Fellow Child-free folk - Let's Chat: Do you feel it is risky being "out" these days?

The "Who will take care of you when you get old" weirds me out. 1. Are you anticipating financially supporting your parents in the event that they suffer from Dementia? And 2. How selfish is it to expect another human being to do that to you?

I am planning on having disability insurance, life insurance, and the health insurance capable of placing me in a pleasant assisted living facility. If my investments really pan out, perhaps 24 hour care at home. My wife's aunt and uncle care for her invalid grandmother and it is supremely sad. They are not healthcare professionals and are not helping her. Do you want your kids bathing you, changing your diapers, feeding you if things get really bad?

Seems like a long of anger over just an article where a guy says some games affect him differently now that he's had a kid.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Seems like a long of anger over just an article where a guy says some games affect him differently now that he's had a kid.

If you go back to the first comments there was no anger that I could discern. This is what we're used to seeing. The "anger" if you want to call it that was after parents became defensive in the childfree thread. #irony.

This was how I vented my "anger".

DSGamer wrote:
mudbunny wrote:
Wembley wrote:

I'm confused. What relevance does that article have here?

Apparently a father saying that some games these days have more of an impact on him because his fatherhood has provided developers an additional button to push is somehow saying bad things about childless couples.

Wrong. Parents often talk as if parenthood gives them a level of perspective and empathy that the childfree or childless simply couldn't comprehend. It's a bit condescending. I didn't take offense to the article, but it's relevant. It's so common, though, that I don't bat an eyelash, honestly. GWJ alone has posted a dozen+ front page articles in this vein so it's nothing new.

Gravey wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

There are innumerable reasons why being childfree can actually be the selfless choice. That's why saying we "live for ourself" rubs us the wrong way.

Genetically speaking, having a kid is the most selfish thing you can possibly do.

OG wins the thread. Decisive victory.

If by win a thread, you mean use the word that he's been a stickler over (rightly so) against someone else, expecting that this will go better when he uses it compared to when someone else doesn't use it directly... yeah, big win. *eye roll*

Besides, having yourself cloned is more selfish than sharing DNA with a partner. And for adoptive parents, having a kid doesn't involve DNA at all.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Seems like a long of anger over just an article where a guy says some games affect him differently now that he's had a kid.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Seems like a long of anger over just an article where a guy says some games affect him differently now that he's had a kid.

Don't you batsplain at us.

Demosthenes wrote:
Gravey wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

There are innumerable reasons why being childfree can actually be the selfless choice. That's why saying we "live for ourself" rubs us the wrong way.

Genetically speaking, having a kid is the most selfish thing you can possibly do.

OG wins the thread. Decisive victory.

If by win a thread, you mean use the word that he's been a stickler over (rightly so) against someone else, expecting that this will go better when he uses it compared to when someone else doesn't use it directly... yeah, big win. *eye roll*

I just mean I really like both the book The Selfish Gene, and ironic humour.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Seems like a long of anger over just an article where a guy says some games affect him differently now that he's had a kid.

Don't you batsplain at us.

You're the one who let Jason Todd die.

Childfree != single

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

Seems like a long of anger over just an article where a guy says some games affect him differently now that he's had a kid.

Don't you batsplain at us.

You're the one who let Jason Todd die.

Wasn't my kid.

clover wrote:

Childfree != single

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/SOON_zps30c4b8a5.jpg)

I never said and did not mean selfish. I did not expect, nor intend for anyone to be offended by my post. I was merely expressing the changes in thought that I went through when we adopted our son. By the way, none of my DNA in him, which puts to rest any claims that I was being selfish in becoming a parent...if you really want to push that angle, I can share some stories.

I want to use a simple example to clarify my "live for yourself" comment:

You have a bit of milk left in a gallon carton. Going to the store isn't convienent tonight.

As a childfree, single person, you drink the milk you have and move on with your evening.

As a person in a relationship, you may pour milk for yourself, or (if you're thoughtful) pour it for your significant other to be nice. Or you might even share what's left.

As a good parent, you give it to your child first. You don't think about how much you would like a glass of milk with dinner. There might even be enough milk for two glasses, but wait, you realize your child needs milk with their morning cereal. So in this situation, my wife and I drink water, my son drinks milk with dinner and with his morning cereal, and we buy milk the next day. As a good parent, your child's best interest must come first for healthy physical and emotional development.

Parents are not intrinsically better than non-parents. Sprouting out kids doesn't give you a glub-given right to look down on others. But to be a good parent, you need to shift your thinking. Your wants and needs, even survival, become secondary. It was hard for my wife and I to do. I imagine it is hard for any parent.

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that as a parent or guardian you SHOULD refocus your priorities, the emphasis however is on good parent and noting how few of them are.

Then supposing one is a good parent and does shift their behavior and thinking accordingly... well, ***NSFW Language Chris Rock ***, that's what you're supposed to do.

KingGorilla wrote:

The "Who will take care of you when you get old" weirds me out. 1. Are you anticipating financially supporting your parents in the event that they suffer from Dementia? And 2. How selfish is it to expect another human being to do that to you?

In some cultures that is exactly how it works. The children take care of the parents when they get old. I've heard this about China and I know first hand that some Filipino families think this way. I think it has allot to do with the way the country a family lives in supports the elderly (as in, lack of any safety net or social security like programs). Do I think having kids is a better strategy than a 401k or insurance? Absolutely not.

Another aspect is just the fear of growing old and alone. Your spouse, parents, and siblings (if you have any of these people) will start to slip away as you get older. It isn't really fair to use your kid as loneliness insurance but I can see the fear.

Yeah. That's a weird reason to have a kid, but I get the sentiment. My wife and I know that unless our nephews think we're the bomb we'll be alone in old age. And even then we'll probably be alone. All we can do is plan and save as best as we can.

I think it's important to point out that even if childfree don't explicitly have kids taking care of them the social construct is till implicitly this. We pay taxes with the expectation that by the time we're old society will still exist and there will be trained doctors, nurses and maybe a functioning retirement system. That won't be staffed and paid for by people our age.

That is kind of a lot of pressure to put on a zygote or an infant, no? You have 30-40 years to become enough of an earner to support me when I get decrepit either to stop working yourself to care for me or to pay for my care.

Anyone here, capable of doing that right now?

KingGorilla wrote:

That is kind of a lot of pressure to put on a zygote or an infant, no? You have 30-40 years to become enough of an earner to support me when I get decrepit either to stop working yourself to care for me or to pay for my care.

Anyone here, capable of doing that right now?

Dude. I moved 8000 miles from my aging mother to get the life that is right for *me*. I certainly expect my children to do the same if that's what works for them.

To that end, I've been squirreling as much as I can afford into retirement savings.

I think the whole 'have a kid just to have someone to take care of you in old age' is a bit reductive, especially when you consider it within a historical context. It's not just that a few countries here and there did this kind of thing, it's that it was historically the way family units were for generations.

Mobility as we know it today was not as common. It was very common for 3 generations of a family to be living under one roof, or in the hut/house next door. So it's not that it was 'expected' that the grandparents would be taken care of, they just were because that's the way things were. It was rare for people to move away from their neighborhoods, let alone their hometown or state.

Social Security as we know it today (in the US) has only been around since 1935, so it's barely even 100 years old. There are probably people alive today who remember when it didn't exist.

There's the adage that when we become old we become like babies again, needing help with everyday tasks. They also say it takes a village to raise a child. So maybe the thinking was that it takes a village to care for the elderly? I dunno, just spitballin on this last part.

KingGorilla wrote:

That is kind of a lot of pressure to put on a zygote or an infant, no? You have 30-40 years to become enough of an earner to support me when I get decrepit either to stop working yourself to care for me or to pay for my care.

We do that to an extent through social security and medicare taxes. Orphans are required to subsidize everyone else's parental care even though they never had the benefit of parents and would not have to support any old people at all in a libertarian society.

Orphans aren't entitled to social security and medicare?

nel e nel wrote:

Orphans aren't entitled to social security and medicare?

If they live that long and the programs exist when they meet the age requirements, sure. And at that point their children and other orphans will be forced to take care of them via taxation.

I thought orphans were supposed to be placed in black ops training programs to become elite government assassins?

Quintin_Stone wrote:

I thought orphans were supposed to be placed in black ops training programs to become elite government assassins?

Only the super-hot ones.

I guess I should get rid of my four kids. Must be right up their with those "20 kids and counting" people on the selfishness scale.

MacBrave wrote:

I guess I should get rid of my four kids. Must be right up their with those "20 kids and counting" people on the selfishness scale.

The non-Childfree taking umbrage and dropping monocles at the comments of Childfree is pretty amusing to me.

Can we go back to this thread being a safe place for childfree Goodjers? Or at least make it an honest dialogue rather than snarky bs?

Imagine if any of our childfree members had gone to the self-indulgent parent thread or any of the new baby threads and started something similar to what seems to keep happening here - there would be hell to pay, why should the other direction be okay?

*edit* Sorry, it's just that I've seen where this road goes many times and it's never pleasant for anyone, I think we can do better here at GWJ.

krev82 wrote:

Can we go back to this thread being a safe place for childfree Goodjers? Or at least make it an honest dialogue rather than snarky bs?

IMAGE(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8b9dyTBQC1qzg708.jpg)

The thing that kills me is that society caters to parents like nobody's business. Tax deductions, services paid for by taxes we pay but never use and on and on. Asking for a thread on GWJ doesn't seem like a lot. I'll keep voting "yes" on your school bonds and keep raising my own taxes if you'll let us have a thread where it's safe-ish to share opinions.

Hath not the child free eyes?
Hath not a child free person hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a parent is?
If you prick us, do we not bleed...and then gripe about that child screaming at Denny's?
If you tickle us, do we not laugh...and then politely ask through clenched teeth that your cackling monstrosity cease kicking my airline seat?
If you poison us do we not die...and then go to a heaven without cherubs?
And if your little bastard wrongs us will we not go onto a web forum to semi anonymously vent about it?
If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.

Wikipedia helped, but I remembered a lot.