Parental Prounoucements

As a childfree person, I know I am not alone in finding the judgements and pronouncements of some parents (about us) tiresome and moronic. I wonder sometimes if these people actually think about their pronouncements before they make them, because most of them are so stupid they make me want to send them right to the dunce chair.

Here's a judgement we childfree folks often hear (I sometimes hear this when a parent comes across my "100 Top Reasons not to have Children (and Remain Childfree" list):

"Well, it's a good thing your mom didn't think that way!"

This means, of course, that had my mom had the wisdom and independence of thought to come to the same conclusion as me that parenthood is an overglorified crock of B.S. drudgery to be avoided at all costs, I would never have been born.

So there. The smug parent has set me straight.

Except that, there are erroneous assumptions underlying this parental pronouncement:

1. that had I never been born, I would regret it. To that I ask: how can a person who does not exist be regretful?

2. that being born a human being on this earth is preferable to the alternative - which is....????? Who's to say this life on earth as a human being is the best thing going? Maybe I was happy as pie up in the heavens as a free-floating spirit, being spoon-fed Ben & Jerry's for breakfast, lunch and dinner by a leather-clad Elvis, and my mom and dad spoiled the party by conceiving me and ripping me away from the fun. We have no way of knowing, now do we?

3. that my mother giving birth to me was for my benefit and therefore I owe her my endless gratitude. Okay, moms. I know you all like to think of yourselves as the objects of undying devotion for simply reproducing, but it's time for a reality check. The fact is that moms have children for their own benefit - because they want to experience being a mom and all the perceived joys they believe they will obtain from having children. My mom didn't have me for my benefit - she had me for hers.

Perhaps I think too much about things, but I find thinking to be fun and rewarding don't you? After all, it is thinking that led me to make the decision not to have kids and I am happier and healthier (in all ways) as a result. I would not trade my life for the life of any one of my childed friends, and there is nothing about their life that makes the pain, misery, sacrifice, financial and marital strain and drudgery they undergo on a daily basis worth it.

So parents, feel free to make your pronouncements and judgements, but do us a favor and put a little thought into them first because there's no substance to the cliches you've been tossing our way.

And while you're at it, pass me the Ben & Jerry's.

Back with a Video for You

Sorry for my absence but when it comes to blogging, sometimes life gets in the way. I am happy to report that mostly what has kept me away has been a nice, extra-long vacation in Mexico where blinding sunshine, 80 degree temps and splish splashing in the turquoise sea have kept me far from a computer keyboard. And then, as life would have it, I returned home to a severe stress fest with a major upheaval at work that required me to fire someone (something I have never done before and which I hope I never have to do again).

Since I am not feeling particularly insightful or blessed with any cutting, laser-beam insights just yet, I thought I would softly ease you back into my blog with a spot recently aired on the Today Show (our favorite pronatalist morning show extraordinnaire) about childfree married couples. Nothing groundbreaking here, but it is nice to see The Today Show starting to acknowledge that we exist. Note they made a point to include a quote from the childfree wife stating perhaps she lacks a maternal instinct (reinforcing their mommy viewers' superiority for having a maternal instinct). Also note the first line of this spot, "now here is something we didn't realize - more and more married couples in this country are choosing to go childless".

Perhaps they didn't realize it because they were too busy pandering to MOMS.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Kid Stuff

People who are not childfree do not appreciate all the subtle and insidious ways we are made to feel invisible. Even when not expressed directly, the message that adulthood equals parenthood and that parenthood is the ultimate purpose of life is so tightly woven into the fabric of society that it gets to the point that I sometimes wonder if I exist.

An example:

I was flipping channels the other day when I came across one of the home shopping channels. I paused because they were hawking a product that caught my attention - it was a scanner that you can put your old photo slides in, and it translates them into digital color photographs which you can then download onto your hard drive.

Since I am something of a shutterbug, I listened and watched while they displayed how the device works. I started to think of all the old slides I have that I would love to use this for.

As the company representative demonstrated the device, the host of the show began gushing about how marvelous the scanner is - "Just think of all the uses for this! That photo of your child's first Christmas, his first day of school? His first birthday? All those moments with your child that you want to preserve forever can be achieved with this device!"

Okay, so I am asking myself, is this some kind of device FOR PARENTS? Are parents the only people who have valuable slides and photographs that are important to them? Are children the only subjects worth taking photos of? I waited to see if she would talk about other types of important photographs that someone might want to save - travel photographs, wedding photographs, nature photographs, photos of beloved friends and pets. Nope. The entire presentation pitch was geared toward parents who want to preserve photos of their children.

Just flip on the t.v. and notice how many sales pitches are made to parents that shouldn't be - cleaning products, cars, even shampoo - products that all types of people use, yet are marketed primarily to parents.

I am not naive. I know it all comes down to dollars and cents. Parents are the biggest consumers in our society -they certainly consume a whole lot more than childfree me. I imagine my consumption is 1/5 the consumption of a parent. When directing their marketing dollars, I am sure the companies are thinking let's get the most bang for our buck - and that's why they target parents as their potential customers. Restaurants go out of their way to be "family friendly". Shopping centers roll out the red carpet for pregnant women with Stork parking spots. She who spends the most money wins, and it's a good thing I am not competitive by nature, because I'm losing this contest.

(BUT, loser or no loser - I'm still zipping into those stork spots like Daisy Duke! Still waiting for someone to try to stop me.)

Dr. Phil (almost gave me a thrill)

One of the regular commenters on my blog, HawkMom, kindly emailed me a few days ago to alert me that Dr. Phil was doing a show on non-traditional families, featuring a childfree-by-choice couple (thanks, HawkMom).

I missed the show, but I went to Dr. Phil's website to see if there was a clip from the show.

There is a brief clip, and also a short written summary in which Dr. Phil asks the couple if they have considered whether they might come to regret their decision once it's too late. The couple answers that yes, they have considered that, but do not feel that having kids is the right choice for them, and it's more important to do what is right for them, then to cave in to society's expectations.

Dr. Phil was supportive of them, telling them that if they have doubts about having kids, they shouldn't do it, no matter how much others are pressuring them, but he also suggested that they re-visit the subject once a year to make sure their decision still stands.

I'll give Dr. Phil a grade of B on his approach to this couple.

On the one hand, he was supportive of their stance and encouraged them to stand by their decision and not cave in to pressure from outsiders. Had he stopped there, I would have graded him an A, but alas, he also went on to question whether they might regret their decision later, and suggested they continue to re-visit the subject every year to make sure their decision still stands.

What I would like to know is this: how often are people who are planning to have kids questioned how much thought they have put into their decision? How often are they encouraged to think about whether they will regret their decision to have kids? How often are those who have decided to have kids encouraged to think carefully about their decision over a period of time, and make sure they aren't making a mistake? Considering that having children negatively impacts all of the major facets of a person's life - their happiness and well-being, their marital satisfaction, their financial stability, and on and on, doesn't it seem reasonable that someone contemplating having children think long and hard about potential regrets?

It always comes back to the same assumptions about the childfree:

- that we are confused, misguided, ill-informed souls who do not know our own minds.

- that most likely we will come to regret our decision.

- that being childfree is pathological and those who choose the lifestyle suspect.

Dr. Phil did mention briefly that some parents have regrets (that was a shocker!), giving the impression that parental regrets are rare but they do occasionally happen. The truth is, I have never met a childfree-by-choice person who regretted their decision not to have kids, yet I have met several parents who have told me straight out that if they could do it all over again, they wouldn't have kids. From my experience I have also observed that childfree folks put much more careful thought into their decision to not have kids, than parents put into their decision to have kids. In fact, most people who have kids don't even consider it a decision at all. It's just a mindless bodily function like breathing or going to the bathroom.

And yet it is we - the childfree folks - who are suspect.

It blows the mind.

Marriage is for WHAT?

I normally don’t get political on this blog, however, yesterday I was listening to the news concerning the ongoing battle in California over gays having the right to marry, and I heard something that made my hair stand on end.

First, I should say up front that I am strongly pro gay rights and believe that all consenting adults, regardless of their sexual orientation, should be able to marry whatever other consenting adult they choose. I mean, come on people – this is supposed to be a free country – at least that is what we were all taught growing up.

It seems to me that the anti-gay marriage movement is running out of legitimate arguments and devolving into outright silliness. The statement that made my childfree hair stand on end was something to the effect of “marriage is for the purpose of procreation, therefore, gays should not be allowed to marry”.

Hm, well if we use that logic, then hubby and me, and every other married childfree heterosexual couple, should have our marriage licenses revoked, since our marriages were not formed for the purpose of procreation and no spawn will emerge from our married loins. Let's also not forget the childless married couples. They too should have their marriage licenses revoked, since their marriages will not produce any children.

Is this not the most ridiculous argument you have ever heard?

The fact is, many people marry for love, not for procreation and cheers to them! Let’s also not forget that many people procreate outside of wedlock but interestingly, the same people trying to prevent gays from marrying by using the argument that marriage is for procreation aren’t fighting to enact laws to prohibit unmarried people from procreating. Shouldn’t reverse logic be true: if marriage is for procreation, then people who procreate should be married?

The bottom line is: there is no good argument for prohibiting gays from marrying and the anti gay marriage folks know it. Prohibiting gays from marrying is a denial of their civil rights and it is only a matter of time before our country comes to its senses and grows the frig up, just as it did when it allowed women the right to vote. Just as it did when it allowed interracial couples to marry. Just as it did when it ended slavery and segregation. Hubby and I were shaking our heads in amazement last night discussing this issue and feeling like we were in the Twilight Zone. What century do we live in? Isn’t this the 21st century? We swear, sometimes it feels like the Middle Ages.

A Pile of Parental Smugness Under the Christmas Tree

To those of you who celebrate, Merry Christmas (a day late)! I hope you had a joyous day as I did.

We spent Christmas with my family at my parents' house (yes, my mother and I ended our estrangement and things seem to be going well so far). My entire family was there - my 2 brothers and their wives/girlfriends, their children (4), my parents and us...a total of 12 people.

The presents were piled high and the children, of course, were extra riled up in anticipation of opening their gifts. As is always the case, my hubby gets them even more riled up by roughhousing with them and being the crazy uncle who is throwing himself on the floor, playing "karate" with them and doing other shenanigans - anything to get them to laugh.

At one point, my brother Ron, my sister-in-law (the other brother's wife) and I were standing in the kitchen observing my hubby and three of the kids in the full throes of chaos. One of the kids had gotten an Indiana Jones whip as a present - a soft (harmless) whip that makes a real whipping sound when it makes contact with someone. So my nephew Anthony was whipping hubby and hubby was reacting like he was really getting whipped - falling over and making silly, pained faces. All of the kids were laughing, but the one laughing the hardest was my youngest nephew, Bobby, who is 2 1/2. He was laughing so hard, he was to the point of hysterics and his belly laughter had all of us in stitches. He was doubling over and holding his stomach each time hubby was whipped. Within moments the entire family was watching and being entertained and were laughing as hard as Bobby.

And then, my brother Ron (the father of the laughing toddler) said (obviously for my benefit), "this is the kind of thing that makes having a kid all worth it. It can be hard sometimes but moments like this make it all worthwhile."

Because I am keeping peace in the family and am careful to do NOTHING to cause any problems whatsoever, I said nothing but continued to smile and laugh at the scene before us. I simply did not respond.

What I wanted to say was this: "Well, I am getting just as much enjoyment from this moment as you, yet I do not have any of the burdens of being a parent. I win!!!"

But seriously, I just have to shake my head sometimes at the rationale people give for having kids. People love to rationalize that undertaking a life of burden, sacrifice, never-ending work, financial strain, marital strain, relinquishment of friends, hobbies and interests is worth it to get the rare moments like this - when one can experience the joy of watching his child laugh hysterically at his crazy uncle - a benefit that one can just as easily enjoy by watching other peoples' kids in situations like this (particularly if the kids are loved ones) or (as hubby says) by renting Three Stooges videos. My heart was bubbling over with just as much joy as my brother while watching Bobby's fits of belly laughter and yet my brother felt compelled to make a point that his joy was somehow superior to mine because he is the one who reproduced.

The irony of the situation, of course, is that it was hubby - a childfree person - who was the one to elicit said infectious laughter from the tot, not either of the parents. It is precisely because we are childfree that we are not jaded by the day-to-day grind of childrearing and are therefore more fun and engaged with the kids. Kids are a novelty to us and we, as fun grownups who enjoy kids and who are still in touch with our inner child, are a novelty to our nieces and nephews. We joyfully engage with them and play with them on their level, while the parents look on and feel grateful for a moment of rest.

So my brother feeling superior for being a parent was laughable, but I was proud of myself for having the self discipline to keep my mouth shut when I could have just as easily smacked him down and put him right back in his place. I just smiled and let him have his moment of smugness. If it makes him feel better, good for him. He needs the reinforcement more than I do, and I am well aware that it will be just a blink of an eye before that adorable, giggling toddler will be a sullen, backtalking teenager. We'll see who's feeling smug then.

I'm Dreaming of a Equitable Christmas

Okay, how do I vent about this without coming across as a petty whiner who has no perspective on the true meaning of Christmas? I am not sure, but let me say up front that I am keenly aware of the true spirit of Christmas - that's it's not about materialism and consumerism. In fact, I've been the one in my family to push for cutting back on the consumerism and focus more on the non-material aspects of the holiday. Sadly, my attempts at getting my family to agree to do a pollyanna fell on deaf ears.

Okay, now that I've cleared that up, there is something about the consumerist side of Christmas that annoys me and feels lopsided in favor of people with kids.

When hubby and I buy gifts for our families, we buy for our siblings and their kids. Every person gets their own gift, so for example, for my youngest brother and his family, we purchase 5 gifts - a gift for him, a gift for his wife and a gift for each of the 3 kids. When they buy for us, we each get one gift - from the entire family. So they buy us 2 gifts and we buy them 5.

If things were not lopsided in favor of people with kids, rules of fairness would dictate that since we bought each of their kids a gift, we should receive a gift from each of the kids. Now, we know that kids don't have money to purchase gifts, but the kids have parents who can give the kids money to purchase gifts for their aunt and uncle. Unreasonable? I don't think so. I have noticed that each of those kids "buys" a gift for their parents on their birthdays, Mother's Day and Father's Day and I am pretty sure it was the other parent who footed the bill.

To be clear, it's not about the gifts - we don't need more stuff and can certainly buy whatever we need. It's the principle of the thing. It's about people with kids always getting more than they give and living a life of entitlement. It extends beyond Christmas to every facet of their lives. They get more because they reproduced. They give less because they reproduced. It's all about them and their kids and their life of entitlement. It is not only accepted, it's expected. It's the perpetual parental subsidy - the never ending meal ticket.

People like to say that Christmas is for "the children". This is really just an excuse to shortchange the grownups.