That sentiment was thrust onto me when I was very young, that children are leeches and parasites. It is the one thing I've learned growing up in my household and from observing other families.BiscuitTrouser said:
Anti-Child Society
- Thread starter The Lesbian Flower
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That's one of the most poignant and beautiful things I've ever heard anyone say about having children. It's how I felt without knowing how to put words to it. Thank you.Vanguard_Ex said:
Aww why thank you! Funnily enough I was afraid that I hadn't quite put it into the right words. I'm glad that one person found some nice meaning in it though.Catie Caraco said:
I find it extremely unnerving that so many teenagers and young adults have such hatred and lack of empathy for something that they themselves were only a decade or so ago.
From a societal standpoint, lower birthrates isn't a good thing at all. "Overpopulation" is a juvenile way of looking at the issue. An aging population, where a minority of young people are forced to support a majority of retirees, is a bad thing.
From a societal standpoint, lower birthrates isn't a good thing at all. "Overpopulation" is a juvenile way of looking at the issue. An aging population, where a minority of young people are forced to support a majority of retirees, is a bad thing.
Guy, not for nothing but somebody who has to be supported by society because he's too much of a danger to it really shouldn't be calling anything a nuisance.The7Sins said:
So, parents aren't allowed to experience that sort of luxury? Children aren't allowed try classier things and learn how to behave in that sort of situation? Your logic seems really flawed, you're creating a class system that puts the people who are in charge of raising the future in the lower class. That's just stupid.brandon237 said:
it's more idiotic than that. It would mean that future children would hate his "first" class restaurants and they go bankrupt. Then when he is 80; he can rail about the good old days about how there was something other than fast food and denny's.Catie Caraco said:
Really, the population is declining for several reasons.
1) Women are getting more educated. We no longer have as many high-school babies being born at such a young age which usually shoots both the women and the man from ever pursuing a higher education.
2) Women are getting educated. They are getting smarter. So are men. Children are getting smarter too. Education system (believe it or not) is better than it was years ago. Things like sex ed is handled better. Thus less women are having babies. We're also having children later in our lifetimes than before as well.
3) we are also feeling the press of a job market which is constraining our growth. No jobs = no lots of money. It will mean that women are less likely willingly to get pregnant and have kids because they simply can't afford to have a child.
Women won't feel secure with their income with their mates because they probably have barely enough to pay the bills, let alone support more members in the family. Even if they do, the average family size has shrink to 2 children per family.
Women are also getting to make more and more choices in their lives that before they didn't have. Not talking about the United states here, talking like Africa, those 3rd world nations etc where women rights are starting to emerge.
4) Humans will always have slow or fast progression. We will slow down when we need to and speed up when we want to. Right now, I see a down trend of slowing down happening. Our food supply is overstretched, hell if one of our food suppliers got knocked out (country wise), the rest of the world would suffer heavily.
As people get older, we're going to see way more older people than we are used to. like 2-3 generations of old people and less younger people. At least with the stat rates provided from the United Nations. Most of Europe is on a downturn for population. hell even china is looking at reducing it's population by 60% within a few generations. China has about a billion people.
That;s interesting that birth rates are lower. Honestly the reasons I can think of are 1) the idea of having kids is becoming less and less attractive as more and more parents continue to let their kids do whatever they want and 2) children are a financial strain that a lot of people can't afford so they're investing more in contraceptives. What's a few bucks a month for birth control when you could easily spend ten times that amount taking care of a child?
In england it is (was?) possible to end up in a 4 bedroomed house fully furnished for next to nothing by having 6 kids and being a single mother. That and lots of stupid teenagers not having a clue about life getting pregnant and just having the sprogs. Im ....surprised this hasn't caused a boom in birth rates.
This is not a bash at anybody, just stating local observations and whats going on at the borders of the family itself.
This is not a bash at anybody, just stating local observations and whats going on at the borders of the family itself.
I attribute it to increasing concentrations of assholes, at least the proposed "brat bans" anyway.
A good way to look at things. The internet would be a very different place if everyone was like this. The world would be to actually.The_root_of_all_evil said:
The reason that there are these so-called "brats" is because that parents are doing a poor job of raising their children. I would think that in order to make a difference, rather than saying that you'll never have children, it would make more sense to try to instill a sense of good parenting in society.
I think it's rather unfair to say how horrible children are when it's not even their fault. I'm guessing that the author of this post is about 15. I would hate to think that an actual, intelligent adult wrote this.
I think it's rather unfair to say how horrible children are when it's not even their fault. I'm guessing that the author of this post is about 15. I would hate to think that an actual, intelligent adult wrote this.
I believe the declining birth rate is really from only two things, very closely related: firstly, starting in the 1970s, you have women taking jobs alongside their husbands to sustain the American lifestyle. This leaves them, on average, less time to raise their kids. The second thing is that women cannot move up the ladder if they have two or more kids without alienating them. This is especially true in the business world, a popular area for females, where hours can become excruciating. I went to high school near Wall Street, I'm familiar with a lot of the women working there, and specifically among the women with two or more kids, they're either stuck down the ladder (less hours, less pay) or they've not seen their kids as often as society wants them to (again, work hours).
Working mothers can't raise kids effectively, not unless they're working at home or they're working a job with normal hours. There's also a huge dynamic shift from one kid to two kids - raising one child can actually be done without damaging career prospects. It's just much easier, he/she won't get injured so easily, won't have disputes, the relationships are much easier to control. Now, two kids? Three? Five? The dynamic completely changes. They NEED a lot more work put into them. That's where you get the low hours or the full-time babysitter. In the business world, a woman is plain old done moving up the ladder once she has her second kid. It can be done, but her babysitter will know more about her kids than she will. I knew a woman with 4 kids who decided that moving up the ladder was more important than staying with her kids. Her kids didn't turn out well for it.
If we want to raise the birth rate, then we need to lower female employment. We need to encourage them to stay at home. But to afford their staying at home and to sustain our current lifestyle, their husbands need to be paid much more. Then because of our societal freedom, the women would continue getting a side job to make even more money, because we can't discriminate wages based on gender.
Me, I would love to be able to have a stay-at-home wife. I would love to be able to support a house by myself and raise a large family. For some reason, a lot of people think I will have 13 children - almost always exactly 13 children. But with our economy, it would be next to impossible to raise such a large family with only one person paying for everything. And if the wife works, then there's nobody to raise the children. I'm sure lots of people share this.... frustration.
Working mothers can't raise kids effectively, not unless they're working at home or they're working a job with normal hours. There's also a huge dynamic shift from one kid to two kids - raising one child can actually be done without damaging career prospects. It's just much easier, he/she won't get injured so easily, won't have disputes, the relationships are much easier to control. Now, two kids? Three? Five? The dynamic completely changes. They NEED a lot more work put into them. That's where you get the low hours or the full-time babysitter. In the business world, a woman is plain old done moving up the ladder once she has her second kid. It can be done, but her babysitter will know more about her kids than she will. I knew a woman with 4 kids who decided that moving up the ladder was more important than staying with her kids. Her kids didn't turn out well for it.
If we want to raise the birth rate, then we need to lower female employment. We need to encourage them to stay at home. But to afford their staying at home and to sustain our current lifestyle, their husbands need to be paid much more. Then because of our societal freedom, the women would continue getting a side job to make even more money, because we can't discriminate wages based on gender.
Me, I would love to be able to have a stay-at-home wife. I would love to be able to support a house by myself and raise a large family. For some reason, a lot of people think I will have 13 children - almost always exactly 13 children. But with our economy, it would be next to impossible to raise such a large family with only one person paying for everything. And if the wife works, then there's nobody to raise the children. I'm sure lots of people share this.... frustration.
Is it so hard to believe that actual, intelligent adults might not enjoy or like kids? Are adults not the restaurant owners enforcing bans and the airline owners enforcing bans and the one's who are choosing not to have kids?Fbuh said:
The birth rate is down, the mortality rate is lower than world average. What's the beef?
Birth rates: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html
Mortality: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_imrt_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=infant+mortality#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_imrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en
Birth rates: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005067.html
Mortality: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_imrt_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=infant+mortality#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=sp_dyn_imrt_in&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:USA&ifdim=country&hl=en&dl=en
I can honestly understand the desire to not have children, and to an extent, agree with it due to overpopulation (although the issue is more complicated then that), but the attitude behind these brat bans just pisses me off. Aren't there better fucking things you can with your life then worry about children ruining your expensive, indulgent, shallow, pre-packaged, cookie-cutter, tourist experiences?
I'm not saying they should have children, but this just seems like such a stupid non-issue that we shouldn't be concerning ourselves with. Oh no! Some rich person isn't happy with their first class flight and fancy restaurant meal that most people don't have the money to enjoy, because of some noisy kids, this is a problem! No, fuck them. Businesses will cater to those people, because they have money, that's just their nature, and we shouldn't expect otherwise. This isn't really an issue, it's a bi-product. Life expectancy, healthcare, and sustainability are issues, and bear relation to this whole 'anti-child' thing. Children on airplanes are not. Sure, those former things are arguably the products at larger things at work as well, but at least they are digging much deeper.
I'm not saying they should have children, but this just seems like such a stupid non-issue that we shouldn't be concerning ourselves with. Oh no! Some rich person isn't happy with their first class flight and fancy restaurant meal that most people don't have the money to enjoy, because of some noisy kids, this is a problem! No, fuck them. Businesses will cater to those people, because they have money, that's just their nature, and we shouldn't expect otherwise. This isn't really an issue, it's a bi-product. Life expectancy, healthcare, and sustainability are issues, and bear relation to this whole 'anti-child' thing. Children on airplanes are not. Sure, those former things are arguably the products at larger things at work as well, but at least they are digging much deeper.
I second all of this. I think we are way overpopulated at least here in the states, and i've never liked kids either. I'm all for brat bans and almost in favor of China's one child law.
The United States is NOT over populated, nor anywhere near being so. I'm guessing that more adoptions are taking place. Personally I feel like this isn't entirely true considering the fact I see TONS of kids all the time and very few couples saying they don't want kids. But it could just be my area I guess.cyrogeist said: