#femnists

“...talks about opting out of having kids for a number of purposes, most of which struck me as excuses rather than really good reasons”. Did... I miss something? Pray tell what is a “good reason” to not want kids? Who do we report to, and do we need a note from our doctors? In any case, one of the reasons (or “excuses”) was the overpopulation of the planet and climate change, and fear of exacerbating both issues by adding more children to it. Tamara's argument was that one can simply counter their offspring's existence by donating to charities and organizations that battle climate change. There's a few things wrong with that. Number 1: we still just don't want kids. Number 2: she's assuming we have money. If we don't have money to spend on children then how do we have money to spend on charities? Now on the other hand, we do have enough wealth and resources on the planet to feed everyone, and to maintain ourselves and any children we see fit to bring into this world. If we only spread the wealth and share the resources. Ah. There's the catch, we're doing exactly the opposite of that. Families are still living in poverty in... everywhere, while the rich get richer. Families already struggle in a world where one medical emergency can shoot a family far down the poverty well, then take the ladder away.

“...also talks about kids being difficult and costly, but isn't anything worthwhile the same”. Not always, actually, but for the sake of argument let's say sure. Not only can I now refer back to my previous point (we have no money) but I'll raise Tamara the problems that can come with wanting to do all the things you find worthwhile. Where is everyone going to get all the money they need to provide a good living situation for their kids and also, say, go to college? Not only would that be incredibly costly in terms of our money, but also in our time. It can be done, sure, but it's hard, and only gets harder the less money, time, and overall privilege we have. If your spouse isn't supportive, if your have a job, if you have no one to watch your kids during the day, if you have no car, need to bus it, and be back in time to make dinner—the list goes on. It can be so, so hard to be able to do everything you want to do with a tight budget, and the time and demands can simply be too much for the person trying to do them. It can be done, we've seen it before, but there's a reason those stories stand out. It's because they don't happen often. So if a uterus-bearer decides they want to prioritize their education and/or career over having children, then more power to them, I say. It's a fair choice for many in a world where's it's near impossible to have it all.

“...insists...it is not selfish for a woman to decide to never have a child”. It's not. “...But I can say that having children does involve selflessness”. Well...in theory, yes. Sadly not always in practice, though. But do continue. “A woman’s body changes for her child, her mind changes for her child; every moment is affected by the existence of that child”. We know. That's what we're trying to avoid. “I, for one, think personal growth involves being more selfless, and if having kids helps with that, then great”. Well sure, unless we don't want to actually raise a kid. I'm sorry but what's so difficult to understand about that? One can grow as a person without forcing a child to come along as a crutch to help one deal with their emotional baggage, thank you. In fact, I would argue it's much more beneficial to do whatever you need to do (therapy, medication, anything) to help manage your struggles, and then bring a child into the world if you see fit. For many people, dealing with their issues as well as their child's issues can hinder their personal growth, rather than help it. Not everyone seems to want to hear this, but children don't “fix” a parent's problems and they don't “fix” the parent. Managing problems is so personal to each individual, and it's frankly dangerous and irresponsible to tell them having a child will help with their personal growth. That's just not always the case.

“Sources please? I don't hear women being told that their only value is domestic”. Well Tamara isn't listening enough, then. Here's the thing about getting sources on something like this: it's awfully hard to do. The problem is it's not something that we have proof of just laying under couch cushions like loose change. It's an attitude, an idea, ingrained into society. In the way we talk, in our attitudes, our assumptions. How often do we hear about the lazy stay at home mom trope? Now if this has never been an issue for Tamara, then great! No seriously, that's good to hear, because that's how it should be! But the problem is, that's not everyone's experience, and it isn't the norm, either. Society has this unspoken assumption that a woman is going to stay home, take care of house and kids, and split precisely zero of these responsibilities with her husband, whom she also takes care of. Children assumed to be female at birth are pretty much trained to take care of the house and the men in it once they're old enough to stand. How many families leave the menfolk to watch football or drink a beer and talk while the women (including children) cook, clean up, and otherwise serve the men, before they are allowed to enjoy themselves, too? Don't ever try to tell me that women and feminized people aren't valued for their domestic contributions more-so than men, and that there's no pressure on them to prioritize that over everything else. Just don't.

Now, this next point...it made me angry, I won't lie. The author recounts how a couple of women writing in didn't want to have children, as their families were alcoholics and neither wanted to pass on their addictive genes. To that: “Having a loved one who has struggled with addiction and has now been in recovery for many years, I see that the lessons he can pass on to his kids – whether they have addictive personalities or not – are so, so valuable. He is more the inspiring person for the difficulties he has been through and overcome, and he is evidence of the good that can come out of suffering”. I...how dare she? How dare she diminish those women's experiences like that? Listen, I'm glad her loved one is doing well, okay? I am. But I'm sure he would be heartbroken to watch any of his kids go through what he did, knowing how hard it was for him. Also, to be frank, not everyone does overcome those struggles. Not having experience with addictions myself, I'm reluctant to talk too much about this. I haven't seen or lived with this. But please, if you read how someone grew up with parents struggling with addiction, and talking about not wanting to pass that struggle on to their own kids, don't counter with “A world devoid of suffering doesn't help kids –teaching them how to move on from it is what counts”. It's tone-deaf, dismissive, and sickening.

“Yes, there are burdens associated with being a parent”. We still know that. We still want to avoid those. “But there is also the freedom of choosing to love, choosing to live for others...to be less self-seeking”. Oh my God. Choosing to love? Excuse you? Is this that “you don't know real love until you have children” thing? Do I, She Without Children, actually hate my parents, my pets, and my brother, because I don't have the love of a child? Man I hate that argument. It's truly pointless. Many childfree people are perfectly capable of feeling love, as is...any human being out there, really. Also, “choosing to live for others” doesn't necessarily have to mean bringing kids into the world. If one wants to one can adopt a kid already here and waiting for a good home. One can volunteer at or donate clothing and food to a homeless shelter. One can donate to charities, if you have the funds to. Adopt a pet from a shelter. There are so many ways someone can make other's lives richer, and procreating isn't the be all end all to that selflessness. Which again, doesn't always happen. “If you ask me, there’s still a very strong case for motherhood”. There is, and that's if you actually want to have children.