[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I don't know about the pay difference - but that may be because I'm in IT. It seems like being a female is an advantage in the field, since it's so male-dominated.

What's that saying? "The odds are good, but the good are odd."

It is interesting, though - it doesn't seem as though anyone is particularly troubled or shocked by Shaddim's decision not to have children - I'm guessing part of that is because he's a man, so it's expected that he'll be career-focused throughout his life, and little loss is perceived by his decision not to have children.

It could also be about who he is and how he's represented himself - both of which are very different from you.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

TBH, I'm not sure where I've been "ignorant".

Well by the very definition of "ignorant," you wouldn't know.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I REALLY don't get this attitude - what, you're not allowed to be annoyed by something that you previously were involved in? So what if you used to be a kid? That doesn't mean that you're morally obligated to like kids. Yeah, my mom cleaned me up when I puked all over myself when I was a kid. That doesn't mean that I have any inclination to clean up someone else's puke - I'm not sure I could even stomach cleaning up my own boyfriend's puke, and I love him dearly.

I was responding to colourfastt's post, which had a considerably different message.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

This whole mentality of "you were a kid once; how dare you dislike children" makes it sound as though people are obligated to society to create children, simply to fill some debt due to the fact that they were once children themselves.

It's ****ing hypocritical to despise people (children are people, nothing less) for being what you yourself were.

Idiot blanket statements like colourfastt's get my gall; your posts appear to be a little more differentiated than that.

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Prediction: No one with kids is going to say they could take it or leave it.

That's not exactly a great revelation. Do you expect someone to post here and say "I don't really care about my kids."

[harbinger75]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

And I stand by what I said - men generally are not ostracized when they make the choice not to have children. Women, however, are vilified as soon as they even make mention of the mere possibility that childfreedom is an option under consideration. The conservative Christian viewpoint (which I apply squarely to you, specifically, which I believe is fairly accurate given how you've represented yourself on these forums) generally says that women are physically designed for childbirth (fact) and are therefore obligated to have children (opinion). I would guess that this view has some influence on your judgment of me regarding this particular matter.

You're painting a very broad and inaccurate stroke there. I'd like to see where, in 2009, the overwhelming opinion is that women who don't want children are ostracized and generally looked down upon. Unless you live in an overly oppressing and dictatorial country, freedom of choice (including not having children if you so desire) is the norm. Outside of strict religious pinnings, I don't believe the above statement is true.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by LegendaryPinkOx 

As a way of putting myself through college I've gotten a part time job as a shoe salesman at JCPenney. No I don't own any children, nor would I want to. As a witness to what these parents have to go through just to put a shoe on a child's foot, and ensuing screaming fit when they can't get the shoe that has lights in it, ya know the one thats three times as expensive for no other reason than they blink.

They also like to run around and get you to chase them because "get over here!" really means "tag your it." Just a couple weeks ago we had to notify the police because a child got in an argument with his mother; she wouldn't buy a shirt for him, so he ran off when she wasn't looking. They found him outside the mall hiding behind a bush, he was there for over an hour because he thought mommy didn't love him.

Then you have the smelly kids. The ones who manage to get the most putrid substances imaginable on their clothing, man is it fun to ask them to take their shoes off and you realize that at one point the worn pair of black sketchers they took off had been white, and they also think its hilarious when they fart next to someone.

The stories are endless, it seems, and I've only worked there for 8 months. When I'm ready to deal with all of that, I'll consider having some of my own.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by LegendaryPinkOx 

As a way of putting myself through college I've gotten a part time job as a shoe salesman at JCPenney. No I don't own any children, nor would I want to. As a witness to what these parents have to go through just to put a shoe on a child's foot, and ensuing screaming fit when they can't get the shoe that has lights in it, ya know the one thats three times as expensive for no other reason than they blink.

They also like to run around and get you to chase them because "get over here!" really means "tag your it." Just a couple weeks ago we had to notify the police because a child got in an argument with his mother; she wouldn't buy a shirt for him, so he ran off when she wasn't looking. They found him outside the mall hiding behind a bush, he was there for over an hour because he thought mommy didn't love him.

Then you have the smelly kids. The ones who manage to get the most putrid substances imaginable on their clothing, man is it fun to ask them to take their shoes off and you realize that at one point the worn pair of black sketchers they took off had been white, and they also think its hilarious when they fart next to someone.

The stories are endless, it seems, and I've only worked there for 8 months. When I'm ready to deal with all of that, I'll consider having some of my own.

So close...so VERY close. You're describing the problem, but not seeing the cause.

The child that you see running off, screaming, smelling bad, etc. is NOT that way by his or her own doing. Parents, or rather "people who should be acting like parents but can't be bothered" are the cause of these situations. Sure, even "good" parents wind up with a kid that wanders off (our son liked to hide in the center of 4-sided clothes racks while we were shopping-but we always knew where he was), or that gets dirty or into something smelly, but that's going to be a very temporary situation that is corrected ASAP.

People who act like parents set boundaries (which a child REQUIRES-both for management and for development as a functional member of society) and enforce them. Our son never screamed about not getting the shoes he wanted-mainly because at that age he never was allowed a choice. I don't know a family that allowed their children to run unhindered in a mall, to behave disrespectfully to anyone in public (same-age friends are a different thing completely), or to otherwise paint the picture you have obviously been over-exposed to. I apologize for the fact that you've had to deal with what are frankly the results of failure to parent.

I did a community health project last summer, dealing with overweight elementary and middle-school kids. My task was to come up with an intervention that would improve or complement the setting I was working in, a day camp aimed at better nutrition for these kids. Instead of coming up with something for the kids, I wound up developing a parenting program for their parents. The group I was seeing were completely unprepared to act as parents, mainly because THEIR parents hadn't had a clue either.

Today's society seems to have given bad or unprepared parents a pass, instead of requiring them to actually perform. It is HARD work being a parent, and most parents of school age kids today act like they want to be the kid's friend instead of the kid's mentor, educator, leader, and yes, disciplinarian. The trick is that it's even HARDER to be a poor, "he's my friend" parent than to be a "tougher" parent. But by the time you see the results, it's too late.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Just think what the world might have had to bear, had you ever been a child!

Were you though? The cells in your body are constantly dying and being replaced. It's unlikely that you still have any of the same components that you had when you were a child, so are you really the same person?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by harbinger75 

You're painting a very broad and inaccurate stroke there. I'd like to see where, in 2009, the overwhelming opinion is that women who don't want children are ostracized and generally looked down upon. Unless you live in an overly oppressing and dictatorial country, freedom of choice (including not having children if you so desire) is the norm. Outside of strict religious pinnings, I don't believe the above statement is true.

It's not that the government oppresses women who choose to remain childfree, but there is a stigma against women making a conscious choice not to have children. It's still seen as abnormal. Childfree couples are becoming more common, but I don't think it's a truly socially acceptable choice yet.

My view is certainly influenced by the fact that my entire extended family is religious in one way or another - Christians are expected to procreate if they get married. Those who don't are seen as disobeying God directly. I don't think that distrust or disapproval of childfree couples is limited to the religious right, however.

A journalist from the Observer in the UK wrote an article in February about her choice not to have children. As she put it in her followup article, the response from readers was "terrifying":

The reaction to the piece was terrifying. Emails and letters arrived, condemning me, expressing disgust. I was denounced as bitter, selfish, un-sisterly, unnatural, evil. I'm now routinely referred to as "baby-hating journalist Polly Vernon".

There's also a ridiculous column in the Daily Mail applauding bosses who discriminate against childfree women:

Yet if she says she hasn't a shred of maternal feeling in her, moreover, if she says she would prefer to concentrate on her career and that a child would only get in the way of it, then my head might acknowledge her right to do so. But my heart whispers: 'Lady, you're weird.'

It was welcome news, therefore, to discover this week that I am not alone. Research conducted over six years shows that far from bosses and colleagues always being suspicious of a working mother, the opposite is becoming true: it is the childless woman who is regarded as cold and odd.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

It's that the government oppresses women who choose to remain childfree, but there is a stigma against women making a conscious choice not to have children. It's still seen as abnormal.

I think you may tend to notice this more than other people. And I think that "oppress" is a little strong.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by finboy 

And I think that "oppress" is a little strong.

I think you lack the proper context to be able to say that. I could give an extreme example of why I say this, but instead I'd rather just ask you to put yourself in the shoes of someone who, no matter how well qualified they get at a particular job (or profession!), is statistically likely to be paid substantially less, and receive substantially less respect in that job or profession, because of something that is not only not under their control but is systematically and energetically used by all of society to segregate them. Without even looking at stereotypes of gender or gender roles, if ANY other group was so systematically put at a disadvantage, much of the world would be up in arms against such social behavior. But put it in gender terms, and it's suddenly OK. But it's not.

[Spheric Harlot]

Um, the sentence structure indicates that she meant to say, "It's NOT that the government oppresses women who choose to remain childfree, but…"

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Um, the sentence structure indicates that she meant to say, "It's NOT that the government oppresses women who choose to remain childfree, but…"

Which would, of course, be wrong... ...since the government (any government) oppresses everybody.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Which would, of course, be wrong... ...since the government (any government) oppresses everybody.

But it does do generically and generally within the confines of social conventions. It would be superfluous to have to state that "the government is oppressing me."

[finboy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

I think you lack the proper context to be able to say that.

I wish I did lack the proper context, my life could be a lot less complicated and I could devote those neurons to other things. Regardless of my context, I think to say that the government oppresses people (men, women, "other") who don't have kids (by choice or otherwise) is ridiculous. I just don't see it.

(I was responding to the original post, not someone else's specification of what it was supposed to mean.)

Now, if you want to say that the govt punishes people who get married, I'd have to agree. I can see the annual tax bill on that one.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Haven't we had this children conversation before? It feels familiar. Why keep bringing it up unless you have doubts?

Probably feels familiar due to the whole Superchic[k]en/Salty process

[- - e r i k - -]

This comment sums it all up:

Originally Posted by ort888 

I agree 100%




You should not have kids.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Um, the sentence structure indicates that she meant to say, "It's NOT that the government oppresses women who choose to remain childfree, but…"

I just fixed it. Thanks.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

It's unlikely that you still have any of the same components that you had when you were a child...

Except for 99.99% of the neurons in your brain

[CharlesS]

^ Well, I'm no doctor, but how could that be? Your head is physically a lot bigger than it was when you were a baby. It seems like 99% of the neurons in your brain wouldn't fit in your younger self's head.

[colourfastt]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

I was responding to colourfastt's post, which had a considerably different message.


It's ****ing hypocritical to despise people (children are people, nothing less) for being what you yourself were.

Idiot blanket statements like colourfastt's get my gall; your posts appear to be a little more differentiated than that.

I am well aware of the tone of my post, and it conveyed the correct one. I do NOT want to ever hear or see another child. I do NOT want to listen to their collective whiney and/or screaming in a restaurant while I'm trying to have a quiet dinner. I do NOT want to be bumped against when I'm shopping because their owners cannot be bother to restrain them. A good example: I went to a restaurant for a quiet lunch in the middle of the day .. there was one table occupied so I specifically asked for a table at the other end of the restaurant. In less than 10 minutes the vile abomination at the other table was running around and then crawled under MY table. Its owners thought it was 'cute' and were laughing about it until I rather loudly announced "does anyone own this or do I need to call the dog warden?". The quickly collected the obnoxious offspring and left. I never want to have to suffer a repeat of this behaviour.

[Spheric Harlot]

You have issues way beyond the scope of this thread.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

You have issues way beyond the scope of this thread.

He's got a good point. But it ain't about kids - it's about the collapse of society as the hippie and chav generations become parents.

[Spheric Harlot]

What everybody decrying the current state of affairs conveniently forgets is that in the Olden Days, everything was better in the Olden Days, as well.


(Also, in my experience, it's the hippies who tend to have extremely mild-natured children - at least until they hit puberty. Anti-social morons are a different story, but contrary to your convictions, I wouldn't count "hippies" among those. )

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

He's got a good point. But it ain't about kids - it's about the collapse of society as the hippie and chav generations become parents.

Not fair to lay this only on the kids though. The post-adolescent chavs are just as appalling, if not more so, to share public space with.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Not fair to lay this only on the kids though. The post-adolescent chavs are just as appalling, if not more so, to share public space with.

No no no - it ain't the kids. It's the crappy parents - those post-adolescent chavs who've been knocking 'em out like rabbits then sitting 'em in front of the idiot lantern as a substitute for love and discipline.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

What everybody decrying the current state of affairs conveniently forgets is that in the Olden Days, everything was better in the Olden Days, as well.

Yes. But it really is worse these days as living standards and technology catch up with the inclination to be noisy and obnoxious. Much easier to be loud and obnoxious with a two-stroke mini-bike than it is with a paddle and ball.

You live in the politest nation on earth - you wouldn't understand.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

(Also, in my experience, it's the hippies who tend to have extremely mild-natured children - at least until they hit puberty. Anti-social morons are a different story, but contrary to your convictions, I wouldn't count "hippies" among those. )

Well, the hippies were mild-mannered and care-free. So were their kids, until they hit puberty. Then the kids rebelled and became loud, obnoxious chavs - and since their hippie parents were generally opposed to discipline, the problem was enhanced. And the chav rebellion then pumped out their own little loud, obnoxious chavs. Who will probably eventually rebel and become librarians or something.

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

No no no - it ain't the kids. It's the crappy parents - those post-adolescent chavs who've been knocking 'em out like rabbits then sitting 'em in front of the idiot lantern as a substitute for love and discipline.

LMFAO, and what about those nannies who looked after those that would create an Empire? Where was the 'lurve' there? Don't just blame the lower classes. Look at Charlie, Anne, Andrew and Edward for some really good role models. Do we blame Liz and Phil? Look at our MPs. Our Lords. Society, British society is rotten across the spectrum, it doesn't matter if you were buggered at Eton or molested in Borstal (or whatever the equivalent is now).

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Well, the hippies were mild-mannered and care-free. So were their kids, until they hit puberty. Then the kids rebelled and became loud, obnoxious chavs - and since their hippie parents were generally opposed to discipline, the problem was enhanced. And the chav rebellion then pumped out their own little loud, obnoxious chavs. Who will probably eventually rebel and become librarians or something.

Hardly.

Originally Posted by wiki

The stereotypical "chav" is an aggressive teenager or young adult, who is usually, though not always, of working class background,[1] who often engages in anti-social behaviour,[1] and is often assumed to be unemployed or in a low paid job.

Hippies were, by and large, intellectuals, and not so much working-class.

They're kids' kids may be maladjusted brats, but they tend to be well-read.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

^ Well, I'm no doctor, but how could that be? Your head is physically a lot bigger than it was when you were a baby. It seems like 99% of the neurons in your brain wouldn't fit in your younger self's head.

It's not that much bigger, and also the 90% of brain cells that aren't neurons (glia) do turn over, and they generally appear later than neurons in development (though not mostly post-natal). Also, don't rule out the possibility that a larger skull later in life is used to store garbage and debris, not productive gray matter Edit: it was a really interesting study that confirmed the lack of new neurons; they took people born in the 50s when there was higher background radiation around and used the environmental radiation decline over time to "carbon-date" the actual carbon atoms in the DNA of all their brain cells at the time of death. They found that the glia were mostly only a few months "old" (the time since their carbon atoms were in the environment instead of in their DNA), but 99.99% of the neurons were the same age as the person.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

That's not exactly a great revelation. Do you expect someone to post here and say "I don't really care about my kids."

Someone did.

[residentEvil]

i enjoyed that theaters have now banned kids from R rated movies after 6pm even with an adult; even more so when they actually enforce it!

now if there was some way to do that at restaurants...maybe once the state passes the smoking ban they can work on kids next!

[Doofy]

I was going to put something about how you continentals don't understood the term "chav", but since an elderly neighbour has been laboriously explaining the names, professions and shoe sizes of various people I don't know (and much less care about) to me for the last forty-five minutes, I've lost all will to live. Well, all will to have any kind of conversation for the next three weeks anyways.

[paul w]

next we should ban them from airplanes, commuter trains, places of business, nice hotels, most retail stores, certain neighborhoods...

I hate crappy parents and unruly children as much as anyone, but it's amazing how uptight people are about dealing with the presence of children in any aspect of their lives. Not that I'd take my baby girl to a movie, but yes she accompanies us to restaurants all the time. And makes less noise/fuss/mess than a good percentage of the patrons in most cases.

And really if anyone ever had a problem with it they've been to cowardly to say as much, as they're usuall very much in the minority.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by residentEvil 

now if there was some way to do that at restaurants...maybe once the state passes the smoking ban they can work on kids next!

I imagine they are pretty high in trans-fats, anyway.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's not that much bigger, and also the 90% of brain cells that aren't neurons (glia) do turn over, and they generally appear later than neurons in development (though not mostly post-natal). Also, don't rule out the possibility that a larger skull later in life is used to store garbage and debris, not productive gray matter Edit: it was a really interesting study that confirmed the lack of new neurons; they took people born in the 50s when there was higher background radiation around and used the environmental radiation decline over time to "carbon-date" the actual carbon atoms in the DNA of all their brain cells at the time of death. They found that the glia were mostly only a few months "old" (the time since their carbon atoms were in the environment instead of in their DNA), but 99.99% of the neurons were the same age as the person.

Ok, 90% of the brain cells (not to mention the entire rest of the body) is good enough for me. All I know is that I definitely don't feel like I'm the same person as my younger self (who had a propensity to do and say things that I'm now ashamed of).

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I imagine they are pretty high in trans-fats, anyway.

But are they Atkins-friendly?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

But are they Atkins-friendly?

I prefer a bun, but I've seen an option for a lettuce wrap.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by colourfastt 

The quickly collected the obnoxious offspring and left. I never want to have to suffer a repeat of this behaviour.

Probably thought you were two threads short of a hem and ready to pull out a machine gun. You should consider anger management therapy, Prozac, or living in isolation from all humanity.

I do hope there is a difference between this "childfree" movement and complete misanthropy. The term "childfree" and how it's being used in this thread itself has both antagonistic, resentful, and defensive overtones.

I have friends who chose to be childless, yet they somehow manage to be pleasant people who can share space with a child without resorting to dehumanization.

There is also the possibility that those of you who've seen a child misbehaving in public have seen the rare occurence, or the learning occurence, or the parents are as appalled as you and working to correct it.

Next up in MacNN Dark Confessions: Taking your child in public.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by finboy 

I wish I did lack the proper context, my life could be a lot less complicated and I could devote those neurons to other things. Regardless of my context, I think to say that the government oppresses people (men, women, "other") who don't have kids (by choice or otherwise) is ridiculous. I just don't see it.

(I was responding to the original post, not someone else's specification of what it was supposed to mean.)

Now, if you want to say that the govt punishes people who get married, I'd have to agree. I can see the annual tax bill on that one.

I managed to mangle the first part of my post and didn't rebuild it correctly. I left out the bit about "society" oppressing women in general, particularly those who "have not performed their only valid social function" of having children. Which changes the whole thing, right? But my editing-fu failed me and when I recreated the first paragraph I lost this crucial bit entirely. Sort of like shif dropping the "not" in her post, but bigger and stupider, eh?

Procedural note: clicking "BACK" will NOT preview your post! Shocking but true!

[ringo]

[residentEvil]

obviously; the problem usually resides with the parents...how and why that child is doing what is socially not acceptable or what is considered bad behavior or what is creating an unpleasant situation for the rest of the people around them.

examples: you can't convince me that letting your child run around the restaurant is cute. you can't convince me that a 7 year old should be at a 10pm screening of Saw III. you can't convince me that an obviously tired and upset 2 year old should be strapped in a shopping cart screaming and throwing things.

and i don't want to hear "they couldn't get a babysitter or that was the only time they could go" or "sometimes a baby will act up or get loose". you are right. those are all valid. but you know what? then take the time to comfort your baby or gather them back up, etc...and then have the courtesy, to apologize or at least acknowledge that YOU know that YOUR baby/child is why you are getting looks that you do.

i take the time to thank a parent who has a tired/cranky baby at a restaurant and picks them and goes outside/bathroom. or when a parent talks to the child who "wants this this this" instead of just keep yelling no or put it back. those parents get it . but that is very far and few between though it seems these days.

these situations, and hundreds more, aren't the child's fault...but the parent's fault. probably 99.9% of the time an older child that should know better will still get away with inappropriate behavior because early on the parents chose well, to ignore those "cute" things or not understand that the rest of us don't wish to be the "parent".

but to say someone else who chooses NOT to have children can't have an opinion or not like those things going on around them is ridiculous.

some simple f'n common sense is all that is needed by parents. this can be applied to more then just children/parenting too. smoking, driving, cell phones, etc. these are other things that upset others when those are not applying some simple common sense.

[harbinger75]

This thread has officially reached "Epic Derail™" level. The only semblance to the original question at this point is the fact that the word "children" has occasionally still been used.

[andi*pandi]

Will someone please think of the children.

[shifuimam]

That xkcd is completely ridiculous. I'm never a fan of Randall using his comic as a soapbox for his politics.

One reason for problems in current society absolutely stems from the fact that more and more upper-class people are choosing childfreedom, and more lower-class people are procreating like it's going out of style. As much as I'd like to see laws limiting procreation to those capable of adequately raising a child (not based on income, mind you - broke people can be good parents, too), it's never going to happen. Which is why I'm such a strong proponent of serious education reform. Although "parents should educate their children" is a nice thought, it's unrealistic to an extreme. How in the world can you expect some kid born in the ghetto to have any sense of personal and financial responsibility when his single mother has been living off welfare since before he was born? If school is the only place where these kids are going to have any semblance of structure, discipline, and nonacademic education, we need to accept that as a reality and do something about it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

One reason for problems in current society absolutely stems from the fact that more and more upper-class people are choosing childfreedom, and more lower-class people are procreating like it's going out of style.

Seems like... the kind of statement that requires a link, haha....

greg

[Dakar V]

I don't know about childfreedom™ but I thought it was generally accepted that lower class birthrates exceed those of the upperclass (at least here in the United States)?

[harbinger75]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

I don't know about childfreedom™ but I thought it was generally accepted that lower class birthrates exceed those of the upperclass (at least here in the United States)?

I can, anecdotally, vouch for that fact. I worked as a paramedic on an ambulance and as a firefighter for the last 16 years, and I can honestly say that the lower-income families had quite a few more children than any of the "high-class" folks in the ritzy homes. You could almost set your watch by the governmentally-assisted people calling us at the end of the month because they felt their kids needed the free, monthly checkups and 911 was the easiest way to go about getting somebody to their house for transport. When one stepped into those houses, gaggles of children emerged.

[ghporter]

Interestingly, it's not always "choosing" child free adulthood; it's just understanding one's own limitations and (here's the kicker) knowing enough to avoid having a child when one is too wrapped up in life/career/not sure about significant other/whatever.

On the flip side are less educated people who still hump like bunnies, but who either never learned about or can't affort/be bothered with birth control. There ARE low income teens who intentionally get pregnant for a variety of reasons-"keep" boyfriend, "become an emancipated minor" (which just gets the person into a deeper set of problems), qualify for social assistance, and so on. There are a lot of programs to address this group, and while the descent isn't particularly smooth, it does seem that teen pregnancy rates, especially in lower income groups, are falling.

The real issue isn't well off or "not well off" groups. It's "middle class" folks who don't bother to learn how to be parents nor about how to avoid being parents. People with reliable incomes but a pretty consistent "upbringing" (not that any real "upbringing" was purposefully done) that involves catering to their whims are the folks that are producing more kids. Sure, education level is a factor, but beyond that, it's an attitude that "it's all about me, 24/7" that leads to "sure, I'll boff this one, that one, whomever" without consideration of "is boffing anyone a good idea right now?" Our society has a dismally low understanding of how babies get to be, and thinking with one's glands tends to give individuals very strong lessons in that area. But these lessons don't seem to impress the people around the object lesson for some reason.

This IS on topic. DECIDING one way or the other for thoughtful and valid reasons, puts a person enormously ahead of the folks that just let things happen to them. And the ones that just let life "flow over them" are the ones you're most likely to see NOT attending to their brood at 11pm at Wal-Mart.

[- - e r i k - -]

I'm glad everyone here accepts the theories behind eugenics as facts.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I'm glad everyone here accepts the theories behind eugenics as facts.

Do you disagree that many children born today are to people who give absolutely no thought to the consequences of unprotected sex, the difficulties that come with raising a child, or the financial burden taken on by having a child?

Given how many broke-ass people have multiple children (usually by multiple fathers), I'd say the lesson isn't sticking.

Even in middle class families, many people don't really get what being a parent is really about. They want to continue to be selfish and irresponsible, which doesn't work when you have a child.