Why Bother Mention The Childfree At All?
7 07 2008Thanks to Childfreeeee for sending me the link to this video clip and her post.
Praise and Criticism for the today show
Blogspot mechanics meant that for some reason I couldn’t leave a comment on her blog (I don’t think blogger likes me) but I am only too happy to post here. I hope you’ll check out the post on her blog and comment there too.
I watched the video and my thoughts are very similar to Childfreeee’s. I wondered why the Today show was talking about the happiness of childed and childfree couples – yet had only childed people on the show. How on earth would childed people know anything about how happy childfree people are? Except of course through reading the studies that have been done.
As was mentioned in Childfreeee’s post, it would have been more authentic if they had actually had childfree people talking about their lives, how being childfree is an equally valid choice and that there are other options other than parenthood. And, as Childfreeee also said they could have given advice for parents not to be so intrusive when they speak with childfree people. But no.That was too much to expect.
But where I tuned out was when the interviewer asked “so how can we help parents be happier when they have children?”
It was back to the the supremacy of parents with children. Which was probably where it had always been, since they were the target audience.
I really don’t know why they even bothered to mention the childfree at all. But if shows can’t be bothered to get actual people who are living childfree (and represent them fairly) then let’s not have parent talking heads pretending to speak for them.
Watch the clip and do share your thoughts.
Technorati Tags: childfree
I watched the clip and I thought my head would explode!
How come no CF people were actually invited on the show?
Why didn’t they go into more detail when discussing the prejudices CF people face and *gasp!* the downside of parenting?
The whole segment barely scratched the surface - the interviewer, in particular, clearly didn’t have a clue about the childfree. If that wasn’t bad enough, the last few minutes were devoted to happier parenting!
Once again, the childfree were pushed aside and dismissed. Infuriating!
Like Britgirl said, why even bother?
And now we know why I don’t bother with morning talk shows, along with much of TV. I don’t even watch the news here in America without a cynical point-of-view!
I started to watch the clip and the tip off was that it was on the “Family segment.” That’s usually a clue to me that they’re going to be talking to mothers. Not women, not people, but mothers specifically. I couldn’t continue watching it knowing that there were no CF people in the segment.
A positive thing to take away from this is that even *parents,* while they like to admit it or not, can learn from us. And the thing about that is they’re learning how to have fun and be happy. Oh the irony coming from a group of people who claim to have so much joy in their lives?
I thought the entire interview was simply to re-affirm the supposed supremacy of parenting. Not happy with kids? No matter, let’s look at how to make you happier. I think even if a childfree person has been on the show they would have found a way to make them feel “lacking”. You have to wonder though… childed people purporting to understand what it feel like to get the bingoes from the childed. Right.
Why didn’t they have childfree people on the show? Because the Today show doesn’t want parents to know there is another world out there.
The people behind the Today show are interested in keeping parents in their places, and getting other people to take on parenthood, which means getting loaded with financial and time commitments to the point where they have little time to look around and complain about the status quo. People with children rarely have time for radical political and social discussions. They are too lumbered with what they have been told is their primary commitment: getting little Johnny through school and into a good career where he can get married and get stuck on the same stupid treadmill.
The more people who have kids, the fewer who can see how lopsided things are, how power is distributed unfairly toward big corporations and how government (at least here in the US) rarely functions to the benefit of everyday taxpayers.
I kind of feel sorry for parents in that respect. It’s hard to see how little Johnny is going to find the cure for cancer when the closest role models he’s got have been working their butts off to pay an outrageously inflated mortgage and save to get his smile fixed and him on a career track.
The powers that be treat the ‘middle class’ as a great herd of herbivores on whose money they can prey to their own profit. If that herd woke up to what was actually being done to them through cultural and social proscriptions, it would be disastrous. Therefore, the culture industry, and specifically the Today show, have to portray a certain frame of reference — not ‘alternative lifestyles,’ but ‘how you can have it all with the lifestyle you’ve got!’
Then, if you’re not happy with your lot, it’s your fault. Nothing to do with the way society functions, so don’t think about changing it.
That’s my take on it. Childfree people have the money, the time, and the countercultural awareness to say “that’s not right” so marginalizing them as much as possible is necessary to keep the herd from stampeding and preserve the status quo.
There is something very significant and positive that children bring into one’s life that could never be replaced with material items and disposable income.
The majority of countries in the western “developed” world have increasingly aging demographics and there will be fewer younger people to support social programs through their tax contributions. These programs will have to be scaled back or cut completely.
And from a practical point of view, children not only provide love, but also support when one – eventually – becomes too old to work.
God provides the vast majority of us with the ability to have children, and while it is not for me to mandate child bearing on anyone, I encourage individuals to re-consider self sterilization.
So when you become to old to work you’ll just have a bunch of children ready to take up the slack hmm? And of course we all have to ensure we breed the next support system. Just because we have the ability to have children does not mean we should automatically have them. There’s plenty of evidence of that.
But you’re right about one thing… it is not for you to mandate childbearing on anyone, nor is for you to question another’s decision to self-sterilize if they wish to. It’s really none of your business.
Visitor, I must say …
“BINGO!”
Yes, children do provide support, physically, when we need it, but they also provide social support.
You may not know or understand this, but things that the government offers do not come without a price tag. What supports these systems are the dollars/pounds etc. from tax payers. The fewer working tax payers there are, the fewer monies that will be able to be invested in maintaining these costly systems. That means that the government will be forced to cut back on spending to avoid massive debts. Do you understand what I am saying?
Intercourse was not meant simply for self-serving pleasure. It was created to strengthen the love and unity between a married man and woman and to produce offspring.
While it is not my business to tell people how they should live their lives, I am entitled to my opinion which I strongly and firmly express. Self-sterilization is a form of abuse, but if you want to do it, go for it.
Those of us who support pro-family values will gladly do the job of procreating and there will be more of us to help steer the direction of the future!
“Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.”
-Psalm 127 (3-5)
Visitor, is your last name Duggar, by chance?
Visitor… I wouldn’t presume to judge what I or anyone else her knows or understands. Good luck with your procreation plans for the world, but you are walking a thin line on this blog. I will direct you to the rules… for this CHILDFREE blog. Read them. Thoroughly. Don’t try any fundamentalist preaching here, because if you do, I’ll be deleting your comments regardless of whether you disguise them as opinions.
Those of us who support the freedom to decide on what’s best for us will continue doing just that - and we don’t require your interference.
The URL is from Quiverful.. Well, well. The last email was from jesus is saviour. com. Any more comments from this “Visitor” will be treated as potential spam or similar.
I am a Christian. A childfree Christian. Many American Christians, I am told, (the trend is appearing now in Europe too) wear a WWJD bracelet. What would Jesus do? To my knowledge, Jesus didn’t have any offspring (other than spiritual).
“Do you understand what I’m saying?”
I am sorry that so many Christians feel it’s their right to lecture their fellow human beings about what is allowed or not in their bedroom.
B-I-N-G-O, B-I-N-G-O, B-I-N-G-O and Bingo was the troll’s name-o!
Get lost Visitor or we’ll troll the crap out of Fundiefull.com.
Hello again friends.
CF4Life:
Honestly, no, my last name is not Duggar. They are a wonderful family and I praise God that there are people like that out there. They have a really good example for what a family should be. I am sure God is well pleased with them.
Britgirl:
I have been nothing short of respectful, while on this website, stating my perspective even though it opposes yours. When you create a website like this, with a forum where people can come and post commentary, do not be surprised when someone comes who does not agree with your opinion!
So if you don’t want comments, then don’t create forums. The internet does not belong to you or anyone else alone. I am free to travel to express my views, exactly as you are free to travel to Quiverful forums to discuss why you do not want to have children.
Your desire to censor me is a product of your fear and insecurity. You can’t handle that I dare to think differently than you and your friends. Label what I say in whatever way you want; it still does not change the fact that you can’t handle my presence on here. And that says more about you than it does me.
As for the URLs, the site gave me the opportunity to put in some good sites so I added the Quiverful and Jesus is Saviour sites because they are worth looking at. I merely assumed that you would have plenty of time on your hands to do this.
BConrad:
I am happy that you are a Christian. I do not know whether you are child-free because that is how God designated you and your wife, or if you are child-free by choice. If you are child-free by choice, I warmly encourage you to look into the wonders of having children.
What would Jesus do? Well, here is what He said:
“Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 19:14)
Visitor said:
Visitor, you are doing what every troll likes to do, and that’s essentially cry “Freedom of Speech” when threatened with removal for being rude and inconsiderate. To purport that Britgirl, or any one of us, don’t want to hear your opinion because we’re insecure is bullshit. Any one of us can say the exact same thing to you, “You’re don’t like that we don’t want to hear your opinions because you’re afraid that you’re wrong about them.” See how ridiculous that sounds?
Secondly, this is Britgirl’s blog. She pays for it. She pays in time for managing it, creating thought blog entries for the CHILDFREE community, and whatever monies she puts towards server costs, etc. She has every right to say what goes on her blog. Please, don’t cry “free speech!” or that you are free to do what you want on her blog. Because you can’t. It is her blog.
While you are correct that she does not own the Internet, you do not own the Internet either. You are most certainly “free” to visit any site that you please, and you are even “free” to express whatever your opinions are on any site, provided that your opinions are wanted AND necessary. It’s like this: The Internet is like a vast world. And within that world are countries and houses. And when you visit a website on the Internet, you are visiting that country, or rather, visiting that house.
Would you dare go directly to Britgirl’s house unannounced and uninvited (albeit, to continue with the analogy, a website is like an “open house”) and then dare to express your opinions (regardless of how respectful you have been) and then get angry when kicked out? Yes, you probably would. As most childed people, you feel you have a right to tell the non-childed what to do.
Well, guess what? While you are “free” to visit this open house, Britgirl, being the hostess, has a right and is “free” to refuse you service and ask you to leave or forcibly remove you. Would you appreciate someone coming to one of your quiverfull christian sites to try and convince your people to be satan worshipers? To convince your people to commit abortions? No. Nor would the owners or moderators tolerate such activity and immediately have that person banned or posts deleted.
You said:
And all I have to say to you is, if you don’t want to be kicked off of forums where you are not wanted, don’t post comments.
Whether you like to admit it or not, people with an opposing viewpoint to yours have the same right to kick you out of their own personal domain. “Free speech” certainly reigns on the Internet, provided you PAY for it (i.e. it’s not really free, sweetheart), and when you pay for it, you certainly have a right to determine who gets to post or not. This is done by posting forum rules and regulations so that a person can be “lawfully” kicked off the board. That person is not censoring you, but merely cleaning up the trash that others leave - as is usually the case when one opens their houses to visitors - some of whom turn out to be less than worthy guests.
Britgirl has PLENTY of opposing viewpoints on her blog. If you would take the time to actually read many of her entries (oh wait, you don’t have time, do you? What with a “quiver full” you sure have your “hands full”) you would see that those posts are still here and have not been deleted.
Further. While you may not have used curse words but language that one would use in “polite company,” your posts were not any more respectful than had someone posted “you all suck!” Flowery or eloquently made posts do not imply respect. They are simply a backhanded smacks and are no less rude and disrespectful and having called someone a name. To use an expression I have learned here in the “polite” South, “Well, just BLESS your heart, dear.”
You, Visitor, are a visitor. And are being rude to the hostess. Next time you visit someone you barely know or met off the street and you are a visitor at their house, be rude to them, please. You will see the reaction you get. Most likely they will ask you to leave. And that is, quite simply, all Britgirl is doing.
Further, to assume that just because someone is childfree that means that they have not “looked into the wonders of having children” is a great and HUGE ignorance on your part. Quite frankly, considering the pressure you and your ilk CONTINUOUSLY place on the childfree, we most certainly HAVE considered those “wonders” and don’t agree that they are so wonderful.
I would like to warmly encourage you to study the wonders of a childfree lifestyle. Especially consider the fact that people without childree are happier than those with children. They are more fully realized, altruistic, and considerate of other people (in their charitable works or financial givings BECAUSE they have free time and money TO give).
I absolutely cannot understand why anyone would try to convince someone who is childfree by choice to have children. What happens when people have children they don’t want? Andrea Yates, Susan Smith, Mary Beth Tinning, Diane Downs, Christopher Vaughn, and how many other parents have killed their own children?
If someone doesn’t have the financial means to provide for him/herself, that person’s choice to remain childfree should be commended, not maligned.
If someone doesn’t have the psychological means to provide for another human being, that person’s choice to remain childfree should be encouraged, not discouraged.
If someone doesn’t believe s/he would make a good parent, for whatever reason, that person’s choice to remain childfree should be applauded, not denigrated.
Childfree people have made perfectly rational decisions that affect only themselves…no one else. No one is harmed by our choices to remain childfree. As a matter of fact, childed people actually benefit from our childfree choice. We pay school taxes, but don’t have children…therefore, other people’s children benefit from our choice. Additionally, we don’t get all those sweet tax deductions, credits, and exemptions that the childed folk do…instead our higher taxes help subsidize those.
So, instead of coming here trying to change our minds and preaching to use, just maybe you should be thanking us. Thanking us for not having more children that might end up in the already overcrowded foster care system, thanking us for the financial assistance we provide, and thanking us for being insightful enough to know what we want…and what we don’t want.
Blind Faithful Visitor,
“Yes, children do provide support, physically, when we need it, but they also provide social support.”
Could you please point out what social support is provided to the elderly who are shuttled off to “homes” when they become too much of a burden on their children? I know of several who see their “loving children” once a year, for maybe an hour, if they’re lucky.
“The fewer working tax payers there are, the fewer monies that will be able to be invested in maintaining these costly systems. That means that the government will be forced to cut back on spending to avoid massive debts.”
Your thinking is false. If there are fewer unwanted children, the monies meant for them will go to another deserving class of citizens, like the ones who already put in their time…the elderly. Imagine that…reallocation of resources. When there is less of a need to support the upbringing of children, then those resources can go to supporting people who’ve already contributed to society, or who are contributing to society already. Simply adding bodies does not contribute to society.
“-Psalm 127 (3-5)”
Believe as hard as you want, but you’re quoting a fictional book. No portion of the bible came directly from any deity’s mouth to anyone’s ears/writing instruments. Please, find some rational argument for your position that relies on facts.
Visitor, shouldn’t you be too busy schlepping the brood to Vacation Bible School in the Jesus Jitney to have time to argue with us at length about our life choices? If raising a family is so great, then GO AND DO IT! Lead by example! See, that’s the trouble with you fundie types. You don’t seem to do much of that.
Here’s the deal - Visitor. CFsince six has really said it all. I don’t have much to add to it except to say that you’re full of crap. And, since you’ve studiously ignored my rules of etiquette here and insist on barging in - in your troll like manner, I must bid you goodbye. I’ve removed your last comment…just so you know.
You may think you can do whatever you like and say whatever you like - perhaps you can elsewhere… but not on my blog. Sadly for you there’s no Bible verse you can quote for that one. Go and find somewhere else to peddle your trouble. I have neither the time nor inclination to engage with your nonsense on here. Been there, done that and I can spot you a mile away.
We don’t want you here. Don’t come back.
Oh, and folks, s/he had nasty little barbed insults for all of you who took him/her to task.
OMG! As if the hell I went through at church wasn’t bad enough I had to experience this religious zealot AKA scripture spewing TROLL doing to everyone here what was done to me years ago. I made the correct decision when I turned my back on religious institutions and walked away from them. Thank goodness you have blacklisted this ignorant and arrogant person who demonstrated absolutely no respect at all for others.
Oh btw since I’m a newbie here, I’m a woman and totally heterosexual, so don’t believe the trolls when they talk about my wife
Well, that was a “Quiverful” of crap! It always staggers my belief that someone would spend actual minutes of their lives trying to persuade others that their personal life choice (which hurts NOBODY else) is invalid and wrong. You’d think that our ill-mannered Visitor would be glad that such selfish, wicked folks as we are refraining from reproduction.
“Oh, and folks, s/he had nasty little barbed insults for all of you who took him/her to task.”
Being raised atheist I don’t know for sure, but isn’t one of the main tenants of Visitor’s bible book some wacky nonsense about turning the other cheek and not judging others? Funny how quickly they devolve into judgemental attack machines when they find some folks who disagree with them. I guess, maybe, they don’t feel the need to follow their book of rules so closely as they’d like the rest of us.