babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Moms who don't want their kids

Catchfire
Offline
Joined: Apr 16 2003

Jessica Valenti: Not Wanting Kids Is Entirely Normal

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off at a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

The Nebraska state government, realizing the tremendous mistake it had made, held a special session of the legislature to rewrite the law in order to add an age limitation. Governor Dave Heineman said the change would "put the focus back on the original intent of these laws, which is saving newborn babies and exempting a parent from prosecution for child abandonment. It should also prevent those outside the state from bringing their children to Nebraska in an attempt to secure services."

On November 21, 2008, the last day that the safe haven law was in effect for children of all ages, a mother from Yolo County, California, drove over 1,200 miles to the Kimball County Hospital in Nebraska where she left her 14-year-old son.

 

American culture can't accept the reality of a woman who does not want to be a mother. It goes against everything we've been taught to think about women and how desperately they want babies. If we're to believe the media and pop culture, women -- even teen girls -- are forever desperate for a baby. It's our greatest desire.

The truth is, most women spend the majority of their lives trying not to get pregnant. According to the Guttmacher Institute, by the time a woman with two children is in her mid-40s she will have spent only five years trying to become pregnant, being pregnant, and not being at risk for getting pregnant following a birth. But to avoid getting pregnant before or after those two births, she would had had to refrain from sex or use contraception for an average of 25 years. Almost all American women (99 percent), ages 15-44, who have had sexual intercourse use some form of birth control. The second most popular form of birth control after the Pill? Sterilization. And now, more than ever, women are increasingly choosing forms of contraception that are for long-term use. Since 2005, for example, IUD use has increased by a whopping 161 percent. That's a long part of life and a lot of effort to avoid parenthood!

 

If policymakers and people who care about children want to reduce the number of abandoned kids, they need to address the systemic issues: poverty, maternity leave, access to resources, and health care. We need to encourage women to demand more help from their partners, if they have them. In a way, that's the easier fix, because we know what we have to do there; the issues have been the same for years. The less-obvious hurdle is that of preparing parents emotionally and putting forward realistic images of parenthood and motherhood. There also needs to be some sort of acknowledgement that not everyone should parent -- when parenting is a given, it's not fully considered or thought out, and it gives way too easily to parental ambivalence and unhappiness.

Take Trinity, one of the mothers who commented on the Secret Confessions board about hating parenthood. She wrote, "My pregnancy was totally planned and I thought it was a good idea at the time. Nobody tells you the negatives before you get pregnant -- they convince you it's a wonderful idea and you will love it. I think it's a secret shared among parents ... they're miserable so they want you to be too."

By having more honest conversations about parenting, we can avoid the kind of secret depressions so many mothers seem to be harboring. If what we want is deliberate, thought-out, planned, and expected parenthood -- and parenting that is healthy and happy for children -- then we have to speak out.

 

 


Comments

lagatta
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2002
Catchfire, I was so thrilled and relieved to read this. Firstly, because I have never wanted to be a parent - oh, save when I was a very small girl and thought of babies lined up like dolls. I soon moved on to cats... I don't want to put down the desires and feelings of the many people who do long to be fathers or mothers, or their feelings for their children. But I've always seen parenthood as a trap, for me that is. I do worry about the older children and teens dropped off due to that rather ill-thought-out legislation, but perhaps in some cases it was a "lesser-evil" outcome. As you may know, here in Québec, the last (Liberal) government voted a large package of support for assisted-fertility measures. This was sponsored by show host Julie Snyder... the wife of notorious rightwing media baron Pierre-Karl Péladeau. I certainly understand that people can be very frustrated on not being able to conceive, but wonder if in some cases this "désir d'enfant" is not a desire for a small copy of themselves, and why they put all their eggs - and sperm - in the conception basket rather than seeking to adopt unwanted children. It did anger me, as I thought and still think that it was far more of a priority for society to help out existing children in distress, and their parents.

Catchfire
Offline
Joined: Apr 16 2003

Great post, lagatta, and great example of how the normalization of woman-as-mother is supported by legislation at all levels (Julie Snyder -- ack.) And while this thread is in the feminism forum, it of course relates to LGBT issues and the way that reproduction is built into our city architecture (sidewalks wide enough to accomodate ever-growing designer strollers, etc.). As if the only productive and socially valuable relationship is one which generates offspring.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Wider sidewalks also benefit us old folks who need various assistance devices. But don't worry I can assure you that it is not because society views us as more productive and socially valuable. 

Are you really saying that mostly gay couples don't want children?  I think you're conflating your personal prejudices and trying to relate them to other people who may or may not share your prejudice.  I know some gay couples who fought for adoption rights and same sex marriage and they bought strollers for their babies just like straight parents. I also have gay friends who laugh at the idea of getting married and having children. 

So do you have any stats to back up your blanket assessment of how gay people view child rearing or are you merely extrapolating from your own anecdotal evidence?  I'd be interested to see the studies.

 

 

Catchfire
Offline
Joined: Apr 16 2003

I based my post on the works of Lee Adleman and Jose Munoz, who have written extensively on the reproductive imperative society encourages. In fact, the comment about the stroller comes directly from Munoz, a gay man of colour. You can take a brief look at Adleman's No Future which should give you an idea of where I'm coming from. I also based it on the many queer people with whom I've talked about this who remain dismayed at the tacit demand that they have kids. And as a father who pushes such a stroller around the city, I definitely note the lack of sloping curbs and smooth sidewalks and recognize how much more difficult and frustrating it would be for differently abled folks--and I've said as much on this site before.

Obviously, this has nothing to do with LGBT folk who wish to see legislation ensuring they can adopt or reproduce in vitro.


Catchfire
Offline
Joined: Apr 16 2003

Heh. The National Pest chiimed in on this subject this morning too. In a much more rage-inducing way:

Indeed, there are more finite calculations involved: Career demands. Timing. Not having a partner, or not having the right partner. Flaky fears about overburdening our already overburdened planet, personal choice and a bunch of other hooey that serve to hide the fact that happy couples that choose not to have kids are, at root, well, let’s see: selfish.

[...]

In Canada, a new normal could be on the rise, a great divide where, standing on one side will be the old guard — the haggard, the proud, the poor-looking schleps with their baby strollers and shrieking brats — while on the other will be childless twosomes, sipping their lattes and skipping off to a 10:15 a.m. appointment with their personal trainer.

What will it mean, for us, as a nation? What could be lost? And what will become of those trim, fit and fat-free-yogurt loving folks when decrepitude inevitably creeps in; when they age, as we all inevitably do, and the children they chose not to have aren’t around to look after them?

Barf.

There, was, however, a great response on rabble's facebook page this morning to this thread being posted.


Ghislaine
Offline
Joined: Feb 15 2008

My first comment is: shouldn't this thread title be "Parents who don't want their kids", rather than just moms? It takes two to make a baby and for a lot of these moms that took advantage of the "safe haven" laws, there was a Dad who first decided he didn't want his kids. It is just a hell of a lot easier to abandon your child if you are a man and it doesn't involve your body. and the stigma is just not the same. 

Secondly, I am little confused by the law discussed. I used to work in child welfare and any parent in my province can sign a voluntary care agreement and have the province, vis-a-vis foster parents, act as parent. No one can force you to parent. Forceful involuntary apprehensions were actually the exception, most of the time parents signed a care agreement. At the end of the 6 mo. agreement we would asses whether they were fit/willing to parent or another agreement could be sought and eventually adoption. I assumed it would be the same for any jurisdiction. All you have to do is call child welfare (24/7 availability) and drop off your child. Unless there was physical or sexual abuse, starvation, etc. , there was nothing to ever charge a parent with.  (which can be very confusing for the children in these situation when you are trying to tell them that they did nothing wrong - well why does it seem like they are the ones being punished and having to leave their homes?)  

Newborns can put up for adoption with even less hassle and it is not considered abandonment. In my experience, abandonment was only a crime when the child was left in no one's care, without supervision, etc. Ie a baby put in a garbage bin, children left alone at home, etc. 

The next point I want to make is that I don't want anyone to feel like they should or must have kids. If you don't want to parent, don't parent. But, having a next generation is extremely important! Who do you think is going to change your diaper in the nursing home? And more and more I see attitudes by childless people against supports/government programs, etc. for parents and children ("If you can't afford kids, don't have them" "It is your kid, you should pay for them yourself" "I am not having kids, why should I pay for yours?"). In addition, the desire to have kid-free zones in all sorts of realms. 

I know that Jessica Valenti is not of this type, I am just commenting on what I notice happening. Her country mandates only 6 wks (!!!) of mat leave, which is outrageous. The 6 mo. that my older co-workers received even seems just so inadequate. 

I don't think women (or men) are being forced to parent right now in our current legal framework and I don't want them to feel like they have to. But those who do take on the important task of raising the next generation (including gay parents, foster parents, etc.) need support from society - legal, program-wise, etc. 

 

 


lagatta
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2002
I want and demand to be euthanised (kindly and painlessly) if it should come to diapers in a nursing home. The people changing them would be unlikely to be biological children in any event. Here is what I wrote in response to the National Post crap, but I had yet another "validation error": Those are EXACTLY the same people who would shame and demean me if I had had a child with a certain ... shall we say "not the right partner", to be too kind? And If I had thus wound up on benefits when he left me destitute? I was working three jobs at all hours, and traipsing around Montréal and its northern and southern suburbs... just to pay my rent and bills, including his huge phone bills. Cripes, I'm not a selfish person. Not the right partner was the outcome of getting a bit too involved in helping traumatised refugee claimants - oh, I forgot, those are not on the National Pest's approved list of charity recipients. And of course people who are concerned about the impact of children (or to be more accurate, First-World-Nation children) on the suffering environment are flaky... People who buy oversized SUVs to chauffeur their child or children about are praiseworthy and normal. ----- Actually, more than a few parents like being able to go to a "childfree" restaurant to relax. And Ghislaine, your stuff about parenting does seem to want to make me feel I'm not doing my part if I don't procreate. Stuff it.

Timebandit
Offline
Joined: Sep 25 2001

lagatta, I understand your objection to some of Ghislaine's points (I have to admit, I hate the bum-wiping statement, but we will need young people when we're old in a variety of capacities) - however, if you're going to take serious offense, it's best not to do so after lobbing statements like "but wonder if in some cases this "désir d'enfant" is not a desire for a small copy of themselves" when speculating why people want to have children (no, except in rare cases of narcissists reproducing - okay, maybe Peladeau and his missus, but they're bonkers on more than one level - that's not it at all for the vast majority of us and it's a little unkind to suggest so).

I don't know why this has to be such a fractious debate.  I don't understand why it has to be a debate at all.  Some people want a life that includes kids, some people want a life that doesn't.  There is no greater inherent value to one life choice or the other.  Neither choice is more inherently selfish than the other, so perhaps we could stop lambasting each other with that label?

Now me, I'm okay with kids in a restaurant, provided their parents have the courtesy to remove misbehaving kids from the room, just as I did with mine.  I'd be more relaxed overall if there were fewer bluehairs on the road, frankly, if we're going to choose a place start discriminating on the basis of age, than the removal of kids from public spaces.  One can always go to a lounge or piano bar if you want a child-free zone.  You never know when some old fart is going to try to take you out at a stop sign.

I find it interesting, to get back to Valenti's article, that so many of the examples of kids who were surrendered were in their early to mid teens.  I'm a little nuts about my kids, love them more than I can express, but I can tell you that this is the most difficult phase I've experienced yet.  There really are moments when the most dedicated and loving parent will wonder why they ever went down the childrearing path.  Their brains are rewiring - they're children, yet not children, you can't just scoop them up, immune to reason in the moment...  Maddening.  And I can kind of understand that if you were a little ambivalent in the first place or were in a space where you can't just take a step away and a deep breath and let it pass that you might go to such an extreme.  Most of us never get there, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a slight glimpse of it ever.  Fortunately for me and mine, the mama bear brain kicks in relatively quickly and the child (who knows she is well loved) having tested the limits reverts back to being an awesome kid.


ryanw
Offline
Joined: May 24 2012

Parenting is really overrated; that desir d'enfant question pops up again as a fine line between being proud of your child and their accomplishments and self congratulatory, vicarious "they woulda never done it without me" types.

Factor in all the saints that we've met in our daily lives who had parent(s) who did everything they could to destroy their child's successes and development and still became the person they are in spite of having monsters as role models. 

The Post article is rather nonsensical on many fronts. The fact is, parents do go to see their personal trainer @ 10:15. That window of mandatory-round-the-clock parenting is a small fraction of an adult lifespan maybe 5(+1-2/per additional child) years assuming you elect not to pay for professional childcare which of course would be an upgrade for most kids as many parents aren't shy admitting they know virtually nothing about parenting apart from what they read off their paediatricians wall charts.

There's ample evidence that women are pushed into becoming mothers and it might be speaking the obvious but even when they meet these societal expectations punishment is not uncommon.

I was reading http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/ohio-prep-rally-draws-cries-teen-bullying-students-110922183.html

and it details a strong message instructive to young women. and its not "become a mom" it's "not yet"


Timebandit
Offline
Joined: Sep 25 2001

Huh.  Nope, never met a saint of any sort. 

I have to disagree with you on the pride in your children being conflated with your participation.  Granted, there are parents who live vicariously through their kids, but I don't think that this is the majority of parents.  And I totally disagree that having your child in "professional care" (ie daycare) is an "upgrade" to having your parent with you. 

Look there has to be balance.  It's good for kids to be in daycare, but it's not anything like a replacement for parenting.  That plays into the whole trope of the "full-time" mother vs the working mother - and it's utter bullshit.  Both can and should be a positive part of a kid's life.  There's also sweet fuck all for parenting advice on the wall of a doctor's office and you don't generally go to a pediatrician in Canada unless your child has significant health issues.

I'm getting the strong impression that your experience of parenting is very limited.


6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

I remember hearing about Vancouver's baby drop-off program (it may even have been before we left, which was several years before this article):

http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/04/30/canadas-first-baby-drop-off-prog...

Also, as part of the census data just released, Saskatchewan has the lhighest number of children being cared for by grandparents.

It's a thorny issue. Frankly I think the healthiest thing is for a person who doesn't want to have kids to realize it, and to not be blamed or feel blamed for it. I have seen enough people - mostly women - who who were not happy at all about the burden, and not always in a position to do anything about it. Actually a good friend of ours was quite torn up about feeling that pressure to have children, and the expectation that she should find a partner. Those things were not priorities for her at all, and she felt exclusion from people who were in relationships.

Ultimately, I think the most important thing that needs to be taken care of is the child, because they are wide awake and perceptive and intelligent and vulnerable from the moment they are born. They can't just be passed around like pets, and there are certain things you simply cannot do when you have that responsibility. Because of that, I think the most damaging thing we could do is to blame and guilt trip parents who simply don't want  the job. And certainly women get that vastly more than men ever do. The blame game - like that ridiculous National Post article - doesn't help anyone. Not the parent, and certainly not the child. Like the issue of abortion choice, I think anyone who thinks it is an easy or selfish decision probably has never had to make it.

I also can't imagine how any single parent manages it; we have in-laws and a good support network, and there are still times when we feel like snapping and duct-taping them in a closet.

Ghislaine, I thought the title was an indictment of the double standard. I think the common assumption is that men are free to take responsibility for their children or not, but for a woman to want the same privilege is a crack in the natural order of things.

Now people who have no experiience with kids not wanting to deal with children? I have less sympathy. We have baby-free-zones. They're called pubs, bars, licensed establishments, most movie theatres, the lower trail down by the river,  and all kind of places where is it is virtually impossible to go with kids of certain ages in tow.


lagatta
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2002
Timebandit, I'm honestly very sorry if I may have expressed myself badly about the barrage of artificial-conception technology - I do hope it didn't come off as belittling people's wants and desire to parent - I was simply wondering why it was so important to go through all sorts of unpleasant and far from certain procedures to be biological parents rather than adopting. That is what I meant by "mini-me", or whatever I said, nothing to do with the joys and responsibilities of parenting. I was referring to a certain type of person, who has nothing to do with you or your spouse or most of the people we know. Of course parenting is important, essential for humanity. But I think humanity has done just dandy in terms of going forward and multiplying, especially in the last century and the early years of the current one. I've certainly taken part in many a demonstration for daycare and parental rights - we still have cracks here and our early childcare centres are underfunded, but we are rightly proud about what we've achieved in Québec. These measures have actually contributed to a rise in our fertility rates - simply because more young people who want to have children can do so. My big peeve is the remaining lack of availablity of paid parental leaves to freelancers, as more and more work is contingent. I think I was quite rightly pissed off at Ghislaine's comment about people winding up with bedsores wallowing in filth in nursing homes - that is an indictment of a lack of social care. Nowadays many children and grandchildren live across a continent or on another continent from the parents and grandparents. And I'm serious about (voluntary) euthanasia rather than ever finding myself in such a state. Life is precious; being warehoused half-dead isn't. I most certainly agree about a lot of elders driving when they no longer should be, but you know what I think about carcentric society and planning. There is no reason they should have to, to get to the shops, socialise, whatever. We need better transport solutions for smaller towns too.

Timebandit
Offline
Joined: Sep 25 2001
Adoption is not an easy route to take - in many ways it is as difficult or more so than fertility treatments. I've known people who sought adoption for over a decade before being successful. Wanting your own biological children is complicated. I don't think most people go into it with the idea that they're getting a miniature version of themselves (and if they do, they're soon disabused of that notion). And even if it is the motivator, does that really matter? I think of it as an extension of choice - its not up to anyone to judge. There are so many reasons and it's generally no single reason on its own. It's not something any of us can fully understand unless we've been there. I hear you on the parental leave - I was back at work when my younger daughter was two weeks old. And about end of life, too - but my point was that we will need a contingent of younger people, related or not, in other capacities long before we get to that phase of decrepitude. I read Ghislaine's comment more as we should support parents, not that this is a reason to have kids yourself. But given that so many of these surrendered kids were older, it would seem that support beyond daycare or lack of it is more the issue. If your 13 yr old is driving you mad, no amount of early parental leave or daycare is going to help. Not sure what the answer is, though.

6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

Timebandit wrote:

If your 13 yr old is driving you mad, no amount of early parental leave or daycare is going to help. Not sure what the answer is, though.

And that continuum runs all the way to children being physically and emotionally abused by their parents, and in many circumstances the children abusing the parents. Yes, I agree; there is no clear answer, and it's certainly not as simple as "you have to work harder to be a good parentt".

 

 


lagatta
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2002
Timebandit, absolutely agree with you about support for parents - In my neighbourhood, there is a place called "La Maison des grands-parents" where elders volunteer to provide help to young parents (in particular, but not only, isolated single parents) and provide activities for children and teens (and some respite for the parents!) But I know, sometimes adolescents just don't want to do anything, or act out. My comment about the $$$$ voted here for assisted-fertility treatment was more to the effect that I think support for existing children and parents is the priority, and many essential health services (such as dental care) are still not part of our healthcare package. Yes, adoption is not always easy. 6079, except for bars and (some) pubs, licensed establishments here in Quéec are not forbidden to children. Are they elswhere? (I mean restaurants, cafés and such). I don't have any need for childfree zones - but some parents I know very much do. There was an interesting article in the Globe today about a related subject - housing solutions for the growing ranks of single persons (of all ages). Though perhaps that belongs in another thread, about urbanism and urban design.

6079_Smith_W
Offline
Joined: Jun 10 2010

@ lagatta

Yes, I know. It was more of a joke, directed not at parents and caregivers, but at people who have no experience with childcare, but just don't want to have things like crying babies and breastfeeding mothers impose on their lives (and the assumption that if your child has a meltdown you must be doing something wrong).

Plus, with our youngest starting to have more stamina I am realizing how many places we just haven't been able to go to in the past nine years.

But yes, I agree with you, and understand that there are times when you just have to be ableto get right away from kids and have adult time.

 

 


ryanw
Offline
Joined: May 24 2012

Timebandit wrote:

I'm getting the strong impression that your experience of parenting is very limited.

Thank you for that summary judgment. I wanted to see this thread in particular filled with people who place a strong value on parenting and a strong need to impart that value upon others.

the quote as it is stands somewhere between elitist, pejorative(for the thread) and/or "couldn't be bothered"

and while society dictates that I immediately refute any challenges to my parenting ability, clarify any unknowns brought forth by a stranger that just happens by; I'm kind of beyond that... so challenges of that sort solely come from myself or time permitting, a child sponsored initiative.

thanks though


BillBC
Offline
Joined: May 16 2009

Timebandit says "You never know when some old fart is going to try to take you out at a stop sign."

Old fart?  I thought characterizations of this kind were discouraged on rabble, even, or especially, as jokes.  It's not OK to say "some moron" or "some retard" or "some dumb blonde" is it? 


Virginia Werewolf
Offline
Joined: Nov 26 2003

I find Jessica Valenti's article fascinating.  Like most women, I encountered social pressure to have children once I was married.  Observing the demands and expectations placed upon mothers, it seemed to me that kids would stand in the way of many things I hoped for, including a happy marriage. It didn't seem possible to have it all. My husband and I, now married for almost thirty-five years, have no regrets about being childfree.  Taking a hard look at ourselves and other childfree women and couples we know, I honestly don't think we fit the stereotype of the selfish childless couple presented in the National Post article.

Unlike many people in our age group (mid-60s), our free time is not being consumed by babysitting grandchildren. I've noticed that many young middle class parents, with homes outfitted with all the modern amenities, whose kids are in day care all week while they work, can't wait to dump the little darlings on the grandparents and go out with their friends on weekends. Grandparents have complained to me that they expected to have some time to themselves in their golden years once they got their own kids raised.  If the word "selfish" is being tossed around, perhaps it should be applied to such privileged young parents who seem to have a strong sense of entitlement.

My heart goes out to those Nebraskans who felt so desperate  that they dumped their kids permanently. We certainly do need a strong social safety net for all of society, including the elderly. Having worked with old people, I know that having adult children is not always the answer to a senior's needs.

 

 


quizzical
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2011

ryanw @ post #17

why do you think you have the right to have expectations on what and who posts in this thread?

why do you think this thread is about valueless or valuefull parenting?

why do you get to decide what is valuefull or valueless parenting?

------

i see the title as obvious the fathers of children don't want them or the mothers would'nt surrender the children to the state


Timebandit
Offline
Joined: Sep 25 2001
ryanw wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

I'm getting the strong impression that your experience of parenting is very limited.

Thank you for that summary judgment. I wanted to see this thread in particular filled with people who place a strong value on parenting and a strong need to impart that value upon others.

the quote as it is stands somewhere between elitist, pejorative(for the thread) and/or "couldn't be bothered"

and while society dictates that I immediately refute any challenges to my parenting ability, clarify any unknowns brought forth by a stranger that just happens by; I'm kind of beyond that... so challenges of that sort solely come from myself or time permitting, a child sponsored initiative.

thanks though

I suppose if you didn't talk rot, it would be harder for me to draw that conclusion. Speaking as someone who has been a parent for 15 years, I don't need you to impart any values about parenting. I don't think most parents need judgements and "values" by others who have not been in their shoes. There is nothing elitist in the least about suggesting that experience gives you insight.

ryanw
Offline
Joined: May 24 2012

Timebandit wrote:
There is nothing elitist in the least about suggesting that experience gives you insight.

or that not knowing what experience a person has, should preclude you from making your judgments of their insight, its sooooo important(return to my "overrated" intro) that a person can't restrain themselves from shouting

"I'm a proud parent and its the most important thing for me and if you were any kind of parent you'd agree with me you must have no experience to even suggest its not the most important thing" irregardless of this being a thread of pressures put on women to become mothers


Timebandit
Offline
Joined: Sep 25 2001
Granted, if that's what I had said. In actuality, I pointed out that, in my experience, what you were saying about parenting made little sense, and then I wondered, since your perception of what parents' aims and thought processes were so different from that experience, if you were just theorizing. IIRC, from some of your previous posts, you're quite a bit younger than I am, so it's not unreasonable for me to put that together with your post and come to a provisional conclusion. Feel free to set me straight.

janfromthebruce
Offline
Joined: Apr 24 2007

Parenting is a personal choice. I felt to read that some parents dropped their older children off. It sounded more like it was related to "income" and perhaps desparation - to acquire much needed services for their children. I don't think that a parent drops children just because they don't like them or don't want them anymore.

I really like children but being a parent is not for everyone. I also don't think the choice should be necesarily be tied to income but based on being a loving parent who is responsible for the health and well-being of child(ren).

 


ryanw
Offline
Joined: May 24 2012

Timebandit wrote:
IIRC, from some of your previous posts, you're quite a bit younger than I am, so it's not unreasonable for me to put that together with your post and come to a provisional conclusion. Feel free to set me straight.

how about you set yourself straight.

how old am I? and how old are you(this knowledge you present is a complete fabrication)? does age beget wisdom based on number of experiences or rather the insight from any one experience. who cares?

I stated parenting is overrated and it is. that is all

 


Bacchus
Online
Joined: Dec 8 2003

quizzical wrote:

ryanw @ post #17

why do you think you have the right to have expectations on what and who posts in this thread?

why do you think this thread is about valueless or valuefull parenting?

why do you get to decide what is valuefull or valueless parenting?

------

i see the title as obvious the fathers of children don't want them or the mothers would'nt surrender the children to the state

Umm  the OP is about women who dont want children in the first place. Nothing about the fathers not wanting them so the moms are forced to dump the kids. Also theres no way that could be the explanation for every dumping, much as you may want it to be


quizzical
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2011

presupposing my thoughts? "much as i want it to"????? wtfay?

 

 outta this thread


Catchfire
Offline
Joined: Apr 16 2003

A reminder to the gentlemen in this thread that this discussion is in the feminism forum, where lecturing women is a serious no-no. So stop, please.


Bacchus
Online
Joined: Dec 8 2003

lecture no, correct sure why not?  I think it would be condescending to do otherwise. I dont correct someone because of their gender but because they are incorrect. Has nothing to do with pro or anti feminist


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Bacchus wrote:

lecture no, correct sure why not?  I think it would be condescending to do otherwise. I dont correct someone because of their gender but because they are incorrect. Has nothing to do with pro or anti feminist

Thanks for that great mansplaining.

Cool


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments