJ community houses a wide variety of people. It annoys me how everyone wants to be understood, but they don’t want to understand. The CF LJ community is just a rant haven. A safe space that we can vent. Some will say it is childish, others will disagree. It’s all opinion. You don’t have to agree all of what goes on there, but you really shouldn’t think your opinion is more valid.

Various issues come up from time to time in the community. Anything from combating child abuse to bitching about deadbeat parents who run out on their spouse and the kid. Recent thing that came up was that it is highly inappropriate that little girls are now being encouraged to dress in sexually provocative clothing. Sometimes we give a quick rant to something we went through. It’s not “dwelling”. I talk in my personal journal about a variety of things that go in my life. Talking about something doesn’t mean you are specifically “dwelling” upon it. Now, if I’m still thinking about it weeks later, writing about it, can’t sleep because I can’t stop thinking, can’t eat, worried, etc… That’s dwelling on something. People need to vent. Venting is good for us. It purges all the negativity. I’d rather someone vent than bottle things all up inside.

Meh, we all don’t want to reproduce in that community, but each of us for our own reasons. One of the women in there chooses not to because of her health. She’d die if she tried to carry to term, and she doesn’t have the health to raise a child. Another has multiple health problems that can be passed on. Me? I can’t stand children in anything but extrememly small doses, and I too have health issues that can be passed on. Everyone is different, even within that community. I find it funny how the only ones people notice are the more vocal ones. No one from the outside notices when I say something good towards children, or really any of us say something good towards children. They only notice the negative things. Meh, but it’s like that with all groups it seems…


Perhaps you’re thinking of the person who didn’t want to have to bring a gift for a sibling who wasn’t having a birthday. Terribly unreasonable of that person, I agree! Presents for everyone!

And why not a present for the poor, deluded parents who are raising their children to believe they’re entitled to whatever they want?

If you think schools cause education, you deserve what you get for supporting schools.

The main interest society currently has in “raising” children is to support Social Security, and it’s a losing proposition — when we’re at 20 billion senior citizens (who, with medical advances, will no doubt live to 200 by then), where exactly do you think all these teenagers will fit?

I’m “childfree.” I’m a member of the community mentioned here. I like kids – well, I like well-behaved kids. I don’t want to see kids hurt, and I hate to see kids going without necessities, which is why I do volunteer work for Habitat for Humanity, help raise money for childhood cancer research, and sponsor a boy in the Philippines. I’m childfree because I don’t have the patience or the necessary tolerence of small children to be a mother, and I don’t particularly want children of my own. It’s the responsible choice for me. The world is overpopulated, so why add a child that I won’t be able to care for as well as I can?

On the other hand, parents who think they are entitled, or who think their children are entitled, to anything really irritate me. This is not just because they are annoying, though that’s a large part of it (I have much the same reaction to parents who smoke around their children). It’s not “equipping their children with the skills to give them a good start” when parents teach them that they can have anything they want, just by screaming loudly enough. Or being rude to waitresses and salespeople. Or behaving badly in public places. The trick to raising a child is in having your world revolve around them, but not letting them know it. My parents did a great job, and they did equip me for the real world. I had chores, and for those chores I got hobbies: 4-H, horseback riding lessons, and karate classes (not all at the same time, and only the basics). For extras, I had to do extra chores (wash the car, clean the barn, etc). It doesn’t help that things like social promotion in schools exist. When these entitled children reach college or the real world, they are going to get the shock of a lifetime. Giving a child everything it wants is not helping the child, but keeping it from being prepared for the real world.

I’m all for reproducing, but I honestly think that 70 percent of the parents in this world are not equipped to be good parents. In fact, I think they are bad parents, for all that I’m sure many of them read Dr. Spock and Parenting Magazine. Many people have children for the wrong reasons, too, whether it be to keep a marriage together, because they want something that loves them unconditionally, because they want children to enhance their suburbanite status, or because they want that extra money from welfare. Parents like these are the parents that the childfree despise and make fun of. Parents like these should have to take mandatory parenting classes and should come with an assigned social worker, because their children are not going to have the kind of childhood that equips them for success in life. In fact, these are by and large the same parents who have one or more children in jail.

Not all of the childfree hate children, for all that they don’t want them. In fact, I would say that most of the childfree like children, if not in large groups. That is why I’m childfree; I would much rather have the time and money to help existing children than be a bad parent with no money and get made fun of on the Childfree LiveJournal Community. 😀

The thing is that more children means more money in people’s minds, and this is not a new thing. In ancient societies, including China, Greece, Rome, and Mesoamerica, poorer parents had more children because this gave them more workers. More workers, particularly for farmers, meant more food for all. Two people had trouble feeding themselves. Fourteen people could feed themselves and have enough food left over for taxes and selling at the market, barring drought. This became more true in the bastard feudalism of medieval Europe and continues to be true in many parts of the world.

This was true in the U.S. up until about the turn of the last century, when child labor laws came into effect, and the 1930s, when family farming as a way of life began to disappear. However, the added benefits given per child, whether through welfare or through taxes, has continued the societal rule that more kids equals more money. It’s going to take a hell of a lot more than curtailing welfare benefits – including free birth control programs, advertising campaigns against having many kids, curtailing of both welfare and tax benefits, free voluntary sterilization programs, bonuses for folks on welfare that choose to undergo voluntary sterilization, etc. – to make having fewer or no kids desirable to the people who are on welfare. It really will. Not getting welfare money is not going to be enough in a society that still places quite a bit of honor on having as many kids as possible. Our society needs to make it not only desirable not to have many children, but a social stigma to have more than two or three, for any kind of program like this to succeed. And that’s never going to happen.

I’m a member of ChildFree, and I have a kid.

I don’t hate kids. Well, some I do, but then I remember my Swift, and go to my happy place.

What I do hate are 90% of parents out there. I don’t bring my kid to bars. Why? They don’t belong there. When he was an infant, he didn’t go to movies. Why? Because infants don’t BELONG in movies. I don’t take him to adult restaurants that move at a languorous pace. Why? Because he doesn’t belong there yet.

What parents don’t get is this…you see that adult there without the kid…or that couple? They don’t revolve around your child. You do. Keep your kid under control, on a leash, or better yet, keep them in age appropriate places. FWIW, I think the yutzes bitching about kids at McDonalds are retards. McDonald’s = Place designed for kids. Go to a more adult place if you don’t want kids around you. Parents, don’t bring a six – month old to see Jurassic Park. That’s STUPID.

you would think it was common sense…but i find that parents in general flush that away with the first diaper.


Well, since I’m not going to have children, I’ll be able to afford a nice nursing home instead of the crooked kind like they have on 60 Minutes. 🙂

(Obligatory Simpsons reference)

I find the parent + child parking spaces insulting and maddening myself. I’m disabled, yet can’t seem to get a tag for vehicles I ride in. My mother is disabled, yet she can’t seem to get approval for a tag. I know many disabled people who can’t seem to find a doctor willing to approve them for a disabled parking tag. Sometimes the disabled spaces are full, and the only ones open are the parent + child spaces. My sister parks in them when we go places. She said if anyone says anything, she will inform them that she is my gaurdian. Technically, she is. She’s in charge of keeping track of my appointments and schedule, as well as my foodstamps. My shortterm memory is rather screwed up, either from the seizures or the medication. I’m tired all the time, and that one is also from one or the other, or both. Currently I suffer from partial seizures more than anything else, so life isn’t that fun most of the time. Blegh…

Seriously, it’s not that simple. Not every child is a success. Most of the ones in this area are failing school, spending most of their time stoned, and screwing around.

My whole thing is to start saving bit by bit and as much as possible to take care of myself when I get old. However, I also plan to die once I become nothing but a burden, depending on machines and constant surgeries to keep me alive. I don’t want anyone stuck taking care of me in my old age.

\\ FWIW, I think the yutzes bitching about kids at McDonalds are retards. McDonald’s = Place designed for kids. Go to a more adult place if you don’t want kids around you. //

Maybe they think those play things and the playground are for adults? lol… Gah, McDonalds is gross anyway. Wendy’s has better food. The only good things at McDonalds are the toys and the play areas, which are obviously for children.


Misanthropy is so warm and cozy though…

Just laugh off the misanthropic rantings. It’s just a good hearty purging of negativity.

Okay, buddy, with this line:

“You’re trespassing on our goddamn nerves, and while we do not believe in your Maker, we will certainly bring you closer to Him in your eyes.”

…you’ve just crossed the line of what I consider acceptable behaviour for my blog’s comments. Your IP address has been banned, but your comment will remain as a tribute and example of what not to do here.

Thank you, Rick for handling his comment and responding with your usual aplomb.

OMG … that was hilarious. I can’t wait to use the word “snotling” and “retardedly” in conversation. As for the negative replies to your post, just know that you’re not alone when you laugh at those irritating people and their delusions of status quo superiority.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *