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

Wait, is this thread about why video games are better than kids? Cause they are. Unless it is kids who play video games. Then they are all right.

EDIT: I just realized I wandered into the P&C forum. Jeebus, I hope I have protection.

Strangeblades wrote:

I had my boys stabbed with two needles, my scrotum cut open with a scalpel, some reproductive tubes seared with an electric cooking device followed by my boy bag sown up with coarse black thread. They didn't even ask me any questions.

...It was the worst job interview ever.

I am not going to have a kid. The world doesn't need 'em and I do not like 'em. Keep that crap away from me.

Dragonfly wrote:
Strangeblades wrote:

I had my boys stabbed with two needles, my scrotum cut open with a scalpel, some reproductive tubes seared with an electric cooking device followed by my boy bag sown up with coarse black thread. They didn't even ask me any questions.

...It was the worst job interview ever.

ha ha ha ha, man that was good. The joke I mean. The vasectomy, eh, not so much.

KingGorilla wrote:

I had my vasectomy yesterday. It was a fairly neutral experience. Lidocaine is the worst part. My wife was in the room, so she got to see parts of my giblets while all I saw was the ceiling. Like any attention whore with a heart of comedy, I joked all through it. I do not suggest this tactic as making the guy holding a knife to your boys laugh would be a had end. My insurance covered 100%, I walked out without even paying the fee for an office call.

Oddly enough, the day before my good friend Jon (not Jonman) had his first son born.

It's like the bro version of Lightning Crashes.

KingGorilla wrote:

I had my vasectomy yesterday. It was a fairly neutral experience. Lidocaine is the worst part. My wife was in the room, so she got to see parts of my giblets while all I saw was the ceiling. Like any attention whore with a heart of comedy, I joked all through it. I do not suggest this tactic as making the guy holding a knife to your boys laugh would be a had end. My insurance covered 100%, I walked out without even paying the fee for an office call.

Oddly enough, the day before my good friend Jon (not Jonman) had his first son born.

One of us.

I had my vasectomy yesterday. It was a fairly neutral experience. Lidocaine is the worst part. My wife was in the room, so she got to see parts of my giblets while all I saw was the ceiling. Like any attention whore with a heart of comedy, I joked all through it. I do not suggest this tactic as making the guy holding a knife to your boys laugh would be a had end. My insurance covered 100%, I walked out without even paying the fee for an office call.

Oddly enough, the day before my good friend Jon (not Jonman) had his first son born.

I mentioned this to my wife. I knew at about 14 or 15 that I did not want kids. I just consider it as a part of coming to terms with my own sexual identity.

Congrats on the procedure KG.

On the thread topic; I'm starting to find more people taking a stance of disbelief about my cf-dom, from "oh you never know" type stuff all the way down to refusing to believe cf people could possibly exist. There seems to be an unending assumption, even with the doctors I had to clear/convince to get snipped, that one day I'll meet the "right" person and magically want to make babies with them.

It reminds me of sharing atheism with people and the whole 'you must believe in SOMETHING' kind of thinking, they just can't imagine things being otherwise (or they can but choose to pretend they can not). There are a few things about me that seem to fall into this category and invoke this kind of reaction from people now. Though I don't feel at threat of violence for any of them it does create a very odd state in one's mind when those around you largely can't or wont believe facts about who you are. I think it discourages sharing one's true self, and hey not everyone needs to know these things, but at the same time we all want to feel safe and comfortable being who we and not have to worry about hiding things away.

KingGorilla wrote:

I had my vasectomy yesterday. It was a fairly neutral experience. Lidocaine is the worst part. My wife was in the room, so she got to see parts of my giblets while all I saw was the ceiling. Like any attention whore with a heart of comedy, I joked all through it. I do not suggest this tactic as making the guy holding a knife to your boys laugh would be a had end. My insurance covered 100%, I walked out without even paying the fee for an office call.

That's roughly how it went for me. The afterwords is more painful, but doesn't last long. The peace of mind is amazing.

KingGorilla wrote:

I mentioned this to my wife. I knew at about 14 or 15 that I did not want kids. I just consider it as a part of coming to terms with my own sexual identity.

I never thought of it that way before. My wife and I also knew we didn't want kids from early on. Coming to grips with that and convincing our relatives to back off was the hard part.

An odd coincidence krev, that is also the precise age that I really began to drift away from Church.

On my ill fated business trip, I was traveling with a young woman with our clinic. She is getting married next year, I have been married for a few months now, living with my wife fora good bit longer. The conversation became truncated when she pointed out a little boy being led off of a flight, and asked me if I honestly wanted nothing to do with that. I said, I would prefer to have Italian Sport's Cars, a nice house, and unlimited time with my wife.

She is planning on kids, possibly while in law school. I wanted to inform her of some of the major hardships she is foisting on herself by that choice. Firms are leery enough at hiring young women, at all, let alone young women who have babies, or are in the baby making mindset. She is going to have a very tough road ahead of her.

My personal view has always been rather simple. It is damn tough to be a good trial lawyer and a good father/mother. It is tough to be a career person, and a parent period (business, medicine, etc.) And demanding fields are very reluctant to hire in young women who they suspect will be having kids are know are having kids.

What would you do as a litigant, if your attorney had to take 4-6 weeks off of your case to be on maternity leave?

KingGorilla wrote:

What would you do as a litigant, if your attorney had to take 4-6 weeks off of your case to be on maternity leave?

The same thing I would do if my attorney took 4-6 weeks off to be on paternity leave.

(I know it's not intentional, but I thought it would be a good idea to point out the "men can be parents without taking time off work, but women can't" implicit in how you're stating things. Also connected to some peoples' assumptions that while it's weird for men to be child-free, in women it's unnatural.)

I think it's important to keep in mind that child-free is not anti-child. We can respect the decisions of others to have children; we can even consider their cause to be our cause even if we're never going to have children.

It's a tough choice when our ideology comes into conflict with our pragmatic concerns, but I think it's important to be honest about it all. If I find out my attorney stays in shape by rock climbing as opposed to using, like, the elliptical in a nice safe gym, does the idea that he might be out 4-6 weeks with a sports injury factor into my decision? If all the other lifestyle choices that could take someone out of action don't play a role in my decisions, I've got to think long and hard about whether I should let something like parenthood play a factor.

I mean, it kinda opens the door to some really ugly considerations. Should I choose a male attorney over a female one if I think the court might be sexist? A white attorney over a black one if I think they might be racist? A single attorney over one in a relationship because they could be involved in a messy break up? Should I reject a disabled attorney who might take a turn for the worse? An elderly one who might fall and break a hip? An attorney who has caretaking duties towards a parent or an adult sibling?

Everyone knows that lawyers aren't really human. By that token, the fewer human characteristics your attorney exhibits, the better.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Everyone knows that lawyers aren't really human. By that token, the fewer human characteristics your attorney exhibits, the better. ;)

Probably explains the Devil's Advocates.

Hypatian wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

What would you do as a litigant, if your attorney had to take 4-6 weeks off of your case to be on maternity leave?

The same thing I would do if my attorney took 4-6 weeks off to be on paternity leave.

(I know it's not intentional, but I thought it would be a good idea to point out the "men can be parents without taking time off work, but women can't" implicit in how you're stating things. Also connected to some peoples' assumptions that while it's weird for men to be child-free, in women it's unnatural.)

Sure, we can make it gender equal, but the answer to KG's question remains fire the sh*t out of him/her and consider a civil case against that particular attorney. He's absolutely right that the reality of the life of an attorney is not compatible with that type of absence.

CheezePavilion wrote:

I think it's important to keep in mind that child-free is not anti-child.

While child-free doesn't equal anti-child I for one am certainly anti-bad parenting. Every child has *those* days, it happens. It's the ones who willfully ignore bad behavior or straight up encourage it. Such as when a parent encourages a child to make a mess simply because "that person (the waitress) has to clean it up, you don't have to be nice to them". I think that people who muddy the waters on this issue tend to label every child-free person as an anti-child person.

Seth wrote:
Hypatian wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

What would you do as a litigant, if your attorney had to take 4-6 weeks off of your case to be on maternity leave?

The same thing I would do if my attorney took 4-6 weeks off to be on paternity leave.

(I know it's not intentional, but I thought it would be a good idea to point out the "men can be parents without taking time off work, but women can't" implicit in how you're stating things. Also connected to some peoples' assumptions that while it's weird for men to be child-free, in women it's unnatural.)

Sure, we can make it gender equal, but the answer to KG's question remains fire the sh*t out of him/her and consider a civil case against that particular attorney. He's absolutely right that the reality of the life of an attorney is not compatible with that type of absence.

How is an attorney any different from many other professions that involve working on projects over long time periods? I could make the same point that as an engineer, it would be troubling for me to be away for 6 weeks when a major milestone or deliverable is due in that period.

I mean, it's not like you don't see maternity/paternity leave coming a good 7 or 8 months ahead of time, right? You plan accordingly for it, and if the law practice you work at isn't capable of working around major life events, then I would suggest that maybe that's a sh*ttily managed practice, no?

Seth wrote:
Hypatian wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

What would you do as a litigant, if your attorney had to take 4-6 weeks off of your case to be on maternity leave?

The same thing I would do if my attorney took 4-6 weeks off to be on paternity leave.

(I know it's not intentional, but I thought it would be a good idea to point out the "men can be parents without taking time off work, but women can't" implicit in how you're stating things. Also connected to some peoples' assumptions that while it's weird for men to be child-free, in women it's unnatural.)

Sure, we can make it gender equal, but the answer to KG's question remains fire the sh*t out of him/her and consider a civil case against that particular attorney. He's absolutely right that the reality of the life of an attorney is not compatible with that type of absence.

I don't wat to derail this much but this is a pretty crazy scenario. Anyone about to have a child will certainly know enough in advance that it won't be a surprise. Not to mention it will happen on average a maximum two or three times in a lifetime. It's on par with saying you should not become a working professional because sometime in your life you might take a few week vacation.

True professionals are capable of planning and communicating regardless of this circumstance.

Jonman wrote:

How is an attorney any different from many other professions that involve working on projects over long time periods? I could make the same point that as an engineer, it would be troubling for me to be away for 6 weeks when a major milestone or deliverable is due in that period.

I mean, it's not like you don't see maternity/paternity leave coming a good 7 or 8 months ahead of time, right? You plan accordingly for it, and if the law practice you work at isn't capable of working around major life events, then I would suggest that maybe that's a sh*ttily managed practice, no?

From my perspective, it's apples and oranges. An engineer takes 6 weeks off, and what happens? a bridge gets delayed, or Intel's new chipset doesn't make it into the 3rd quarter's financials. That engineer can't even get fired, thanks to FMLA. A lawyer drops a criminal case mid-swing? Worst case scenario, someone innocent gets executed.

I do agree with your second point that it's likely something that could be scheduled around. At the time same, anecdata suggests that many times, the choice to take leave -- or, more often, to extend it -- is often a sudden one.

Edit -- as someone who is employing a law firm at this moment (for a financial matter), you can rest assured a 6 week absence for any reason would result in a civil matter to recoup fees and time lost.

Seth wrote:
Jonman wrote:

How is an attorney any different from many other professions that involve working on projects over long time periods? I could make the same point that as an engineer, it would be troubling for me to be away for 6 weeks when a major milestone or deliverable is due in that period.

I mean, it's not like you don't see maternity/paternity leave coming a good 7 or 8 months ahead of time, right? You plan accordingly for it, and if the law practice you work at isn't capable of working around major life events, then I would suggest that maybe that's a sh*ttily managed practice, no?

From my perspective, it's apples and oranges. An engineer takes 6 weeks off, and what happens? a bridge gets delayed, or Intel's new chipset doesn't make it into the 3rd quarter's financials. That engineer can't even get fired, thanks to FMLA. A lawyer drops a criminal case mid-swing? Worst case scenario, someone innocent gets executed.

I do agree with your second point that it's likely something that could be scheduled around. At the time same, anecdata suggests that many times, the choice to take leave -- or, more often, to extend it -- is often a sudden one.

Edit -- as someone who is employing a law firm at this moment (for a financial matter), you can rest assured a 6 week absence for any reason would result in a civil matter to recoup fees and time lost.

Well in my case, worst case scenario is an airplane crashes and a bunch of people die, so your apples to oranges comparison is a little less jarring.

Is the issue that in the legal world, an attorney is solo'ing the quest, so if he/she isn't there, then it doesn't get done? I mean, when one of my colleagues is away for weeks at a time, the rest of us rally around and get his/her work done in their absence.

So what happens when attorneys fall suddenly and seriously ill? I mean, sh*t happens, it's life. Do they get sued then?

The professions are very different. It would be more akin to writing a book, or a new story.

An attorney in case, particularly a lengthy litigation is forming bonds and relationships, their mind is going into strategy, coaching witnesses, planning arguments, planning for contingencies. In much the same way a writer is creating characters, a plot, a story line. It is like JK Rowling taking a few months off of writing Harry Potter, to let Stephen King take over for awhile. King has no connection with the people, the events, the world.

And it is wildly unfair to the attorney who takes over to have to get up to speed fast, balance their existing load.

A court case is not a house where anyone who can swing a hammer can come into it half-way through and start erecting walls. It is not an assembly line, where any person can pop in to turn a wrench on a car door.

And what has to happen is: The new attorney has to take time and effort, that cannot be billed, to get up to speed. All the while a firm is paying them overtime. Or if the practice is small, nothing. While still shouldering their own case load.

An attorney must work in conjunction with the pregnant woman, all through. 2 attorneys on 1 case, where there should be 1, so the earning is halved.

Or the firm takes the female attorney off of active cases. Meaning they are paid the same rate, are doing mostly office work.

And what separates this, unlike all the devil's advocate gender neutering is that pregnancy and having children is a 9 month planning stage, or a planned event entirely. A birth is not an all of the sudden happening, like a car crash.

I think KG's point is stronger than mine, but to answer the question: I would certainly explore litigation to recoup time lost and fees if my counselor fell suddenly and extremely ill. I assume my team's insurance policy covers that.

Not sure how it would work in a criminal matter where someone's freedom were at stake.

I'm trying desperately to find a way to read this as anything but sexist but I can't. Perhaps I'm missing something?

I'm speaking not to the idea that Seth is discussing that if someone doesn't do the job they should be held accountable but to the very idea that a woman who might have kids (I'm still not sure why a father who might have kids is absolved in this scenario as a new child in the house goes through a lot of life changes too) is on the verge of being disqualified from the profession?

If someone is diagnosed with cancer does that preclude them from working in your scenario too as it might affect their performance in a few months?

plavonica wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

I think it's important to keep in mind that child-free is not anti-child.

While child-free doesn't equal anti-child I for one am certainly anti-bad parenting. Every child has *those* days, it happens. It's the ones who willfully ignore bad behavior or straight up encourage it. Such as when a parent encourages a child to make a mess simply because "that person (the waitress) has to clean it up, you don't have to be nice to them". I think that people who muddy the waters on this issue tend to label every child-free person as an anti-child person.

Sure, but that doesn't seem very relevant to the context (not to mention that's just bad humaning: you shouldn't be encouraging that behavior in anyone, whatever their age or your relationship to them)--I'm not sure what you're looking for in terms of a response. My point was that just because we're child free, that doesn't mean we should take advantage of every benefit that comes from that. Even if we're not going to have kids, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be allies to families with children.

Rahmen wrote:

I'm trying desperately to find a way to read this as anything but sexist but I can't. Perhaps I'm missing something?

It's that it's started as a question about what you would do as a litigant, and now it's just all over the place. It's not really arguing a point as much as throwing a kitchen sink of points at the argument and seeing what happens.

I think calling it a kitchen sink is semantics. I prefer to call it danger zone.

IMAGE(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/23970718.jpg)

Congratulations, KingGorilla, and I hope your recovery is a super-fast one!

Sexism around one's parenthood status is really nothing new in many career fields. It's terrible and offensive, but real. While one is not supposed to ask the childed status of an applicant, as a woman, I've seen and heard how this can be done on the sly. And I've also been advised to volunteer my CF status in some small way during an interview. Because there are a number of employers who fear hiring women who may soon become pregnant, take maternity leave, and then not return.

I've known at least two career-loving women (one a co-worker) who were determined to return after their maternity leave, but who never did, instead deciding to become stay-at-home-moms. It's a messed up double-standard, too... many want to stay home, but can't afford to... and childcare is hugely expensive. If moms work, they get judged by SAHM's, and if they don't, they're given grief by some feminists. And if you're a wife without kids who wants to stay home and be a homemaker, forget it, you're the 'furries' of the Western women's world... ^^;

So this weekend, we went to a birthday party. Dinner was lovely, it was in mexicantown. Mexican is not in my top 5 foods, but this area is super authentic.

My wife and I got to sit across from the just married couple with the 3 months old daughter. The kid was cute, and well behaved and all that jazz(even though the parents kept over-feeding her and then bouncing her around, so she kept puking).

But man do new mothers get kind of uppity and bitchy when they find out a newly married couple has no eyes on having children.

My wife and I are learning to avoid some of these quagmires. I think in the future we will just stuff a pillow over her stomach.

1. Never mention to the newly childed(TM) couple that there is a career that takes up a lot of time.
2. That goes double for women telling new mothers this. Triple for stay at home mothers. (You may not judge, we do not judge, or care; but apparently some people do care about what other people do with their lives).
3. The recently engaged are almost as bad, because they have the grand plans of white picket fences and cherubic babies that you are ignoring.
4. No matter what happens, my own [your own] life choices if different from anyone else are immediately foreign and inferior. If the other drives a Ford, and you drive a Toyota, your choice in Toyota is different and must be shown to be wrong. If your choice is a Nissan 370z, you are an asshole. See the gay marriage thread for more sterling examples.

But I am starting to really understand why parents start to really lose touch with their single and non childed friends. And Visa Versa.

I am just getting kind of fed up with parents thinking we are judging them and getting uppity about a phantom prejudice.

Yeah. That's why being childfree is often lonely. You can have 99% in common with a friend and that 1 thing can be the difference between them calling you or deciding you don't fit in their lives. I've seen it all too frequently. Thankfully I have a few really close friends who "get it" and still make time for me or my wife and I in spite of that difference.

KingGorilla wrote:

It is like JK Rowling taking a few months off of writing Harry Potter, to let Stephen King take over for awhile.

Quick aside: I would totally read that book. Just to see WTF he comes up with.

plavonica wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

It is like JK Rowling taking a few months off of writing Harry Potter, to let Stephen King take over for awhile.

Quick aside: I would totally read that book. Just to see WTF he comes up with.

You don't remember the Golden Snitches in the Dark Tower V: Wolves of the Calla?