Like It Is

According to this article in TimesOnline a growing number of women are

“intentionally becoming pregnant by men they don’t expect to be involved “ expect to have anything to do with and won’t tell they’ve nicked their sperm.” Translation = mine.

Women Who Conceive accidentally on purpose

I know we’ve discussed this topic from the childfree view on Like It Is before. Still, it’s shocking to read how far women will go to get that baby. From “knocking themselves up” to  sleeping with even “disappointing” men (like poor old Phil) in this article, it seems that nothing, but nothing, should get in the way of getting that baby. Father consent isn’t required.

Men can look forward to a not so brave new world, where that torrid two week “relationship” is simply a calculated way to nick that precious sperm. Seems we are already there.  Chances of men being consulted: zero to …er well, zero.

For the 37+ year-old women racing towards the wrong side of fecundity, driven by a need to breed, the only things necessary are being “financially secure” and “fiercely independent.” Lucky child. Not. At least the hapless sperm bank won’t be approached for maintenance. They’ll be oblivious.

That is unless hard times befall said mother, in which case, all bets are off.

The article asks is this is feminism or folly. I’d call it plain old deception and entrapment myself, but hey, what’s a little deception when a baybee is required?

The women profiled in this article couldn’t give a  toss about whether their children know their father… nay, a whole chunk of their background which is going to be missing for ever.

As one child born of a deliberate casual relationship says:

“I resent the fact that, on a basic level, you don’t and can’t ever know half of your own background”, he says. “There’ll always be a void. In my case, do I have siblings? What about genetic diseases? Imagine not having an explanation for certain things you do, and not being able to find them, ever. At least with sperm donation or adoption you might be able to trace some answers. But when a woman decides to go it alone, she is ultimately trying to eliminate the father. What gives her the right to make that decision? It’s selfish, and I don’t see a difference between these women and the 16-year-old who has a baby because she wants someone to love her.”

Tough luck kid. You’re right of course, But since going it alone is inherently selfish, you’re stuck with it, while your mother tells us that folk need to get with the program and that it’s the only way if Mr Perfect-for- havin -kids isn’t going to come along any time soon.

Katya, though, wouldn’t have it any other way:

“I’m looking forward to bringing up my baby alone. Much better that than in a second-rate relationship,” she says. “And anyway, I’ve never relied on anyone else for anything in my life, so why should I start now?”

Clearly, committed, stable relationships are no longer required for bringing children into this world.

Read the article and the comments (which as usual are almost a better read than the article).  I was also interested in the man who tried the single fatherhood route because he also wanted to ensure he’d produced offspring. He used a surrogate. But get this. He took a couple of months off to look after his son… after which his son went to nursery and he went back to work…”just like millions of other parents.” WTF? At 3 months??! Ah, but he’d had the baby, right?

My sympathy for men trapped into having their sperm nicked by baby-rabid women almost evaporated at that point, except of course I know that not all women nor all men do this.

Having said that, I wonder if the men are either unaware or simply not bothered. If they are aware, care and are bothered, then why aren’t they using condoms? In this day and age, if you’re not married or in a committed stable relationship it’s complete lunacy not to.

Any single men reading this, had better beware. Read the comments. And then read the article. Then, before the next unprotected roll in the hay, just stop and think…. it might not be love, but it might very well be your baby is conceived. You won’t be consulted on whether you want to be a parent… one of the most important decisions of your life.

But then, with no condom, … you give up any control. You will become a parent without your consent, simply because the woman wants to.  Better beware.

Quite likely too.

As always, do share your thoughts.

Technorati Tags: childfree

Read on and find out. I spotted this article today in my Google Alert:

When Friends Have Babies. It was also talked about here.

Back in August on Like It Is we discussed the issue of how friendships change for the childfree when friends start to have children in this post: Childfree? What Happens to your friendships?

The Guardian article I thought was well written. But right from the beginning something bugged me about it. It wasn’t the content, per se. It was the constant reference to the writer as “childless.” Now, I am quite sure that’s how she sees herself. But look at the introduction to the article…

“Kamin Mohammadi, who is in her late 30s, is single and childless.”

Is it me or does it set the tone? In her late 30s. Single. Childless. Something missing. Something incomplete?  Throughout the article she refers to herself as “childless” and even mentions “us childless people” when referring, I presume, to those of us who’ve decided to ignore society’s strident imperative to re-produce.

Well, I don’t see myself as a childless person. I am not “less” anything. Single people are not “less” anything.

I see myself as whole and complete, my marriage as whole and complete and I’m  happy with our choice not to have children, despite the obvious pressure to conform to having them and the constant societal references that children are a needed addition to plug what’s missing in someone else. I see myself as Childfree. And I think that how you see yourself is more important than how others see you. In fact, how you see yourself determines how others see you.

We know, of course, that friendships change when friends have children. Childfree people feel the brunt of these changes, because it’s not easy to replace friendships that have been replaced by parenting. It’s hard to meet other childfree people (though not impossible) And let’s face it, parenting is all-absorbing. You don’t have to be one to know that.

Kamin Mohammadi makes some interesting points. However, when she says:

“As a childless woman, I have often resented the implication from parents that my life is not somehow quite as valuable as theirs now they have discovered the Greatest Love of All and are engaged in doing The Most Important Job in the World.“

… she might want to look at how she’s referring to herself….as childless. Her life is just as valuable. But her words aren’t helping convey that.

Words convey a wealth of meaning. And to me, the word “childless” doesn’t convey happiness, contentment, self-assuredness or fulfillment. Which is one of the many reasons I never use it to refer to myself or other men and women who’ve decided they don’t want or need kids. “Childless” conveys the exact opposite.

So perhaps, if she wants to educate her friends that her life is equally contented and complete, Kamin Mohammadi needs to watch how she’s describing herself. I completely get where’s she means in her article, yet even to me,  a childfree person, the constant reference to “childless” made me wonder.

People love to call us “childless.” They are very comfortable with it.  To them it confirms we’re “incomplete without babies.” That’s why they think we’re fair game for them to “evangelise.” They lose no time in telling us “what we’re missing.”

What do you think?  Have a read of the article and share your thoughts.

Technorati Tags: childfree, Childfree, Childfree

Modern Marriage Risks Amplified by Children

One of my readers sent me this very thought provoking article. As soon as I read it I knew I wanted to re-blog it. After reading this, not for the first time was I glad that birth control makes the childfree choice a very real option.

It’s also a very interesting time to be blogging on this topic too… with the financial turmoil of the past few weeks I have found myself relieved that we don’t have children. Not only is the financial pressure going to be felt more keenly if you have, or are just going to have, children, you can be sure that generations are going to be consigned to being taxed almost into oblivion with the legacy being left them. There has to be a pay-back. Workers are going to be paying it… for years.

But back to the article.  As the author says in the intro:

“… current U.S. Census data indicates that 49% of [these] marriages will end in divorce. And, according to Solangel Maldonado’s Beyond Economic Fatherhood: Encouraging Divorced Fathers to Parent, at least half of divorces pitch minor children into the fray, and thrust parents unsuspectingly into single parenthood.

Fifty percent is pretty significant in the casinos, and in life, but no one seems to be talking about the risks of becoming a single parent, and the grave economic and other challenges single mothers often face. With stats like this, it may be more appropriate to say “good luck with that” instead of congratulations when someone gets pregnant.”

Emphasis mine. As a childfree person, saying “good luck with that” when someone gets pregnant may indeed come to be more appropriate than “congratulations. I realise I’ve thought that for a while but have never actually seen it in print. And I’ve never had the courage to actually say it.

It goes without saying that I recommend you read the article and comment on it. One of the aspects that immediately jumped out at me was this:

The pressure to have children once married starts very early on. And it’s intense, to the extent that if you don’t produce children within, say, a year or two, the questions begin. The pressure is on to perpetuate the myth of happily-ever-after-happy-families.

Yet NO ONE talks about the fact that having children often puts strain on a marriage. And that strain often results in divorce.

And no-one talks about the very real possibility of single parenthood and whether the woman is equipped to manage (and stay financially solvent) as a single mother. Often the answer is no. It’s a risk for both men and women, however, as the article says, women still bear the brunt because 80% of children of divorce parents live with their mother.  It impacts the woman’s ability to work, to earn and to progress in her career, and increases the risk that she’ll have to resort to  low paid jobs or government help. All of which push women and their children closer to the poverty line.

Why does this issue not come up often enough? It would at least get women thinking about the risks of having children.  Instead we get the endless mantra that you must have children to have a happy marriage, with no mention of the potentially devastating outcomes when you add children to a marriage. Even a stable one.

For myself, I believe that childfree couples do think about this question more than most. I know that it was a big consideration for me when we discussed the having children factor. I could see the stresses and strains in my colleagues and friends’ lives and I didn’t want that. I also knew there was at least a potential risk to our marriage (financial and otherwise) if we did decide to add kids to the mix and in my book it simply wasn’t worth it for me.

Head on over and read Modern Marriage Risks Amplified by Children. Comment there or here. I have only commented on one aspect but there are a raft of other very well made points, which I might well return to later. I’d be very interested in your thoughts.

Thanks Unscripted Life for sending me the link!

Technorati Tags: childfree

For some reason this didn’t publish this morning as it should have done. But here it is now…

Boy fed zoo reptiles to crocodile

I read this article in disbelief. What kind of evil child would do something like this?

This 7 year old boy…

• Jumped over a security fence (one wonders what kind of fence this must have been, but still)
• Evaded sensor alarms
• Managed to destroy a total 13 reptiles by bludgeoning some to death throwing others over the fence and making the others lunch for the crocodiles.

This is beyond awful. He killed rare reptiles and fed live ones to a crocodile. I felt sick for what those poor animals suffered at the hands of this criminal. To make matters worse the boy is too young to be prosecuted!

Money won’t replace those rare reptiles. But I hope the zoo sues the parents. No doubt some lawyer will argue they weren’t to blame… even though they were supposedly in charge of the boy. They’ve failed in their duties, big time. Just one another reason I am glad I am childfree. Who’d want to have kids like this?

Technorati Tags: childfree