Is there anything more irritating than hearing people say “you should have a baby,” “why haven’t you had a baby,” “you’ll make a great mother,” “have a baby already, sheesh,” and/or “have more babies!” Really, all of that is really saying to women, “you have a uterus, stupid, use it–what the hell is wrong with you?!..forget your career and aspirations.” Yep, I’m sure that’s the kind of thing hard working women in the professional world want to hear. Women who got there through hard work and remaining childfree thanks to the “miracle” of contraceptives. And what about college women? Should we keep telling them in a sense they should only enjoy having a career for what–two to five years and then start popping out those babies, because that’s what they’re “supposed” to do? Or at least expected of them because well, they do have an uterus and some ovaries. Of course there’s nothing wrong with women waiting to have children until they’re relatively financially stable and their careers are where they want them to be. A lot of women do that nowadays. And there’s nothing wrong with having children and women wanting to be mothers someday. I don’t want any children, but hell, if this woman over here or there wants children, then go for it. My only problem is this guilt-tripping and nagging crap we see in the media, the obsession over pregnant celebrities, and the relentless fussing over and even antagonizing of professional women (or women in general) who choose not to have children. Not to mention this ridiculous notion that women must be in constant worry over the state of their ovaries and center their whole lives around them. Now I’ll let this post from Ms. Musings continue with the gentle criticism over this obsession of women’s reproductive choices in relation to their careers.
Tina Fey, the Saturday Night Live writer and weekend news desk co-anchor, is reportedly due to give birth to her first child in September. While ms.musings usually doesn’t go ga-ga over celebrity pregnancies, we will this time, just to resurrect one of Fey’s funniest and most poignant SNL news commentaries — this bit from 2002, sparked by the abundance of must-have-baby media and Sylvia Ann Hewlett’s book, Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children.
To the article…
The cover story of New York Magazine this week is Baby Panic. This goes perfectly with the other magazines on my coffee table — Where Are The Babies? (US), Why Haven’t You Had A Baby? (People), and, For God’s Sake Have A Baby (Time). Thanks Time Magazine, this is just what I need — another article so depressing that I can actually hear my ovaries curling up.
I would be worried if my ovaries shriveled up for hormonal reasons. But if my uterus shriveled up I would be dancing around like an idiot for joy. That would finally get people to stop being so condescending and rude to me whenever I say I don’t want to have children. Sorry to gross you folks out and interrupt, moving on….
According to author Sylvia Hewlett, career women shouldn’t wait to have babies because our fertility takes a steep drop-off after age 27. And Sylvia’s right — I definitely should’ve had a baby when I was 27, living in Chicago, over a biker bar, pulling down a cool 12 grand a year. That woulda worked out great.
But Sylvia’s message is feminism can’t change nature, which is true. If feminism could change nature, Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be all oiled up on the cover of Maxim.
Ladies, there’s no reason to panic though: it’s out of your control anyway. Either your cooter works, or it doesn’t.
My mom had me when she was 40, and this was back in the 70s when the only “fertility aid” was Harvey’s Bristle Cream. So, waiting is just a risk that I’m going to have to take.
And, I don’t think I could do fertility drugs, because, to me, 6 half-pound translucent babies is not a miracle! I’d rather adopt a baby. I don’t need a kid that looks like me. I was not a cute kid. I looked like a cross between that chick from the Indigo Girls… and the other chick from the Indigo Girls! Not a cute kid.
So who cares if you made Partner at the law firm, you finally got some tenure at the university, you just earned your bachelors degree, you bought your own home out of the city–did you have that baby you were supposed to have, because you’re still a female and hey–there’s fertility drugs to help out! And the woman over there/here can have a child or more if she wants to. Nothing wrong with that. But give me the crappy studio apartment in NYC, with the always irate landlord/lady, ridiculously high rent, mean neighbors who hate my dog, and the 9 to 5 job any time over children. That’s my life choice so prego-obsessers can go bother someone else about their ovaries. Or just stop guilt-tripping and nagging women about maternity all together. Let women make their own decisions on entering motherhood or not, without the guilt-trip and nagging–please. We’re not stupid, we can make our own decisions without the constant nagging from ovary-obsessed, rude people. And many of us do anyway. I’m sure there would be a lot more happier mothers out there if some didn’t feel as if everyone around them–via gentle words and subtle nagging–pushed them out of their careers and into motherhood, without giving a damn about how she felt. Many of these women wanted to be mothers anyway, but when everyone else wanted them to and not when the women wanted to? Whose going to have to go through pregnancy, labor, usually have most of the caregiving burden (though that’s changing thankfully), and of course sacrifice their career for awhile? And there are the women who ignore it, have children on their terms and a ‘huzzah’ for them. How do you do it?
/end of rant. Oh and Happy Friday.
Never mind. You can’t be expected to provide a few links, because you can’t even be expected to read what I write.
This is what I asked you to prove:
Correlation. Causation.
These claims your making are much more contentious than the color of the sky.
“Well damn people! Yes I am alive by the way. ”
Well I expected you to show up and say SOMETHING before the 100th post at least…
LOL…
“1) That more men are getting custody because of gender-neutral custody laws.
Correlation. Causation.
These claims your making are much more contentious than the color of the sky. ”
Well what would you say it’s due to???
A lot of feminists, at least in the academic community, have favored gender-neutral custudy laws. I favor them myself.
(In particular, I favor an idea called the primary caretaker rule, a gender-neutral rule that would create a presumption that the parent who was the primary caretaker should be awarded custody. I first encountered this idea in the writings of Martha Fineman, who is a feminist.)
I don’t think that more fathers having custody is in and of itself a bad thing, considering how low the father-custody figures were to start with.
Oh my gosh!!!
Someone, quick, call the MRAs and tell them that the feminists are on their side! NYMOM says so, so it must be true.
Snark aside, I am appalled at your comments, NYMOM, in which you deny the existense of a “father-child bond”. You seriously believe that you can claim that there does exist a mother-child bond, but that there exists NO such thing for fathers? Why on earth not? Are you assuming this “bond” is a purely biological one that can only work with female biology? Is it because of giving birth? What about adopted children? Is there no “bond” there? Or are you actually implying that men can’t parent as well as women? That they love their children less? I find that incredibly anti-male and insulting.
Actually, you are right. Despite the horrible things that MRAs say about feminists, it seems that I (and most feminists I know) am on their side here. I fully support the theory of gender-neutral custody. You (anti-feminist) call it “ruining mothers’ lives”. I (feminist) call it “supporting equality of the sexes”.
Note to MRAs: See? Feminism IS good for you. (Unless you aren’t really interested in equality, and merely like to bash women.)
”
I will cut pro-fertility people some slack only when they stop making comments like “one hug from a three year old and all the worlds troubles go away, you’ll see, you just have to have one.”?
There are those of us who do not wish to fertilize the earth with our spawn. And there are those of us who wish others would stop fertlizing the earth with *their* spawn.”
When you use words like “spawn”, you sound a little hostile, a little like a person who doesn’t like children, and a lot like someone who just doesn’t get how much parents love their children. Some of them are clods, some of them have too many children which is in a way greedy and irresponsible, and a few of them might even not love their kids. But if you’ve ever been in love, then you have a small taste of what most of us feel for our vulnerable, noisy, aggravating and amazing children. So stop using words that equate them with something evil or something animalistic and yes, cut overzealous parents some slack, because most of them have only kind motives, however myopic they can be.
This is a frustrating thread to read, and I think everyone likely would have sympathy for NYMOM’s situation (if we knew what it was, since her comments seem to be related to what’s happened toher), rather than her resultant views.
It all brings back what a mentor told me my first summer in law school when I worked for a non-profit that did some family law: never have children with someone you don’t want to have daily contact with for the rest of your life. (actually, he said “never have children with assholes — it’ll drive you insane”), but the cause of the insanity is having to deal with them forever.
halle, I understand what you are saying, but reflexive disdain for accomplished women by those who feel themselves aggrieved and powerless has a long and storied history — someone complaining of bias and unfairness in custody decisions has my sympathy, somebody lashing out at female judges, and then feminists generally, as the source of all the inequity in our still quite uneven playing field of gender relations just makes me mad.
Amp, not to hijack this thread further, by my family law professor (a big proponent of joint custody) had issues with the concept of the primary caretaker presumption. A short synopisis: given the choices that men and women make, this essentially operates as a presumption in favor of mother custody, and while it can be defended on reasonable grounds as being in the best interests of the child, after divorce, a person’s role as a “primary caretaker” cannot be replicated as it was before divorce — they must spend a greater proportion of their time on generally work related responsibilities, and children (and in her view mothers) would be better off with more evenly distributed parental responsibility so the primary caretaker has a chance to make up for a previous lack of commitment to these other responsibilities. Her view was that “primary caretaker,” like all de jure or de facto presumptions in favor of maternal custody tended in the long run to reinforce female loss of income after divorce, and subsequent dependence on male breadwinners. Just giving you an alternative perspective (I’m not sure I agree with her, but she was a very astute lady).
But “primary caretaker” reinforces female loss of income during marriage as well as after divorce. It’s not as though the bite only comes when she’s married.
mythago, of course you are right. But unlike during marriage, after divorce, the court expects a certain level of effort at economic independence by each of the parties, and the money is no longer considered “unified” — it never really was, but it certainly isn’t any more. There is no doubt that women drop out of the work force at their economic peril.
Right, which is something that child support is supposed to include; you’re not just paying for shoes and lunches, but for the other parent’s reduced economic opportunity because she has the bulk of childcare.
Well, I guess support is supposed to include that, but I don’t think it really does, not for most people. Most people don’t have enough income to offset the additional money required to maintain two households after divorce.
Barbara,
I completely agree with you — my only point was to say that when you have kids with someone, there’s no way you’re going to be able to get them completely out of your life afterward. And it’s not the “court” or “women judges” that are forcing you to deal with that person — it’s the fact that you had a child with that person.
I have a male friend who has a child with a woman (never married). She beats the child (leaving marks); he has brought this to the court’s attention yet the court warns her and leaves the child with her. No doubt this is because it’s a male judge??? Anyway, custody is sticky and messy and all supposed to be focused on what’s best for the child. Which is hard to determine.
-h
Halle, true, having a baby with someone guarantees that you are going to have to deal with them for at least a long time, just like divorce (or permanent break up of the relationship) more or less guarantees in most cases that one parent is going to suffer a diminished relationship with their children. No judge, however, fair, is going to rewrite the essential script you already wrote for your life and give it a fairy tale ending. If only there was an easy way to assess someone’s asshole potential when you have stars in your eyes. I’m sure we all have some fairly eye-popping and jaw-dropping stories to tell about revolting divorce related behavior.
“I don’t think that more fathers having custody is in and of itself a bad thing, considering how low the father-custody figures were to start with.”
No…I don’t think any father would think that’s a bad thing, since men invest little or nothing in the entire process anyway, so whatever the legal system rewards you with, after the fact, is gravy…
The question is what do the mothers think about it; since we are the ones whose actions will essentially drive the processs going forward. If women are content with the current system as it evolves, no problem. I don’t ultimately think they will be, but others obviously feel differently, so we’ll see what the future hold…
“This is a frustrating thread to read, and I think everyone likely would have sympathy for NYMOM’s situation (if we knew what it was, since her comments seem to be related to what’s happened toher), rather than her resultant views.”
As I have already said many time, my children are ADULTS…they lived with me their entire lives and I raised them alone…I am a grandmother… so no, it’s not for me that’s I’m on a crusade…but for my daughters, grandaughter and other young women, our future mothers…
BTW, this situation is definitely being driven by feminists. Of course men are reaping advantage from it for economic reasons, but what’s driving it is women like Barbara who writes:
“Amp, not to hijack this thread further, by my family law professor (a big proponent of joint custody) had issues with the concept of the primary caretaker presumption. A short synopisis: given the choices that men and women make, this essentially operates as a presumption in favor of mother custody”
So as you can see from the above comment, even a compromise would NOT be favored by feminists…
Actually, I was explaining the views of a professor of mine and at the end I said that I was not sure I agreed with her, and this is extremely clear in the context of the post. In your world, apparently, all women mimic the Holy Mother and men get married only to spread their seed and move on, and make efforts where children are concerned only to thwart and hurt their ex-wives.
I mean why should my two daughters and granddaughter have to pay extra for someone else’s pension; when that person chose not to have any kids and spent their money on new clothes, nice vacations and condos that I could not afford since I was raising the future citizen/taxpayers who were going to pay for these things, like retirements or nursing home/medical care, etc.????
Hey. Why should I pay taxes that go towards public schools and child health services, help the government give tax breaks to those with children, or be support them if they need to go on social welfare?
Oh, that’s right — because it’s my duty as a citizen. How about that.
NYMOM: “I don’t think any father would think that’s a bad thing, since men invest little or nothing in the process anyway…”
Oy Vey.
NYMOM, do you not see how prejudiced that statement is? I feel very badly for you that your experiences and worldview have led you to believe that fathers invest nothing in the process. It must be horrible to have seen multiple men abuse custody and divorce vulnerablities. However, I also feel outraged that you feel so easily justified to tar all fathers with the same brush. What you are doing is as bad as the MRAs that claim that all women are bitches that want custody just to punish the man. Honestly, I have half a mind to think you are an undercover MRA making these horrible statements as an attempt to demonize women who fight for custody!
Saving Cells for later [Cancer, donors, etc.]
http://www.wirednews.com/news/print/0,1294,67452,00.html
NYMOM, I do know men who invest very little of themselves in their children. I, and many other women I know, would never marry and raise children with such a man (assuming predictive capability). No presumption in favor of awarding custody to the mother may seem galling to a woman in a marriage where both spouses agreed to assume very traditional gender roles. And where a husband is a true jerk, he may be willing and able to exploit the mother’s fear of losing custody to make unfair demands and impose real sacrifices on his ex-wife and his family.
But surely it is just as unfair to impose a contrary presumption in favor of the mother where the spouses did not agree to such a narrow, gender based stratification of their family roles. Your characterization of all men as being more or less the same is offputting, to me, as a female who knows many men who are not like your cartoon character fathers, and to the many men whose appreciation of fairness would lead them to conclude that custody should in a given set of circumstances be awarded to the mother.
NYMOM – you seem to have very strong beliefs regarding mother-child bond. I do not know where you personally are coming from, but it really is bothering me. I have always considered myself a feminist – I mean, I grew up in a country where equality of genders was one of the important bits of Constitution from the birth of that country. I did always think that mothers have a special relationship with their children until I moved to US.
The most this “mother-child sacred bond” myth suffered for me when I met my future husband. I do not want to clutter this board more than it already is, and if you want a detailed account, please feel free to e-mail me at elfinity7_at_yahoo.com, but in short, I can tell you this – my step-son’s biological mother has never cared for her born son in any capacity other than a tool of manipulation, personal toy, or status symbol. She has hurt him and emotionally abused him to such a degree that I used to cry, because I couldn’t do anything to help the boy.
My son is exceptionally bright and sensitive. I care for him more than any words can describe. The sacrifices I’ve done for him I won’t talk about, because they are not relevant other than to say that just because I didn’t give birth to him doesn’t mean I don’t love him.
However, I can openly state that just because I did not give birth to that child, I have ZIP legal rights in regards to him. The woman who is the cause of a couple of mental disorders for the boy, on the other hand, has every possible right to continue to screw him up.
My husband an I fought a big custody battle (we were still paying our lawyer a year later) because apparently the fact that my son was repeatedly left alone with his mom’s then boyfriend who is a sex offender was not enough for the judge (as far as I know, a proud mother of one) to say, wow, I don’t think this woman should be allowed to be around her son. It was also not enough for the judge that she shipped her son off to us in the middle of February with no warm clothes and disappeared for about a year – among many other things.
Also, one of the kids in my son’s daycare has divorced parents. The mother doesn’t really care about the kid, but wouldn’t give up custody. As a trade-off, the dad has given up the house, the car, and pays alimony, even though the child is with him all week except for Tuesday and Thursday. Also, I know a guy whose wife got into drugs, and refused to go into rehab, which caused a divorce, but the kids still stayed with her, even though the reason the guy wanted the divorce in the first place was to get the kids away from that athmosphere.
We can sit here and sling mud on either gender, but the truth is, there are bad fathers and bad mothers, and if we, as society, keep looking at custody matters (or any child matters) from gender perspective, we will never get anywhere, and the ones who will keep suffering (make no mistake, they have always been) are the children. As much as this system LOVES chanting child-protecting slogans, the kids are the ones who are worst off.
Also, I think this society is hurt by this obsessive way a woman’s worth is measured by her ability to be a mother. I think many women, who only become mothers because of pressure of society or those around them, would benefit if they didn’t feel that need to prove their worth. Not to mention how many children would benefit if such a presumption were removed.
I’m not really very interested in continuing this discussion…
Everybody has their own opinion obviously and I’m not going to change anybody’s else and you’re not going to change mine…
Regarding the one step-person who responded; I’m not really very interested in your opinions on this issue…
Thanks anyway…
Peace everyone else…
Wow. I…wow.
I don’t know quite what to say. elfinity, I’m just a lurker here, but I wanted you to know that I, at any rate, very much appreciated your input.
Thanks, Elkins,
I was not trying to impress anyone, or rub anyone’s nose in anything. But I have been learning all my life not to presume anything, no matter what one’s personal experience is. Even the things ones knows to be “facts”.
NYMOM – I do not believe you ever wanted to have a discussion, unless it went your way. I find it interesting that you threw in the towel after someone had concrete personal life experience that was contradictory to your ideas that – to an open-minded person – could have been an eye-opener. It certainly made my mother to reconsider her views on the motherhood.
No…
I just got bored with the 125 replies, no one saying anything contrary to the basic premise except me…
Not ONE of you even commented on the similarities between MRAs and feminists on gender-neutral custody…you just responded by well, my sister in law said or I helped my husband get custody…yada, yada, yada…
I’m not that interested in your personal situations as I wanted to discuss the BIG ISSUES here not every individual custody ruling and situation…
NYMOM, many of us discussed the big issues without reference to personal anecdotes. You seem unable to paint except with a very broad brush. If you think there are similarities between feminists and MRAs, give some sources or quotes that show the similarity. Most of the feminists I know hate MRAs. No one here is bound to accept everything you say just because you say it.
…I’ve never met a feminist who didn’t loathe MRA’s.
NYMOM, the reason I didn’t mention any similarity of MRA with feminist gender-neutral custody laws is because there is none. MRAs take the view of old English common law, where the children and the wife are the property of the husband. In the event of divorce, the children remain his property. Feminists tend to be strong proponents of the primary caretaker view (although some, as Barbara pointed out, object to this as an assumption of women’s custody, and women’s “proper” roles). NOW, as Trish has pointed out umpteen times on her blog, has been strangely quiet on the issue over the years.
…Right. Plus, there are two different definitions of neutrality in play here. Feminists who advocate the “primary caretaker” standard believe that it should be applied gender-neutrally: if the husband happened to be the primary caretaker, he has greater rights to custody. MRA’s who advocate “neutrality” frequently argue that neither parent should have greater rights even if one was the primary caretaker. They believe that the “primary caretaker” standard is evil and unfair to the extent that it tends to favor mothers. They feel that the court should work to correct any gender-related disparate impact issue, no matter how it affects the child.
“NYMOM, many of us discussed the big issues without reference to personal anecdotes. You seem unable to paint except with a very broad brush. If you think there are similarities between feminists and MRAs, give some sources or quotes that show the similarity. Most of the feminists I know hate MRAs. No one here is bound to accept everything you say just because you say it. ”
I don’t have to quote other people, my own thoughts and quotes are sufficient, as should be the case with most discussion…This fixiation of people today with citing sources is really a way to limit discussion that you don’t disagree with by setting the bar too high for anyone to say anything…
Anyway, feminists might hate MRAs, as you say, I have no idea, but their support of gender-neutral custody aligns up very nicely with the MRA world view…
I happen to think most feminists understand this very well and how this hurts women. So to counterbalance this, feminists have chosen (NOW and most womens’ rights organizations as well) to become overly emeshed with the issue of domestic violence.
It has morphed into a method for feminists to pretend that they support mothers, while at the same time undermining us by supporting gender neutral custody which hurts mothers…
“…I’ve never met a feminist who didn’t loathe MRA’s. ”
Perhaps it’s like the difference between communism versus socialism…or military dictatorship versus religious theocracy…a difference in degree only…but many basic themes very similar…like men and women exactly the same vis-a-vis children, the army, any sort of work, emotional life, recreational sex, etc.,
Men are women are NOT interchangeable, emerging exactly alike from the same cookie cutter process…and both MRAs and feminists push this theory…if you read both of them carefully you will see the same underlying themes….
This only makes sense if you believe that no feminist is a mother…
Can you explain what you mean by ‘overly emeshed’?
“Carefully” or “selectively”? Or “senselessly”?
This is not true. The comments threads on this blog go over this accursed meme every single time a feminist issue comes up; it’s been a favorite strawman for anti-feminists and feminist-bashers since before the ERA Fight. The last big battle was over the Larry Summers flap.
Feminists do not believe that men and women are the same. They believe–generally speaking–that men and women are not innately different. They believe–generally speaking–that most if not all of the differences between men and women are socially created and maintained. The fact that women are overwhelmingly the primary caretakers of children, for example: that disparity requires a society that burdens women with childcare and tells men that attentive fathers are pussies.
Feminists do not ignore that disparity, and they never have. Greater social support for child-caretakers has been a dearly-held cause for feminist activists since day one. So has greater social valuation of childcare. Why? Because feminists care about women. The people taking care of children are overwhelmingly female. Therefore, feminists care about people who take care of children.
MRA’s, on the other hand, do ignore this disparity. They think that sexism and power imbalances, current and historical, should be ignored. They think that society should be gender-blind, even in cases where sexism has created an unequal partnership. All of that is antithetical to feminism. The two groups are not shoots off the same branch. Their philosophies are polar opposites.
actually, I’ve always thought the reason MRAs and feminists don’t get along is because MRAs make an active attempt to demonize feminists and indeed women in general, even if ultimately, the goals of feminists are really in the best interests of the MRAs.
after all, proper gender neutrality would make a gender neutral version of primary caretaker just as likely to side with women as with men. So the goal of feminists would help any MRAs.
it’s sort of like how the klan always demonized unions, even though the klan primarily tries to recruit blue collar factory workers in rural areas, the people who would benefit most from a strong, national union.
Not to mention that most MRA groups usually consist of members who are simply, personally, and often viscerally angry at the way they were treated in custody and support proceeding. So far as I can tell, there is no larger goal except to harass and demonize the perceived female bias within the system. There’s no effort, for instance, to increase society’s acceptance of men in the role of primary caregiver by advocating for family friendly workplaces. No, it appears that the average man in MRA groups is perfectly happy with the “system” until he walks into court and is shocked to find that it strives for fairness and frequently does accept a primary caretaker view of custody (or for instance, that domestic violence really is wrong). Equality can be perceived as unfairness when you are used to something “better.”
Whatever you can say about feminism, it is larger than custody fights with a much wider goal of helping women.
“Whatever you can say about feminism, it is larger than custody fights with a much wider goal of helping women.”
I hate to rock your world by telling you this but there is NOTHING larger for a woman once she becomes a mother then whether or not she be allowed to raise her own children…NOTHING…and MOST women will eventually be mothers.
So looking at the numbers here, this issue ALONE, could ultimately prove to be the “Waterloo” for the entire womens’ movement…since all those other ‘rights’ you keep telling women to be grateful for are going to be meaningless if we lose our children because feminists supported men in this whole gender neutral social-engineering custody experiment…
Meaningless…
I’m sorry to have to be the one to hit you with the bad news…
“The two groups are not shoots off the same branch. Their philosophies are polar opposites.”
I hate to tell you this, but yeah both groups are offshoots of the same twisted branch…
Sorry to disappoint you but feminism is the seedling where much of the bs that emanates from both MRAs and the Fathers Rights movement springs….
Feminism is their twisted mother…
“Can you explain what you mean by ‘overly emeshed’?
Making the issue of domestic violence the only legitimate reason for NOW and other womens’ groups to say anything regarding custody issues and how they impact ALL women…
As most of us are NOT victims of domestic violence maybe just victims of greedy men who use custody of children as a club against women to further men’s financial interest…so who speaks for those women????
So far it only appears to be the IRS….
No, that would be sexism. Sexism is responsible for devaluing motherhood and childcare. Sexism is responsible for the sense of male entitlement that leads MRA’s to demand itemization and “choice for men.” Sexism is responsible for men who think of divorce as revolt and loss of custody as theft. Feminism is responsible for getting women the equity they currently have–you know, the kind that allows them to leave marriages that are unpleasant, period, because of abuse or not? The kind that sees marriage as a partnership between two essentially equal people, rather than as an owner-chattel arrangement between a man and his brood mare, excuse me, wife?
NYMOM, I’m not child free. I’m a mother of three and nothing you say is going to “rock my world.” Like I said, you paint with a brush as big as a house.
Divorce not custody disputes is the cause of diminishing parental relationships. Someone almost always loses in a custody proceeding, and you apparently assuage yourself with the idea that it just doesn’t matter if the father is the one left out. I don’t see how you can say that, especially for boys. I also notice how you keep fixating on the mother child bond with the emphasis on mother. Custody isn’t supposed to be about the parent, but the child. It isn’t clear to me that from the child’s perspective the bond with either parent is more important.
Second, custody is always wrenching, but it is not an issue in the majority of marriages that don’t end in divorce. Moreover, there are many women who are child free — or have “aged out” of any concerns they might have once had that pertain to custody. To say that custody is the most important issue for all women is hyperbole.
Most of the divorced mothers I know do have primary custody of their children, and as far as I can tell, most (not all) have managed to make some kind of peace with their ex-husbands. I am never going to take a position that any mother who wants custody should get it 100 percent of the time. I don’t think it’s true.
NYMOM, are you ever going to list “the similarities between MRAs and feminists on gender-neutral custody”? This is an absolutely essential question for your position on the issue, and by continuing to not answer it you’re slamming the door on conversation.
Just fill this out, please, and then perhaps we can get on with the discussion in which you express such interest:
Regarding gender-neutral custody, both feminists and MRAs believe that _____.
I [do/do not] believe that mothers should always get custody of their children regardless of the circumstances.
Here, I’ll do it, too:
Regarding gender-neutral custody, feminists and MRAs have completely different opinions. Feminists believe that rules and regulations should never discourage a court from awarding custody to mothers simply because they’re women, and they believe that custody cases must take into account everything about the individuals involved and their relationship. MRAs, on the other hand, believe that fathers should always get custody.
I do not believe that mothers should always get custody of their children regardless of the circumstances. I believe that, in some cases, the mother would be a worse choice for custodial parent than the father. I do not believe that this is true for all cases–in fact, it’s often just the opposite–nor do I automatically assume that it’s true in any case.
From what you’ve been saying, you (not-feminist mother) and I (not-mother feminist) are in perfect agreement. Which kind of demolishes everything you’ve been saying.
Looking forward to your response.
No, that would be sexism. Sexism is responsible for devaluing motherhood and childcare. Sexism is responsible for the sense of male entitlement that leads MRA’s to demand itemization and “choice for men.”? Sexism is responsible for men who think of divorce as revolt and loss of custody as theft. Feminism is responsible for getting women the equity they currently have”“you know, the kind that allows them to leave marriages that are unpleasant, period, because of abuse or not?
But feminism gave with one hand and then turned around and grabbed back with the other…
As what women is free to divorce if she runs the risk of having to leave her children behind…thus the choice women have now is equivalent to “Sophie’s choice”…which is really none…
It’s like a paper right now, which women can’t exercise unless they want to risk losing their children…so what’s the good of it????
“Most of the divorced mothers I know do have primary custody of their children, and as far as I can tell, most (not all) have managed to make some kind of peace with their ex-husbands. I am never going to take a position that any mother who wants custody should get it 100 percent of the time. I don’t think it’s true.”
Yes, most mothers DO have custody of their children NOW, but that is changing…as feminists have given men a new ‘club’ to subvert every right women THOUGHT we won…a club given to them by people like you to use against women…
You’ve created a minefield that other young women will have to negotiate going forward due to feminist foolishness…
“NYMOM, are you ever going to list “the similarities between MRAs and feminists on gender-neutral custody”?? This is an absolutely essential question for your position on the issue, and by continuing to not answer it you’re slamming the door on conversation.”
Well you’ve just answered your own question…both feminists and MRAs support gender-neutral custody…there is no good support versus bad support on this issue…ANY support of this hurts women, ANY support…
I mean were their good support of racism versus bad support…Could you be a little bit racist, same principle…
I haven’t read all of this yet, so here is a question: what exactly is NYMOM so enraged about?
“NYMOM, are you ever going to list “the similarities between MRAs and feminists on gender-neutral custody”?? This is an absolutely essential question for your position on the issue, and by continuing to not answer it you’re slamming the door on conversation.”?
I almost hate to encourage this post by saying this, as I think it’s time it died a natural death at 146 replies…thus I feel somewhat guilty, unfortunately, not guilty enough to NOT say it…
To re-open the door: feminists MUST even take responsibility for that chowder-head Warren Farrell…
Yes, you must…he is your deformed, bastard son that you keep trying to deny…
All that crap he sprouts has been lifted from your own playbook…At his last book review he was sprouting a line of crap that being a mother was no different then being a marine…nothing particular special about what draws you to either field…
Straight from Feminism 101…or Yes, Virginia: why everyone is really exactly the same…
And so NYMOM, what do you propose? Unlimited custody rights for, and father visitation only as consented to by, the mother? I honestly have no idea. You have presented no coherent view of what should replace notional equality in custody disputes. From what I have read, your position is that fathers should be presumed to be the equivalent of nonentities in the lives of their children.
I once read that in nearly every society, suicide increases along with literacy rates. Under the kind of logic you are using, people who advocate for universal literacy should be blamed for individual suicides. Equality (as imperfectly it has been achieved) is what lets women have any expectation of leaving a bad marriage at all, let alone an expectation of raising a child as a single parent in something other than abject poverty. That it has some nasty consequences is unfortunate, and I’m all for increasing fairness in custody and support disputes, but I am not willing to throw out an ideal because it doesn’t always satisfy everyone’s expectations.
NYMOM: Bullshit. Feminists had nothing to do with Warren Farrell. He called himself a feminist, but so what? I could call myself the Pope and it wouldn’t make it so. Warren Farrell is supportive of incest perpetrators; feminists were the people who ended the silence on incest, organized counseling and resistance groups for incest survivors, and fought for stronger laws and longer statutes of limitations so perpetrators can be put behind bars where they belong.
Feminists aren’t asserting that men and women are the same. We do insist that individual men and women not be held to fascist essentialist standards. In other words, we aren’t out to revoke the “real woman” cards of women who enjoy working out, or the “real man” cards of men who enjoy baking cookies. You are free to limit your own talents and opportunities, but feminists prefer that everyone be given free rein to develop all their talents and abilities rather than be required to stunt their intellectual and creative growth.
I almost hate to encourage this post by saying this, as I think it’s time it died a natural death at 146 replies…
Then stop trying to get the last word in, and let it die. Stop with the “I wish you would all shut up but you force me to speak” crapola.
“I almost hate to encourage this post by saying this, as I think it’s time it died a natural death at 146 replies”
I decide when this post “dies,” as Amp has given me the authority to close down a thread when I feel like it. And if people want a thread to “naturally die out” then they’ll stop posting comments. Which means if you want this thread to stop then you too will have to stop posting comments as you, NYMOM, are the one who started the anti-feminist/pro-feminist flame war within the replies. All on a thread that was SUPPOSED to be about all the bullshit women get whenever they say they don’t want children, or they don’t want children until a certain point in their lives, or when society gives them crap about “not being the perfect mother“.
No, the last dozens upon dozens of comments have been nothing but of your bashing of feminists, bastardization of the women’s rights movement, and over-generalization of what feminists supposedly did or didn’t do in regards to child-custody issues and Family Law. Or what “all feminists” supposedly believe when it comes to motherhood and raising children, as if we “all” think alike. And other comments have been from women defending made by feminism/women’s rights movement and it’s gains for women.
Damning feminism/women’s rights movement won’t fix the fucked up state of Family Law and child-custody issues. Participating in activism within the legal system will. You’re just adding momentum to the F/MRAs’ viciously misogynist movement and “arguments” against women period. Which for their “arguments” pretty much sums up to; “blame those feminist-bitches for everything that has gone wrong in Family Law and child-custody cases! Discredit them and their movement with hateful rhetoric, and force the Legislature to discard all the things they have given women!” Such as more legal and political power than ever.
You can’t damn feminists and MRAs, and have it both ways. If we keep bashing feminism/women’s rights, shaming professional unmarried childfree women for being so (ie: calling them “selfish”, “unfeminine/unwomanly”, “whores”, “immoral”, “family-hating-bitches”, etc.), use feminism/women’s rights as a convenient scapegoat for all of life’s problems, we’ll just go back to the days when women practically had little or no say in what happened to her children and her rights as a parent. And when women had little say about pretty much everything else.
Sorry for the long comment, but it had to be said. Now, continue with the discussion……..
Well you’ve just answered your own question…both feminists and MRAs support gender-neutral custody
Wow. Do you really not understand that this doesn’t mean anything? I’d thought it was completely obvious.
You aren’t interested in discussion at all. You haven’t addressed my questions. You haven’t commented on what I’ve said that both I and other feminists believe (as if you, anti-feminist, know more about it than all the feminists here). You haven’t supported your opinions in any way, shape, or form, not with facts or even other opinions. You haven’t said anything beyond that one sentence, over and over and over.
I feel like I’m trying to hold a conversation with a brick wall, and I have no further interest in wasting my time.
On the topic of being pathetic unless you have a child: I sympathise with this article a great deal. As soon as I passed age 24, the ‘grandchild’ comments started, and now that a good half of the women I work with have at least one child, the suggestions are getting more obvious all the time. I deal with this by polite insult.
OTOH, there’s one thing I really can’t deal with at all: the well-meaning suggestions that my co-workers make to each other about their childrens’ gender. For example, after one colleague came back from maternity leave, one woman asked her, “So was it a boy or a girl this time?”
The colleague responded, “Another girl”, with a comically disappointed expression on her face.
“Oh dear”, said the woman. “You’ll just have to keep trying”.
What is this, the middle ages? Trying to ensure a succession, are we? What is there about the genitalia of my colleagues’ two daughters that make them unacceptable to the office sense of satisfaction? Bah.
Sounds like you need a different office.
When I wanted to respond kindly, I would let the inquirer know that, “My kind doesn’t breed well in captivity.”
When I started getting annoyed, the inquiry, “Why don’t you have children?” would be answered with, “My kind eat their young.”
Good answers to “Don’t you like children?”
“Yes. Other people’s.”
“Yes. Boiled, roasted or fried.”
Good answers to general breeding inquiries: “Why on earth are you so interested in my reproductive capacities???”
NYMOM: I consider a mother to be the natural and best guardian for her children, just as it has always been since we first crawled out of the primal mists…why should we ‘fix’ something that isn’t broken just because men, encouraged by feminists gender neutral propaganda, decided they want to try something different now…so everyone has to happily jump through the hoops you all set up.
Really, NYMOM? Tell that to all the countless children who were abused and murdered by their own mothers – natural and best guardians my foot! The best guardians for our children are the caring adults (with or without children) who take the time and effort to educate, feed, love and support children. Be it their natural parents, their adoptive parents, their childless aunts, their childless teachers.
NYMOM sounds like she has a chip on her shoulder. Perhaps the men in her life were losers. Perhaps NYMOM envies that women made choices and she just decided to have kids because that was “just the thing to do” and is envious of all the other women who chose otherwise.
I am a mother and am ashamed of your ignorance. You do not represent mothers – definitely not me! You are not only a disgrace to motherhood, but your close minded prejudices and ignorance make you a disgrace to women in general.
I agree wholeheartedly that women should be able to make their own decisions, but it drives me crazy to see a post like the one you excerpt where the author laments other people shitting on her choices, but then shits on the choices of others. “6 half-pound translucent babies” is such a disgusting, dismissive, over-the-top generalization of the results of IF treatments…even I know that, and I’ve never tried to get pregnant by any method. The author is making a decent point in general, but it’s harder to take someone seriously when they’re doing the exact thing they’re ranting about being victimized by.
I guess we live in a country of busy bodies, asking questions or being concerned with things that are none of our business, like people asking why you don’t have children don’t you like children (which has been asked of me several times by my long term friends) or other questions that are personal.
I think worries about high taxations has nothing to do with goods and services to people (child care nursing homes etc)but rather injustices and corruption in governments that spend money where it is not intended or overtaxing people to make up for taxes they wasted or used for their wealthy friends or whatever. let’s not forget the politicians have their pet projects that have nothing to do with the common good of the tax payers and legal ways of stealing taxpayers money.
someone having a child or not is irrelavent in that regard, especially since the government keeps cutting services to the poor and middle class anyway.
it is an inescapable fact that what we do effects others directly or not, and there is no way to avoid it, or even minimize it, there is no way to change laws or times or seasons to avoid that, and taxes inevitably will be used for things that we dissapprove of, such as child care benefits to working people, or nursing home care for the poor or schools etc.
I don’t have children and don’t mind paying taxes for schools, I just don’t like the way they fund it, but that is something you deal with, one’s property should not ever be used to fund anything, that is what income taxes, sales taxes etc are for.
anyway I bet it gets annoying when people bug you about children, wish people could learn to not ask questions that don’t pertain to them.
RR
I recently heard about a company called Extend Fertility (www.extendfertility.com). They help women take control of their biological clock using an egg freezing technology. I’m 35 and single and considering this procedure. It will allow me to save my eggs now, so I can use my healthier and younger eggs in the future when I’m ready to have a baby. Has anyone had their eggs frozen or know more about this?
Theres this woman named Janey at my church she has been married since she was 18 and now shes 24 and I really want her to have a baby because I know she would make a great mom. Is it ok for me to think this and not tell her?
PLEASE READ AND COMMENT!!!
I live in Sweden. Here the pressure to upon the woman exist but it is much less than in US. It is absolutely normal for a woman to be in her early 30´s and not have a child. In any case, I did not want to talk about that. I am in an terrible situation. I do want to have childrens (at least 1), but my grilfiend (5 years together. I am 32 and she is 34) does not. Since one year ago we are been talking about this issue.
After all this pain, I fully understand and respect most of her ideas. I could write a book or make a documental about all the things that I have been throu. Thus, what I am wrinting here is something deep and very well thought:
I do respect her decision, woman or man, to not want to be parent. And I go beyond that: many couples having children do not know in what they are going into. Many couples are not prepared for that, resulting in child abuse, frustration, anger and psychological pain within the couple. Thus, I really do respect people that have make a thoughtful decision about have or not children. I see this has a positive evolution of our society.
The problem starts when you take a decision because you have the wrong idea about something (this goes for both prochildren and childfree arguments). One example: I come from a normal-happy family (we are 3). As my father, my mother has work all her life having different interests and friends. In her side, her mother left her univ. studies to become a very unhappy and frustrated housewife, passing all this bad feelings to my girlfriend. For her, marriage & children is equal to woman oppression. And you know, I’ve always been a good guy (not just for her), totally different from her father (I do dishes, cook, laundry, being a loving partner). I thought I was demonstrating her that not all the relations are predestined to failure (or to the oppression of the woman if she wants to have a family). Time to time we talk about the “issue”, telling her that I would like to have at least one baby, and that I was going to take all my paternal-leave (here in Sweden is a year long) About half a year ago I realize that all my efforts were unsuccessful, and for worse and sad, I was making her point: we could have a happy life without anyone else around. One evening we got call from a close friend: she was pregnant and super happy, after I hang the phone she started with the same woman-oppression speech….in summary, we have split up.
In summary, no matter how wrong or disorientated view of the family she has, I could not change her mind, therefore she took a decision (I am sure she will never have children in her life) based on wrong view of what is family. or maybe she is right? I do not think so!!
HELP!!!
Reading this post made me think of all those crazy christian families who have 15 children–Ther was one family in PA (???) where the woman had her 15th kid and they were all named with the letter “J” (as in Jesus). And then there was an episode of “Wife Swap” where this woman had 8 kids and homeschooled them all. Well the point I want to make is I think all the wrong people are having kids–these fundie families are spitting out fundie kids who will grow up with the fundie beliefs that we all love so. While the smart, savvy women who know what’s up with how bad socieity treats women have the sense to know that they might not be good mothers and/or don’t want kids will probably not have kids, I kind of wonder if it’s a disservice to the fight for equality.I get scared when then news does a “human interest” story praising the latest breeder. They are doing what socieity is telling them what to do, and they are going to pass this down to the daughters and the cycle continues. And if there aren’t any really cool feminists out there to educate these clueless girls I fear we are at a loss.
Shorter version: I’m glad that there are women who are fine without having babies and that we have access to contraception (despite people trying to take that away), but we got to remember that the fundies are breeding like rabbits.
I read the comments here and I think the women here are very eloquent and I so wish I could say what some of you guys say, and I’m not sure if I am getting this out clear. If the smart, clever women who fight the status quo don’t want to have kids can we make like a stealth Feminazi unit that kidnaps daughters (and sons) of the fundies in the middle of the night to some secret commune so that we can have troops to fight the Patriachy?
If the smart, clever women who fight the status quo don’t want to have kids can we make like a stealth Feminazi unit that kidnaps daughters (and sons) of the fundies in the middle of the night to some secret commune so that we can have troops to fight the Patriachy?
It’s called “college”.
john, if it’s so important to you to have kids (and i fully understand if it is) and it’s equally important for her not to have kids, then as much as you both might love each other, it’s time to call the relationship off.
you may “convince” her to have a kid eventually, with enough pleading and cajoling and arguments that she’ll come around once she has the kid and sees that life is different from her family history. but if she really never wanted kids, she’s going to resent the heck out of you and the kids both.
lots of people think that the “maternal instinct” will take over once the woman is pregnant and/or sees the actual baby. but this is a truism that isn’t true at all. there really are some women who don’t have a desire to have kids. and if you can’t accept that, then you’ve got a recipe for disaster if you force the issue.
if you do stay together and manage to convince her to have a kid, be prepared yourself for what might happen. you will wind up being the kid’s primary caretaker and source of emotional support. your wife may react in a way that is like the traditional 50s style husband: interacting with the kids for a few hours on the weekends and maybe a little while every day after work. but if she has to give up her interests and time too much for the kids, expect resentment, sullenness, and arguments as you try to get her more involved and she resists.
i knew my wife didn’t really want kids and despite the fact that now they’re here she does love them in her own way, i knew from the beginning that i would be the primary caretaker and source of emotional support for them. so expecting that from the beginning, we have an arrangement that works for us. sure, i wish she’d be a bit more involved, and there were a few rough months when the 4 yr old didn’t understand that mommy has do be gone pretty much most of every day of the week. but that eventually passed and she’s accepted that mommy has to work & go to school and have outside solo activites. i do insist on one family activity day per week, or at least a major part of that day. not that i particularly care, but for the kids to see that their mom is involved in their lives.
yes, she’s become more accepting and involved as the years have passed since our first daughter was born, but that was only through the fact that i put no demands on her to be involved and let her involvement with the kids develop at her own pace.
so unless you have a clearly discussed plan for childrearing and you are 100% ready to accept whatever she decides, you’re best off leaving the relationship and finding someone else who wants the same kind of family life you do.
Having children, wish that I had had the option of not having any children, but I have 3. I feel that I am not a great parent (39f). I have raised my children for the last 11 years on my own, my oldest is just now in college (18m), the next is going into 10th grade (15f), and youngest going into 7th grade (12f). There has never been enough money, time, energy, etc. I have struggled and struggled, working full time and in an educated/tech field, had daycare nightmares, sick child issues, no support from family, bills that go unpaid for years, cars that break down, bad credit, power or phone being shut off, the list goes on. I make just a tad too much for any sort of help (DSS), yet still qualify for the earned income credit. My kids have learnt that things aren’t always easy, but in the long run I haven’t done that bad of a job raising them, as they say that their lives have been and still are better than the lives of most of their friends. But in the overall picture, none of my kids want children, they have seen the sacrifices that need to be made on a daily basis, the responsibilities that come with children, and the freedoms that are given up. I do not think that my kids are wrong in their thinking, and I accept that they don’t want kids, I didn’t either when I was their age, I just wasn’t quite smart enough to think things thru and make appropriate descisions for me, I never put myself first nor did I set any goals or dreams for me to attain. But my children all have goals and dreams, dreams and goals that are attainable, lifestyles that they would like to live. The oldest wants to write code and design video games (and is currently pursuing his Computer Sciences degree), the middle child wants to be a sound engineer and is looking at attending Berkley College in Mass., and the youngest wants to be a chef (her idol is Emeril Lagasse and Julia Childs) and she has been watching Emeril, the Iron Chef and Julia Child reruns for years. I am proud of my children.
In the past few days I have had an addition to my family, another teenage girl (16) who had no place to go. I met her parents at their home the other day and my only thoughts are just how did this child survive, the abject poverty, the emotional blackmail, the verbal attacks of never being good enough. While I have felt that I wasn’t a very good parent, I have come to realize that there are parents out there that should never have had any children. While poverty isn’t abuse, neither is filth to some extent, but the parents are home all day long and the family is on Public Assistance, and still can’t seem to take care of the kids in a proper manner. The girl that is now living with me has two older half siblings (girls that were raised by their mother in a different state), two younger brothers (13 and 6) and two younger sisters (9 and 6). The youngest two (boy & girl) are twins and the boy has mental retardation and physical issues, but the girl is bright and smart. The oldest boy appears to be a little slow, but has no physical disabilities and the other girl is smart and bright. Now I am being burdenned with thoughts about how the remaining children in the home are going to survive.
To me this is a case in point where sterilization might have been a better choice, or for someone to decide to not have more children. However, this girl that is living with me doesn’t want to have children either. I think that children who have seen the struggle, and are driven to make something of themselves are more likely to not want children nor have children. It isn’t selfish to think of yourself or to put yourself first, it is your life not anyone elses.
If I never have any grandchildren that is fine with me, my life is complete without grandchildren, and I wish that my children do what is best for themselves, because in the long run it is their life and a life that makes them happy and complete is all that I can wish for.
-Trouble
My husband and I are childfree. We respect other people if they choose to have children. They do not seem to have the same respect for our choice not to reproduce. For that there is no excuse. But that’s o.k. Let them be appalled, huffy, offended, upset and keep trying to persuade us. We are still not going to have kids because we choose not to. We aren’t buying into the hype that is parenthood. And I’ll continue to blog about the ignorance and assumptions of the childed – and the childed to be.
If any woman or man isn’t strong enough to withstand the pressure to reproduce and continue to add to our overpopulated planet, perhaps they should simply go with the flow. Have babies. The rest of us childfree will just tell the Nosy Parkers to butt out and mind theirs.
Another reason it’s unspeakably rude to ask someone when they’ll have babies is… what if that was their lifelong dream, and they never had the opportunity, or they went into bankruptcy over fertility clinic bills, or they would if not for their miscarriage? They’ll probably make up a vague reason why they chose not to, and never let you know the size of the can of bitter worms you just re-opened for them.
Pingback: Child-Free Zone (v2.0)
I’m appalled at the fact that more and more young people start this circus of extravagant weddings and babies. It’s like some sort of competition. Here in North America babies and pets are scared. I don’t have any kids or pets and I already have more than enough to take care of. I can’t even imagine how can you cook and clean AND change diapers AND still look decent. Not to mention if you like to go out on the weekend how on earth people with kids don’t get depressed for staying at home and taking care of a puking and screaming infant???? Why would anyone prefer this to freedom???
And yet relatives, friends, and strangers continuously remind us of the need to reproduce. For what? to have a boring life just like them? so that they’ll spend an hour max with the precious little one while we waste our youth and energy on goo goo gaga, feedings, bowel movements and all the other joys of parenthood for at least 18 years (if not more due to the repetitive cycle of college, weddings, down payments etc)? Isn’t it unfair to expect others to follow the same pattern of life most people do???
We live in a crazy culture that favors work, work, work, charity, kids, material possessions and other displays of wealth like houses and weddings but does not really practice true freedom or true feminism. Isn’t that what everyone fought so hard for: the freedom to be who you really are??? Yet our society is still very conservative when it comes to the simplest things like kids, for example.
It’s certainly unfair that people are pressured to have children when they don’t want to. OTOH, I don’t think that insulting language like “to have a boring life just like them?” is fair, either. Some people genuinely love being parents.
To respond to what saltyC said:
Asking someone whether they are pregnant or not or if they want kids is so rude!!! What if the person has medical problems or is planning to abort or what if the person just doesn’t want kids and doesn’t want to be ostracized. On the other hand the person can even be pregnant at a very early stage of pregnancy and may not want to divulge this information just yet. No matter what the reason, it always puts a person in an uncomfortable situation.
Here is what the baby questions and statements can be translated as:
“Are you pregnant?” = 1. “Why are you fat?” 2. “When did you last have sex and did he come?”
“When are you having kids?”=”When are you planning to have sex in the future and bring your man to an orgasm?”
“Why don’t you have/want kids?”=” Why haven’t you had sex yet and why are you so afraid of sex?”
“You should start having kids” = “Maybe you’re using the wrong technique- there are ways to please a man, you know…”
“How many kids do you want?”= “How many times do you plan to have sex in the future?”
Sounds nice, doesn’t it? That’s how i feel when people ask those sorts of questions they shouldn’t be asking.
Although some people love being parents some of them admit that the experience of raising kids is about 80% of the time not something you would call fascinating or fun. It’s more like doing chores for most people.
The two smartest people on this blog are Shit and AntiPrego. They should start their own website together. Keep it up.
Thanks for that objective opinion, person who has the same IP address as both Shit and AntiPrego.
Ah, pock suppets.
I think that a lot of the articles about babies aren’t so much trying to make everyone have babies as warning people who want them. My generation took it for granted that they could have babies at any age. It didn’t work for everyone.
The heart of the problem is the way our careers are set up – you need to work really hard during the time when biologically it makes sense to have kids. Since most people want kids, we need to look at changing that.
“children (and in her view mothers) would be better off with more evenly distributed parental responsibility so the primary caretaker has a chance to make up for a previous lack of commitment to these other responsibilities. Her view was that “primary caretaker,” like all de jure or de facto presumptions in favor of maternal custody tended in the long run to reinforce female loss of income after divorce, and subsequent dependence on male breadwinners. ”
This assumes that this is what the women and children want. Presumably the families made a choice for the woman to do more child care and less wage earning. They might actually prefer to continue that.
I suspect that the children would generally be better off if the primary caregiver did not increase their wage earning while the children are adjusting to the divorce.
If you gave most parents who are primary caregivers the chance to vote on it, I think they would choose custody. I don’t like having a theorist tell me they know what is best for me.