Parents are less happy than childfree couples

[TC]

Great article in Newsweek, my commentary added in italics.


When I was growing up, our former neighbors, whom we'll call the Sloans, were the only couple on the block without kids. It wasn't that they couldn't have children; according to Mr. Sloan, they just chose not to. All the other parents, including mine, thought it was odd—even tragic. So any bad luck that befell the Sloans—the egging of their house one Halloween; the landslide that sent their pool careering to the street below—was somehow attributed to that fateful decision they'd made so many years before. "Well," the other adults would say, "you know they never did have kids." Each time I visited the Sloans, I'd search for signs of insanity, misery or even regret in their superclean home, yet I never seemed to find any. From what I could tell, the Sloans were happy, maybe even happier than my parents, despite the fact that they were (whisper) childless.

A good way to tell that choosing to have children is in fact volunteering to participate in your own oppression is the amount of effort parents make in talking others into it, including their own children. If it was truly inherently desirable and fulfilling there would be no such need to coerce, manipulate, and shame people into it.

Most religions might be seen as similarly: the really peaceful Buddhist monks dont' seem to give a shit about making converts, the tortured guilty repressed Catholics and Evangelicals however, do.

Misery loves company and attempts to devalue those it envies.


My impressions may have been swayed by the fact that their candy dish was always full, but several studies now show that the Sloans could well have been more content than most of the traditional families around them. In Daniel Gilbert's 2006 book "Stumbling on Happiness," the Harvard professor of psychology looks at several studies and concludes that marital satisfaction decreases dramatically after the birth of the first child—and increases only when the last child has left home. He also ascertains that parents are happier grocery shopping and even sleeping than spending time with their kids. Other data cited by 2008's "Gross National Happiness" author, Arthur C. Brooks, finds that parents are about 7 percentage points less likely to report being happy than the childless.

The most recent comprehensive study on the emotional state of those with kids shows us that the term "bundle of joy" may not be the most accurate way to describe our offspring. "Parents experience lower levels of emotional well-being, less frequent positive emotions and more frequent negative emotions than their childless peers," says Florida State University's Robin Simon, a sociology professor who's conducted several recent parenting (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Parenting) studies, the most thorough of which came out in 2005 and looked at data gathered from 13,000 Americans by the National Survey of Families and Households. "In fact, no group of parents—married, single, step or even empty nest—reported significantly greater emotional well-being than people who never had children. It's such a counterintuitive finding because we have these cultural beliefs that children are the key to happiness and a healthy life, and they're not."


This of course, makes perfect sense to me. When you have a childfree loving live-in relationship, going home from work is where you relax and enjoy yourself; when you have children, coming home from work (unless you're a man with a domestic slave/"home maker" wife) is just more work, and work of an uncreative type that any unskilled idiot could do (note, I said 'could' not 'would want to' do).



Simon (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Robin+Simon) received plenty of hate mail in response to her research ("Obviously Professor Simon hates her kids," read one), which isn't surprising. Her findings shake the very foundation of what we've been raised to believe is true. In a recent NEWSWEEK Poll, 50 percent of Americans said that adding new children to the family (http://www.newsweek.com/related.aspx?subject=Family) tends to increase happiness levels. Only one in six (16 percent) said that adding new children had a negative effect on the parents' happiness. But which parent is willing to admit that the greatest gift life has to offer has in fact made his or her life less enjoyable?



This is exactly the problem when it comes to getting an honest critique of the negative impact of having children on people's lives.


When you have children, particularly if you're a woman or otherwise the defacto primary caretaker, you lose the ability to engage in a normal social life with adults your own age, given the (largely, i would think, artificially invented by capitalism) perceived need to make sure your child is constantly supervised and entertained. If you take your child with you, it monopolizes your experience of any given event since they demand constant attention and express themselves without any social inhibitions. If you leave him or her at home, others shame you for 'neglecting' your child if its in the care of others, and there are state sanctions if they're left alone.


Although for obvious reasons you can't obtain experimental data to confirm or deny it but I would guess that this type of constant hyper-attention from one person is part of why most children are so neurotic and annoying and "childish"; that this behavior may in fact be mostly attributable to their social conditioning under advanced capitalism (i doubt an African child soldier or Brazilian street kid would scream for no apparent reason on a crowded airplane). For parents however this need for constant supervision destroys their ability to carry an independent social life and in many cases, even a full work life.


What this means of course is that the social sphere available to parents becomes limited to other parents. When all of your friends are parents, you can't exactly say the emperor has no clothes and that the lot of you have made the biggest mistake in your own lives, when that mistake is impossible to reverse. No, instead you have to find ways of eliminating that cognitive dissonance in such a way as to reconcile your unhappiness with the size of your investment (18 years of your life, your finances, and for women their looks and body and single and childfree friends). At the point that you're already committed, a denial of the problem is necessary. To use an analogy, once already in Iraq, American politicians can say it would be easier if they weren't there, but they can't say that everyone involved is now worse off and the project was totally irredeemable.




Moreover, not only does misery love company, but this sort of misery needs company; parents will gain more access to the friends they had before they had children if those friends have children as well, since it will similarly reduce their friends freedom of activity and association so they'll have less choice but to socialise with them and their children. Additionally when your life consists principally of the monotony of supervising children you dont' have things that are as interesting to talk about as many childfree people do, so limiting their range of conversational choices and interests to children and the few things parents have time for apart from children is also good for a parents social dynamics (otherwise their friends will recognize them as boring and they will envy their friends, creating obvious tension). This is another reason why parents will never, no matter how unhappy, tell their childfree friends they made a mistake and that others shouldn't do the same.






Parents may openly lament their lack of sleep, hectic schedules and difficulty in dealing with their surly teens, but rarely will they cop to feeling depressed due to the everyday rigors of child rearing. "If you admit that kids and parenthood aren't making you happy, it's basically blasphemy," says Jen Singer, a stay-at-home mother of two from New Jersey who runs the popular parenting blog MommaSaid.net. "From baby-lotion commercials that make motherhood look happy and well rested, to commercials for Disney World where you're supposed to feel like a kid because you're there with your kids, we've made parenthood out to be one blissful moment after another, and it's disappointing when you find out it's not."

The National Marriage Project's 2006 "State of Our Unions" report says that parents have significantly lower marital satisfaction than nonparents because they experienced more single and child-free years than previous generations. Twenty-five years ago, women married around the age of 20, and men at 23. Today both sexes are marrying four to five years later. This means the experience of raising kids is now competing with highs in a parent's past, like career wins ("I got a raise!") or a carefree social life ("God, this is a great martini!"). Shuttling cranky kids to school or dashing to work with spit-up on your favorite sweater doesn't skew as romantic.

So, basically, being a parent doesn't stack up to being a childfree adult, so while people in previous recent generations who due to lack of birth control and church/family pressure had no opportunity to live their adult lives freely, didn't have the contrast to realize what they were losing or that there could be another way, their loss is more acute now that they are aware of it.

This probably increases the cognitive dissonance described above.


Anyways what do people think?

[Bud Struggle]

Interesting point. I can only speak for myself that when my wife and I were yuppies in Manhattan (a true adult Disneyland) we had a pretty nice life, parties and nice condos and such--then when oe had our first kid--Manhattan became a hell and we moved to the country. It definitely wasn't very good to have a kid in the city.

BUT we wouldn't be happy without our kids where we are now. We love having them--my wife has no interest in working now and I make sure no matter what I'm doing I'm always home when they come home from school.

Watching them progress through life is he most enjoyable thing I could have ever imagened. My eldest daughter (14) gives me piano lessons (she's great--I stink) and we do dressage together. I fish and play tennis with my youngest (11). Every day at dinner we discuss the day's reading of the Harvard Classics. All really wonderful to see how they grow and develop.

We have a family quartet (eldest daughter cello, younger daughter violin, me piano, my wife viola.) really kind of nice.

I really love being a paterfamilias.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Well, I'm thinking something along the lines of, "so... how do I persuade my partner not to have children without sounding like an uncaring jerk?"

[Pawn Power]

Great article in Newsweek,

What a rare occurrence.



A good way to tell that choosing to have children is in fact volunteering to participate in your own oppression is the amount of effort parents make in talking others into it, including their own children. If it was truly inherently desirable and fulfilling there would be no such need to coerce, manipulate, and shame people into it.

Most religions might be seen as similarly: the really peaceful Buddhist monks dont' seem to give a shit about making converts, the tortured guilty repressed Catholics and Evangelicals however, do.

Misery loves company and attempts to devalue those it envies.An interesting connection, but, since we are on a radical message board, how would you explain the desire to convince or "convert" others to communism? Without a doubt we lefties go to great lengths to perused others of others of certain ideas. It can't simply be equated that effort in persuasion correlates with personal misery. (Though, perhaps there is a argument along the lines that communists are miserably tired of the current system and want other to come to this conclusions as well).



When you have children, particularly if you're a woman or otherwise the defacto primary caretaker, you lose the ability to engage in a normal social life with adults your own age, given the (largely, i would think, artificially invented by capitalism) perceived need to make sure your child is constantly supervised and entertained.

The thing is that 'normal social life' with other adults often occurs around children in many communities. I am thinking here of 'soccer moms,' school related events, etc in which supervising/entertaining children is the social life for many adults, though obviously structured around children and not individual preferences.


Although for obvious reasons you can't obtain experimental data to confirm or deny it but I would guess that this type of constant hyper-attention from one person is part of why most children are so neurotic and annoying and "childish"; that this behavior may in fact be mostly attributable to their social conditioning under advanced capitalism (i doubt an African child soldier or Brazilian street kid would scream for no apparent reason on a crowded airplane). For parents however this need for constant supervision destroys their ability to carry an independent social life and in many cases, even a full work life.

This is right on. This sort of practice destroys the the independent lives of both parents and children.




So, basically, being a parent doesn't stack up to being a childfree adult, so while people in previous recent generations who due to lack of birth control and church/family pressure had no opportunity to live their adult lives freely, didn't have the contrast to realize what they were losing or that there could be another way, their loss is more acute now that they are aware of it.

This probably increases the cognitive dissonance described above.


Anyways what do people think?

Great commentary overall. And yes, I think one would be hard pressed to find a parent how would admit to not wanting to have had their children. "I wish you never were born" doesn't go off to well in any social setting. Though I guess a more accurate confession would be "I wish I never had to waste my adult years rearing your sorry ass, though I am happy to exist."

[lvl100]

I dont get it.

I mean i understood the part with the shitty situation of being a parent.
But in the end what is the goal of this tirade ? Not to have children anymore or what ?

[TC]

Interesting point. I can only speak for myself that when my wife and I were yuppies in Manhattan (a true adult Disneyland) we had a pretty nice life, parties and nice condos and such--then when oe had our first kid--Manhattan became a hell and we moved to the country. It definitely wasn't very good to have a kid in the city.

Why did it become a hell? Normally when things used to give someone pleasure no longer do, its called depression.


BUT we wouldn't be happy without our kids where we are now.

But...you wouldn't be where you are now if you didn't have kids since they were why you moved.


my wife has no interest in working now
SUUUUUUURE.

She might tell you that, she might even tell herself that, but when you have no way of easily getting something and society condemns you for wanting it, isn't it easier to just talk yourself into it? I mean its pretty clear that you have the better deal between the two of you; you get both a public life and part time children; her life revolves around them.



I really love being a paterfamilias.

I'm sure, and I'm sure being a father with a stay at home wife is a million times better than being a mother. I mean you get the benefits of having children for the entertaining and emotionally fulfilling aspects (as you described) without being tied to the home and the drudgery of 'building a home' (an excellent euphamism) then I can see how it might balance out well.

For a stay at home mother, or even a working mother, or even a father without the benefit of a stay at home partner, the equation in terms of time spent and activities engaged in is substantially different.

Clearly patriarchal families benefit some people otherwise there would be no social force behind preserving and recreating them.

[Bud Struggle]

Why did it become a hell? Normally when things used to give someone pleasure no longer do, its called depression.

Well, hell is a strong word. With a kid you just can't go out to parties like we did every night. FWIW: we never hired a baby sitter, so we always stayed at home. A wise decision--but it was rather abrupt.



But...you wouldn't be where you are now if you didn't have kids since they were why you moved. True--it just accessed another side of who we are--you can only do the young and beautiful for so long--then boots and horses and things like over--thand that's pretty good too. Children force you to grow up--that's the just of the article--people are unwilling to grow.


SUUUUUUURE.

She might tell you that, she might even tell herself that, but when you have no way of easily getting something and society condemns you for wanting it, isn't it easier to just talk yourself into it? I mean its pretty clear that you have the better deal between the two of you; you get both a public life and part time children; her life revolves around them.

Nah. She runs our business--we just do it from home now. She was a VP for a Fortune 50 company before--but we make lots more with her running the show. Ma, in this case, is definitely the brains behind Pa.


I'm sure, and I'm sure being a father with a stay at home wife is a million times better than being a mother. I mean you get the benefits of having children for the entertaining and emotionally fulfilling aspects (as you described) without being tied to the home and the drudgery of 'building a home' (an excellent euphamism) then I can see how it might balance out well. We have the country Club thingie. She has a full social life there. I certainly respect her tee times and tennis dates--and there's nothing better than when she bring her girl friends home for a swim in the pool and some Margheritas! ;)


For a stay at home mother, or even a working mother, or even a father without the benefit of a stay at home partner, the equation in terms of time spent and activities engaged in is substantially different. Agreed there. One has to engage the clild--and one's spouse. A family is an organic structure--it has to be allowed to breath. A family is a series of compremises that in the end add up to the mutual satisfaction of all.

For a family to be successful EVERYONE must be satisfied by the arrangement--not for every moment, but in the whole. To have a successful marriage each spouse must give and bend for each other, and if that's done in time and with reason a greater happiness results for everyone.


Clearly patriarchal families benefit some people otherwise there would be no social force behind preserving and recreating them.

Indeed: and my wife would say the same about her materfamilias and may daughters about their puellafamilias.

Tragic Clown--while we agree on very little, I must say you insights are really interesting and resfreshing...you really do see things from a different point of view than I do, nor wrong not bad--just different. FWIW: in a relationship, marriage, kids, partnership, whatever--it's a giving and a release of one's self to acheive a greater happiness--it's a bargan. Not always successful--but when it works it's the best thing on earth.

My guess is TC, that the diamond's still on the "other hand" with you. No problem there.

[Plagueround]

Eh, fuck that article. I finally have someone who likes lightsaber fighting around the house. :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Eh, fuck that article. I finally have someone who likes lightsaber fighting around the house. :lol:

Now there a post that cuts through some serious shit. You said in 15 words what it would have taken me a thousand.

Great post.:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

[Dr Mindbender]

while i understand why parents get depressed, i still think its important for progressive people to breed more than reactionaries.


:lol:

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Don't have kids till you've planned it properly, try to live in a community where folk help each other out. Usually that makes it a whole lot better. I've spent plenty time around small children, its really not that bad.

[Dr Mindbender]

theres also that warm and fuzzy feeling you get knowing your DNA will be incorporated into the next generation of evolution.

I'm sorry but you cant put a price on that IMHO.

[lvl100]

Well i guess you really need to be on that side to understand it.

One of my groups of friends has suddenly were lost to the Dark side. Just 2 years ago we were all just living our lifes and have fun but suddenly they realised they want kids. So they did.

So our famous barbeques transformed in surreal scenes of adult people jumping like frogs when the babies cry, making funny faces and mumbling retarded noises to entertain those little fuckers.
And between them, me and my girl (the only ones without a kid) with a WTF? expression , asking ourself what we did wrong to deserve such a fate.

But you know what was obvious `tho ? Those people were happy. But its a kind of happines that i guess it cant be comprehended by outsiders.

[RGacky3]

TragicClown,


When you have a childfree loving live-in relationship, going home from work is where you relax and enjoy yourself; when you have children, coming home from work (unless you're a man with a domestic slave/"home maker" wife) is just more work, and work of an uncreative type that any unskilled idiot could do (note, I said 'could' not 'would want to' do).


Do you know how many chicks in the US actively try and rope men into marriages trying to get pregnant, so they don't have to work? They can just get the man to work?

Ask yourself, why is it always the woman pressuring the man to get married? Because she's the one that wins.

Hell if I could not work as a wage-slave and not be called a lazy no good bum, I'd be fine with it.

Have you ever asked housewives if they would prefer to go into the workforce? Most do not want too.

Also there are many many, boys and girls that want to have children, thats one of their dreams, many many of them, without social-pressure, of which there really is'nt much any more, at leats in the United States.

In your last sentace are you insinuating that rasing a child is unskilled, uncreative work that any idiot could do? Really? You know how many parents do a horrible job at raising their kids? Raising children is far from easy and uncreative.


A good way to tell that choosing to have children is in fact volunteering to participate in your own oppression

Its very hard to justify calling something oppression when people have 2 viably options, that they are 100% free to make, and they choose, the oppression, the same goes for women in a traditional relationship.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Rgacky, that bit about women having it easy was kid of sexist. Housewives don't have it "better" than their husbands. As a FW I hope you don't say that sort of stuff at union functions.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I wonder if she does have any kid to take care (not necessary biological). I do love children.

[F9]

who gots the happiness meter?
This think just plays no matter.It depends on each person personality and how they see their childrens!I dont believe that anyone can measure happiness,so i dont like such articles.

Fuserg9:star:

[STI]

Gacky, forget sexist - that's just stupid. Rare in the modern world is the woman who doesn't work outside the home (and do most of the work inside!) after having children. Rarer is the woman who doesn't work after her kids are old enough to go to school.

[Robert]

If you shouldn't have kids, why should anyone have kids? If it's not a social imperative for at least somebody to be having kids, then you have to be prepared for the end of civilization. No civiization, no revolution. So ... what's it gonna be?

[Publius]

theres also that warm and fuzzy feeling you get knowing your DNA will be incorporated into the next generation of evolution.

I'm sorry but you cant put a price on that IMHO.

If you have siblings who procreate, then a large portion of your DNA will be carried on, hassle free.

That's called a free-ride right there.

[RGacky3]

that bit about women having it easy was kid of sexist. Housewives don't have it "better" than their husbands. As a FW I hope you don't say that sort of stuff at union functions.

It does'nt come up :P,

I'm not talking in general, its true that the majority of women work, but its also true that many women WANT to get married, and the reason they WANT to get married is for financial reasons, it happens a lot.

[Matty_UK]

A good way to tell that choosing to have children is in fact volunteering to participate in your own oppression is the amount of effort parents make in talking others into it, including their own children. If it was truly inherently desirable and fulfilling there would be no such need to coerce, manipulate, and shame people into it.

Most religions might be seen as similarly: the really peaceful Buddhist monks dont' seem to give a shit about making converts, the tortured guilty repressed Catholics and Evangelicals however, do.

Misery loves company and attempts to devalue those it envies.

I bought an awesome album a couple of weeks ago, "Exile on Coldharbour Lane" by Alabama 3. I've pretty much forced several of my friends to listen to it, so I guess listening to Alabama 3 makes me miserable, that's why I want to make others listen to them.

I don't know if I'm getting you wrong, but "choosing to have children is in fact volunteering to participate in your own oppression"? Maybe I'm missing your point, but that just sounds plain misanthropic. People know that having children is going to make things a lot harder, but they choose to have them anyway. We have a natural drive to want kids. Are you seriously saying no-one should have children?

[Module]

It does'nt come up :P,

I'm not talking in general, its true that the majority of women work, but its also true that many women WANT to get married, and the reason they WANT to get married is for financial reasons, it happens a lot.
Maybe because they are SOCIALISED into thinking that they need a husband for financial reasons because historically it was the case that women having well payed jobs was rare because they weren't considered as 'able' as men were, traditionally 'feminine' jobs such as catering, nursing, teaching etc. were payed terribly (no doubt because they were traditionally feminine jobs and employers and government could afford to pay women badly because women would've been extremely lucky to get a job where men worked) plus it was seen as stealing jobs from men, combined with the fact that chances are they KNOW that they are still less likely to get a well paying job, and maybe also (and I'm sure this is the biggest one) because they want children and are AWARE of the fact that single mothers have a fucking terrible time.


Rgacky, that bit about women having it easy was kind of sexist.RGacky is sexist.

As for the article, I'd read about such studies a while ago - and it really came as no surprise.
The idea that one can only truly appreciate life once they have created it themselves has always sounded like bullshit to me and indeed my own observations of society are enough to completely disprove it.
You can always pick out the stay at home mothers in crowds. :p

I've often wondered how different the life of my own mother would be if she hadn't gotten married and had children and I can't help but think it would be a shit load better.

[Bud Struggle]

I've often wondered how different the life of my own mother would be if she hadn't gotten married and had children and I can't help but think it would be a shit load better.

Well, there'd be one less Commie on RevLeft. :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

Anyway--on a happier note!

Oh Baby! Births Set Record in 2007

By Sharon Jayson
, USA Today

A record number of babies were born in the USA in 2007, according to early federal data released Wednesday that some demographers say could signal an impending baby "boomlet." The 4,315,000 births in 2007, reported as "provisional" data by the National Center for Health Statistics, gives just a glimpse of what's ahead in the nursery.

http://news.aol.com/article/oh-baby-births-set-record-in-2007/87435?icid=200100397x1205735391x1200284934

Somebody's happy to to have babies! It just shows how "slanted" some of those "lifestyle" articles are in those "news" :rolleyes: magazines. No hard facts--just he said, she said. :)

[Demogorgon]

The whole discussion is pretty pointless anyway, all we can say for sure is that we have a biological drive to reproduce. Beyond that it is a simple case of some people being happier with children and some without them. It would be ridiculous to say that everyone should have children, some people don't want them, but it is the height of misanthropy to say children being born is somehow a bad thing.

[Robert]

I've often wondered how different the life of my own mother would be if she hadn't gotten married and had children and I can't help but think it would be a shit load better.

I doubt your mother would agree with that, Desrumeaux. Why don't you ask her and report back?

Mine is gone, but I believe that without family, she would have considered life pointless.

Yes, yes, even with me as her offspring. Bite me.

[spartan]

For all this anti-children stuff amongst fellow leftists i am often left wondering that these people do realise that not having children will eventually end all humanity right?

Hey stuff the revolution i have a better solution to ending the misery of Capitalism, stop having children and end humanity!:lol:

Seriously though you cant tar everyone with the same brush. Some women like having children whilst others dont so fucking what?

The great thing is that unless there aren't any mistakes you have the choice of not having children (You can even have operations which stop you from having them so you dont have to worry about the "potential mistakes" part anymore).

And at the end of the day that is what it is all about folks choice.

If a woman wants to stay at home to look after the kids, wants kids and also wants to work or doesn't want kids and wants to work instead then i am not going to criticise her decision nor am i going to force her to do anything else as it is her free choice.

I think alot of so called feminists forget this very important aspect which is choice. Instead they would prefer all women to go into the workplace so that they can be "equal" to men (Though you will forgive me for not understanding how becoming a wage slave is a) Something to be desired and b) Makes you somehow equal to those who are already wage slaves, equal in their misery perhaps?).

The minute we start telling people how to live their lives is the minute that we aren't Communists anymore.

"But having children makes you unhappy!" they will say well so what! People are still going to have children whether you like it or not and not all of those people will be unhappy about it after the fact, though to tell you the truth i dont really see what difference someone being happy or unhappy with children makes exactly unless the child's safety is in danger?

Most of the unhappiness associated with having children stems from the fact that in our Capitalist society they are damn expensive and need alot of attention which requires you to give up on your "normal" life.

The great thing is that in a post-Capitalist society the oppressive financial aspect to raising kids doesn't exist anymore (No money) whilst there will be community childcare programs which will help parents and their children and all for free!

[professorchaos]

I'm never having kids, and I think I'm the last male who could "carry on the name" as it were. Fuck my DNA.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I will have kids, I rather prefer let my partner hold her last name to my children since mine is very popular(Garcia). I love my DNA. :laugh:

[RedAnarchist]

Anyway--on a happier note!

Oh Baby! Births Set Record in 2007

By Sharon Jayson
, USA Today

A record number of babies were born in the USA in 2007, according to early federal data released Wednesday that some demographers say could signal an impending baby "boomlet." The 4,315,000 births in 2007, reported as "provisional" data by the National Center for Health Statistics, gives just a glimpse of what's ahead in the nursery.

http://news.aol.com/article/oh-baby-births-set-record-in-2007/87435?icid=200100397x1205735391x1200284934

Somebody's happy to to have babies! It just shows how "slanted" some of those "lifestyle" articles are in those "news" :rolleyes: magazines. No hard facts--just he said, she said. :)

Its probably because theres more religious people in the US, so less use of contraceptives and less abortions.

[RedAnarchist]

I will have kids, I rather prefer let my partner hold her last name to my children since mine is very popular(Garcia). I love my DNA. :laugh:

I'll probably do that myself seeing as my surname is the most common Western surname, Smith.

[Farrellesque]

SUUUUUUURE.

She might tell you that, she might even tell herself that, but when you have no way of easily getting something and society condemns you for wanting it, isn't it easier to just talk yourself into it? I mean its pretty clear that you have the better deal between the two of you; you get both a public life and part time children; her life revolves around them.



What arrogance.

Because a woman makes a choice of her own free will that does not jive with your ideological perception, she must be a poor victim of a patrichal society that bla bla bla *insert something from Simone de Beauvoir* bla bla male oppression bla bla *insinuate she doesn't know what's best for her own self* bla bla.

I don't know why it is hard to understand that women (and people in general) often make choices of their own free will. The fact that you don't like the choices doesn't mean they were coerced into making them.

[RedAnarchist]

What arrogance.

Because a woman makes a choice of her own free will that does not jive with your ideological perception, she must be a poor victim of a patrichal society that bla bla bla *insert something from Simone de Beauvoir* bla bla male oppression bla bla *insinuate she doesn't know what's best for her own self* bla bla.

I don't know why it is hard to understand that women (and people in general) often make choices of their own free will. The fact that you don't like the choices doesn't mean they were coerced into making them.

Never heard of social conditioning? Never heard of gender roles, which people are subjected to almost as soon as they are born?

[lvl100]

Never heard of social conditioning? Never heard of gender roles, which people are subjected to almost as soon as they are born?

How much such social conditioning has a bacteria ?

Sure there are a lot of things that we can talk regarding social conditioning, but the the main goal of any living being . to reproduce the specie , its genetics not social conditioning.

Have you ever heard the expression "the biological clock started ticking" ?



Because a woman makes a choice of her own free will

No, its not free will. Making a house may be a free will. Making a babie its obeying the laws of genetics.

[Farrellesque]

(quote function appears to be broken)

"Never heard of social conditioning? Never heard of gender roles, which people are subjected to almost as soon as they are born?"


But see, there's no way to counter this idiocy. Case in point, the post I replied to. The poster couldn't possibly conceive that the woman would want to be a housewife. It couldn't possibly her own choice. It has to be the fault of society. Even if she herself openly says that it is her own free choice. So there's no way to convince you that she would value family over career. I'd love to see you or TragicClown question this woman. I imagine the conversation would go something like this.

Commie: "So, you stay at home with the kids huh?"

Woman: "Yup"

Commie: "Do you want to stay home with the kids?"

Woman: "Uh..yes"

Commie: "Let me re-phrase. You don't want to stay home with the kids"

Woman: "Oh really, I don't?"

Commie: "Absolutely not. There is no reason why you shouldn't have a career of your own"

Woman: "But I want to stay at home with the kids. I love it"

Commie: "No you don't. Society has conditioned you to think you love it. In fact you hate it"

Woman: "But-"

Commie: "No buts, you need to take back the reigns from patriarchal society"

Woman: "Listen you dweeb. Contrary to what you may think, I make my own choices. If I truly wanted to work, I would. However, what I want to dedicate myself to is to my family. You're more annoying than a Jehovas witness. Hit the bricks junior"

Commie: "If I could just reccommend some class consciousness enabling literature.."

Woman: "Leave. Now."

[RedAnarchist]

(quote function appears to be broken)

"Never heard of social conditioning? Never heard of gender roles, which people are subjected to almost as soon as they are born?"


But see, there's no way to counter this idiocy. Case in point, the post I replied to. The poster couldn't possibly conceive that the woman would want to be a housewife. It couldn't possibly her own choice. It has to be the fault of society. Even if she herself openly says that it is her own free choice. So there's no way to convince you that she would value family over career. I'd love to see you or TragicClown question this woman. I imagine the conversation would go something like this.

Commie: "So, you stay at home with the kids huh?"

Woman: "Yup"

Commie: "Do you want to stay home with the kids?"

Woman: "Uh..yes"

Commie: "Let me re-phrase. You don't want to stay home with the kids"

Woman: "Oh really, I don't?"

Commie: "Absolutely not. There is no reason why you shouldn't have a career of your own"

Woman: "But I want to stay at home with the kids. I love it"

Commie: "No you don't. Society has conditioned you to think you love it. In fact you hate it"

Woman: "But-"

Commie: "No buts, you need to take back the reigns from patriarchal society"

Woman: "Listen you dweeb. Contrary to what you may think, I make my own choices. If I truly wanted to work, I would. However, what I want to dedicate myself to is to my family. You're more annoying than a Jehovas witness. Hit the bricks junior"

Commie: "If I could just reccommend some class consciousness enabling literature.."

Woman: "Leave. Now."

Of course some women choose to do so, but how many feel that they didn't really have a choice anyway or are unable to make or are unaware of that choice? I would suspect that a Catholic woman could not make that choice as easily as an athiest woman. For example, there is a story from France recently about a Muslim woman, originally from Morrocco, who can't stay in France because she is too subserviant to her husband. Do you really think she made that choice? If she did, and if she wants to stay in France, she could make a choice to be less subserviant, but as she didn't have the choice in the first place, she can't.

[Farrellesque]

(sorry about the messy quote, can I not quote properly because I'm restricted or what?)


"Of course some women choose to do so, but how many feel that they didn't really have a choice anyway or are unable to make or are unaware of that choice?"

That's a good question. Got any numbers? Surveys? Reports?



I would suspect that a Catholic woman could not make that choice as easily as an athiest woman.

I'm an atheist personally, but I'm not sure that would make a difference in most cases. Honestly, if you are arguing from the perspective of being against an utterly patriarchal and phalliocentric culture/society, you would probably be better off substituting "Muslim" for "Catholic" (playing into your quote below).

Let's face it. We've come a long way in most Western nations. Whether it's Europe or North America, women are generally free to do as they damn well please. They can wear what they want, eat what they want, fuck whom they want, take what jobs they want and so on and so forth. The same is not true for many cultures in the Middle-east and Africa, many places where women will be beaten or killed for going to school, having job, having ghey sex or revealing their bodies. Let's have some perspective, please.


"For example, there is a story from France recently about a Muslim woman, originally from Morrocco, who can't stay in France because she is too subserviant to her husband. Do you really think she made that choice? If she did, and if she wants to stay in France, she could make a choice to be less subserviant, but as she didn't have the choice in the first place, she can't."

I'm familiar with this story, but fail to see how this applies. The woman obviously did not make the choice of her own free will, but we've suddenly jumped from our Western society and culture, into a completely different culture with different values. You won't get any argument from me with regards to the inherent misogyny of Islam.
I'm not saying that women all over the world are doing exactly what they want. That would be asinine. I'm saying that the "problems" faced by women in Western nations are so minescule compared to what goes on in many other regions, that to attempt to inflate them into gross problems is a slap in the face of all burkha-wearing, subservient, genitally mutilated women that know the true meaning of repression.

[RGacky3]

Maybe because they are SOCIALISED into thinking that they need a husband for financial reasons because historically it was the case that women having well payed jobs was rare because they weren't considered as 'able' as men were, traditionally 'feminine' jobs such as catering, nursing, teaching etc. were payed terribly (no doubt because they were traditionally feminine jobs and employers and government could afford to pay women badly because women would've been extremely lucky to get a job where men worked) plus it was seen as stealing jobs from men, combined with the fact that chances are they KNOW that they are still less likely to get a well paying job, and maybe also (and I'm sure this is the biggest one) because they want children and are AWARE of the fact that single mothers have a fucking terrible time.


You could say they are socialised into thinking that way, in western countries I'm not sure about that, independant women are praised all the time, but by the same token men are socailist into other roles. But that being said its still up to the individual. I'l tell you what though, a woman who does'nt want to get married generally is'nt ridiculed for doing so, a woman that takes a traditionally mens role generally is'nt ridiculed for doing so. Ever seen a man take up a traditionally womans role? It does'nt happen much, but that man would probably be seen in a negative light, i.e. ridiculed.

Single mothers do have a terrible time, as do single fathers.


RGacky is sexist.

How so? Nothing I've said about women I would'nt also apply to men. But I love women :).


I've often wondered how different the life of my own mother would be if she hadn't gotten married and had children and I can't help but think it would be a shit load better.

Could have been or maybe not, there are many women that live great lives never getting married, they have fun, are independant, then there are those that are alone with 7 cats wishing they could get a man, but it goes both ways too.

I think if your going to condem marriages, fine, I agree, but generally in western marriage, the man looses out, financially and generally emotionally. So if your going to say marriage is slavery for women and so on, then what is it for men?


but how many feel that they didn't really have a choice anyway or are unable to make or are unaware of that choice?

I would venture to say that in the United States at least more men get pressure to marry (from their girlfriends) than women, more men get suckered into marriage than women. Your analogy about hte Catholic works, but guess what, again, it works both ways.