TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

59

Over 50% of couples in my country have an only child. People have been trying to pin low birth rates on everything already. There are studies, there are special programs to pinpoint and fix the hindrances. Politicians are breaking their back between blaming people and implementing special programs that are supposed to raise birth rates.

To me the reason seems obvious, just by looking at the parents around me. Raising kids is not nice. It used to be common knowledge that kids are a headache. No one expected parents to actually enjoy their kids for too long. It used to be ok for strangers to yell at random kids for being loud.

Now there's this trend of people pretending that kids are nothing but rainbows. This bled into the birth rate discussion in that people seem to be pretending that they don't know that kids are annoying and why couples are not eager to have them. When there's more than one kid they will fight. This is a considerable annoyance. Small kids will ruin your health, sleep and they will scream like a dying animal for no fucking reason in the middle of the night. This is not nice. Adults want to come home to a quite house. When adults outnumber kids you can still have a nice balanced life. You can get away for a while. With multiple you will be pissed for a considerable percentage of the 20 years when they live with you.


[–]mercuryg34 points35 points  (35 children) | Copy Link

This is not nice. Adults want to come home to a quite house.

I think it's blatantly obvious why kids make people unhappy but no one wants to say it. It's because we have an unrealistic view of what parents are capable of. To put it really simply, taking care of the home and kids is a job, it's always been. It's easier now because vacuums and dishwashers, but it's still a job. Then when both parents have full time jobs, there's three jobs in total and only two people to do them. Parents are working themselves to the bone doing 1.5 jobs, becoming miserable in the process, because of simple arithmetic, two is less than three. It's really that simple. Think of any newly moms and dads you know and tell me they didn't look stressed out of their minds around the clock.

Can someone explain to me how we figured that 2 = 3? I'm not even trying to sound anti-feminist now, i'm just very curious, because something doesn't add up here.

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

This is largely an American problem because mothers have very little time to have maternity leave and there's very limited paternity leave for fathers too.

You look at any European nation and maternity leave is give or take a year. Paternity leave for fathers is much more limited but even they will get a few weeks at least. This helps a lot with the problem you mention.

[–]MellifluousMaple|||10 points11 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

This is largely an American problem because mothers have very little time to have maternity leave and there's very limited paternity leave for fathers too. You look at any European nation and maternity leave is give or take a year.

Yeah now look at European TFR, spoiler it's lower than the US. So much for that theory.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Addressed this already in another reply.

[–]xKalistoSAHM of Yurop0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

That cause we don't have Christian conservatives and terrible sex ed to the degree US does.

[–]Atlas_B_Shruggin✡️🐈✡️ the purring jew3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

bye bye europe and UK

[–]xKalistoSAHM of Yurop1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

We're good here. No immigrants want to go to PoorYurop.

[–]NalkaNalkayou call it virtue, I call it cowardice1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just wait till they get done trashing richyurop. Then it's your turn.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFMs-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

How are those two even connected? Mothers do have a lot more time in Europe than they do in the USA, and they also choose not to have as many children. Those are both facts, not theories. But actually, the US birth rate has already fallen below much of W-Europe's (France, UK, Scandinavia). And if you account for the fact that there are some groups in the USA which have very many children, the average US birthrate without those groups would be down around that of Germany or some such Central European shithole.

[–]filamilano[S] 4 points5 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

maternity/parernity leave is one year where I live, birth rate 1.3

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Still helps with the issue he described. The parents will be less stressed because they're not each trying to do two jobs.

I never claimed this would directly cause higher birth rates, that issue is much more complex than just maternity leave.

[–]filamilano[S] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Still helps with the issue he described

Economists said it hurt women's job prospects, and here people don't think about kids if they don't have a job with a proper contract. So the net result was cancelled out.

They introduced this 1 year leave in 2013, that year birth rate was 1.256, in 2014- 1.290, 2015- 1.289

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well yeah being out of work for a year will set your career back a bit, but you have to be willing to take that gamble when you choose to have kids. Everyone knows kids are hard work and will distract from career progression.

I honestly do not understand women who insist on having kids then turn around and complain they don't get promoted when they spend less time at work.

It's like buying an AMG Mercedes then complaining about the fuel consumption. You know you give up economy for speed, you know you give up career progression for a kid. If you want an economical car buy a Prius, if you want to keep moving up the career ladder don't have kids.

[–]filamilano[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

have to be willing to take that gamble

people are not willing. Hence the birth rate

[–]decoy88Black Male in London4 points5 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Which is why the nuclear family to raise children is kinda bullshit.

[–]mercuryg3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

What? Elaborate please.

[–]GridReXXit be like that15 points16 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

IT TAKES A VILLAGE!!!!

lol no but seriously it takes a communal setting where extended relatives live very close by or together and everyone shares the responsibility and burden so its less stressful.

The only reason my parents were able to go to work everyday and not worry and still have energy for family game nights and all of our extracurriculars is because my grandparents lived around the corner and my dad’s sister and her family lived around the corner. And other cousins lived close by. So they could essentially drop us off at the homes of people they trusted and we would be fed, clothed, and watched over regardless.

Two parents living isolated away from their own families trying to raise a bunch of kids solely on their own sounds dreadful.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep, on point. My aunt dumped my cousins on grandma for months at a time while traveling out of the country for work. The other aunts and uncles complained it was unfair but auntie knew damn well this was the only way to get ahead in her career and knew grandma was too proud to say no, so she got free childcare. At least one of the cousins is living nearby checking up on grandma in her nursing home frequently .

[–]decoy88Black Male in London13 points14 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I’ll hi jack and the above comment

kids used to be looked after by a village. People lived in houses with old members of the family who minded the kids, not even raised, just minded so they don't die. Now that kids need to be educated it's a whole different ballgame. They are little energy vampires

Basically children used to be raised with extended family living under the same roof, thereby spreading the burden of children-raising across 5 or 6+ people.

Everyone is less stressed, has more energy and all round better off for it.

[–]Dash_of_islamBidet 4 Life>Toilet paper unwashed proles5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep. Both sets of my grandparents used to help out and my aunts and uncles too when I was a kid

[–]mercuryg0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

I see. But that doesn't mean the nuclear family is "bullshit".

[–]decoy88Black Male in London0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes maybe I was being hyperbole

[–]filamilano[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

Can someone explain to me how we figured that 2 = 3?

what do you mean?

[–]mercuryg5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I mean exactly what i said, why do we keep pretending that two adults can have full time jobs while taking care of a home and kids? My point is it doesn't matter how you split the chores when the total is too much anyway. Maybe this has something to do with the fact that we (a giant paradox) in the most developed countries ever consider reproducing to be the most difficult thing in the world.

The very banner of this sub is "question what you believe" and it's what i'm trying to do.

[–]filamilano[S] 5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh, I didn't get you were referring to jobs. Well also never in human history were kids so draining and useless, kids used to be looked after by a village. People lived in houses with old members of the family who minded the kids, not even raised, just minded so they don't die. Now that kids need to be educated it's a whole different ballgame. They are little energy vampires

[–]mercuryg2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Fair points, however it's the schooling system and teachers that are first and foremost dealing with their energy vampirism. I mean, parents don't educate their children, they ship them off to outsourced education, so the amount of parenting they have to do is at the absolute minimum.

So then they have the most time and energy available to go to work. I do wonder are we better off this way though? It doesn't look like it to me.

[–]filamilano[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I mean, parents don't educate their children, they ship them off to outsourced education, so the amount of parenting they have to do is at the absolute minimum.

would you be able to teach your kids literature, math, foreign language ? Of course parents are unable to teach their kids anymore, as parents don't know shit. I live in Europe, homeschooling is not a thing here, I also don;t understand how it can even exist. I used to be a teacher and I know I would not be able to teach anything other than my subject). I think kids should spend more time in institutions/schools

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why me and my kids dad are pretty happy, we don't work and spend every hour with our kids, at home or driving about. We will go back to work when our kids are both at school.

[–]brodudedoggman-1 points0 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

That’s a pretty good summation. That’s why it would be best for women to stay home so they can watch the kids and tend to the house. As you point out both are full time jobs, but made more manageable when someone is at home to tend stay on top of it.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Why isn’t it best for just one parent to stay home? Seriously, why do you assume it must be the woman?

[–]SavingsTraffic1110 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why should a man do that? Women are not attracted to stay-at-home dads.

[–]brodudedoggman-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Because that’s the natural order of things.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Meaning what? Women are better at parenting than men?

[–]brodudedoggman0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

They’re equally necessary as parents. They are just not cut out to work in the business or labor force as far as I can tell. Besides maybe as nurses or teachers where they already make hold the vast majority of positions.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

so your belief that women should stay home is not based on their value of their caregivers but on your perception of their value as employees?

They are just not cut out to work in the business or labor force as far as I can tell.

What is your basis for this feeling? Like do you have data showing women underperform compared to men?

[–]passepar2t29 points30 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Politicians and parents are pushing parenthood for very different reasons.

Politicians are trying to keep the economy from becoming too top-heavy, the tax base from eroding, social programs from becoming unfundable, and so on.

Parents are either trying to convince themselves that they made the right choices, or get perplexed and offended by childless people same way some religious people get perplexed and offended by atheists. Obviously, I'm excluding parents who keep their mouths shut.

[–]volmaaktgebalanceerdIt's all bullshit2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Politicians are trying to keep the economy from becoming too top-heavy, the tax base eroding, social programs becoming unfundable, and so on.

Given that people stay young and healthy for longer they could just up the retirement age. Low fertility and longer vitality are both caused by increased prosperity so you basically have your answer to lower fertility.

But then you run into the problem that children can't vote and adults can eh and you want to appease the adult voter base by not increasing their retirement age.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

You're missing the grandchildren angle here, bigly as an orange person might say.

[–]czerdec0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

I still think its a bad idea for unfit people to have kids they can't raise just because you'll get some grandchildren down the line after some divorces and suicide attempts.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Humans who are unfit to be parents are still humans.

So they'll still have kids. Shit, they probably have MORE kids than average as the same things that make you an unfit parent make you prone to having sex without contraception.

They're not having kids to get grandkids. They're having kids because they're humans.

However, once they've had kids and taken their lumps with that.... they start to look forward to having grandkids. All the fun, none of the lumps.

When they do.... and their kids tell them "Hey, I'm not having kids. I saw all the lumps I gave you. No way I'm letting kids do that to me" they naturally feel that their kids are being selfish by doing that.

They took their lumps. They gave their parents grandkids. They see their kids taking their half the deal, and not paying forward, in the same way they as parents paid it forward to your grandparents.

Not saying it's necessarily right.... but it is fully explainable. It's understandable from their viewpoint.

I can take people saying "Well, fuck 'em. I'm not doing it anyway". But when people say "I can't understand why they think this is selfish ?" I generally try and explain it to them from the parents POV.

[–]Shazoa0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

I still don't get how it follows that child free people are selfish. It's selfish to want someone else to have kids for your own sake as a grandparent or whatever. You aren't necessarily selfish for refusing to do what other people want from you.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

selfish[sel-fish]

devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc.,

Ahem...

You aren't necessarily selfish for refusing to do what other people want from you.

You are selfish for concerning yourself primarily with your own interests.

When you say "I don't want to have children, because I don't see how thats good for me or benefits me" that is literally the definition of selfish.

Somebody else doesn't have to "suffer unfairly" for something to be selfish. Unfairness doesn't come into it. They don't have to have a reasonable expectation of some other behaviour. It doesn;t even have to affect anyone else at all in any way.

If you are doing it because of the perceived benefits to you. Thats the dictionary definition of selfish.

[–]Shazoa0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Unfairness doesn't come into it. They don't have to have a reasonable expectation of some other behaviour. It doesn;t even have to affect anyone else at all in any way.

But that's a functionally useless way of looking at it. Everyone would be considered selfish because people will always want something from you.

Primarily is the key word to me from the definition, and I don't see how it applies. Refusing to do something because other people want you to do it does not on it's own make you primarily concerned with your own self interest. No one would normally be considered selfish for refusing to do something soley for someone else's sake if they had no reason to, so why is it a critisicm often levelled at childfree people?

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

But when you say "I don't want to do this, because I don't see what I get out of it" ... and they say "Thats selfish".... they're RIGHT.

You couldn;t understand why they thought it was selfish.

The answer to your question is "This is the dictionary definition of selfish, so I can't see how thats unexpected or not understandable".

[–]czerdec9 points10 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Raising a kid isn't done for the parent's benefit. Not if you're doing it right. Raising an only child is, more often than not, inferior to the option of raising a kid with siblings. Kids who grow up without siblings have serious issues dealing with other people.

Stop reading now if you don't want to hear some hard truth:

Be childless or have a real fucking family. No half measures.

[–]GridReXXit be like that0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah viewing my friends who were only kids (they’re stunted in many ways IMO). My goal is to have more than one. Plus looking back on it, not having a sibling in the house close in age to me would have been a drag.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah,I can't imagine only having one child now, mine were born less than 2 years apart and they adore eachother, the early years were hard but now things are good- it's a proper family, id feel bad for my daughter if she was the only child. Seems so lonely unless your constantly around cousins or something.

[–]we-are-men-with-ven0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is kind of my area, I'm doing a degree in childhood studies.

The 'problematic lone child' was the consensus around the 19th century and some of the early 20th century, but psychology and sociology research has since debunked it.

There's some negetive connotations with lone children as you mentioned, but they are not unavoidable. Children can learn sharing and compromise through non siblings. So keeping them sociable can solve this.

Also line children tend to have more attention, which is very good for their wellbeing.

It's all to do with parenting styles really.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, there you say the entire reason. If something isn't for someone's benefit, they tend not to do it, unless it's accidental, which is why you have biggest birthrates among people you'd probably least want to breed.

[–]filamilano[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Raising a kid isn't done for the parent's benefit

this sentence has zero effect on reality. If a couple doesn't want 2 kids because of reason X then they will not (unless the reason is removed).

[–][deleted] 32 points33 points  (95 children) | Copy Link

It's funny you know. I say I don't want kids and on one hand I get parents telling me I am missing out on the most fulfilling experience ever and I'll regret, and on the other hand I got parents telling me I'm selfish because I'm not willing to put in the hard stressful work that raising a child ensues.

Of course I've seen enough families and been around enough horrible screaming children in public to know that the latter is the truth, not the rose tinted glasses view of the former.

And sure call me selfish all you want, I won't argue. I am selfish. But I don't get why anyone has kids at all. I understand evolution blah blah, but I mean from the perspective of an individual, what makes them look at kids and decide they want one. I don't get it and I never will.

Personally though I think the most selfish people are those who have kids they don't bother to raise properly. Which is most parents nowadays. They let their kids do whatever and don't even parent them. Having a kid is a huge responsibility. Deciding to do it when you know you cba to look after them or don't have the money is actively harmful.

We as a society need to stop just pressuring everyone to have kids and instead say to people - look, having kids is a huge lifelong commitment and a fuckload of hard work, consider if you're up to that before you have them.

There are simply people who are not made to be parents. But most of them have kids anyway due to social pressure.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London9 points10 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

From speaking to many of my peers that had unplanned kids and didn’t abort, a common theme is “I didn’t know it would be this hard”. Like they knew it would be hard, but they underestimated it, and don’t hesitate to remind others how hard it is.

Well I listened, but I sometimes feel t level of ignorance is what will keep the species going.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah those are the kind of people you get the real version of parenting from.

Makes me happy to be team vasectomy.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Snipped brothers unite!

I’ve babysat a whole bunch and my peers that dream of children have never done so in their life....🤔

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I actually tag anyone on here who mentions being snipped as "vasectomy squad" haha.

[–]passepar2t11 points12 points  (67 children) | Copy Link

I really don't understand the selfishness argument at all.

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (16 children) | Copy Link

Me neither honestly. It's some sour grapes shit always from stressed out parents like "because I made this decision that causes stress in my life you have to do it too or you're a bad person" like lmao shut up.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here5 points6 points  (15 children) | Copy Link

I get the selfish argument. If you knew how many female ancestors died giving childbirth to your direct lineage or knew how many male ancestors died providing for the family, I could see the selfish argument to not carry such a legacy.

It’s literally selfish. I think it would be best not to moralize on the issue. There’s nothing wrong with being selfish.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (14 children) | Copy Link

There's a lot of angles to it and many arguments can be made from both sides.

I don't buy the whole "your ancestors sacrificed for you to be here" argument myself because they literally didn't have the option of any effective contraception, but humans of course have sex drives, so yeah of course fucking meant certain reproduction for my stone age ancestors.

If somehow effective contraception existed 1000 years ago it is very possible I would not have been born. I see it less as "dedication to a legacy" and more pure dumb luck.

I also don't get why my ancestors should matter to me. They are long dead and I share nothing in common except a small bit of DNA (remember it gets diluted with new genes over time and it only takes a few generations).

So to proclaim I cosmically owe them something because I exist seems absurd to me.

This is before we even mention I did not ask to be born. That's not something I asked for and a privilege was granted. It's pure chance. I had no say in the matter.

But like you said, there's nothing wrong with being selfish. I agree. I am selfish. But I don't think I'm selfish because I don't want kids. I'm selfish because I want loads of money so I can buy luxury cars.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here2 points3 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

They still dedicated their whole lives and died for having kids and raising them, contraceptives or not lol

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Because they had no choice, not because they were noble and selfless.

[–]ScaryDate0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

To be fair they had a choice just smash their heads in that would have kept the incel population down. They are indeed literally selfish

[–]CosmoAce-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, because smashing your head in is something every human being is capable of. If suicide was such an easy alternative for getting out of terrible situations, I'd wager we'd have an extremely lower population.

[–]ScaryDate1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Killing the kids. Not suicide. Try to follow the premise of the discussion. Chad gets babies. Chad no likey raisey kids. Chad smash kids. Chad prevent incels. Would have prevented a lot of suffering now.

[–]PMmeareasontolive3 points4 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

They still dedicated their whole lives and died for having kids and raising them, contraceptives or not lol

But why did they do it? Because they were so selfless that they had to create another life to give their super abundant utterly selfless gifts of love to?

Why not just be cool to the people who are already here?

Procreation is actually the most selfish kind of narcissism; it's the inability to love anything other than yourself, or the closest version attainable, and a drive/wish to live forever via your genetic material.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here0 points1 point  (7 children) | Copy Link

Dedicating your life to provide for your children is not selfish, nor is sacrificing your beauty.

[–]PMmeareasontolive0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

I want to acknowledge that parenting is hard, and it does take a huge sacrifice to do it even halfway well.

But, that out of the way, nobody asked you to do it. And who did you have that kid for? Yourself only. There are people killing themselves everyday because nobody gives a shit about them. Do you? Fuck no. You've got to make your own little version of yourself in order to feel real.

The responsibility is your own. It's a little like if you made a huge mess in the kitchen and then while cleaning it up you kept saying "God I am so generous, so selfless!"

No , you are just following through on basic level commitments that result from the decisions you made.

[–]Mr_SmoogsThe 2nd most obnoxious poster here1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Lol you’re making up your own definition of ‘selfish.’ Dedicating your life to someone else is not “selfish.”

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account7 points8 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

From a parents perspective.... They took their lumps raising you. That was fulfilling and fun, but was also a lot of work.

The really BIG payoff from that is when you have grandchildren. From their perspective thats just as fulfilling and fun and hardly any work at all!

So when their kids refuse to have kids themselves (declining the "lot of work" part of it) their parents.... who were eagerly anticipating grandkids.... see that as selfish and tell you so.

Look, if you want a generation reversed version of it.... the younger generation see the older generation who "got free university education for themselves, but then ended that so that their children have to pay for theirs in order to save the older generations from a high tax bill" as selfish in the same way.

How much sympathy would you have for the older generations who can't understand why this might be selfish on their part ?

[–]passepar2t5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Number A: My parents chose to birth me into their shitty family without my consent, then have the audacity to demand that I sacrifice everything so that they can play with grandkids two hours a week. Don't you think that's a bit selfish too?

Number B) I was mostly talking about strangers complaining about selfishness, not your own parents. It makes no sense for a stranger to call you selfish for choosing not to reproduce.

3) Your education example isn't a very good analogy in this context.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

My parents chose to birth me into their shitty family without my consent, then have the audacity to demand that I sacrifice everything so that they can play with grandkids two hours a week. Don't you think that's a bit selfish too?

No, and thats not what I was saying. I was trying to explain to you why something thats mystifying you is perfectly understandable when looked at from their perspective.

They probably don't think of it as "birthing you into a shitty family" either. They don't think it's an issue of "consent" (and frankly, thats just laughable all by itself). They're not "demanding" that you "sacrifice everything" either. Thats your interpretation of this, not what they're saying or asking.

I was mostly talking about strangers complaining about selfishness, not your own parents.

I don't think this happens all that often. I think that this is almost always relatives saying "selfish". I've never experienced any non-relative really having anything negative to say about people who don't want kids.

Maybe thats a cultural difference between the UK and your country. But I also suspect that when you look back in your memory the people "complaining" about "selfishness" were NOT "strangers".

It makes no sense for a stranger to call you selfish for choosing not to reproduce.

How often are you talking to "strangers" about your child preferences FFS ? Really ? You stop people on the street and blurt out to them that you don't want kids and they tell you you're selfish ?

If you do either you are weirder than I believed, or your country has some very weird social mores.

I strongly suspect that when you've been discussing your child having choices this has hardly ever, or never, been with "strangers" and was almost always in the context of a conversation with "relatives".

But I dunno. Maybe you/your society really is this weird and this is what you guys talk about whilst waiting for a bus at the bus stop or something.

Your education example isn't a very good analogy in this context.

Well, it's not a perfect analogy, it's very hard to make any analogy perfect. But it was good enough to try and get my point across.

[–]passepar2t4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

The strangers thing is an online thing, for the most part. Also, if some of the stories on /r/childfree are to be believed, acquaintances and even clients sometimes launch into this. I know, I know, that subreddit is often really over the top and silly.

But fair enough, you've succeeded in explaining why parents see it as selfish, even if I don't agree with their conclusions. Thanks.

[–]czerdec1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I presume that this is just low-IQ people who resent seeing other adults who don't have to be slaves to toddlers.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

have to be slaves to toddlers

This is due to the hyper feminized overly child centric parenting culture of the west where children’s feelings and irrational preferences are just so so so important because discipline would “scar” them and how dare you stop my kid from running through the clothes racks making a huge mess unsupervised

[–]Perrenekton1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Just want to point out that I'm European and the only person I know that have the selfish argument is a friend (so not family). Not that it means anything because it's just one example but they do exist

[–]Nodoxxintoxin2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I never thought of this before, but one of the most selfless things my mother ever did was to not make her children feel guilty for being childless. Only the two oldest out of 5 of us had biokids (one brother adopted an older foster kid).The 3 of us at the end of the brood, raised in the shitshow of too many kids and not enough time or money to take care of us, consciously refused to breed. My father would occasionally voice his confusion and mild disappointment. Not my mother, never ever a word on the topic, but lots of unspoken approval.

[–]-TheGreasyPole-Pissed Off that Reddit Admins killed my old account1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

To be honest, it's probably the fact the 2 oldest out of the 5 having kids that took the edge off and allowed them to be so laid back about the rest.

I'm sure they might have wanted more grandkids, but "some" is enough.

I think the ones who get their noses really out of joint about this are parents who have only had 2 kids.... and where both of the kids don't want to have kids of their own.... there is a world of difference between 0 grandkids and 2-3-4 grandkids thats huge gulf compared to the difference between 2-3-4 grandkids and 5-6-7 grandkids.

Some is enough. The people who are feeling "cheated" are those parents getting 0.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I loved my parents, but they were not good parents and every last one of my mother’s pregnancies was unplanned, including the miscarriage and the abortion. She was completely overwhelmed and she medicated her way through it, but it wasn’t a happy time. We ended up a feral bunch and the police we at our house several times to break up fights between my brothers. I was found wandering the streets alone as a toddler and brought back home by the police.

My two older brothers started having kids by knocking up girls and getting married, then divorced, as typical for the times.

I honestly have never doubted that my mother ever thought I should have kids, she knew full well that she shouldn’t have had them either.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS8 points9 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Because you're prioritizing your own personal comfortable and easy life over the long-term sustainability of society: if everyone thought like you, humanity would die out in a generation.

[–]passepar2t13 points14 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

The planet is choking on our emissions and you're worried about humanity dying out from underpopulation. SMH.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS7 points8 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I am just making a "grand scheme of things"-argument here.

On a smaller scale, most Western nations have a problem with qualified people not procreating, so the selfishness argument still applies.

[–]passepar2t9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, sooner or later, war or climate catastrophes will take out billions of humans either way, so it'll sort itself out.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but I’m not sure I want my well behaved kids to have to deal with the ocean of misbehaving faggots in a “polite, peaceful” society lacking in the brutality necessary to handle such trash.

This whole “disciplining kids in any way is child abuse” and “don’t you dare yell at my child they have a right to vomit in your face” mentality is bizarre .

Not to mention the weird trend of moms “looking up to their daughters” and “my son Aiden is my king.” Like bitch you’re the parent act like it motherfuck

[–]mojobytesGiven Up0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fund and improve public education, solved.

[–]czerdec0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Both can actually kill us. Emissions are rising as population falls.

[–]WhatIsTheMeaningHere-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Hang on, the planet has consciousness? When did we figure that out? The only thing that matters is if the planet is livable for us. Do you see any evidence of things choking on emissions in your day to day life? What part of the planet in particular is being impacted?

[–]passepar2t0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Metaphor.

[–]WhatIsTheMeaningHere0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I know, but what is an immediately noticeable thing in nature that is indicative of that problem?

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points  (28 children) | Copy Link

Well, in a vacuum I don't either.

But don't come running to me, when you need care and can't afford it.

Don't want kids? Fine, but don't expect mine to pay the taxes to support your old ass.

If having children increasingly becomes a lifestyle choice instead of the absolute norm, we as a society need to change some assumptions about how to run society.

People are weirded out by the Chinese way, where taking care of the parents in old age is responsibility of the children, because there is some sort of state level care guaranteed to the elderly in the west.

But this only works in a society where these people already, on the larger scale, provided future tax payers to stem that burden.

When people just stop having children, then I don't see how that system can and should work the way it does now.

Why should the next generation take care of the geriatric that couldn't even be bothered to do their part in ensuring that there will be people to take care of them?

This is one of the issues with how socialist policies abstract responsibilities away from the individual. When society has a duty to take care of you, then you have a duty to do your part.

[–]passepar2t11 points12 points  (19 children) | Copy Link

Lol, because 50 years of me paying taxes doesn't count, right?

"don't come running to me" forsooth.

I fully expect pension and senior care to be a thing of the past by the time I'm geriatric. I'm just going to have to die when I'm no longer physically able to work. Fine by me.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (18 children) | Copy Link

Lol, because 50 years of me paying taxes doesn't count, right?

Compared to people who pay taxes and have children that will pay taxes? No.

[–]passepar2t9 points10 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

lol, my taxes are paying for health care for your shitty kid. But I accept it. You're arguing hypotheticals against reals.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

No they're not. Your taxes go in the pot regardless of me having kids. You not having kids means there will be less going into the pot in the next generation.

but i accept it, you are arguing feelings instead of reals.

[–]muddyrose5 points6 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Your taxes go in the pot regardless of me having kids.

You not having kids means there will be less going into the pot in the next generation. This supports their argument more than yours.

Their kids wouldn't be paying taxes for your kids until they're all adults anyway. Other people have 8 kids to make up for it.

Also, you said something like "you didn't plan for someone to take care of you in your old age". That's what nursing homes and home care nurses are for.

Most geriatric folk use those services, even if they have children. Sometimes it's covered, sometimes it's not.

Everyone pays taxes. Those taxes usually go towards shit that matters, like taking care of old people whether they have families or not. What a gross mentality to have. What about people who can't have kids? Fuck them I guess. What about people who make the responsible decision to not have kids they can't raise properly? Fuck them too, have kids anyway so you can survive when you're older.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

No it doesn't.

He added no kids that will add to the pot.

What a gross mentality to have.

The only thing gross here is your inability to have a constructive discussion.

Everyone pays taxes.

Not the children people didn't have. Thereby reducing the size of the pot. While still taking from the pot when old.

[–]muddyrose7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

He added no kids that will add to the pot.

But he did add to the pot. People with kids benefit from his taxes all the time.

People without kids pay more in taxes, they don't get to fill out the dependents section. Have you never actually filed your own taxes before?

The only thing gross here is your inability to have a constructive discussion.

What have I said that isn't constructive?

Not the children people didn't have. Thereby reducing the size of the pot. While still taking from the pot when old.

They don't exist, so it's a nonissue. And just because someone has children doesn't mean they'll be productive members of society. You didn't address the fact that some people have can't have kids. Some people have 8 kids.

I don't know where you live, but I'll assume you're American. The population is still increasing. Not as fast as it has before, but that has more to do with less immigration than low birth rates.

[–]passepar2t3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I accept your concession.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No concession made, Don Quixote.

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way that them choosing not to have kids means your kids pay more.

Kids take 18 years before they can probably start contributing to tax. Some have a few more years before they can do so if they go to college or university. In that time an adult has paid a quite a bit in tax.

Not all kids end up working. Some are lazy bums, others choose a useless degree and cannot find a job. Some even become criminals and end up taking out of the system more than putting in.

If your argument is that kids pay for their parents' pensions, then yes that's true. However, that has more to do with poor resource management as many adults have pension plans and the government's not supposed to spend tax money for pensions on something else. However, due to how often things like poor planning, corruption and economic collapses happen, we've become accustomed to our taxes paying for debt and are always paying into what has become a near bottomless pit.

There is also an ethical concern. If someone works for 40+ years, are they not entitled to a pension after paying taxes for that long? No one should be running to your kids for money but neither should a retired person be living off cat food. Someone choosing to be child free is not the problem nor are your kids the solution. There's also the argument to be made that a lower population would be better, especially if AI and machines can handle some of the work.

Where's Thanos when you need him?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

There is also an ethical concern. If someone works for 40+ years, are they not entitled to a pension after paying taxes for that long?

In a system that relies on future generations to exist to work, shouldn't they do their part in ensuring the future existence of the system?

No kids = no future system.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You're confusing civic duty with civic responsibility. You should pay your taxes whether you choose to have kids or not. You are not compelled to have children nor is an individual responsible for the failure of the race.

To add to this, the last few hundred years have seen more men procreating than before. In other words, we got by with fewer people in general having kids but having a lot more of them at one time. A lot of moms died giving birth and infant mortality was high. We live at a time when an average woman has a ridiculously high chance of succesfully giving birth and that kid has a tremendous advantage over past generations in terms of expected lifespan.

While a pregnancy before was no guarantee of birth success and longevity, we can get more for less today, so to speak. There are 7 billion of us and we got by with far fewer people before. We're not going to vanish because some people are child free. Those people don't owe it to the future to have kids now, especially when, until recently, there were far fewer of us populating the Earth. You'd need a terrible disease to sterilise huge numbers of the population for there to even be a serious threat.

Even if half of the population were wiped out, there'd still be plenty of humans left, who we could count on to fuck us out of trouble.

And to pay taxes. That shit isn't going anywhere.

For reference, look at the black plague's death toll.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

You are not compelled to have children nor is an individual responsible for the failure of the race.

How am I confused about this?

I didn't say anything that implies confusion about this.

People should uphold their civic responsibilities, and I am not up for a philosophical debate about what that means.

Those people don't owe it to the future to have kids now, especially when, until recently, there were far fewer of us populating the Earth.

The very long run is irrelevant, we are talking about their duty in the reality they occupy now.

They won't be around then, so they don't need to be fed then.

Children finance the elderly, that's just how it is. A long term decline in population is not what we are talking about, there is no issue with that, but when we have a class of people that choose not to procreate, then they as a class are responsible to bear the brunt of the consequences that arise from their choices.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

The very long run is irrelevant, we are talking about their duty in the reality they occupy now.

This pretty much kills your argument as there is no immediate benefit to having kids now beyond fulfilling a desire.

[–]funobtainium7 points8 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Don't want kids? Fine, but don't expect mine to pay the taxes to support your old ass.

I don't have kids but happily pay property tax that supports the local school system, paid income and other taxes without complaint, and buy girl scout cookies and your kid's fundraising calendars at the door, too.

I took care of my elderly mother in my home when she developed dementia, but there are many people with kids sitting in nursing homes lonely because their (sometimes many) children don't even bother to visit them. Most of these people are there thanks to Medicaid when the money runs out, kids or not.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

but there are many people with kids sitting in nursing homes lonely because their (sometimes many) children don't even bother to visit them.

https://i.imgur.com/yh9IJXY.jpg

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

As I said, the issue is that the system abstracts away the direct correlation of having children and having someone to take care of you when you're old.

That you don't mention parents doing all the things you do, and the children paying taxes into the system that enables medicare just goes to show.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Worked in a nursing home for years, can confirm . People just like looking like they care about the elderly they don’t really care

[–]Supernumiphone6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Don't want kids? Fine, but don't expect mine to pay the taxes to support your old ass.

Well if you want to go down that road then why are my taxes helping to pay for schools when I don't have any children? Let the parents pay for schools. Not to mention all the other services and supports parents and children get from the system. Working childless people pay a lot more into the system than they get out of it.

When I'm old your kids, and everyone else's, can damn sure pay me back.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well if you want to go down that road then why are my taxes helping to pay for schools when I don't have any children?

Because it's in society's interest to force you to.

Working childless people pay a lot more into the system than they get out of it.

Except for the critical part, where they don't provide any future payers.

Pay you back for what? The taxes you have to pay because it's your duty?

I'm not sure how not providing future tax payers somehow means you get to demand money from society.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

We’re all still paying for future tax payers even if we’re not creating them ourselves, that payment entitles us to taxes from them when we’re old.

That being said don’t plan on living into old age if I don’t have kids which seems likely. The point of tolerating the horrors of aging is to look after a legacy. Without that there’s no point in living past 60 or so tops

[–]mercuryg2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Why should the next generation take care of the geriatric that couldn't even be bothered to do their part in ensuring that there will be people to take care of them?

You said it. This will be the question the next generations will start asking themselves when things get tough.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷11 points12 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

I’m amazed that people in this day and age can look around at a planet so overpopulated Mother Nature is purging us from it daily and still say it’s your duty to have kids. Stfu with that shit.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS15 points16 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

You're barking up the wrong tree, because those nations that are around replacement level at best are the last ones that should be beating themselves up about it.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nuke Africa and Asia

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"You obviously can see it just as I can - you know, that we are heading for disaster unless we do something. And if we don't do something, the natural world will do something. And you say that, but of course they've been doing it for a long time, the natural world. They've been having... what are all these famines in Ethiopia, what are they about? They're about too many people for too little piece of land. That's what it's about."

-David Attenborough on overpopulation

[–]EminemLovesGrapesSpongebob3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's not the western world that should be worried about population. Our birth rate is too low for that.

Just move down to the equator. It gets worse the closer you get. We're at 1.6/1.9 on the fertility rating. Africa is at 4.4.

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, you know who’s “worried” about it and why

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

They’re saying smart and “cornerstone of society”-type people should have kids to keep the balance, because stupid and antisocial people are going to have a ton of kids either way. It’s about what the composition of the next generation looks like—what portion will have been kids from good families who care about making the world a better place to live

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

So you’re admitting that pro breeder types are just racists and classists then?

[–]whitetrashcarlselfish ghost0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

lol no I’m sure everyone is equal

[–]officerkondoRedder Shade of Purple Man0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Could you please explain the best measure by which the planet is so overpopulated?

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFMs10 points11 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

It's not about being selfish, and children are hard (although that is often way overstated), will keep you up at night, etc. - and you are missing out on the most fulfilling experience. Like all things in life worth doing its challenging and stressful and not easy.

But if you just want an easy life without too much responsibility and lots of free time to play Fortnite, then sure skip the kids. Actually, if I remember correctly you are involved in a startup company. That's stressful as hell also. If you want to avoid stress you should go for a 9-5 job in public administration or some such thing.

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

You seem to be confused. Just because I don't want to be involved with one specific stressful experience because I don't see where the benefit is, doesn't mean I can't measure different stress and risk to be worth the reward elsewhere.

As you said I'm involved in startup, you're absolutely right. So obviously I am not a lazy person who sits back and takes the easy route. I want financial success and I know the way to get it is usually not by working for other people.

I consider the stress involved in running a business to be worth the reward because I value wealth, and wealth has obvious tangible benefits.

I do not consider the stress involved in parenting to be worth whatever vague reward apparently exists with that ("it's super fulfilling just promise me bro!" doesn't really tell me much) because I just don't value having kids.

[–]Pikachu___2000 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

As someone who is on a similar path as you. What is the point? Say you and I get wealthy enough that we retire young, buy fast cars, visit different locales and enjoy experiences that others could only dream of.

At the end of the day what's the point if your wealth/ownership of the company cannot be passed down to your own lineage?

[–]aretournerPPD = mimophant party3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

As someone who has always known that being a mother was the one thing I wanted from life above all other things, I think the point might be that people value... different things.

The person with a fleet of supercars and 10 kids who will inherit them will, in 100 years, be just as dead as the childless person with a fleet of supercars who chooses to donate them to a museum or a charity or something. Presumably childless car guy will get just as much enjoyment out of his cars and his rich-guy lifestyle as 10-kids rich guy will. My point is that 'The Point' of life is deeply personal and individual and it's a mistake to assume that because one wants something on a profound and bone-deep level, that other people also want that thing.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

/u/aretourner already put it very very well.

To me the joy is in a few things:

  • Actually achieving all that in the first place, knowing I built it and made a success of it. That is what would be fulfilling to me. The material stuff is a bonus and a good motivator. But going "holy shit, I'm capable of building a fortune, how many other people can really say that?" That is the big driver.

  • Driving fast cars is just straight up fucking fun. It releases adrenaline. It will never stop being fun because your brain will keep pumping adrenaline when you do it.

  • My overall lifestyle will be what I choose, not only what I can afford. This is a huge deal to me. It's a lesson I was taught early on from my mother. She grew up on a council estate (government housing for poor people) and she said one of her biggest motivations for getting the fuck out of there was that the people around her were content with not even choosing where they lived and she didn't understand it. She wanted control over how she lived her life and considered where you live to be a fundamental part of that.

  • Time is the most precious resource we have in the world and it's finite. I'd rather spend it free, doing as I wish, than changing dirty nappies.

  • Finally, my "legacy" (not that I actually care much for this concept in the first place) would be the work I leave behind, not my material possessions. If I have a successful business that employs people, gives them livelihoods, and sells products/services that people enjoy or find use for, I have left something useful to the world.

And as for what happens with it after I die? I do the logical thing and hand it down to the next senior manager. Because even if I did have kids, who is to say any of them would give a shit about the family business? They'd have their own dreams and I'd be a bad parent if I didn't encourage them to follow them.

And if I spoil those kids, give them money and cars and whatever, then they will never get to enjoy point one on my list. They will never value money and know what it's like to build something yourself from the ground up if they've just been handed shit by daddy. I would not be that kind of parent anyway. I'd tell them I earned my own money, you do the same. No one gets a free ride.

When I die, whether my bank account contains $100 or $10000000, everything will go to charity. If I die rich it'll be a foundation I'd have already formed. If not, it'll go to CALM, Mind, etc. That would be the same even if I hypothetically did have kids.

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFMs0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Right. If you don't want kids, don't have them. However, I was pointing out that the emphasis by the OP and you on a stressfree / easy life aren't good goalposts for a good life. Everything worth doing are stressful and hard.

Also, it should be pointed out (as I do every time the OP posts one of these posts) that Americans are having a considerable (and record) lower number of children than they'd like to have had. Its not that they don't want multiple kids. Its that life choices or outside forces are preventing them.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

a stressfree / easy life aren't good goalposts for a good life.

I mean that depends on what your goals in life are... there's many people in the world who are perfectly happy to get some kind of low effort 9-5 office job where they don't actually do much but make enough money to have a roof over their heads, food on the table, and the occasional big purchase (new car, holiday abroad, whatever) and especially if there's dual incomes you can live pretty comfortably in the first world like this assuming you are not in a big expensive city.

If you got bigger ambitions than living a passable average life then you are right, that shit don't come easy and you gotta be willing to put the work in. Hustling is rewarding if you value the reward.

But I for example would never tell someone who is content with their life and has no interest in making a lot of money that they need to quit their 9-5 and go start a business in order to be fulfilled... for them, they may very well be happy where they are and have no reason to take unnecessary risk.

The same logic applies to parenthood. If you enjoy raising your kids that's a very good thing and I have no reason to take that joy away from you. But I see no reason in trying to evangelise your lifestyle if the next guy is perfectly happy doing things different.

[–]Venicedreaming1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Honestly if you want to benefit humanity the answer is not to have kids but to adopt kids or foster kids. Splitting out more kids is just adding to the chaos in the grand scheme of things

[–]czerdec1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well, the pro-kids people say "if you have kids the latter half of your life will be full of life; if you don't the latter half of your life will be full of death".

There's a point there, but there's not enough of a one.

There's also the other point that, as a guy, it's perfectly possible that the kid will be an extreme expense that you will literally never see. Like there's a one in four chance that that's going to happen to you if you have a kid. That's worse odds than Russian roulette.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, the pro-kids people say "if you have kids the latter half of your life will be full of life; if you don't the latter half of your life will be full of death".

Ah that old chestnut.

I used to volunteer with the elderly. They almost all had kids. They almost all were alone.

There's also the other point that, as a guy, it's perfectly possible that the kid will be an extreme expense that you will literally never see. Like there's a one in four chance that that's going to happen to you if you have a kid. That's worse odds than Russian roulette.

Yep, and if you really want a family you need to get married too... yeah no thanks.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

most of them have kids anyways due to social pressure low future time orientation

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That too absolutely.

[–]GradualDecomp6 points7 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Like most divisive issues today, the powers that be seem to always overlook the most obvious answer (or at least a major contributor). Economics. I see these dumb articles every day. "Why is there so much political unrest? Why are young millennials still living with their parents? Why aren't older millennials having children? Why are traditional industries dying? Why are young people less indulgent than their parents?"

Everything from video games, to immigrants, to feminism, to Mr. Rogers is blamed, ignoring the fact that they don't have any fucking money. Housing prices are higher than ever, college debt cripples them, job security is a thing of the past for many careers and trades. Income inequality is soaring. Basic healthcare is a luxury.

The old model of "study hard, go to college, get married, buy a house, have 3 kids, live happily ever after" is a pipe dream for most young people these days.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Because the right like to pretend everything is hunky dory finance wise, when it basically comes down to this, many young people can't afford to move out of their parents basement nevermind have kids. You are correct

[–]filamilano[S] 0 points1 point  (8 children) | Copy Link

why don't Hollywood stars have multiple kids then? If it's about money (or only money)

[–]GradualDecomp1 point2 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Many do have multiple children. There are other reasons besides economics to limit how many children you have, but for average Joes and Janes, money is the major factor.

[–]filamilano[S] 0 points1 point  (6 children) | Copy Link

many do, and many don't if money was the only issue they would all do.

[–]GradualDecomp1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Is this about Hollywood stars or regular people?

Celebrities have other unique reasons why they may not have kids. Demanding work schedules that require extensive travel and long hours, needing to maintain a certain physique at all costs, etc.

Average people don't have to worry about shooting a film in Tanzania for 6 months straight or looking like a convincing superhero, but they do have to worry about how to feed, clothe, and educate each child, which is getting more and more expensive.

[–]filamilano[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

They have the money to not work till death. If kids were nice to have stars would choose that over work after earning a couple of millions. But they prefer the work

[–]GradualDecomp1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Where did you get the idea that celebrities have fewer children than average people? I think you're wrong

[–]filamilano[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I mean not all rich people have kids, so money is not the only reason

[–]GradualDecomp1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not sure why you're having issues comprehending my commentary.

There are many reasons why people choose not to have children. Money is the major factor, but there are other potential reasons that have nothing to do with money.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe they are infertile?

[–]Uncommon_Sensed_1234 1 points [recovered]  (17 children) | Copy Link

Raising kids is miserable and people want you to share in their misery. The saying "misery loves company" comes to mind.

In the US, at least where I live, kids run the show. The couple cater to their kids, the kids control adult conversation when visiting and then you have to pretend to find their obnoxious little shit delightful.

At resteraunts you are expected to sit quit and enjoy your meal after the waitress seats that family, and you know the one I'm talking about, who has the nonstop screaming child who can't be placated by coloring, games or French fries. Just screams or the parents just ignore the screaming.

Same thing with movies.

For years after I was married, people my husband knew would approach us in grocery stores would state "about time for kids" to pressure us.

Women at my work would call me selfish for not wanting kinds.

Family put pressure on us.

Finally we just told everyone my husband had a vasectomy in his early twenties. Still did stop some from re-asking.

"See what you are missing out on?"

The societal pressure to conform was very real back then. But as the oldest kid in my family, ten years older than one sibling and twelve years older than the other, I already knew the truth about kids and could not be fooled.

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete7 points8 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

There was a recent post in the r/childfree subreddit linking an article explaining why people pressure others to have kids.

Not only misery loves company like you said, but according to the article, breeders feel that you have broken an unwritten contract and judges you morally.

Their argument does not stand anyway, since it is more selfish to bring beings in this world just to fulfill their own imperatives on one hand, and if having kids is so awesome, then why they don't breed around 10 or more children to compensate for all the childfree people then?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

If it wasn't for 'breeders' you wouldn't exist 🙈

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete0 points1 point  (5 children) | Copy Link

And? That's the weakest argument ever that you could tell to an antinatalist. Like I should be thankful for being brought in this world without my consent, in these poor conditions of living, with such terrible genes and forced to suffer and decay and die.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

It's just an odd way to describe people who do the most natural thing alive that literally keeps the species alive. Yes it's shit having bad genes and the world's a pretty crappy place but it can also be beautiful and amazing too.

Plus not everyone who's born has bad genes or lives in poor condition..are you living in the third world in a hut or something?

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

It's not an odd way to describe these people. Breeders procreate for their own fulfillment and don't really care about the consequences for their offspring.

the most natural thing alive that literally keeps the species alive

Not everything that is natural is good. And once I'm dead, why should I care about what will happen to this specie? One good nuclear war and this specie self destructs. One huge meteorite on this Earth or the Sun exploding into a blackhole or supernova and this specie is wiped out.

but it can also be beautiful and amazing too.

"It can be" is not a sufficient probability to justify breeding which is bringing a being out of the void and into this wold with certainty. If one person has 100% odds of being born in terrible conditions of living, then it's not worth it. So what about all those times the "it can be" is actually "well, it is not". Kids are irreversible, you cannot make them unborn, like "oops my bad. Well suck it up and work hard to get out of poverty. And if you have bad genes, well suck it up and...idk".

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

A breeder is something that never stops breeding lol. Cant really call someone with one or two kids that.

You don't know what motivates parents to have kids.

How would someone have 100% odds of being born with something wrong with them? I don't understand your point.

So everyone who has kids is in poverty and has bad genes? Wtf?

[–]Million-SunsMarriage is obsolete0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

You don't know what motivates parents to have kids.

To make them happy, because babies are cute.

To have people taking care of them when old and out of fear of dying alone

To continue their line

To fulfill their broken dreams through their kids

To garner sympathy

And a lot of other selfish reasons.

How would someone have 100% odds of being born with something wrong with them? I don't understand your point.

If breeders are poor or have hereditary diseases by example. Should their kids be grateful being born in these conditions?

So everyone who has kids is in poverty and has bad genes? Wtf?

How did you draw that conclusion from my post? WTF? Simply put, the odds of something going wrong are too high for breeding being worth it. Even in non poor families .

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A lot of it is just biological urges tbh. That's where the word broody comes from.

Second part I wouldn't know, both me and my kids dad have healthy genes and our kids are healthy and cute.

[–]filamilano[S] 3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I already knew the truth about kids and could not be fooled

funny you say that, I saw a stat that people who don't want kids are much more likely to be the oldest child in a multiple kids family

[–]Uncommon_Sensed_1234 1 points [recovered]  (2 children) | Copy Link

My mom turned me into the live-in nanny so my experience was way more than babysitting once and a while.

[–]PHOENIX_THE_JEAN4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

This. You are functionally a single mom as a teenager raising your siblings. You become a burnt out adult who just wants to be left alone.

[–]Nodoxxintoxin0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

My family was the exact opposite, but the first four of us were so close in age, the oldest wasn’t turned into a nanny. Plus he was a boy and my parents just followed typical gender role norms of their time.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

At resteraunts you are expected to sit quit and enjoy your meal after the waitress seats that family, and you know the one I'm talking about, who has the nonstop screaming child who can't be placated by coloring, games or French fries. Just screams or the parents just ignore the screaming.

https://i.imgur.com/faR0GTo.png

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Your image 😂

Deadass it won’t be long till it’s acceptable to drug your crying kid more than it is to discipline them

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd legit happily give bars to parents out of my own stash if it gets their brat to stfu in a restaurant or plane. Fuck man a plane is the worst. You're already cramped and uncomfortable for hours and hours because your broke ass can't afford first class, you can't even smoke a joint, you pop a Xan to at least get some rest and readjust for the time zone difference then the kid behind you starts screaming and kicking your seat.

It should be socially acceptable to chuck a Xan right in that kid's screaming mouth and tell the parents you're welcome.

Here's a funny thing, back in the days when heroin was sold in OTC cough medicine it was advertised to parents as being able to calm their kids down.

I had an idea of like a Kinder Egg but instead of a toy inside it had some Xans.

[–]cxj75% Redpill Core Ideas1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Lolol yeah, the fact that bar ddrugs were given to kids implies they were a bitch to deal with back then too

[–]poppy_blublack midget wine mom 🍷10 points11 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Mom of one here. Didn’t plan it that way but that’s how it happened. The things that people have felt entitled to say to me over the years would shock you (or maybe not).

It’s far easier now that he’s old enough to do his own thing but trust me when they’re younger, one is A LOT harder than multiples. There are no siblings to keep them entertained and occupied You’re it. 24/7.

And yes raising kids is hard. Especially when you’re raising a difficult one.* But it’s still by far the best decision I ever made. well maybe the 2nd best.

I’m not saying anyone should or shouldn’t have kids, for the record.

*Not my kid. He’s perfect.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

There’s a notion that is a typical person is forced to care of a person/animal/object, they grow to love it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You arnt 'forced' to take care of your child, and your love for them comes as soon as you meet them, before you've even done any caring.

It's always funny how people who arnt parents think they actually have a clue what being a parent is like. You will never know what it's like because each child is an individual with their own personality etc.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

But many feel obligated to. Regardless of whether they do or don’t. The act of caring for things/people/animals causes associations of love.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes well people are obligated to take care of their kids or give them to someone who will lol. Bonding with a child is different for everyone anyway.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Do they pretend tho?

I always thought it was another thing entirely. Individuals know that their groups (religion, nation, hemisphere) want and need more children, but individuals also don't want children of their own, That is it.

People are nor pretending they don't want children, they just don't want children but know the value of children to the groups they are part of.

I don't even think those women with 5 children are lying about how they children are good for them. their objectives IS having multiple children even if they are a bother. It is their dream, which is not most people's dream. That is it. There may be some people there pretending, but surely not the majority.

[–]nevomintoarcePurple Pill Woman3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

know the value of children to the groups they are part of

💯

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Individuals know that their groups (religion, nation, hemisphere) want and need more children, but individuals also don't want children of their own, That is it.

aka freeriding

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Aka. doing what they want/need, you mean.

There is a word for having the needs of the group above the needs one one self, Fanaticism.

The nations which practices nation fanaticism, did atrocities like in the USSR, Nazi germany, Fascist italy, Peronist Argentina, Vargist Brazil. Even the roman empire, the khan empire, the chinese empire or the macedonian empire.

Religions which practices religious fanaticism also turn to atrocities because people go with the desires of the group over themselves like Christianity in the middle ages and Islam in current ages.

There is no good from only doing what you want. But there is only misery in doing only the things these groups want. That is why you let people decide in a individual basis.

Thus, there is no freeriding here.

People just chose not to follow the needs of the group because there was no gain from it. None is forced to follow a group mentality, nor they should ever be.

There would be only freeriding if they choose to associate knowing they would have to do X, received some kind of benefit, and did not do X. This is freeriding. Most people do not choose where they are born.

[–]xKalistoSAHM of Yurop4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

When you have just one kid you have to be its source of entertainment. Multiple kids can play with each other.

And kids are annoying but also super precious.

Government's desire for 2+ kids is economical.

[–]a_vanillaePurple Pill Woman3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

And kids are annoying but also super precious.

It's like these people don't understand that all aspects of life, including the choice to have and raise children, have ups and downs.

[–]xKalistoSAHM of Yurop4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah.

Am I annoyed that my 5 m/o feverish potato won't sleep? Yes.

Does my heart melt every time she looks at me with those big blue eyes? Also yes.

[–]kj11145 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

only having multiple children if I can afford a nanny. breeding and be working class is a recipe for insanity esp for women.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

If you need a nanny to raise your kids you shouldn't become a parent. Kids should be loved and wanted by their parents not palmed off on someone who's being paid to pretend to care. People who do that are selfish. I personally have two children and wouldn't have anymore because thats my limit

I'm glad I have them, I'm bored to tears when they arnt around, they bring me lots of joy. The baby days and pregnancy are awful but it is worth it tbh.

[–]kj1114-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

nothing wrong w hiring help. doesn’t mean you love your children any less just means you’re busy and realistic.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep, too busy to spend time with your kids. If effects them, I'm the child of workaholics.

[–]GridReXXit be like that4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I miss the days when the woman down the street could corporally discipline your bad ass kid for uprooting her flowers. It takes a village!!

[–]reluctantly_red5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Kids aren't nearly as bad as the OP asserts. They're actually a lot of fun. I like having kids around.

[–]filamilano[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

me too, for an hour a week:)

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled8 points9 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Small kids will ruin your health, sleep and they will scream like a dying animal for no fucking reason in the middle of the night.

This phase doesn't last long. It's the general responsibilities if you want to make a reasonable point.

When there's more than one kid they will fight. This is a considerable annoyance.

This is true.

Adults want to come home to a quite house.

This is where your whole post blows up. After you have kids you do notice something counterintuitive. A date night or day off is really enjoyable, but you still miss them.

You begin to enjoy the noise in the same way that when you walk into work, all the noises you know and associate with your workplace wake you up and get you ready for the day.

I use to drop the kids off at Grandmas whenever I had a chance before we hit stride. Now I barely ever do that, because I'd rather them humming along in the background than sit in silence or listen to music or whatever.

Kids are awesome once you stop being neurotic. They also scale well. But the first two have a steep learning curve. Most of the people that complain the most about kids are just projecting their angst and fear of missing out on affluent life goals.

You'll find the people who have had their cake and got to eat it too (I did get to do this) make a clear choice for their kids.

Source : Have 3 kids, planning on 5 and also interested in colonizing other nations.

A caveat. At least as a man, I would wish being a single (as in, raising alone, not marriage status) father on my worst enemy. Women don't seem to have this same issue, but I can't comment on that.

[–]Supernumiphone1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

in the same way that when you walk into work, all the noises you know and associate with your workplace wake you up and get you ready for the day.

Not everyone is like this though. I have never felt that way. I want to work in peace, and the noise was never welcome. I suspect it would be the same with kids. Different people are built differently, and not everyone will adjust to enjoy the chaos.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's not chaos constantly you know? Infact chaos is pretty uncommon now mine are almost 3 and 5. It gets better and more enjoyable every year, and it's great having these little people who love you more than anything.

I agree with the other poster that being a single parent must suck beyond belief (and I'm a woman), but if you choose your partner well this shouldn't really be an issue. I chose a loyal family orientated man who doesn't drink and was a virgin, and unlike some of my friends who chose the opposite for their child's father hes still here 10 years on and takes an active role as a dad, doing the cooking and sharing cleaning.

[–]volmaaktgebalanceerdIt's all bullshit3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

The human condition has always uniquely been that the body reproduces but the mind tries to find ways to stop this: like what other species practices ways of contraception and has since ancient times?

Human beings reproducing is in many ways like their hair growing: they don't actually want to do this but their body just does it and they can't control it.

[–]filamilano[S] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

like what other species practices ways of contraception

there are other species can abort at will (reabsorb the fetus for nutrients)

[–]decoy88Black Male in London4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Is it possible to learn this power?

Seriously though what species?

[–]volmaaktgebalanceerdIt's all bullshit1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Well that goes even further into my point that the involuntary human body is trying to reproduce against the wishes of the conscious mind which is finding ways to prevent it.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Because people want having kids to be this amazing thing when it in reality very difficult, stressful and financial strained. I feel like most people bugging me about kids, have them. They want their choices to be validated by their peers following them..

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Hence 'most', meaning some people who bug you don't have any. It's usually because it's a natural life stage most people go through, not because they 'want you to join them in their misery'.

[–]Willow-girlProud 2 B an American farmer0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Misery loves company, lol.

[–]EmpoweredGirlMisanthrope3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The only advice I can give you is that you yourself shouldn't have kids, you would not make for a very good parent. I have never come across someone I would call a good parent that didn't incidentally enjoy raising their kids, the reason why it's not nice to have kids is because so many people are incompetent parents. My Mum and her parents were amazing parents, they didn't regret having her and she doesn't regret having me. Where as my Dad and his Dad especially were shit, hence why I don't have a functioning relationship with him, and he didn't with his own Dad. My mum's side turned out very well considering they were raised in poverty, whereas my Dad's side turned out shit even through they were well to do.

Though I think I am being harsh on the general population, but most people just do not have anywhere near a healthy outlook into parenting as my Mum does. Even though she's never engaged in Red/Blue pill debate, watch much news and even heard of Reddit, she's just inherently wise. If the general public were half as wise as people like her, then this wouldn't even be an issue.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, there's this misconception that being well off is a huge/main factor in whether people are good parents or not, when in reality there are amazing parents who don't have much and terrible ones who do.

Money really isnt very important when it comes to parenting, my kids get spoilt (large family) every year at Xmas and birthdays, get everything they ask for then barely play with it after a few days. It's a waste of money, kids need love and time and parents who want them and invest tjeir time and energy into them, not their jobs.

I have workaholic parents and it has caused me many issues, my dad was never there, lives abroad and too busy working and although he's a good man who loves me (he recently bought me a car and paid insurance etc) I really feel he doesn't know who I am on a deeper, emotional level.

[–]diffdedbedGreen Eyed Devil14 points15 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Over 50% of couples in my country have an only child.

Country shrinking, social services will be overwhelmed, local population will usually be replaced by some population that likes to have kids. Good start.

People have been trying to pin low birth rates on everything already. There are studies, there are special programs to pinpoint and fix the hindrances. Politicians are breaking their back between blaming people and implementing special programs that are supposed to raise birth rates.

Good, you are screwing yourself by not doing this.

To me the reason seems obvious, just by looking at the parents around me. Raising kids is not nice. It used to be common knowledge that kids are a headache. No one expected parents to actually enjoy their kids for too long. It used to be ok for strangers to yell at random kids for being loud.

And you are projecting. I think a lot of younger people have been scared off of having kids by this thought and are convincing themselves they don't want kids out of fear. Well guess what, kids are quite nice, I have multiple kids and its not a headache. Do you think we've made it some 3-4 billion years with kids sucking? Do you think higher birth rates was because of bad pullout game? You just have no real clue to what having kids are like so you project your concept on those that do.

Now there's this trend of people pretending that kids are nothing but rainbows.

You mean people who don't think kids suck therefore they are lying? Jesus christ man, get over yourself. Kids are not all rainbows, but then again nothing is. Kids good well outweighs the bad though.

. This bled into the birth rate discussion in that people seem to be pretending that they don't know that kids are annoying and why couples are not eager to have them.

More personal projection.

When there's more than one kid they will fight.

Sometimes and its more of a squabble. Its not exactly a huge deal.

This is a considerable annoyance.

Lol

Small kids will ruin your health, sleep and they will scream like a dying animal for no fucking reason in the middle of the night.

People with children live longer..

https://www.statnews.com/2017/03/27/parents-having-children-live-longer/

https://qz.com/932388/a-new-study-that-shows-people-with-children-live-longer-and-the-relationship-between-parents-and-longevity-increases-with-age/

Adults want to come home to a quite house.

More personal projection. Sometimes my wife and kids are gone for a few days and its damn boring. I go to bed early cause why not, its boring.

You can get away for a while. With multiple you will be pissed for a considerable percentage of the 20 years when they live with you.

Maybe YOU will be pissed. We have family and babysitting. We get out as a couple and as a family. You see when the oldest child turns a certain age, THEY can watch the other children too!

You have worked so hard to convince yourself that children are just awful. Congratulations, you played yourself.

Sometimes childcare does suck, because its something you don't want to do at that moment, but lets take this subs favorite activity to bitch about (and most not have) sex!

What do I do for sex? I eat healthy to stay thin (sucks), I work out at the gym, even when I don't want to (like 30 mins from now on a Saturday morning, that sucks), I manscape and make sure I'm pretty (sucks, even more for women to do there), and then I get to have sex with hotter women! (Doesn't suck at all!).

See sometimes worthwhile things take.. well energy and effort you would wish you didn't have to make. Kids are one of those things. Still great. My regret isn't having kids, my regret isn't having more.

[–]filamilano[S] 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Do you think we've made it some 3-4 billion years with kids sucking?

kids used to work, not study for 20 years while living off of you

> People with children live longer.

correlation, different lifestyle, more elderly assistance.

> Good, you are screwing yourself by not doing this.

I'm not saying 'do nothing', I'm saying the cause lies in kids themselves. So any attempts to change birth rates would need to make children less annoying for parents (eg more services should be done by schools/institutions so that parents after the first "testing kid" are not put off)

> You mean people who don't think kids suck therefore they are lying?

That's why they are stopping after one. I'm not trying to convince people that they should not be having multiple kids. I'm describing the actual state

>You see when the oldest child turns a certain age, THEY can watch the other children too!

such kids often turn out childfree later in life because of this experience

[–]45derangement2 points3 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

at the end of the day, your genes and the desire to not breed will die out. breeders will breed kids that have a tendency to breed. if you have no desire to procreate it's probably a defect in your human psyche to procreate as all animals instinctively have. you not wanting kids and those that agree with you are just being guided by nature to end your lineage and those that want to breed will continue human existence.

i don't feel bad for you, i just don't know why you have the need to project what you want onto the world. do you own thing bro, no one in real life really cares. reddit isn't real life.

[–]filamilano[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

you completely misunderstood. My post is DESCRIPTIVE, not prescriptive

[–]decoy88Black Male in London1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

How do you balance having kids with swinging? Do they know you swing?

[–]diffdedbedGreen Eyed Devil1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

How do you balance having kids with swinging?

We don't get out that often. Max is like twice a month lately, usually closer to once. Kids come first.

Do they know you swing?

Hell nah. Sexuality at their ages is confusing enough.

[–]decoy88Black Male in London0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Fair enough. We’re on a break right now. Wanna get back in my ultimate shape first.

[–]diffdedbedGreen Eyed Devil1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm at the gym right now. My motivation is 80% for swinging.

[–]Dash_of_islamBidet 4 Life>Toilet paper unwashed proles0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, wouldn't it be an awkward conversation if they found out?

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You accuse OP of "personal projection" multiple times yet you also act as though just because you enjoy parenting everyone must be the same.

[–]Dash_of_islamBidet 4 Life>Toilet paper unwashed proles0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You said it's boring when yur kids are not home.

Playing devil's advocate: What will you do when they grow up and leave the nest?

How will you combat boredom then, if you say it is annoying now?

Because it seems a lot of the benefits of kids disappear when those kids grow up and leave. And then what? Old age, but it's worse since you had a big family and now it is just 2 people left, and after a death there will only be one. It's like you know what it is like having something good, and then it is all taken away slowly (family, independence and mobility etc...).

Getting old seems depressing man, now I know why senior suicide is so high and rising. How do you deal with these thoughts?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't happen all at once thankfully. A part of you knows the point is for them to grow up and leave and be independent, if you don't allow their wants to fully engulf your life you'll be alright. They'll always have needs but the wants are where couples forget they're married and shift focus too drastically imo. I mean you don't become dead to them when they go unless you're total parental fuckups.

It's starting to hit home here for my husband that our daughter will be gone soon and he is not happy about it. Colleges can mine a database of student AP scores and start sending mail to harass your kid into considering their University. The first time that happened his face was indescribable, it will be hard for him at first.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Getting old seems depressing man

That's why my philosophy is simply get cake die young.

[–]HonestyOverCivility 1 points [recovered]  (5 children) | Copy Link

Kids are like investing for retirement: not that enjoyable in the near term, but very lucrative in the long term.

Mind you this is what studies find, not just my opinion. Kids decrease life satisfaction in the near term, but massively improve it in your later years. I’d argue this is pretty much common sense. It’s nice to have a legacy and people you can celebrate Christmas with

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah and fwiw Christmas with kids is so much better than with a bunch of adults. Adults are dieting, have idiotic family feuds, and have to act like presents are meaningful or something they couldn't just go out and get themselves. Meanwhile kids are like "I'll have 10 cookies, grandparents smell funny but fuck it they give me candy, oh look there's uncle so and so, dad gave me 10 bucks to punch him in the leg and run, YESSSS I got a SW pez dispenser in my stocking!!!" They're hilarious whether cracking out on sugar and singing carols or being minions of destruction.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Omg yes I loved this last Christmas gone like I've never loved a Christmas since I was 10 years old, my kids were both old enough now to get excited and really understand what's going on, open a calendar each day etc, it was lovely and I've hated Christmas and the festive season since I grew up myself, not anymore it's fast becoming my favourite time of year lol.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Same! Kid enthusiasm and excitement really makes that holiday. I'm decorating and cooking all the holiday stuff for them, adults can enjoy it or buzz kill elsewhere!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes, I prefer spending time with my kids than other adults these days 🤣

[–]CrestfallenWolf2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

"It used to be common knowledge" then why were birth rates higher with that knowledge.

If it sucks so bad to have kids why do women still push to do it in there late 30s

Why are egg freezing, invitro, and fertility specialist such a large business.

If having children universally sucks why are birth rates so very different in different nations, social classes and even subgroups within nations?

Saying it "just sucks" doesn't explain falling birth rates. Google Feminism solves overpopulation second look at when The Pill was invented and look at birth rates 10 years before and after... It's not rocket surgery. All the information is there.

Edit: I had to add I laughed my ass off at the irony in your title. Ya it's OTHER people pretending, not you no no no.

[–]filamilano[S] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

then why were birth rates higher with that knowledge.

  1. kids used to add value to the household (they worked and took care of old parents, not study for 20 year and then move across the country)
  2. kids were looked after by multiple elderly people in the family, not only the parents in a 30m apartment
  3. sex

>If it sucks so bad to have kids why do women still push to do it in there late 30s

percentwise compared to the 50% of families who only have one kids this doesn't seem to show any trend (also some of those kids are the first kids, and the reasons for having A kid are different, at that point you also don;t know what life with a kid will be like)

> Google Feminism solves overpopulation second look at when The Pill was invented and look at birth rates 10 years before and after

so when people can avoid kids they do, why are you making my point for me?

[–]CrestfallenWolf1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Your using a truism to explain a complicated and deep subject ignoring the things a society can actually change. You are ignoring all of the studies that show kids bring happiness and contentment and plugging your ears and screaming if you think older women are bemoaning not having kid.

Your saying cars move because of gasoline. Ignoring the thousands of changeable parts that makes the fact work for you.

Curious to know if you think widely available child care, 13 years of schooling makes it better or worse to have children?

[–]filamilano[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

You are ignoring all of the studies that show kids bring happiness and contentment

did you even google this

Curious to know if you think widely available child care, 13 years of schooling makes it better or worse to have children?

IF childcare was widely available now and more child chores were covered by schools/institutions this would maybe make parents be less influenced by the "testing kid" and thus want another. Outsourcing kids is the only way now to save parents from being too downtrodden by the first kid

But if you're asking about comparison with the olden days then the schooling is what makes kids useless (but there is no way out of this now as we can't nor have the need to use kids for field labor anymore)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Because many women will naturally feel empty and broken if they never have children. The hormonal urge for kids is real and it starts around age 22 in my experience.

[–]CrestfallenWolf0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

The original poster disagrees with you not me... What's the point of telling me, and not the thick skilled / socially blind thread author, that women (and many men including me) want kids?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Sorry I was kind of agreeing with your post lol.

[–]CrestfallenWolf0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, I read it like I didn't say that some how. Ya if course women want kid... I mean if they didn't they wouldn't. LoL

[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence5 points6 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I think that in any discussion about having kids, the only people you should really listen to are people who have already had kids, because they are the only ones who have actual experience on the topic.

Asking child free or a single person about kids is like asking a virgin for sex advice.

So, OP, do you have kids?

[–]filamilano[S] 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

> the only people you should really listen to are people who have already had kids

I based this post on the stat that over 50% of couples only have 1 child. So yes, this is based on parents

[–]daveofmarsFor Martian Independence8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Some people have one kid for economic reasons. Some people have one kid for environmental reasons. Some people have one kid for biological reasons.

Putting it all on the fault of kids being shitty is lazy scholarship. And unless you have the personal experience of raising a kid then I won't consider you qualified and your view wouldn't have much value to me.

[–]DevilishRogueKnows more than you1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Raising children is great. More people would do it if they could afford it, but kids are expensive. Cost is the reason parents are having fewer children.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Kids used to be raised into large families. Now everyone is highly individualistic.
Aunts & uncles no longer want to have nephews / nieces visiting.
The "good old" generation of grandparents is dying out as well replaced by bitter old dogmen and catladies.
Plus as a single guy it's very risky to invite nephews & nieces over due to people thinking you must be some sort of sick pedo.

[–]filamilano[S] 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

old members of a family used to live in the same house. They were live-in childcare, a fucking luxury!

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Not really I didn't really live in the same house as my grandparents & aunts/uncles.
But I did visit them almost every summer & winter vacation.
Their kids were older and out of the home so they liked when we visited them as they felt less lonely.
Raising kids is basically an "acquired taste" so to speak (no pedo)

[–]filamilano[S] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I'm talking about human history in general:)

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It hasn't been generally valid for over 100 years.

I did see multi-generational families in the same home a few years ago but they were living in poverty.

[–]filamilano[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think even with the rise of families living in separate apartments/houses still people didn't move around so much as in the recent 40 years. People now go to uni en masse (it used to be rare), they move away form home, they they migrate to larger city away form family. It's much easier to change cities/countries.

[–]zayelionMale, Only Attracts Lesbians1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Where I live this isnt a paradox, its well understood and laughed about.

  • When given tons of resources creatures reproduce faster
  • Before the industrial revolution more family members ment more labor; higher number of resources and survival rate
  • Cities invert this, having children is extremely costly.

[–]filamilano[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

You'd thin this is basic knowledge, but no:)

[–]boomcheese441 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Honestly, people need a lot more money and resources to comfortably have children. I can't imagine both parents working jobs while having to take care of kids and a home on the median salaries everyone is getting. If you have a functional extended family, it could take off the load. But most westerners don't have that.

I'll have kids alright.im lucky to come from a culture that values extended relatives. And I married rich, so most of the pesky chores will be outsourced.i couldn't see myself doing it any other way.

[–]rpsheepdogSuprisingly Reasonable2 points3 points  (22 children) | Copy Link

Well I'm going to guess this is a European question because that seems to be quite the topic over there.

My troll response for the politicians is-let in more refugees in because they don't seem to have any problems artificially raising the birth rate.

[–]volmaaktgebalanceerdIt's all bullshit12 points13 points  (17 children) | Copy Link

There seems to be a severe correlation between the people who are concerned with the birth rate and the people who are concerned about immigrants.

If you actually make fiscal analyses it tends to be the case that they result into that a slow amount of population decline is the most beneficial to the overal economy because surprise surprise this world is overpopulated and there is a problem with certain finite resources but I don't think they want population increase to actually do something tangible; it's a nationalist breeding war; they just fear that "their people" will be outbred and there will be more "of them" which is why they can't solve the problem with immigration.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

they just fear that "their people" will be outbred and there will be more "of them" which is why they can't solve the problem with immigration.

Yep that's all this faux concern over birth rates really is.

Personally I don't care if it results in more immigration, what does it matter?

Not to mention AI. As automation gets more and more advanced we won't need as many humans in the workforce anyway.

[–]volmaaktgebalanceerdIt's all bullshit2 points3 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Personally I don't care if it results in more immigration, what does it matter?

It means there are people of different skin colours walking in the street—the horror.

And people who say it's about "ethnicity, not skin colour" are talking bull in general because people seem to only mind immigrants if they visibly look "different".

It's simple: people have decided at one point that racism is bad so now they search for another proxy for racism without calling it racism and now they call it "ethnicity" but it's still about race. Like this ridiculous term "Latin American" that was coined in the US to not have to say "brown people". No one calls people from Quebec "Latin American" why? Because they're white despite speaking a romance language in the Americas and the term seems to weirdly be used often for people from Jamaica or Surinam as well where they speak Germanic languages but are brown skinned eh.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah that whole thing in America where they use terms like "people of colour" or "African-American" to avoid just saying black, Asian, etc is so weird to me. I'm in the UK we just say what we mean with this stuff.

[–]volmaaktgebalanceerdIt's all bullshit1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah the US kind of has this weird fear of certain words which can be replaced by words that mean the same thing like with all the bleeps on TV too.

It's so arbitrary like "coloured person" is highly offensive apparently but "person of colour" is totally fine... like how does that make sense. Some people try to rationalize it with that it's not offensive because it puts the word "person" first but if you ask me that's a ridiculous back-rationalization.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep exactly it's fucking ridiculous.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah,in the UK most people don't bat an eyelid at the white European immigrants, it's the brown people they don't want here.

[–]volmaaktgebalanceerdIt's all bullshit0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well except if they're Polish I guess.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The polish are the most accepted, they are seen as hard working lol.

[–]rpsheepdogSuprisingly Reasonable3 points4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

it's a nationalist breeding war; they just fear that "their people" will be outbred and there will be more "of them" which is why they can't solve the problem with immigration

This is what the issue is, the thing is it is actually happening.

[–]volmaaktgebalanceerdIt's all bullshit1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

And what does it matter?

I honestly can't really care that there are less "Dutch" than "English" people by a large margin. What would it do for me if there were more "Dutch" people? Especially if they all had to live in this already crowded country with a housing market problem.

I see let the "Dutch" population go down a bit because housing is waay too expensive here right now.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I honestly can't really care that there are less "Dutch" than "English" people by a large margin.

The problem isn't that there are more English in England than Dutch in the Netherlands, but that the English are outnumbered by Non-English in, say, Blackburn or the Dutch by Non-Dutch in, say, Rotterdam.

[–]volmaaktgebalanceerdIt's all bullshit0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

And again, why do I care?

Especially because "Dutch" vs "non Dutch" is just code for "white people" vs "brown people". The largest immigrant group in the Netherlands are apparently Germans but everyone is talking about Turks and Moroccans because they're brown rather than white.

[–]xKalistoSAHM of Yurop0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Did you somehow miss the huge hate-on UK has for Poles?

[–]JustForPPDChemistry > All1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

they just fear that "their people" will be outbred and there will be more "of them" which is why they can't solve the problem with immigration.

This is a serious and real concern though. It can be very difficult to integrate a large minority, almost impossible. Look at the Russian minorities in the Baltics in example, 30 years and still not integrated. Many don't even speak the local language of that country. Zero words. Nothing.

[–]volmaaktgebalanceerdIt's all bullshit0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Well here they do. In fact their parents tend to complain that their Turkish and Berber is highly Dutchified. Like the mayor of Rotterdam is originally Moroccan and if you close your eyes and hear it speak there is no accent descernible as is common with people who came here during their youth.

[–]JustForPPDChemistry > All0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Turks in Netherlands make 2.5% of the population. Do you think everything would be the same if they were 25-30%?

[–]volmaaktgebalanceerdIt's all bullshit0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Such things have happened many times before, what just happens is that the language and cultures hybridize a bit which is what is already happening. There's an increasing number of Turkish loanwords into Dutch and there are already "Turkish-Dutch" speciality dishes which you won't find in Turkey.

In fact it has happened before in the Netherlands very recently with the indo assimilation. About 40% of the Netherlands has some amount of Indonesian ancestry; it just assimilated and hybridized with a lot of now-Dutch lexicon and cultural customs which are actually a hybrid of Dutch and Indonesian things.

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

My troll response for the politicians is-let in more refugees in because they don't seem to have any problems artificially raising the birth rate.

You're being facetious, but that's indeed an argument that the political class in my country has brought up over and over again (the further you go the left, the more popular it gets).

[–]rpsheepdogSuprisingly Reasonable0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's kind of tongue in cheek because I know it's a real argument

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I really wish that all these schmucks live reaaaally long lives so they are there to witness where their idiocy has lead us.

[–]rpsheepdogSuprisingly Reasonable0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Right, politics in general just seem so fake, bitch and moan about a problem you do nothing to help with... good idea

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to Littleknownfacts[M] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–]GridReXXit be like that5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

How old is everyone vehemently against kids?

What I notice is that people like that are 100% against kids because they’re focused on achieving their goals or having fun and being understandably stress free and defining their own purpose etc

But then they turn 50 and realize they sort of did everything they sought out to do and enter this existential crisis of wanting to pour all of their wisdom into something — a kid, a purpose!

Problem is for women it’s too late; should have had the foresight to anticipate your middle aged listlessness — that cursed finite reproductive window.

For men, this is when every uncle who claimed he hated kids suddenly has a wife 20 years younger than him and is enjoying the whole “being a daddy” journey.

Also many end up fostering or becoming overly doting aunts and uncles or godparents.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I said this further up, it's all fun and games being childfree as a teenager/early 20s when your young hot and single like many of your peers, but when your no longer young and cool enough for those beach parties and Ibiza weekenders, your gonna be a bit lonely, old and sad. That's why some women have a crisis in their 30s and 40s when they haven't fulfilled their natural role.

I made sure I found a good man in my prime (19 when I met him) Nd had kids at 23 and 25. Looking at the single and childless girls I know now who constantly post bitter things on Facebook and are in their own words 'fed up of doing everything alone' (despite being a miss independent with a job, home, car etc) shows me I made the right choice.

Partying single life gets so boring and empty after a while.

[–]LifterofThingsDelicate Feminine Flower3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Can we dispense with this broken-ass retarded logic whereby if a person isn't 100% elated to be a parent at all times, they must be lying about how fulfilling they find it overall?

Lots of fulfilling, compelling shit is hard sometimes.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

A lot of people can't afford it, and there is a narcissistic me me me culture that makes people want to spend their lives in eternal adolescence.

Personally having kids is the best thing I did, but I had PND and it's only really good once they are past the baby stage

[–]CrestfallenWolf0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]filamilano[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

my post is about the interest of parent's tho. Not about not having kids. My point was that if a country wants kids they need to do the work in the form of unburdening parents

[–]CrestfallenWolf0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

No sense of humour either. Boring

[–]red88lobster0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

I have 3. Having more than one kid isn't that bad . Its essentially exactly the same except more expensive.

Perhaps the issue is more the systematic destruction of the family and gender roles.

Once upon a time a man could do an honest days work and provide for a wife and 8 kids .

Now it takes 3 incomes to afford a small house and the average person can barely afford to support themselves and a dog.

But who knows . Maybe it is just that kids are annoying.

[–]filamilano[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

> Once upon a time a man could do an honest days work and provide for a wife and 8 kids .

If people wanted such a life they would have it, yet it's uncommon among couples who could afford to live one on wage. They prefer not to because (back to my post title) it is not nice*.

*I'm not saying it's not nice for you or other certain individuals. But there is a clear trend where people prefer other life

[–]red88lobster1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So why assume it's because it's "not nice" . I mean what's your evidence? Otherwise you are just speaking for other people or guessing.

[–]NiceGuyNumber40 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Raising kids is expensive unless you have daddy government pay for it.

[–]filamilano[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

my gov pays child support if the father doesn't. It matches the father's rate. The average monthly rate in 290. The monthly cost of raising a kid is 800. So real daddies or government don't even cover half of the kid's needs

[–]we-are-men-with-ven0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

This is my kind of area as I'm doing a degree in childhood studies.

There can be problems associated with lone children, but they are not unavoidable. It's all about the style of parenting really.

All through the 19th century and some of the 20th century, a lot of research concluded that lone children were problematic. And had a huge impact on the consensus. The huge body of research we have about it today basically points out that it's about the specific style of parenting.

For example compromise and other social skills can be honed through keeping children sociable. Lone children also get more individual attention which is obviously a bonus.

[–]filamilano[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

cool, but this changes nothing for the parent

[–]waxedmintfloss0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

It's for economic reasons. Siblings can entertain each other and train each other healthy socialization. There's even a theory that human childhood and adolescence last so long so that kids can help with chores and taking care of the younger ones. If everyone innately hated children then why would people still be having them despite access to birth control and feminism? Why do infertile couples go to great lengths to start families?

[–]filamilano[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

> If everyone innately hated children then why would people still be having them

I never said people hate children, only raising them, more so in multiple numbers. The difference between liking and raising them is like between petting your neighbor's dog and actually taking care of it. Or two or three dogs, at your house, where you live

[–]Muse_asvhedu0 points1 point  (4 children) | Copy Link

I’m a nanny, and I watch twin toddlers. Kids... aren’t terrible? It’s all about how you raise and react to them. My beans are polite (they say “please” and “thank you” and take their plates to the sink after meals), generally well-behaved (one or two time outs a day) and are all around joys to be around - and that’s according to complete strangers!

It’s all about how you regard them. A lot of people probably want to give their kids the best lives they can, and a close look at their finances makes it clear that one child is exponentially cheaper than two (childcare costs alone can run towards $28k a year or more for two young children). They’ll forgo more children so that their child can have the best life they can. I have five siblings. I know that my life would be very different if my parents only had one child to concentrate on rather than six.

[–]filamilano[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

It’s all about how you regard them

you are paid to hang out with them:) You regard them useful. They are not to their parents tho

[–]Muse_asvhedu0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Boss adores her kids - and if I didn’t love them, I wouldn’t be in this job. The hours are awful, I usually work 10+hrs a day plus weekends, I don’t have a life of my own because I’m in a house alone with kids without coworkers or much time to explore, and the money isn’t anything to write home about.

I love these kids. They’re absolutely wonderful, and I often spend my weekends and after hours hanging out with them because they’re so much fun to be around. Hours I’m not getting paid to work.

It’s okay if you don’t like kids. A lot people don’t! But to say that all kids are awful is too broad a judgement to make.

[–]filamilano[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

all kids are awful

never said that. I said raising kids is not nice. The kid's parents outsourced them to have a life

[–]Muse_asvhedu0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Nope. Boss is a single mom who works all day. The minute she’s home and changed she’s with the kids. She doesn’t go out anywhere if she doesn’t have the girls with her, unless she has to run an errand like grocery shopping (something most parents would do without their kids anyways). Some people just genuinely enjoy spending time with their kids. Hell, right now I’m technically working but she has the day off, so I’m cleaning house while she’s at the park with them.

[–]whyvswhynot120890 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

" They fuck you up, your mum and dad.   
They may not mean to, but they do.   

They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.
But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,   
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another’s throats.
Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself."

-Phillip Larkin, This Be The Verse

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 19930 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

people who talk like crotch spawn are nothing but little blessings are lying to themselves, not to people who dont want any of that. they made a mistake by following the Life Scripttm to the tee and want everyone else to follow suit.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

Bitter much? You ain't a parent so how on earth would you have the slightest inkling what it's like? They give meaning to life, sometimes it's frustrating but what is there that's worth having that isn't?

Following the life script is actually going out working every second of your life to be a mindless consumerist, which is what most childfree people do. Family is the true meaning of life not chasing endless status and materialism. Can't take money with you when you die but your legacy will live on in your kids and grandkids

Yeah it's fun being childfree when your young and hot, but what about when you ain't so young and cool anymore, and all your friends have settled down? Seems a lonely life to me unless you have a partner who also doesn't want children. Even then...no thanks

I'm bored without my kids, would I have wanted them as a hot 18 year old out having fun? Nah, but now? Yes definitely.

The feeling of contentment I have snuggled up with my man and our kids beats any feeling I had as a partying young thing.

[–]JezebeltheQueen5656Crushing males' ego since 1993-1 points0 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

ohh, my, someone feels called out. good.

sweetie, if you believed any of this you wouldnt feel obligated to defend your mistake, i mean, choice. ooops

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's relevant to the topic 🙈

The fact is, I have children so actually know what I'm talking about, unlike you.

Mistake? They are the best thing to happen in my life. Like anything worth having, there are hard times and sacrifices, but they are worth it.

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter