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

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.

?

!

Spoiler:

I was totally born on the same day as Victor Hugo

krev82 wrote:

*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.

When neogaf can have a thread discussing having children without either side hurling pejoratives like "selfish" or "cackling monstrosities" at each other, I'm inclined to agree.

Funkenpants wrote:
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.

It seems like you have more of a problem with social welfare programs in general. Seeing as Social Security and Medicare were designed with the intent of keeping the ELDERLY - childless or not - out of poverty, I'm not sure I'm seeing the relevance of bringing it up here, since it's a program that all tax payers take advantage of.

nel e nel wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
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.

It seems like you have more of a problem with social welfare programs in general. Seeing as Social Security and Medicare were designed with the intent of keeping the ELDERLY - childless or not - out of poverty, I'm not sure I'm seeing the relevance of bringing it up here, since it's a program that all tax payers take advantage of.

I think I'm the one who initially brought it up. And my point was simply to agree that societies have a history of taking care of their elderly. It means different things in different societies and with varying levels of success. In the US that means that one pays into a system like Social Security or Medicare, pays for schools, etc. with the understanding that society will still be around when they need those services, childfree or not.

nel e nel wrote:

It seems like you have more of a problem with social welfare programs in general. Seeing as Social Security and Medicare were designed with the intent of keeping the ELDERLY - childless or not - out of poverty, I'm not sure I'm seeing the relevance of bringing it up here, since it's a program that all tax payers take advantage of.

The reason I brought it up is because someone was talking about having kids to ensure future support. It was relevant, since the decision was made a hundred years ago to broaden the cost of caring for people who can't work for themselves - elderly or infirm workers - from families of those workers to society as a whole. It wasn't a bad decision, but anytime you shift financial burdens around, someone is going to pay more than they would have under the old system, and someone is going to pay less.

(I also posted that before it was made clear that this is a thread strictly dedicated to beefs about the burdens of being child-free, and I'm happy to leave the topic alone.).

Funkenpants wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

It seems like you have more of a problem with social welfare programs in general. Seeing as Social Security and Medicare were designed with the intent of keeping the ELDERLY - childless or not - out of poverty, I'm not sure I'm seeing the relevance of bringing it up here, since it's a program that all tax payers take advantage of.

The reason I brought it up is because someone was talking about having kids to ensure future support. It was relevant, since the decision was made a hundred years ago to broaden the cost of caring for people who can't work for themselves - elderly or infirm workers - from families of those workers to society as a whole. It wasn't a bad decision, but anytime you shift financial burdens around, someone is going to pay more than they would have under the old system, and someone is going to pay less.

(I also posted that before it was made clear that this is a thread strictly dedicated to beefs about the burdens of being child-free, and I'm happy to leave the topic alone.).

To be fair, the first post of the thread made it clear that this is a thread dedicated to beefs about the burdens of being child-free

Tanglebones wrote:

To be fair, the first post of the thread made it clear that this is a thread dedicated to beefs about the burdens of being child-free

Coming in late I was confused by the thread title and first post, which is posed in the form of a question and implies that people who are comfortably "out" would be a part of the discussion.

Tanglebones wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

It seems like you have more of a problem with social welfare programs in general. Seeing as Social Security and Medicare were designed with the intent of keeping the ELDERLY - childless or not - out of poverty, I'm not sure I'm seeing the relevance of bringing it up here, since it's a program that all tax payers take advantage of.

The reason I brought it up is because someone was talking about having kids to ensure future support. It was relevant, since the decision was made a hundred years ago to broaden the cost of caring for people who can't work for themselves - elderly or infirm workers - from families of those workers to society as a whole. It wasn't a bad decision, but anytime you shift financial burdens around, someone is going to pay more than they would have under the old system, and someone is going to pay less.

(I also posted that before it was made clear that this is a thread strictly dedicated to beefs about the burdens of being child-free, and I'm happy to leave the topic alone.).

To be fair, the first post of the thread made it clear that this is a thread dedicated to beefs about the burdens of being child-free

[sarcasm] Oh, you mean this is where I can complain about my lack of tax deductions, and what to do with all that free time and fat cash from being DINKs? [/sarcasm]

McIrishJihad wrote:

[sarcasm] Oh, you mean this is where I can complain about my lack of tax deductions, and what to do with all that free time and fat cash from being DINKs? [/sarcasm]

I can't tell if you're joking or just sh*tting on child-free people.

PoderOmega wrote:

Before having chidlren my wife's father passed away.

I have to admit I was confused. I had to reread this sentence several times before I got your meaning. I gave me a small chuckle (though not at your wife's expense).

Although I am not childfree, for many years I thought that I would be which is why this thread is interesting to me. Yes, I am one of those people who changed their minds. Although I am not be qualified to respond in this thread, I'll throw a couple let's get "lets get this back on track" anecdotes out there.

Before we had children my wife's father passed away. Some of her family went so far to tell her that it was so sad that we didn't have children because now her dad would never see them. What a nice thing to say at a funeral.

My brother-in-law and his wife don't want to have children. It causes ongoing annimosity between my mother-in-law and my brother-in-law's wife. Of course my mother-in-law thinks her son wants kids and his wife is just holding him back. I think she's finally come to terms with it but she did play a few squares from the breeder's bingo card. He's the only son so all her grandchildren are without the family name. I'm not sure how significant that is.

Nevin73 wrote:
PoderOmega wrote:

Before having chidlren my wife's father passed away.

I have to admit I was confused. I had to reread this sentence several times before I got your meaning. I gave me a small chuckle (though not at your wife's expense).

Ha.. yeah. I edited it and fixed my typo as well.

NSMike wrote:
McIrishJihad wrote:

[sarcasm] Oh, you mean this is where I can complain about my lack of tax deductions, and what to do with all that free time and fat cash from being DINKs? [/sarcasm]

I can't tell if you're joking or just sh*tting on child-free people.

I am joking, hence the sarcasm tags. I'm just taking Tangle's lean towards hyperbole and running with it.

Everyone should be free to pursue their own happiness, so long as it does not infringe on another person's happiness. There's mud being thrown on both sides of this issue, as we've seen in the last few pages.

I personally see this thread as a refuge for the child-free, to share and commiserate with each other.

Don't worry, Nevin. I got what you meant. Not everyone is so nuanced, though. "Selfish" is on breeder bingo because parents frequently literally mean selfish and forget that being childfree often signs you up to pay for everybody else's kids, taking care of your parents and being the "well off one" that can pick up every tab. Nevermind that you have an SO who you care for every bit as much as you would a child.

In the case of my wife and I part of why we chose to be childfree is because we knew we wouldn't have the energy to take care of another life properly. We have enough of our own issues.

To double back on what started all of this, regarding "The Last of Us"....

Spoiler:

I got teared up at the scene with Tess. So different perspectives and stuff. I'm no unfeeling robot because I'm childfree. Also the young girl reminded me of interacting with my nephews who we adore and put money in a college fund for.

*shrug*

I feel like this got neglected in the little battle that erupted, but I returned to "The Last of Us" and had some new thoughts on this thread based on that.

From the previous post.

me wrote:

To double back on what started all of this, regarding "The Last of Us"....

Spoiler:

I got teared up at the scene with Tess. So different perspectives and stuff. I'm no unfeeling robot because I'm childfree.

Then yesterday I got to another part that was really thought provoking with regards to what Tycho posted.

Spoiler:

You get to a point around Pittsburgh where the relationship between your character and the girl starts to build. She's joking with you, looks at a male nudie mag and they did it, they pulled me in, big time. I felt protective of her "innocence".

Then you see some horrible things and I had an emotion wash over me that was something to the effect of "I want to protect her from even having to experience this". That was really interesting to me. Partly because it gave me a taste of what it must be like to be a parent and partly because it was proof that even as someone who is childfree I can appreciate that emotion.

Not sure if that invalidates my previous annoyance at Tycho's comic or if it reinforces it. I just thought it was interesting and worth discussion since it's on topic.

Little late, since I've been making a point of only updating in long intervals on this thread. Purely source material on Filipino support family structures, should be ignored if you feel it doesn't contribute:

Spoiler:

Filipino families (in general, there are exceptions) are different from modern Western families in that we preserve strong bonds of family - very strong. I can feel exceptionally strong animosity toward my brother, but I won't reveal that to outsiders. Whenever he's on the line, he can expect me to have his back. If he's injured in any way, I will fly around the world twice to get to him. If he becomes disabled and unable to work, he can expect me to support him indefinitely. When we say "the family is the most basic sociopolitical unit," we mean it very literally.

I have 3 siblings, one of which is still single. Many of my friends choose to be childless or childfree, as you prefer. There's a strong current of "they only have to live for themselves so they have it easy," but that only applies to people who are both childfree and are essentially living college lives - supporting no one but themselves.

My aunt is childfree, but that was partly because she was the youngest of her brood and she was expected to stay at home and care for her mother until either of them died - a duty that she executed dutifully and cheerfully. We support her extensively with money, land, anything she needs or wants. She is part of our family. She can live with any of us indefinitely and we will support and care for her, just as she did for our grandmother. She is currently unemployed. We do not and have never viewed her as living only for herself. Hers was a giving existence, and everyone acknowledges it both implicitly and explicitly.

Many people live similar lives around where I live. They remain single or married but childless, because their resources are going into support of people other than themselves. We're talking the usual cut "parents" pay - something like 70 to 90% of your net income goes into the household on a daily basis. We do not view them as selfish at all.

I am currently the "breadwinner" (but not the sole authority) of our little household. My wife manages and takes care of everything but earning money, as is traditional. I defer to her authority on all matters not relating to my profession (including assignment of household chores).

We are capable of supporting one other person in our household, possibly two. We have made arrangements seeing to potential health issues for our parents. If they become disabled, we will have to care for them, as no one else will and our government systems are... lacking. My siblings and I constantly talk about contingency support and rescue plans amongst ourselves this way - this includes the currently single one. We also regularly give them money and goods now as they are retired and have no truly reliable means of income.

My children do not have time to indulge in a protected existence. If we all die, they will have to fend for themselves amidst a environment filled with things that would horrify many folks here. In 30 years, they will take on the mantle I now bear.

As I am finding out this past month, there is a lot that our laws in the US will not allow a child to do for parents. Often for the truly helpful assistance a child needs a power of attorney or a court order from the parent to assist in medical decisions as an example.

In the Philippines, how is that process Larry? Say if your parents or wife's parents took ill, or if they no longer had the faculties to administer their own bills and such?

The start differences between Western European individualism and what I see in Asia, the Mid East as a family unit focus intrigues me.

In general, the family unit (it would make more sense to translate this as "household") is the key governing element. Members of a household do not have to be related by blood, so long as they can show proof of common residence and/or common interest. Just two weeks ago, my brother's mother-in-law nearly got run over by a train and, having no immediate family, I was called to monitor her status and act as her medical advocate at the request of my sister-in-law until more immediate family could arrive.

In that function, I relayed and interpreted medical data I received on her status to her overseas immediate family and then executed such of their wishes as they communicated to me. I maintained this function until more immediate family was on hand and I was no longer needed. My position as a medical professional facilitated this immensely, but I would not have acted in that function without the tacit approval of their/our family. The consequences would be dire otherwise.

So. This is all mediated through the household or clan ("family" in the Philippine Family Code) as a traditional sociopolitical entity. So long as you can demonstrate that you are acting on behalf of someone's clan, you can exercise broad powers over medical decisions and pay for bills so long as it does not contradict with the wishes of the patient. I suppose it is possible to impersonate such a person, but since actual household/clan members communicate and coordinate closely, you will get found out sooner rather than later, and both legal and traditional repercussions can be... very severe.

Hope that was helpful.

In the context of this thread, childfree members of households often act as "administration." People with children are often charged with the care of the household young as a priority, so extraordinary concerns such as flying abroad for various reasons (including retrieving bodies or acting as medical advocates) often falls to the childfree.

Time wrote an article.

She discusses the immense social pressure to have kids, and some of the upsides for those who resist that pressure. For starters, the financial upsides. Consider “the sheer economic cost of raising a child — for a child born in 2011, an average of $234,900 until age 18, according to the USDA, and $390,000 if your household earns over $100,000.” And the cost of taking time off from work to raise kids: “The opportunity costs for an American woman who gets off the career track could average as high as $1 million in lost salary, lost promotions and so on, economist Bryan Caplan says.”

The other day Yellek was grocery shopping and as she was putting groceries into her van, a woman in the next spot over doing the same said, "It's amazing how much they eat!"

I'm assuming the woman didnt mean our cats.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

The other day Yellek was grocery shopping and as she was putting groceries into her van, a woman in the next spot over doing the same said, "It's amazing how much they eat!"

I'm assuming the woman didnt mean our cats.

QS, we've been meaning to tell you; you are becoming a little chunky. Go put that new weight bench to work.