Ruth Kelly’s thrown in the wet wipe
The comments are… um interesting. But they are all from a childed view. I can see Liz Jones point, well, several in fact. Personally I think RK jumped before she was pushed, but it doesn’t change the reasons she gave… spending more time with the children. Anyway. What do you think of tLiz Jones’ article?
Back soon 
In London this week catching up with R&R. I could get used to this :).
The political news of the past few days has been children and children and more children. Or maybe they’re just the subtext. First unpopular GB says that his children aren’t props, they’re people. Well, ok, but I don’t really care. You’re a politician. And that was a jab at the opposition. You’ll say anything. Move along.
Then, when everyone was fawning over unpopular GB’s speech the other day, came more children related stuff, in the form of Ruth Kelly quitting the cabinet to “spend more time with her family”.
Much was made of her decision to “put her children first” (She has four under 11) even while others were assigning “other reasons” for her reisgnation.
Being childfree I was wondering what some might be thinking of what Ruth Kelly says here though…
“… I now owe it to my children and family to take a step back and start putting them first.
“If I do not, then I know that this is something I will come to regret deeply.”
An unintended message for other women? Probably not. But, as yet another high profile woman with children resigns from a promising career (as far as we know anyway) what say those that say women can have it all? I wonder if Sarah Palin will have any such qualms. Probably not.
Technorati Tags: childfree
Unless you’ve been living under a rock there is no escape from the swirling financial bad news of recent. It’s unrelenting - and of course, bad news always makes the headlines… because it sells newspapers. The implications of the current economic situation are wide-ranging, because we’re linked so tighly financially now, are world wide.
Even more sobering is the thought that there’s an election in a couple of weeks and I for one don’t think either of the candidates have a clue as to what to do. With the American govt bailing out failing banks right left and centre, (and the UK govt with Northern Rock) and looking more like a socialist state by the day, the tax payer is on the hook for a bill that they may never be able to pay back their lifetime. And that’s with increased taxes - because you can bet that taxes are going to have to increase.
Thinking about all this today it occurred to me that as childfree men and women, though we may be affected as citizens, we may be better off than our childed counterparts. Remember those who say we have to keep having kids to keep paying for those pensions? It’s always been a rather vapid argument, but now it matters even less how many worker bees are produced, because all they’ll be doing now is trying to pay back the debts from their parents life time. And they’ll probably have to pass on the baton to their kids… that’s if they can afford to have them. Want to save the earth for the “next generation?” they’re probably not going to have time to enjoy it… unless they are well connected and well moneyed. Because they’ll be working, working, working.
As it is, many people’s (childfree and childed) pensions (401Ks) have probably evaporated with the carnage on the stock market. So they are going to have to keep working. But at least if you don’t have kids that’s one less thing to worry about. Especially as I heard that grown up kids are being advised to “move back home to save on rent.” No way.
But the childfree don’t entirely escape. Because we have no dependants, our tax will go up. We don’t get tax relief because we don’t have kids, but our taxes go to help support those who do.In Canada there is a promise to spend billions on child care and child tax credits.
Maybe it’s time to start agitating to keep more of it for our own retirement.
Anyway, that’s my train of thought. Feel free to add your own.
Update: I’m off to the UK this w/end for a visit home. I am SO looking forward to it. I can cheerfully say that if we had children, with the costs of flights today, we’d never be able to go this year. But we don’t so, we are. I’ll probably be having too much fun to blog but, then again who knows? Blogging is fun so…. And hey, maybe I will be able to get to some of your blogs! Anyhow… do continue to drop in and comment. I will have one post that will go up before I head off - so I’ll look forward to your usual thought provoking input.
Ah, hope eternal! How it springs up, never to be quenched… until someone, a partner (often male) asks in frustration… “What part of I don’t want children do you not understand?”
Apparently all of it. When it comes to the need to have babies, no matter how often their partner states they don’t want them many women refuse to believe them. Instead, they launch their campaign to change the partner’s mind to their way of thinking. He wants to be childfree? What?!
Anything is fair game. Hence we have the:
“Do you love me? Then why don’t you want babies?”
“But we have a great relationship!” How can you not want kids? That would make our relationship perfect!”
“Well, yes, of course I remember you said you didn’t want kids… but I thought that you’d change your mind…”
“If you really loved me, you’d want to have kids…”
“But if you’d just try… I know you’d make a terrific father. Look how well you get on with kids!”
“I know he’d feel differently if he just held his own child… he would melt.”
Duhhhh!
One can only hope that the men who come under this “assault” stand firm and don’t cave. Unfortunately, as we know some men do cave… I mean there’s only so much emotional blackmail a guy can take, right?Anything for a quiet life. And.. perhaps it will be all right…in vain they try to convince themselves.
Those with balls will see the writing on the wall and bail (if the relationship still has a get-out-of jail-free card) or insist and stand their ground. With the latter though, there is always the chance than “accidents” and an “oops” will happen. In fact, it’s a very high likelihood.
What I can’t understand is how these women can profess to love their partner and then do everything to disregard and dismiss their opinion, especially when it’s one as profound as having kids. Unless of course, love = have babies. As in, “I will love you if you give me babies. And by the way, I don’t believe you when you say you don’t want babies because I know best and I want a baby.”
For men, it seems that it’s not enough just to make your feelings clear these days. There must be firm and final acceptance of those feelings by the partner. And sometimes the only way to ensure no “little surprises” appear is to take the permanent solution and have the snip. Otherwise…expect the “accident.”
When it comes to women who want babies and husbands who don’t, deceit and subterfuge are not obstacles, because the end seemingly justifies the means. And besides, the men don’t really mean it do they? They are sure to change their minds. The question is… why are they together in the first place?
Then the women are surprised when the relationship breaks up. Apparently (shock, horror) husband really meant it after all. He didn’t want children. Game over.
Beggars belief sometimes how stupid some people can be.
Technorati Tags: childfree
So Brad has it easy does he? And Jolie is reportedly finding it hard to cope. What a surprise… not.
It’s not easy being a saint.
“She cries at the drop of a hat and laughs at inappropriate times.”
“Following the birth of the twins in July, Angelina has stayed in the family’s Chateau Miraval in Provence, France, and is reportedly angry at Brad for attending Italy’s Venice International Film Festival to promote his new movie ‘Burn After Reading’.
The source added to In Touch Weekly magazine: “Angelina feels that Brad has it easy. He had the kids without the pain of birth, and he can just jet off whenever he feels like it.”Well, yes. And yes.
OK, this is all “reportedly” stuff. So maybe there’ll be a denial and everything is really all sweetness and light. I wonder if it’s as “reportedly” as the wall to wall media coverage of the Brangelinas a few weeks ago… Whining that Braddie gets to jet off when he likes…excuse me while I don’t have much any sympathy.
Just love it.
With all the recent cooing drooling over the Brangelina babies by the Brangeloonies (cringe-making) and the even more recently disturbing description of Sarah Palin being “an inspiration for women everywhere” (I beg to differ) this short feature was like a breath of fresh air to me.
George Clooney has no intention of having kids. He wants to live life on his terms – more power to him. Like George, so many of us truly childfree love our freedom, and don’t have the patience and dedication to devote to kids and have (for these and other reasons) decided child-rearing isn’t for us. Our choice.
It’s not often we see any validation of the childfree choice, so I thought this was well worth sharing. It probably wouldn’t even have got headlined if it wasn’t Clooney, but hey, it did. Wouldn’t it be great to see more headlines like this?
And as for him aging well and his great looks? He is and he has. And I’m pretty sure it’s partly because he’s childfree. Children age you.
I suppose all those women wanting to marry George and have his babies will have to look elsewhere.
FRESH COMMENTS