I Kid You Not: The Top 4 Reasons I Don’t Have Children
#4 — Personal experience
Don’t get me wrong: I am NOT one of those “childfree movement” types who suck up bandwidth bashing “breeders.”
I have no desire to turn my barrenness into a cause, and don’t care who does or doesn’t reproduce. Fill yer (baby) booties!
Appropriately enough for such a “selfish” sort, my childlessness is all about me.
But first, some history:
In agrarian times, people had lots of kids because they were an asset. You needed extra hands at harvest time. Plus the infant mortality rate was off the charts.
The shift from country to city meant children became liabilities. Another mouth to feed, taking up space in a crowded tenement and unable to earn their keep after the passage of child labor laws.
I’m a city kid, born in 1964, when birth control — while available — wasn’t as ubiquitous as it is today.
And by “city” I don’t mean the fancy part of town. In my old neighborhood, babies were mostly “accidents.”
Middle and upper class folks in those days at least had the sense to disguise their aversion to parenthood with liberal bromides like, “I can’t imagine bringing a child into this horrible world.”
In my part of town, though, fathers and mothers “joked” openly and incessantly about how much they hated the summer break. If anyone was innocent enough to remark, “Your son” (or daughter) is so adorable,” said parent wouldn’t miss a beat:
“Wanna take ‘im home? You can have him!”
Har har.
The one thing children were good for was going out for smokes when mom or dad were too drunk and lazy to get off the couch. Until they changed the laws about how old you had to be to buy cigarettes, that was pretty much my job.
My earliest memory is being thrown into a Christmas tree by one of my dad’s drunk friends. (For years I thought I’d imagined that, but the guy who did it apologized decades later, at my father’s funeral.)
Being a dad was eating into my father’s partying, so he took off shortly thereafter, and never paid child support. My mother had to work. She hated every minute of it. I hated every minute of it. She cried every night, but didn’t think I knew.
Everyone, including her, recited the contemporary “best-practices” line about how my parent’s divorce wasn’t my fault.
Except it was, and I knew it.
Therefore we can see how having children ruins your life, and how easy it is to ruin your children’s.
The really neat thing about having children is that in order to have them turn out well, I had to become a better person than my own genes and upbringing “condemned” me to be. Otherwise, I would have continued to wallow in the misery of thinking I was the only one with a crappy childhood.
Oh! I’m sorry, did I say that out loud? It’s so sad that you were the only one with a crappy childhood, dear, which we all know about because you go on and on about it. Golly, will you just look at the time!? I’d better get home now, buhbye.
This comment ain’t exactly proof of what a charming and gracious adult you’ve become.
Why do I get the overwhelming feeling that your last line is regularly said in haste by guests at your home?
Good heavens, dear, it seems your efforts at self-improvement have yet to succeed in the area of textual comprehension.
AT NO STAGE of this article does Kathy Shaidle indicate that she is the only one to ever have a crappy childhood, nor is there a skerrick of self-pity here. Even if this whole article was of the “Woe is me” variety, you’re hardly an example of an understanding, sympathetic or even kind person – at least on the page.
Do you pat your kids on the head with that potty-hand keyboard????;)
Sorry I took so long to get back; I didn’t mean to make this a hit-and-run post but real life showed up this week.
The problem here is: the implication is that we’re doomed to repeat the sins committed upon us. Neither I nor any of the other sexual abuse survivors I know have gone on to abuse but it seems to be an excuse by child molesters and I have NO patience for this. It’s an admission of extreme moral weakness to conclude that one has no ability to move beyond a less than idyllic childhood. This isn’t “Handmaiden’s Tale” so no one has to reproduce here and I don’t care much who does, but this essay is lame and either implies that Kathy is so morally weak that she can’t move beyond her rotten childhood, or she implies that NONE of us able to do so. I’m making clear that it’s the former. Sometimes I wish I were more diplomatic but oh! I’m doomed by my genetic and environmental circumstances to be short-tempered lol
Jeannette,
I think both your comments were right on! Your three detractors seem to be throwing stones in their glass houses.
Good on Ms. Saidle that she agrees with most things Mark Steyn, but for the reasons you pointed out, I couldn’t even finish the article. I’m glad a woman of your strength and character has contributed to the Western gene pool. Perhaps it’s better that Ms. Saidle has not, for reasons she somehow felt like sharing with the rest of us…
As a traditional WASP, I vote let’s close the gates and pull up the ladders, before (as the Pope himself pointed out) the West becomes a footnote in history.
Cheers from NoVa (Northern Virginia)!
Only one reason out of four had anything to do with genetics or things that couldn’t be overcome, the rest of it boils down to lifestyle preference. She thinks that on balance raising children is more trouble than it’s worth and chooses not to do it. There’s nothing “morally weak” about that. In fact I think it’s laudable to not take on such an important job when you know you’re unprepared to do it well.
As for you, you’re convinced that parenthood has made you a better person but offer absoulutely no evidence of it (quite the contrary, in fact). You’re no doubt one of those people who think your children are miracles in spite of the fact that parenthood has happened roughly 10 billion times in the last 2000 years.
I vote for Jeanette.
Kathy? Nope.
For sure, having children changed my life like nothing I’d ever experienced. And, you quickly learn why they use sleep deprivation as a form of torture.
Overall it has been great, wouldn’t go back. Of course, I was the opposite of you. Knew that I wanted to get married and have a family. Don’t think anyone should be castigated if they don’t want that.
Well if it’s so damn great why wouldn’t go back. Your like everyone else commenting on this site your all hypocrites, it sucks and you know it.
You don’t want kids? Fine, send them to us. I did not merit to have children, and would love the headaches.
And there are people who go crazy to have more children AFTER they already have some, so it appears not everyone agree with you.
I hope you have a cat or something; you clearly shouldn’t have any.
I don’t think anyone needs to apologize for not wanting children. Exactly how is that a ‘selfish’ decision, as I’ve heard so many describe it? Toward whom is it selfish–nonexisting beings in the nether world waiting for a warm body to jump into? Please. Each of us has the natural right to choose how we want to spend our time on this plane and living a life without raising children is as viable a choice as any other, hell, possibly better than many other choices humans make. Too bad that so many times the ones who do have kids are the very people who should never be allowed. I was not a good mother the first time around; too young and selfish because hadn’t lived my own life yet. Later, much, much later, I took the dive again and was actually ready to have my life taken over by the lives and needs of two other developing people. When they’re strong, competent adults, I’ll have most of my life back under my command. I can wait.
Look, when one of the self-dedicated non-breeders makes it a big point to say Because the obvious answer: Because gross” in reference to child bearing, I don’t think the appropriate response is “oh you poor dear, of course you don’t have to apologize for not having children”.
The appropriate response is “oh you poor dear. How dreary. Go away.”
Actually, most parents find out the really good reasons not to have kids when their kids become teenagers. I personally have advised people not to have kids if they do not like themselves. First of all, kids will be just like their parents (giving them someone else not to like) and second of all, kids consider it their personal mission to tell their parents all the things that are wrong with them. I have friends and family who don’t have kids – financially they are doing better. Yet another good reason not to have them, children never add a dime to your finances.
Nevertheless, I’d be a lesser person if I hadn’t had kids. Certainly I’d be more selfish with little or no experience putting someone else’s need above my own. I’d have less wrinkles – though hubby says my “smile lines are very attractive” (what does he know, he’s losing his eyesight). I’d never have learned how to get grass stains out of soccer shorts, or been able to memorize “The Ride of Paul Revere” twice (once when I was in school and once helping my daughter.) I would never have learned how to weep for joy and for loss simultaneously, if I’d never left a kid off at college or hosted a wedding.
It’s not a zero-sum game, Ms. Shaidle, it’s more of a ‘nothing ventured, nothing gained” type deal. But there have been days I’d have said your decision was better than mine, there’s just been more days that I feel sorry for what you missed instead.
My thoughts exactly!
Exactly Carmelita, not a single logical benefit in entering the parent lottery but then there is unconditional love…..
(prologue: I can’t tell if you’re actually satirizing people who say these things, or you actually believe them, since I don’t really know your biography. Given the tenor of the article and the way it’s presented, I’m going with the latter: you can say you ‘got me’ if it was actually the former.)
Of course, you have the power and freedom to make your own decisions for your own reasons. My only real issue is that any teenage girl could have written this exact article.
It takes only a modicum of self-gift (which is a sign of adulthood) to offer the opportunity of life to another person. It’s not particularly heroic to have a child – even a parcel of them – nor is it particularly heroic to raise him or her or them well, although society has that odd duality where parenthood is both vastly overrated and the greatest thing anyone’s ever done ever. The truth is somewhere in between.
Using your #2 item, you seem to be striking at the very human dignity of the deaf, the blind, the physically handicapped, the mentally handicapped, and the just plain stupid who decide to have children. You are saying that because they are what they are, they ought not risk communicating their defects to their children – which directly implies that you necessarily think they shouldn’t exist either. Short people got no reason to live.
However, will you or nil you, _you_, dear Kathy, were personally loved into existence out of absolute nothingness by an infinite and utterly transcendent God, with the cooperation of your parents (who, hopefully, had at least a bit of love for you in the act – at least, they were open to the possibility of you).
One key truth of that is: compared to nothingness, there’s a level at which you’re only a small improvement. (If you internalize this fact, it is what we call ‘humility’) And on that spectrum, the severely mentally handicapped, the physically profoundly disabled, the suffering, and the stupid are all not that far away from you. And we tall people who have none of those problems aren’t really that far away from you either. However, on the spectrum of transcendent human dignity (that ‘something’ is infinitely far away from ‘nothing’), the differences in expression of that humanity – between the short or autistic and the NBA players and vos Savants – are entirely in the noise.
There is a famous Latin saying: nemo dat quod non habet – you cannot give what you do not have. Since you have both existence and essence (a body and a form in your genetics), you _could_ give those things to another.
Given that, it seems, the thing you might be missing – is love.
Specifically, that sort of love that is self-sacrificial (which is, in the final analysis, the only love worthy of the name). Authentic love, the kind that doesn’t get you _anything_ for yourself but permits you to empty yourself, to give everything – and take joy in the giving.
The secret of life is that when we empty ourselves – whether it’s a parent for our children, or as a religious teaching in schools for all their days, or as a Priest self-sacrificing his desire for his own family to better serve the Family of God, it is in this self-emptying that we find the fullness of humanity, a fullness of love that can be found only – only – on the Cross.
Awesome comment, jrp! It reminds me that years ago, when my child was very young, I was part of a moms group. It was a place where I could go and complain about sleeplessness, lack of money, lack of time for myself, etc. One day we had a speaker who came from an impoverished part of the city. Despite numerous physical challenges, she was raising, alone, an autistic child, who also had physical challenges. She was not seeking pity or money, but spoke matter-of-factly about her experience as a parent. But more than that, she was a woman of faith, and through her faith, she had joy, even in the midst of severe trials. I will never forget that woman. My prayer for Kathy Shaidle is that, whatever her decision about childbearing, she would discover or deepen faith in our Lord Jesus, which leads to true love and true joy.
Sounds like a lot of rationalization to make yourself feel better about the inevitability of dying in a harness.
If the following definition of Christianity is inaccurate (not unflattering, but inaccurate), please tell us how it is:
“The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.”
Besides completely missing his point, smarmy people such as yourself who go out of their way to be as insulting and disrespectful as humanly possible to someone you don’t even know is the very definition of a pit dwelling bottom feeder.
Funny how you think I deserve to be infinitely tortured simply because I don’t agree with everything in your favorite book.
So you go right ahead and act like it’s me who’s the arrogant one here.
Well, let’s be civil, shall we?
In my opinion, and I present this solely as the opinion of some anonymous person on the Internet, which may or may not be worth what you paid for it, questions about whether someone should feel obligated to have children are separate from religious questions. Don’t many devout Christians, and here I am thinking of nuns and the priesthood, go through life chaste and childless?
And again, though it is only one anonymous person’s opinion, I think there are defensible reasons for choosing not to have children. There are people out there who can’t support a child properly. For them, childbearing is irresponsible. And what of those who, like me, for example, got the genetic boobyprize? Cancer, diabetes, early-onset Alzheimer’s, alcoholism, and a number of other very bad things run in my family. I have control over the last one mentioned, but not the others. Given my family history I am unlikely to see fifty, if I live that long. As such, I’m not comfortable with the idea of inflicting my genetic problems on an innocent child. If you have ever had to think about this sort of thing, you might come to a different decision. And that’s okay. I’m not arguing for eugenics or compulsory sterilization here, no, far from it. But I would ask that we think about this, and understand that there are some of us who have reached our decisions about whether to have children after much soul-searching, and have reached a conclusion, not without regret, that for us, personally, it would be the wrong choice.
To “me”:
You ask me to be “civil.”
—–”lolly” just called me “the very definition of a pit dwelling bottom feeder” — is that your idea of “civil”?
You tell me this forum is not the place for “religious questions.”
—–”jrp” (June 12, 2012 – 9:17 am) first injected religion into this discussion. “momhusfam” added “Awesome comment, jrp!” — care to tell them what you told me?
Christians actually think I deserve INFINITE torture if I don’t believe what they believe — which is INFINITELY less “civil” than what I think of them!
And yet you ask me to be “civil.”
As for your getting the “genetic boobyprize” — I’m sorry to hear that, but I greatly appreciate your self-eugenics policy. Too bad more people aren’t as responsible as you are!
Best wishes, Pat Kittle
I’ll tell you a couple of inaccuracies, since I have noticed that evangelical atheists are really concerned with accuracy and honest debate rather than cheap word games.
First off, I am not an expert on zombies but I believe that they are generally thought to rise from the dead due to the actions of some other agent than themselves and the impression that I have gotten is that they are significantly diminished from what they had been before death. That would not seem to be an accurate description of someone who returned from the dead by his own power and then performed miracles.
Secondly, while Protestants generally believe that they are symbolically eating the flesh of Jesus in communion, Catholics both Roman Catholics and Orthodox believe that the actions of the priest miraculously convert ordinary bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus which is then consumed during communion.
Anyway, that is beside the point. I hope that some day you can get past your snarkiness and the delight you take in your own cleverness so that you can open your heart and mind to what is available if you just let it in. I can’t guarantee that you will be happier and that your life will be better but that is how it worked for me.
So I’m “snarky” am I??
Let me put this in perspective for you.
If someone feels the need for a deity, that’s their business — but when they tell me I deserve eternal & infinite torture simply because I don’t feel the need for a (their) deity, that’s pretty “snarky,” no?
I don’t think anyone should be tortured even for a nanosecond just because their choice of cosmology isn’t the same as mine. Removeth the snark from thine own eye before thou casteth it upon others.
Yes, Pat. Your original post was quite snarky indeed. Don’t pretend it wasn’t.
The greatest torture of Hell is said to be separation from God. That doesn’t seem to be a judgement as much as a choice that you have made.
I hope you eventually make another choice.
To “Mark in Texas”:
I never said I wasn’t snarky — I just said I’m less snarky than you, who (as a Christian) think I deserve eternal torture if I don’t believe everything in your favorite book.
You say the “greatest torture of Hell is said to be separation from God” — so apparently you believe in a Kinder & Gentler Hell than the Hellfire & Brimstone version (Christians have different versions, which seem to reflect their personalities). Anyway, I’m now “separate from God” so I’m already in hell by your definition.
I now do kind deeds because I want to, not because I’m trying to escape “eternal damnation.” Tell us, if you didn’t have a deity would you still be decent toward others? Or would you be nasty?
Well, Pat, that is not really a hypothetical question. For quite a number of years I turned my back on the faith in which I was raised. I think that I can say pretty confidently that much of my behavior in those years could be described as nasty. I certainly make a lot more of an effort to be kinder to others today. Others have told me that I behave better in recent years so I will take that as confirmation that faith has improved my behavior.
To “Mark in Texas”:
Just because you need religion to be a decent person doesn’t mean everyone else does.
If you can accept that, congratulations on finding a way to be decent yourself.
Pat, That is hilarious! I am a Christian and you have got it almost exactly right. The zombie part, not so much. I really don’t know much about zombies, but Jesus was raised to new life, not a corrupted version of the old life; and He’s not His own Father. His Father is a different Person as is the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, great summary!
I didn’t make that definition of Christianity up — but I was raised as a Christian and it does seem amusingly accurate to me so I thought I’d see what others thought.
Generically speaking, I think most people think of a zombie as someone who comes back from the dead, although superstitious Haitians probably have their own detailed explanation for how that works. Whatever. I just think it’s amusing.
BTW, if you have any good atheist jokes I’d like to hear them — I have no problem laughing at myself.
There’s one in every crowd.Someone mentions Christianity, and here they comes. Funny, they never b****about islam.
Islam??
You mean some of the world’s most irresponsible overbreeders who force their women to walk around in tents — what would you like me to say about them?
It would help if Israel & the US stopped making trumped-up war on Islamic countries, while exposing them to wholesale quantities of depleted uranium — don’t you think?
“Overbreeding” is not exactly the world’s greatest problem right now, certainly not the Western part. You appear to be an equal-opportunity hater.
Perhaps one day you will grow up.
It’s innaccurate in many ways. Jesus was not a zombie for one thing. Zombies are imaginary mindless messes who try to eat human beings. Jesus actually rose from the dead in a glorified body, was more than mentally competent, and didn’t attack his apostles.
Zombies do have a bad rap.
Thanks for letting us know they’re not all like that.
I highly doubt the line that babies were a great parental investment in pre-modern societies. For starters, the maternal mortality rate used to be too high to ignore – obviously a big negative for the mother, and also not so fun for the father suddenly left alone with any older children.
Also, the former high infant mortality rate would have further detracted from infants’ attractiveness as an investment. Children can be helpful on a farm, but not right at birth. If you have to take the hit to mom’s productivity from pregnancy, childbirth, and nursing, and then the kid goes and dies before age 5, you’re not coming out ahead in that transaction.
The other factor that should be considered is that a great many adults may not really have understood exactly where babies came from. I don’t want to exaggerate the ignorance of our ancestors – they had a lot of “street smarts” even when most were illiterate and unschooled – but the workings of the human reproductive cycle hasn’t been known since the dawn of civilization. In fact, modern medicine is probably no more than about 200 years old. Did everyone in the 12th century even know that sexual intercourse caused babies?
I heard a joke some years ago on this point. A rural woman named Mrs. Wilson came to the local hospital for her 10th child in 10 years. She had an easy delivery and was treated as a “regular” by the staff. On her way out the door with her latest child, one of the staff quipped “See you again next year about this time, Mrs. Wilson?”. “Not me! I finally found out what’s been causing the babies!”
I so get this. While my personal experience wasn’t bad and my genetics aren’t awful, I am not mommy material. My lovely mother claims that I would choose to be the aunt in most “playing house” activities after about 8 years old. then I learned how babies emerged into the world – OH NO.
To each their own. I do appreciate reading the opinion of someone who’s chosen not to have children but isn’t part of the ‘childfree’ movement; trying to talk with a CFer is an exhausting exercise, to say the least.
I personally don’t think a bad childhood always makes a bad parent. My mother was mistreated in the extreme by her own mother, but all five of us kids have turned out pretty well–well, yours truly could use some work, but that’s mostly due to a nasty snake hiding in the genetic woodpile. Still, it’s definitely your choice, so I shan’t belabor that.
I did want to say how much I enjoyed this article. Your column here is reminding me of Florence King, who once said misanthropes don’t become child molesters because child molesters have to actually spend time in the same room as a child.
I’ve always maintained that white women will be the end of Anglo-Saxon civilization.
Oh, they would have children, that is, if they could get buy them like they buy clothes. Because that is what they have become over the last 50 years, the consummate shopper.
My brother-in-law and his wife are childless. Not by his choice but by hers. Instead of children they foster greyhounds. What a legacy they will leave, devoid of any lasting import and when they are dust, nothing will remain.
Same goes for you, chief.
Not only can you not take it with you, you can’t hitch a ride on your biological progeny. If you imagine that something of “you” inheres in whatever genes you punt forward into the reproductive slipstream, in more than the most grossly biological sense … well, it seems cruel to disabuse you.
But to the extent that Shaidle is a published writer whose thoughts and insights are widely disseminated, to the extent that her ideas are influential on others, she’s likely to have far more lasting import and leave more behind her than you, spread your seed how you might.
All that you see, do or say is transient. The truth is that in the end only blood endures.
I wish your hemoglobin all the best in its quest for immortality. Compelling stuff, that.
I detect Becker here.
JA! Der Blut! De Blut!
Tell that to Shakespeare. Or Cicero.
Or, for that matter, the dinosaur fossils.
Not all us need or deserve immortality. And too often, those who deserve it lie forgotten except by a few. And those who moan about them wimmin’ ruinin’ it for civilisation need to wake up. When’s the last time you marched/wrote against the murders of innocent girls/women in “honour” killings?
Where are your poems/writings/ foundations about all those killed in the Russian purges?
This kind of rubbish doesn’t stand up against the hard work of freedom fighters, some of whom have children, some of whom don’t. If those who think children are so important actually lived their declarations, we’d see more humane and loving adoption homes and orphanages for those abandoned and those betrayed into sex slavery, not to mention more rescue operations.
Your hollowness and your laziness is showing. Blame the women if you must. Maybe that’s all you can do, like an old wind-up doll.
Isn’t it interesting that in the area of winning over the totalitarian cult of Islam, the quest by writers like you is not to win freedom for women from the burden of giving birth to more totalitarian death-cultists but to persuade Anglo women to give birth to children they often do not want or may not want?? 9Some do, of course, but then there are men who want to have kids and haven’t been able to organise that either.)
You ignore of course, the men who threaten to and do leave their female partners if they fall pregnant and don’t abort; the men who leave their families, opening them to future stepfather rape and abuse (not, of course, in all cases), the refusal of many men to look after their own children.
No, no, it’s ALL the fault of them wimmin’.
Ever thought of adopting a bunch of third-world kids and raising them in freedom instead of squalor, raising them to love freedom for themselves and for others? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
“win freedom for women from the burden of giving birth”
The nihilist life has no value. Why chose it?
Believing in fairys and pixie dust might make you happy, but I find it is a kind of happiness that I do not want.
I think it is good that you had the insight to realize that you did not want children and that you had the strength to adhere to that insight. Many women just “feel” they are supposed to have children and therefore go ahead and have them when they really don’t have any interest in the process of raising them.
I myself always knew I wanted children, starting from the time I was about five years old and my grandma gave me a wonderfully realistic baby doll that I adored. Raising my kids was for me the best time of my life. It is great that we live in an age when women can make the decisions that are best both for themselves and for the next generation.
This is a very sensible comment. Thanks for being a breath of fresh air.
(Are you the same Gloria who used to comment at Shrinkwrapped? If so, howdy!)
“I think it is good that you had the insight to realize that you did not want children and that you had the strength to adhere to that insight. Many women just “feel” they are supposed to have children and therefore go ahead and have them when they really don’t have any interest in the process of raising them.”
Exactly!! I once worked with a woman who was sort of a textbook modern woman in the sense that she had a recent MBA – this was the mid 1980s – a husband who was a doctor and a single young child. She was “having it all” – marriage AND career – and may have been a subject of envy to some around her. But I got a few glimpses into her character and she was a nasty bit of work. I truly felt that her only reason for the child was for bragging rights: she wanted everyone to know that she had a career and a child but she didn’t actually want that child. I felt real pity for the child when I realized that the mother had absolutely no interest in the child beyond the bragging rights that it conferred.
That child is an adult now. I hope it turned out okay despite its mother….
I can speak most effectively to one issue:
You’re 4’11″? Madam, I stand 4’10 1/2″ in socks. There IS a solution: I married a six-footer. My daughter stands head-and-shoulders above me, my son head-shoulders-and-chest.
But as for your main point: Heck, it’s still a free country, and no one is going to make you lie down and “do your duty to the Party.” Yet. Besides, if you feel in your deepest heart that you would not make a good mother, you’re most likely right.
That right there is the crux of the whole conversation: “if you think you’re not going to be a good mother, you’re probably right.”
There’s a lot of messed up people out there who got that way because their parents, well, sucked at being parents. The unfortunate things is that bad parents tend to pass along their bad parenting skills to their kids and the cycle continues ad infinitum. I too disagree with Mark Steyn, and see nothing wrong with people who do not have the time, inclination, or financial means to raise children abstaining from procreation.
Steyn’s point is that people who think their culture and values are important cannot pass them on unless they have children (as a group, less specifically as individuals). If you don’t care about that, then by all means abstain – you won’t be around to watch the barbarian hordes overwhelm civilization anyway.
That’s just bollocks. If that were the case, then how in hell did the Greatest Generation produce the Baby Boomer Generation?
I want to “like” this but can’t find a button! Good comment!
Bravo sir!
Rethink it. I felt as you do for many similar reasons- the memory of an unhappy, traumatic childhood; less than perfect genes; fear of being a bad mother; fear of having a sickly child. I will be 50 in two months. Having been though in the last 5 years the deaths of my father, my grandmother, my mother-in-law, a cousin my age, and watching my mother’s vitality leaving her as her health declines, I’ve had an epiphany- who will take care of my husband and me in our waning years; who will comfort us in our final hours? Who will arrange our funerals, go through our lifetime’s collection of stuff and mourn us after we die?
None of that seemed important or even real to me during my brief healthy vigorous bloom of young adulthood, when I appeared to have conquered my childhood ailments. But now, as asthma returns, eyesight worsens and aching joints set in, old-age and death is all too real.
Having someone to care for you in your old age may seem like a selfish reason to have children, but so what? When you think about it, everything we do is ultimately self-serving- including my reasons for not having children.
(Obviously my comment should be directed at younger folks reading this, not Ms. Shaidle, who is almost my age. Although adoption is still a choice for women in their late 40s… if you have the energy!)
Go read a few “Dear Abby” columns, that should disabuse you of the notion that birthing and raising a child assures you will not be alone in old age. (And “alone” might be better than “shuffled off to a squalid nursing home while your child absconds with your assets.”)
That only happens if you didn’t raise your children right.
Would that were so. It’s not, though.
Raising children is a profoundly selfless task (and if it isn’t, the results are horrible). If you aren’t thrilled at the prospect of having children, you will be far less thrilled after a few months.
Oh,Horse Pucky. I wasn’t thrilled when I first found our we were going to have a kid and it wasn’t the overwhelming ambition of my life previous to that. I met very few kids in my life that didn’t annoy me.
Then our little boy arrived. He has been a joy for seven years and I expect that will continue. I am sure there will be some bumps along the road but I wouldn’t miss them.
I condemn no one for making a definitive decision not to have them but no one realyy knows how it will be until the little one arrives.
By then it’s a bit too late though, no?
may I point out that you, yourself, might be the single point of grace in either of your parents’ sad, selfish lives?
you don’t have to have kids. obviously, you’ve built a nurturing, stable marriage. that’s wonderful, and worthwhile.
if you did want kids, though: they are a mix of your wonderful, and your favorite person’s wonderful. yeah, yeah, there’s the not-wonderful- but, honestly, it’s usually the wonderful. and, really, everyone has a different idea of wonderful. It’s what makes eugenicists so much fun- they haven’t any idea that other people might have different notions of wonderful- so they sound like small children playing Barbie dolls. So, your wonderful, and your favorite person’s wonderful, makes for a new, amazing, different kind of terrific. And if you do it again, there’s this whole other cocktail of amazing, from the same supply. and again- well, a whole different type. It’s fun seeing what shows up.
The satanic baby movies- that’s in 13th Gen. Not much of a secret.
if you want to get jungian- that child of a different gender is sort of your anima/ animus. the people you were around were brutal with their own souls- and their children.
If you don’t think you don’t have a calling, you might not. no skin off my nose. I do hope, however, that you are able to find some groups of people to cherish as you age. A group that can, likewise, cherish you. You seem lovely. I’d hate for you to be cast away and ignored.
I wouldn’t waste my time telling you that you don’t know what you’re missing, so I’ll only say this: I didn’t REALLY know what love was until I had a child. I love my daughter more than anything in the world (literally). And there I was, convinced I’d always be a selfish SOB…and happy about it, to boot.
Over the years I’ve met many parents with children that I wished had gotten a dingo as a pet first.
I stopped reading two sentences into the second page. What blather. Was this supposed to be comedy?
Even Mark Steyn doesn’t have the cojones to tell the entire truth. Any human sub group that provides limitless access to birth control and abortion while condeming women who chose a traditional lifestyle will inevitably die out. The only solution is to adopt a quasi-Islamic approach and make working and voting illegal for women and make abortion and birth control unobtainaibe. And we all know that ain’t gonna happen. So, the era of the white christian man will fade away because he didn’t have the strength of resolve to control his women. Following in Eve’s footsteps, women will cause the downfall of humanity.
um. since the two foundational texts of the west are the bible and the iliad…
the bible….mary wasn’t controlled by joseph. she wasn’t even controlled by god. she had to agree. any heresy diminishes mary’s autonomy, choice and free will. that’s what makes them heresies, and dull. Read the magnificat. she’s choosing, and rejoicing.
the second text: the iliad. helen’s dad picks a man for her, based on what makes him happy. she goes along until she finds what makes her happy: Paris. And they grind up two entire civilizations’ leaders to try and get her back. her husband’s brother gets killed for being an ass to his wife and daughter, as well.
Greek stories are cautionary tales, not instruction manuals.
you can’t force 50% to act against their will. they go on strike. iran, the perfect man paradise? women have quit having children. the soviet union, which was supposed to be this manly paradise of union with the state? the women don’t really agree- and they vote with their fetuses, to quote mark steyn.
the western parts of the west are doing fine.
That is just patently ridiculous. You mention “condemning women who choose a traditional lifestyle,” and then fail to address that problem, instead barreling right into a false choice between the misogyny of Islam and the low birth rate of a free society.
There is a happy medium, and for most women that’s just fine. We don’t need to be denied birth control and kept barefoot and pregnant to reproduce, we just need a little encouragement in the form of economic growth and a low cost of living. For instance, I’d be willing to bet that women in red states have larger families because they can- not because they’re religiously (or otherwise) inclined to do so. The US has a higher birth rate than Europe in spite of the lack of “family friendly” policies like generous maternal leave and child care. Because it’s better to have lower taxes and cost of living so we can provide our OWN leave and child care.
And then there is the thing money can’t buy- space. Literal space in which to live and raise kids. We have that in spades. Our birth rate will continue to be the envy of the civilized world as long as we can keep the government at bay.
Slight correction.
The era of the “white Christian” man will end because he didn’t have the “cojones” to fight against Muslims when he could, to fight against his so-called government who give free rein to Muslims; to join fellow “men” in groups to fight the necessary political fight to combat the entry of the Musoims brotherhood, the necessary entry to political office to fight attitudes and legislation allowing Islamofascist immigration and money flowing to Islamofascist causes.
The “white Christian ” man era will also finish because he lacked the “cojones” and savvy to take a deliberate interest in the politics, direction and gradual control of his country into the hands and pockets of Leftist lovers of dictatorships and rank Marxists who took over because people like the “white Christian” male were too lazy to keep and eye on them, and too lazy and/or selfish to join in the fight against honour killings in Pakistan and other Islamic countries by fledgling feminist movements there.
Moreover, a lot of “white Christian” males, when they did learn about the takeover of america by Marxists are still too lazy to get out of their padded armchair and into local politics to defeat these totalitarians.
But there there. Too dumb to fight your battles? Just blame it on the wimmins.
Jill, actually, the Marxists have taken over largly because of women. Females like soft, cuddly, collaborative egalitarians and vote for them and support thier social engineering agendas. You see, it all comes back to an inescapable truth – everything that is wrong in western society really is caused by women’s involvement at a political level. if we could take away the right to vote, we could quickly get back to a conservative society, just like it was before women ruined it.
I’m not so sure the mistake isn’t giving the vote to people who don’t own property instead of giving the vote to women.
I’m not bothered by people who choose not to have children, so long as they plan for their own old age. We may have Social Security and Medicare, but there are still a lot of things for which the elderly depend on their children. So as long as you’re prepared for that, and don’t ask for more from MY children then they will already be giving – then do whatever else you want with your life.
To those trying to reason with Ms Shaidle by extolling the virtues of the endless love you feel for your child, forget it. Ms Shaidle is the Dominique Francon of our day. Cold, but not as rich.
I’m convinced that all the narcissistic “confessionals” written by feminists over the years about how they regret having children because it deprived them of fulfilling their inner ecstasy, or whatever bs they come up with to whine about how much motherhood sucks, is a cover for their real feelings: they regret having a child because they know they failed miserably at it. But they can’t admit that, to themselves or anyone else, so they come up with these rationalizations to explain it all and since they’re narcissits it’s all about them. Ugh.
Being a parent sucks. There is nothing the least bit rewarding about it and it never ends. If you’re lucky, your kid won’t wont grow up to be a serial killer/drug addict/prostitute, and if you’re really lucky they won’t hate you too much if they turn out halfway “normal”. Whatever that is these days. The best you can do is die young so your kids won’t be burdened with your old ass longer than nature intended. Which, in my opinion, is about 60ish. I’m working on that by enjoying my 50′s as a chain smoking alcoholic who, hopefully, drops dead from a massive stroke and/or heart attack so my kid won’t get the chance to get her revenge for being raised by a woman who had no business having a kid in the first place.
Don’t say such things! God still loves you, do not despair. Why should your years be cut short? Stop wallowing in your sorrow and confess your sins. Perhaps then your child will forgive you, but if not, pick up that cross and carry it.
You need a break. Get help now. Nobody can do the job alone, and nobody can do it without rest. If you have some money, hire a babysitter, there are plenty of people who will be good, and make it a regular thing. If not, find somebody with whom you can trade kid duty. Churches were made to help people like you. Go.
If you really mean this, Jaynie59, please 1) follow the advice of those who’ve responded to your post already and 2) forgive me that I was laughing by the end of what you had to say. E.g., On the worst day of most parents, I believe your angst is quite normal.
However, as I’ve said, if your post isn’t satire, I wish you Godspeed and hope you have some wise person with whom to share your sadness and guilt, honestly admitted. (Truth is the beginning of healing, so, if what you’ve said is the real state of your mind, you’re already on your way. Bless you.)
Kathy Shaidle is a daily read for me. It’s too bad she will be leaving the genepool completely someday.
Kathy, a horrible childhood can be a great lesson of what not to do with/to your children.
Another point: people don’t understand why they call them “selfish” for not having children. Well, those that grew up in/have now fled completely-overrun-by-immigrant communities may have better insight into why not having children is selfish.
Are you suggesting we get in a baby-making race with over-breeding 3rd world immigrants?
That just makes us as self-destructive as they are.
What’s wrong with SERIOUS immigration enforcement, and making all foreign aid contingent upon MANDATORY birth control?
Exactly why civilizations die is an interesting topic. The nineteenth century conceit tended to credit such events to invasions (though with little solid evidence) or natural catastrophies (with slightly more real evidence, at least in some instances). In the twentieth century, ideas shifted, eventually attributing decline, fall, and extinction to economic causes. But data continues to accumulate, and nowadays it’s starting to seem that civilizations die because people just lose interest.
comment #23 – I’d suggest that all of these things cause civilizations to collapse – Climate shifts, invassions, lack of interest, and the list probably has a few more.
But the point is that if you don’t see a future, you don’t plan for one. For a people (not the individual person, but the group as a whole) children are a method of betting on the future, or that there will be a future.
Personally I think kids are great, but understand others view it otherwise, perticuarlly someone who is Aspie having issue with kids. >shrugg< As a group we need a replacement rate of 2.1, but as as an individual, I'm not sure how to have .1 of a child… what is that a foot and lower leg? who has the forearm and hands?
I was once told by a wise career woman that “Having kids is the greatest ego trip ever.” Well, it really is. I’ve got fourteen years of higher education and a great career. I’m also REALLY impatient and selfishness is something I constantly struggle against. Yet, once I had the little buggers I realized that not only was that particular woman right, but I also possessed amazing quantities of patience and selflessness that I never, ever thought I had.
They have made me a better person, for sure. And yes, they are very expensive, but family is just something money can’t buy. I’ll probably never get that vacation home in Hawaii, but who cares when I’m going to be spending all my time visiting my kids and grandkids? My golden years are going to be great!
The very last point seemed valid to me (but you don’t have to talk stupidly to the kids all the time forever, isn’t it?) unlike the others, for example #3, what’s wrong with petite women? Don’t want to be harsh, but your cats won’t clean your butt if you have, heaven forbid, an accident or s.th. and cannot clean that butt yourself any longer.
“Frankly, what would be selfish would be thinking my genetic material is worth duplicating.”
Yeah, well maybe you think so, but I think your genetics have created a damn fine writer. I enjoy your articles. They raise issues that most people are too scared to talk about. You are like a mini-Styen.
All because you were born. A fortunate accident if you ask me.
My wife and I were sure we didn’t want kids; heck, we were members of the Organization for Non-Parents. I considered a vasectomy; even went so far as to visit the doctor about it. The President of the aforementioned organization eventually had a kid and then formed another organization promoting only children. Our daughter is now 30 and, as you might guess, I am glad about it, although it has its trials and tribulations.
This was a brave column to write, but Kathy Shaidle is a brave woman. Her life experience could not have been more different to mine, but this has resulted in an interesting situation. My wife and I have 3 adult children who are fully engaged and politically stimulated. They would hugely enjoy – and make intelligent contributions to – an evening in the company of K. Shaidle and M. Steyn. Go figure.
Good one, Jeannette.
I think you nailed Kathy.
Just as an aside—am I the only one getting tired of being lectured about life, children, family, love, society, etc., by a pack of pseudo-conservative bilious females? I mean, we know where the left is coming from, when it scolds us for being “Betty Crockers”, or mindless slaves of the Patriarchy—but, on the so-called conservative side, we’re given mad woman Camille Paglia, Dr. “Don’t feel bad, boys, it’s all the fault of them narsty feminists!” Helen, ex Cosmo girl Florence King and “My Unhappy childhood was unhappier than your unhappy childhood—by the way, have I mentioned my unhappy childhood?” Kathy Shaidle.
They dish up their prejudices, half-baked insights, opinions on movies, children (most of them don’t like them—not that they’re trying to make us “breeder” women feel bad—oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no! It’s just that they’re more sensitive, and hip than the rest of us; more deeply scarred by their unhappy childhoods, than the rest of us insenstive cows! Also, they’re insightful enough to realize their character flaws would make them bad parents. Strangely, they never claim these flaws make them bad friends, spouses or co-workers, which seems rather odd—since, of course, such flaws would, in real life. Apparently, having a rotten personality only affects parenting.)
From the 60′s on, women have lectured, from both the right and the left, by female pundits who don’t much like their own sex, don’t much like traditional motherhood, or womens’ roles—or much of anything else, for that matter—and who feel the need to lecture the rest of us, and tell us their opinions, the tale of their unhappy childhoods (it was much unhappier than yours!), their insecurities about their physical appearanxe, and—and—and—
Isn’t it time we just told them to get lost?
(And, yes, a lot of so-called Conservative male bloggers can be annoying, too. But we’re discussing the women, here.)
Such a lovely flounce…… and you say you’re a ‘breeder’ too, right? hmn……. just trying to get my mind around the cognitive dissonance……..
#17., Pervy Grin, nope—this is kind of stuff PJM dishes up regularly, these days.
You should have seen the David Solway column, wherein he laments the use of deoderant in modern society, and the perfidity of womens in using perfume, all the time yammering about whitened sepulchres, and St. Paul. It was incredible—kinda like Paglia, when she’s really on the rampage.
(With Shaidle, one never knows whether or not she’s trying to be funny, or serous; I doubt she knows herself.)
That Solway post was creepy, no two ways about it.
Very creepy.
Wow, If only more people were willing to be this brave and honest in their self-evaluation our society would benefit enormously.
Honestly, some of the vitriol that has been directed at this writer via the commentary embarrasses me (being a parent myself). Why are some posters so deeply offended by the idea that a woman might choose not to have children? Why the litany of glittering testimonials extolling the, “secret joy,” known only to parents? And, ‘E Gads! Did I actually read some posters arguing that their reason to have children was for their own comfort in old age? How sad.
Many contemporary psychologists and behavioralists talk about an, “optimism bias,” that is built into human perceptions. I think attitudes towards having children are an example this. We tend to hold and propagate ideas about having children that are at best grossly overstated and at worst seem outright falsehoods. For example, “having children makes you a better person.” Ridiculous! If that were true, then some of the parents I know must have been professional baby-seal clubbers, or perhaps mugged little old ladys for fun before they became parents; because they are still pretty awful people even after parenthood.
To paraphrase J.B.S Haldane: Children are not more stressful and difficult than non-parents imagine, they are more stressful and difficult than non parents can imagine.
Given all that, I would never reconsider my decision to father a child. I met the right person at the right time of my life… sometimes that is all it takes. Parents who whine about thier children or how difficult rasing them is disgusts me. I am only saying that of all decisions a person makes in his or her life, this one above all others ahould be an, “eyes wide open,” decision. If only more people had the courage to decide with honest self-reflection as Mrs. Shaidle did.
The commenters are living down to the “feminist” stereotype of conservatives: the only point of womanhood is babymaking, and older women without babies must be ridiculed and ostracized lest they infect the younger women. BettyBlue @29 is an excellent example.
Looks like all these “conservative” women have all bought into the feminist concept that children are a “choice” a woman makes and not a gift from God (ask any couple undergoing infertility treatment about their “choice” to not be parents…). You can pre-emptively refuse this gift (or try, anyway–contraceptives still fail), or you may never be offered it (I’m the last woman in America who thought she should be married before motherhood…oops) because God had other plans for you.
If God wanted me to be a mother, He’d have made someone who wanted to marry me. Or maybe He did, and that man got “choiced” by his mother. I don’t know. The vile commenters here don’t know, either, but that won’t stop them from belittling me so they can feel better about themselves, will it?
Having kids is a great motivator to make money and buy more things, and it keeps your mind off troublesome questions about the meaning of it all…
Actually, Heather, what I was ranting about are pseudo-conservative female pundits, who endlessly lecture the rest of us, about: A.) How cool they are. B.) How traditional, female lifestyles suck—and/or how traditional, un-cool, un-hip women, suck—or, how women (excepting themselves) suck. (Read Camille Paglia, Dr. Helen, etc. ) D.) How much children suck. (Read Florence King.) E.) How their unhappy childhoods were the unhappiest childhoods EVAH! F.) How their superior moral insight has assured them that they would make lousy parents, and, therefore, their decision not to have kids is a sign of their higher intellect, and deeper insight. (Such insight, it seems, never seems to suggest to them that, hey, maybe they should try doing something about their allegedly lousy, horrible, awful personalities, whether they have kids or not? This is, because, it’s really not an insight at all—just more self-centered blather—”Lookit me! I’m, like, totally honest and fulla self-knowledge!”)
In short, they’re tiresome—as tiresome as the Amanda Marcotte “IT’S MAH P*SSY AND I’LL DO WHATEVER THE **&&^^%%$ I WANT WITH IT!” leftwing feminists. The things is, we know feminists really don’t like women; it gets tiresome being attacked by what is, supposedly, one’s own side.)
Neither the right, nor the left, female pundits approve of their fellow women, And both sides, Left and Right, have been lecturing women since the 70′s. And, of course, you get “Helicopter parenting”, as opposed to “Free Range Parenting” as opposed to “Attachment Parenting” as opposed to Tiger Momism as opposed to some other thing we’re all supposed to take up.
Isn’t it time we told all the lecturers to take a hike? If you want children, or don’t want children, it’s your choice! If you want a job outside the home, get one! If you don’t—then don’t! Live your life as you please, but, for God’s sake, spare us the, “My childhood sucked, I don’t wanna have kids, why am I so short, I could have been a Vegas chorus girl, boo-frickin’-hoo-hooo!”
And the commentators here are not belittling you, personally—I mean, WTF? Where did you get that?
We need to get together for a beer sometime.
Uh, could my wife and I join the two of you?
It’s my belief we don’t all check into this “near death hotel,” (to borrow and completely re-define a phrase from Kenneth Ring’s “Heading Toward Omega”) with the same set of learning objectives, so everybody’s arc is unique.
Here’s one of those “life” quotes that’s a favorite of mine that pretty much says it all for me: “I have decided to love my life—to throw in the gauntlet for it, to believe in it, to find it exalting in every respect, at every moment, from the beginning to the end.” (Robert Muller, “Most of All, They Taught Me Happiness.) Sounds to me like Ms. Shaidle has achieved this, or at the very least is well on her way. I say, Kudos.
I agree with you. AND…If you don’t want them, don’t have them.
I have an excuse – I can’t have kids. But if I didn’t have the excuse…well, I’d need it. For many of the same reasons you don’t want them. I guess I’m just lucky? Or maybe God agrees that I shouldn’t have kids.
I agree with all those that have said that not having children is a good choice, for those that wouldn’t care for them or feel that their children would be inferior.
Genetics in and of itself though isn’t the end of the game. I know. I’m legally deaf, have been since birth. As was my mom, many cousins, uncles and aunts. My sister was Down’s syndrome and deaf.
What my family however had going for it was a sense of wholeness. Oh yea, a belief in education. A poor point in their column, aversion to hearing aids. They changed that between 1970-2000. I graduated high school in 1973, sans hearing aids. I went to a state university for summer and the next two quarters. My mom had applied as me, I’d no intention of going to university. Her fraud and threat of kicking me out of the house, got me to go along. Obviously I’m making a long story short.
A year later I was at University of Chicago, still without hearing aids. Got degrees in sociology and political science.
My sister, with Down’s, once they diagnosed the deafness, well she not only learned to sign, but to speak. She lived in sheltered home and worked to the max at Crayola. Boxing markers and crayons. She love it.
My brother without hearing loss, became deputy chief of police in major metropolitan area.
My cousins ran the gamut. Law, teaching,and accounting.
What I’ve been describing in short is a genetically weak family, that accommodated.
Same can be said for many that have been afflicted with abuse of children or substances as an excuse for carrying on the legacy. One can meet the enemy head on and choose another path.
There certainly were some very daunting physical issues in your family, but I wouldn’t call anything about them “weak”. Inspiring and awesome story, thank you for sharing it.
I LOVE the indomitable spirit expressed in your post. Good on you and your whole clan.
Some children’s jokes may not be funny, but then, neither are Kathy Shaidle’s. Because this article was a joke, wasn’t it?
I am always mystified by people who put down children as digusting, messy, noisy, annoying. Do they not realize that they were disgusting, messy, noisy, annoying too? So many adults are disgusting, messy, noisy, annoying – yet we are required to allow them to live, heck, we can’t even send them to their room (unless they break a law, then they go to the room with iron bars).
Thank you Kathy for not breeding – you are right, one of you is more than enough, the last thing we need is another.
Once again cynicism is substituted for actual whit and wisdom. What is pathetic is how many fall for it and consider it ‘smart’. Kathy no one really cares whether you want kids or not. I agree if you don’t want them, don’t have them but for pity sake spare us your self absorbed lame excuses.
While children may be messy, noisy, etc more than a few adults are just downright gross.
This article is supposed to be satirical and I think it missed it’s mark. It is the proverbial nudist walking down main street and people labeling him/her brave when in reality the nudist is just cold and stupid.
Different people have different talents and tolerances, and different, fruitful roles to play in our society. We need a lot of mothers and grandmothers, but we need those maiden aunts, too, along with all the male equivalents.
It stands to reason that there can and should be people who ought not be parents, and for them, the choice NOT to have children is honorable.
Amen, Amen, and Amen! I have been amazed at the venom directed at Kathy Shaidle by all the “loving” parents and grandparents just because she has a point of view at varience with their own.(If you love kids and aren’t castigating Kathy for not wanting them, then I’m not talking about you.)
I wonder if Kathy Shaidle’s aversion to both having children, and to children in general, is a result of her obvious personal (not intellectual) self-loathing. Is she afraid that her children will also loathe her as a person, and that her children will reject her, just as Ms Shaidle also rejected her parents?
“Children are always broke and are poor conversationalists. Their jokes aren’t funny. These are traits you avoid while choosing friends; why would you want to intentionally lock yourself into a 24/7 relationship with someone exactly like that, and, worse, saddle yourself with paying their every expense for 20+ years?”
You know, you and Bridget Johnson should get together and start a Bitter White Females club. She can dress your pet dog, which can double as your mascot, and you can keep screeching about what saps everybody else is for having kids. Look lady, just because life dealt you a miserable hand while growing up with a not-so-great dad doesn’t mean you have to take it out on the rest of the world. Obviously it’s your right not to have kids and, given your outlook on life, thank GOD you’ve decided not to have kids. What could be “better” than to force your warped bitterness on yet another generation of humans?
It’s interesting you brought up Mark Steyn because you’d fit right in somewhere in Europe, which for generations had millions of people who felt like you do. And look at the mess they’re in now. Yup, focus on you girl because nobody else will do it, right? I don’t know whether to laugh at that sort of selfishness or cry. Forget the idea that maybe, just maybe, you would be bringing a new life into this world and that this person could have a big impact on it, maybe even change it. And it doesn’t have to be a huge impact, either, for that person to touch a lot of lives. He or she could be a good mother or the good father YOU never had. They could be good people, honest and true, that would look out for their families and maybe even make a good contribution to their communities as well. Not all kids have to grow up to be president to have a huge impact on a lot of people. All they have to be are decent human beings.
But no, women like you have to mock both kids and parents that have the guts to BE parents. And that’s what it all comes down to, having the nerve and the backbone to be the most difficult thing there is in this world, and that’s being a good parent. It’s a tough job, but one that can have a lot of rewards as well.
But I’m just wasting my breath with people like you and Bridget Johnson. Where on earth did PJ Media dig up you two gals, at a middle-aged woman’s bitterness convention? I think you gals should stick with reporting on politics and stay away from the defensive schtick about why you do NOT want to have kids. I’ve never trusted people who don’t like kids. Those people usually are selfish, mean, very impatient, and have real issues anger, especially towards the weakest individuals among us, which usually are kids. Not the type of person I’d like to have as a friend, let alone as a relative.
So in your worm’s eye view of the world, leave commenting on the “touchy-feely” subjects like parenthood to somebody else. I don’t think you’re up to the task.
Selfish people are selfish whether they have kids or not.
There are as many selfish reasons to have kids as there are not to have kids.
The post has the feel of what I imagine a suicide note to have.
good lord, is PJMedia becoming Slate.com? I am really disappointed to see this article here. Just please don’t run a whole series like they did.
I can’t speak from the altruistic vantage point (for which I have never reached), but can only speak of the strictly selfish (of which I consider myself an expert), so here goes:
I became a father before I really knew what I wanted, which was not to say that I didn’t know at the time that what I wanted at that moment was not to be a father. My relationship with my wife (now ex) was bad, which probably further poisoned any chance of success I might have had as a father. So now, 20 years on, and literally an ocean of distance between us, I now have a rather distant son who I hardly know with the thought of which being by far the greatest pain I have ever experienced and which carries a lifelong term.
Now, selfishly, of course I wish that I never had this pain to bare; and since I feel no altruism, can’t really assuage the feeling in any outside way. So in the end was it worth it? For me, obviously not. Nor would I recommend it for those, like me, who can’t stand a moment of partaking in childish games and baby-talk. Of course, when he is older and self-actualized–essentially a full adult–I will appreciate being a father on that rare occasion when in the company of another who I happen to call my son. Which of course is nothing to brag about in my dossier to be presented at the end of the line to St. Peter. In other words, I am not cut out for parenting. Or maybe its just modern parenting.
There was a show on television called “Frontier House” about several families who agreed to re-experience the 19th Century act of homesteading and–to make a long story short–after seven or eight episodes spanning an entire growing season where they were met by one trying obstacle after the next, finally in the last episode things began to come together: the cows were coming home on time, everybody seemed to begin to get good at their respective duties, and they even started to have some fun. In fact by the end of the show, they all seemed to truely regret having to leave their new lives along with all they had accomplished.
One of the last interviews was with the father of one of the families a few month after returning to their normal lives. Talking about his relationship with his son he said something quite profound. He said, back on the farm, my son and I were rarely apart. His life coincided with mine. Every job I had he was right along side of me. We shared everything in common and were rarely apart. Today, I go to a job of which he has little understanding and he goes to a school where I have little idea of what he is doing and even less intrinsic interest. While talking about this, the image is shown of his son playing video games alone in his room.
Now, does this mean that if it were the past and I had an economic reason to have a child that only then would I appreciate him or her? Well, that’s certainly not what I feel. What I feel is something more akin to the sense one might have by sharing the experience of combat with another who you’ve come to develop a bond with so deep that it cannot be surpassed. And with that comes a thrill, if you will. The thrill that exists when two people, by whatever method, are brought so closely together they become like one. Maybe this method is genetically programed into men, maybe it isn’t. But I know it works that way for me and for many other men, as well.
And, once again, I make no claims of altruism here and any partial resemblance of which in the last part is merely coincidental. But I do think that a child, circumstantially, could be an avenue toward a deeper, greater happiness (for me and selfishly) than I have experienced after passing through life as I have. But the way to get to that circumstantial place is now long gone and far away.
I’ve been reading Kathy’s stuff for some years now.
I’m not even emotionally-invested enough to manage a shrug over this, let alone to imagine it requires some sort of condemnation. Not everyone should be a parent, and though I can understand Steyn’s logic, I’m not sure that he’s even really advocating for an army of breeders.
At a family gathering, I prefer to sit at the kids’ table, myself. Not everyone does, which I suspect explains the other tables.
I’m probably one of the few people who actually TRIED to get pregnant with my hubby and was successful. I home-birthed and home-schooled her…she was the honest-to-gosh light of my life and still is but I only wanted ONE. I was did and done after one child.
But, having a child isn’t like ‘trying’ a new shade of blue…if you really don’t want a child, definitely don’t have one! I think it’s ridiculous that women are pressured into baby making just because they are womb owners. That’s massively lame [said in 80's blond girl voice].
Each to their own.
As a Goldwater conservative, I strongly object to the self-righteous offended “victims” of individuality who cast stones at Kathy Shaidle for proclaiming her self-evident, inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (even if for her that means not experiencing the joys and the agonies of children and family).
IMHO, I think all Conservatives unanimously agree on our Constitutional right to be left alone by our government/s as much as possible, and also unanimously reject the Liberal-Leftist lie that a person is granted sufferance to live and vote only for “the good of the State”, and possesses no residual sovereignty under the 10th Amendment:
However, getting Conservatives to agree on anything else is as hopeless as herding cats.
The last paragraph of her article was intriguing:
In other words, in theory having a child is preferable, but she lacks confidence in herself and faith in her relationships to choose to be a parent.
I think that’s responsible. For the sake of the child, parents should consider their ability to responsibly care for children within foreseeable circumstances.
As a person of faith, I pray for Kathy Shaidle to gain confidence in herself and her relationships to live her dearest dreams, and to be blessed with the ability to be a responsible parent, if she really wants…
In reference to the little girl in the rainbow dance clip at the end of the article–The most rewarding thing about parenting is the realization that the child is NOT an extension of you, but in fact a completely unique individual that is capable of essentially anything admirable…including standing up to a big bully who was indeed wrong and needed to be stuffed…May that little girl continue in her crusade for justice!
In his book “The Next Million Years”, Charles Galton Darwin, grandson of the famous naturalist, wrote that humans have a coital instinct and a child-care instinct, but not a child-creating instinct. It wasn’t necessary because, until 1960, coitus created children as a matter of course. He predicted that everyone living in the year 3000 will want to reproduce as badly as people want sex today. Whatever emotional traits lead their non-ancestors to choose “fur children” or third-world adoptees will have been purged from the gene pool.
And you posted that because you wanted all of
us to see just what a ridiculous man he was,
right.
Hopefully those who are so sure the don’t want children with take the necessary action to be permanently snipped/tied/zapped, whatever rather than plan on aborting any accidents.
Amen
It’s all a matter of personal perspective.
From what I’m hearing I take it that this Kathy Shaidle person doesn’t like children and doesn’t want to be bothered with taking care of them.
I, OTOH, think taking care of children is the only really important thing we do, and I dislike people who think the way she does, and essentially see them as a waste of skin. As far as I can tell, she’s never done a productive thing in her entire life (judging by her bio). All she does is sling b.s., which is okay by me, as long as I’m not required to pay her way through life. I just don’t have much respect for her, or what she does.
Since she wants to talk about how little regard she has for children, I figure it’s o.k. if I respond by pointing that I have little regard for her.
She’s entitled to feel the way she does, and I’m entitled to feel the way I do, and it’s all good.
Yes she is free to live her life.
She chose an evolutionary dead end…MEh. Some say her writings are Shakespearean worth of remembrance.
Meh…… I’ll place my children/genetic worth over the remembrance of her words.
What is her/his/its name again? Cicero … no that is not the name.
Children are precious beyond belief, words are as cheap as dirt, no matter how prettily they’re arranged.
At least that’s how I feel about it.
If I had it all to do over again, I would have left after my divorce…taken a job out of state & sent a check, rather than…fighting to make my business work and be “there” for my children. It could not be any worse than it is now…I have no relationship with either of my children.
I’m quite sure I did a lot of things wrong, but what I didn’t plan on was an ex who did everything to convince my children I was no good. Based on my children’s behaviors and attitudes, they can kiss their unknown 7 figure inheritance goodbye – they think I’m lucky to have a dime…
I think one reason is enough…buyer beware…and I know a lot of pizzed fathers who are gonna do the same as me.
With some men, it always comes down to the money.
An airheaded diaper load if I ever read such a thing. It’s not that I don’t respect your choice not to reproduce, I think you’ve convinced us you made the right decision. But probably not in the way you think you did.
Does anyone else find Shaidle’s ‘admiration’ for Steyn creepy? Following him all over the continent, promoting Steyn mugs and t-shirts and treating his every column like an orgasm? I like Steyn, too, but give it a rest, Kathy.
Feminism and its accompanying self-indulgence has turned what would have been a large number of first-rate mothers into an army of third-rate writers and other would-be “professionals.” The author’s confessed deficiencies are nothing to be proud of and were inevitable only for the self-absorbed. I also had a less than desirable upbringing, but I considered it a roadmap containing valuable warnings about what not to be. My children were well behaved because they were required to be. As companionship in my old age, I now have a family of accomplished sons, daughters-in-law and grandchildren of whom I am enormously proud. Silly me.
I fail to see the point of testing people’s theory that they would be bad parents on children. I know that I am a selfish person. Maybe having a child would change that, but maybe it wouldn’t. If I’m not, now I’m a crappy parent, I’m doing a bad job raising a child, and I probably have low self worth because of this. Additionally, chemical imbalances which lead to depression and anxiety run strongly in my family. I take medication so I’m OK, but until you find the dosage that fits, it’s not pretty.
I am planning for my future, and I think parents that depend on their children to take care of them in their old age are doing them a great disservice. That is not to say that children shouldn’t take care of their parents, but putting all of your eggs in that basket is not a good idea.
This is the saddest–and most empty-headed post I’ve ever read on PJMedia. Let us hope that its like does not appear again.
That being said, the author is certainly entitled to her opinions, but if she feels the need for a justifying manifesto, she better head back to re-writing.
As an octogenarian father and grandfather, let me add a thought. This woman does not know the joys of unselfish love. Too bad.
Chances are, if your parents don’t have children, neither will you.
My childhood is not a blur. I remember baseball in Madison WI where the kids the boys in the neighborhood formed teams, found sponsors, and had fun. No dads or moms just 1950′s fun when kids not parents organized it. Then marriage, kids, work,…It is much more of a blur, much to do, not too much time to think.
Now I am on that downhill slope. I am still working but we’ve moved out of a lovely downtown condo to a distant little town, which was a cornfield until the housing boom swept it into modernity. My commute has gone from a half hour walk to work through a beautiful park to a two hour ordeal, car, train, brisk walk. Yet, am I unhappy? No, I have three lovely grandchildren– three wonderful blessings from God–a few blocks away.
A wise friend said having grandchildren was a spiritual thing. He was right it is. Yesterday I took my oldest, a 3 year old to Menards to buy some petunias and germaniums to plant in our back yard. I picked out a shovel so she could help but she found a pink one, which she licked much better. My pick was more practical –steel vs. plastic — both were her size. Of course, I indulged her wish for the pink one. It was quite capable of digging through the mulch so I go get to the poor fill dirt and dig the hole for the petunias. She was a big help. The memory is not a blur. But onr that lifts my spirit. Yes it is spiritual.
Absolutely the best reason to have children of your own is to get Grandchildren.
But then you have to depend on the children to let you see them.
I do not depend, expect or hope that my son will take care of me and his Mom as a fact I don’t expect anyone to take care of me.
I have two great daughters, aged 34 and 30. Their dad and I have been married for 40 years. Both of the girls are married, and one has provided me with a lovely granddaughter. Recently I asked them for an opportunity for the three of us to get together and discuss some things that I regretted about the job I did as a mom. I told them to ask me anything they wanted to know regarding their childhoods and the things I did as a mother. I do not want my daughters to have lingering questions that they can’t get answers to once I am dead.
We eventually had a two-hour discussion that was really, really good. No conflict, many insights, and a strengthened relationship among the three of us. I apologized for mistakes I felt that I had made.
One thing that my gals said that heartened me a good deal was that they never perceived any favoritism for either of them from their dad and me. Parental favoritism eventually wrecked my relationship with my sister who now refuses to communicate with me (and she was the recipient of the favoritism!)
My girls have turned out to be such good friends to each other and to me and their dad that I actually wish I had given birth to more children. But I am not advising anyone who does not want kids to have them.
Whenever someone complimented a friend of mine about how well-behaved his children were he would smile at them and say “that’s because we beat them.”
There are endless joys to having my children in my life. Just yesterday, that included sharing a steam train excursion with my youngest daughter and her four-year old, and looking out at the Amish in their buggies in great numbers.
Seeing my kids sheer delight when my wife and I brought home Holly, a Golden Retriever pup. And knowing that they too would grow up with respect for animals, and would know that dogs offer something very special.
I offer no opinion, express no feeling, about any who choose to be without children.
I do know that much of what I value in my life is being able to share with another, especially with my children. Each is quite a different personality, yet each has developed values that are solid and good.
Please don’t apologize for not feeling maternal. Life is about choices. Having said that, I am compelled to tell that no feeling compares with the crazy love a parent feels for his or her newborn except, the crazy love for a grandchild. Children are great.
I loved this article . It mirrored my thoughts and preferences more perfectly than anything I have ever read. If you were surrounded by kids demanding your attention I think your natural intelligence and kindness would have lead you to forgive the kids their infernal demands-after all they are “just being kids”. But I fear that you would not have had the energy to write, speak, and direct your gifts to the rest of us. You may not have provided care to biological children but you certainly direct care and love to those of us children who are already in the world.Much respect and affection, Kathy. Long may you wave.
Congratulations! You are the winner of a Darwin Award.
The entire time I wasted reading this article I felt like Alice in Wonderland, something did not seem quite real. So, we have a whining unhappy 4’11′ Atheist trying to be funny and failing miserably. Makes sense, I suppose to the 4’11″ Atheist.
IMHO: No one who doesn’t want children should feel they must give birth to a child. I believe that no child who is unwanted should be born into this world! Every woman should have that choice, to have a child, or Not, and should feel good about their decision, regardless of outside opinion. Although, ultimately society may be impacted, these decisions are private to the individual.
No, Chamuiel, the article didn’t seem real at all. Is she trying to be serious? Is she trying to be funny? Is she tryng to do anything, or just yattering on, here?
Yes, a whining, unhappy, 4’11′ Atheist, failing to be funny. Also, apparently, resentful of the fact that her grandmother may have had an affair with a small man. (Also, oddly ungrateful, and unsympathetic, towards the mother who took care of her, when her father took off.)
No, it doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense.
Kathy writes, “Children are . . . poor conversationalists.” Really? I think such a statemant reflects a lack of experience: speak for yourself, Kathy!
For many decades, as both an educator—as a special education teacher—and parent, I’ve spent many hours, adding up to years, I’d expect, in conversation with kids. They’ve often moved me to both tears and laughter—and sometimes, to utter frustration! If one is open to kids’ nimble, though sometimes unformed ideas—as well as their frequent sparks of astonishing discernment—children are delightful companions and conversationalists. Even babies, with their huge repertoire of vocal and body language, can be altogether a pleasure to spend time with: and they can lead even the most sophisticated adult into new realms of self-discovery.
I altogether support Kathy Shaidle re her decision not to have kids, but this decision seems to be partly based on some serious misconceptions about the nature of real kids—and the adults who love and nurture them.
Given your comments on the death of Rodney King, thank you for not having children and saving the rest of us the expense of having to raise them.
I like all the kids because they all belong to someone else.
Well, the takeaway for me after skimming this is that someone asked you to write it. Why?
It isn’t as if you’re asking for opinions or that you’ve offered anything about yourself that’s opinion worthy. If the gist of it is that you don’t want to have kids, well, okay.
I didn’t ask Kathy to write this. She came up with the idea on her own and pitched it to me and it came out even better than I hoped.
I don’t presume to know anything about editing multi-author web sites but I can point out to Mr. Swindle that an article on not liking children by a crabby woman stuffed with grievances about a lousy childhood is not a particularly original idea.
If this piece was better than he hoped it would be, he had extremely low expectations.
David, in fairness, I agree with you insofar as the responses have rounded this out.
KS’s pregnant exposition begged the unasked questions that readers have generously addressed. Although the piece itself (apart from the writer) is not what most of us are looking for, it cannot be argued that the broad audience failed to come through pretty admirably in spite of it.
You have no idea what you are missing. One’s children give one the greatest pleasure, reward, amusement, pride, and sense of personal value that life has to offer. The word “love” is over-used and often wrongly applied, but the love your children feel for you and you feel for them is the real thing. Only in and through them can most of us be sure of having a presence in this world after death. Reproduction is the only purpose we can discern in our fleshly existence. And what will you do when you are old? You’ll find life very lonely then if you have no descendants. Grandchildren give us a second go, a reprise of the joy of parenthood, and without the – actually not very burdensome – chores. Whatever you’re spending your time on now, will it mean anything in thirty years time, to you or anybody? However good what you write, it will probably not weigh much then. In a world of transient satisfactions, for most of us only our children are likely to prove lastingly worth our expenditure of time, labor, emotion and thought.
Soooo – the only function for which the human race actually needs you is the one you don’t wish to fulfill? Gotcha.
I’m having kids (#1 on the way right now!) exactly because I AM a selfish egomaniac. Honestly, I am way too friggin’ awesome not to pass some of it on to the world. There’s no possible genetic combination of my and Mrs. Wolf’s genes that don’t produce whip-smart, clever, creative and adorable. I’m doing this for all of you…