View Full Version : Is there a way to learn to like kids?
Kellydancer
07-21-2010, 09:00 PM
I remember seeing something about him as an adult. Like he is a wonderful husband and father or something like that. It made the nightmares from reading that book go away a bit.
Yeah he survived and I believe he's a great guy. I often wonder what would have happened had he not been rescued.
Harleigh HellKat
07-21-2010, 09:01 PM
I'd like to read that book. I've heard a lot about it. I enjoy reading/watching very emotionally moving things.
_Avery_
07-21-2010, 09:08 PM
Ugh, I know what you mean, lol.
TRy reading a child abuse book like "A Child Called It". That book is graphic and shocking. While reading it, periodically put yourself in his shoes, think of the time when you were that young, and how'd feel being treated like that by your own mother.
The reason I suggest this^^ is cuz it will remind you of the sheer innocence and love children have. Once you have that present in mind, you might see them in a new light. So when they start acting a little reckless, you'll think of the awful abuse many go through. For me, I want to embrace children after reading stories like that.
That book was amazing. I couldn't put it down. Even though it made me sick to my stomach at times. I was crying in the end. Definitely a motivational story.
Another movie like that, "An American Crime". That movie, omg, I couldn't even sleep. :(
And "The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things"
incredible movies, in my opinion.
Vyanka
07-24-2010, 03:23 AM
Just think, you were once a child. Imagine someone feeling like that about you. It's unfair to feel like that towards someone who isn't grown yet.
I do dislike "bad parenting".
Vyanka
07-24-2010, 03:25 AM
I like mine, sometimes, but am not crazy about other people's kids. The good news is that they have very addictive personalities. If they are boys, a new video game will have them playing for hours and they won't bother you. Movies might have this effect, too. Just figure out what they are addicted to (movies, video games, painting, coloring books, toy guns, dolls, etc.) and make sure you bring it with you (but, avoid noisy toys at all costs).
The only downside is the costs involved with bearing gifts every time you visit. However, if you are creative, you can minimize your expenses - bring one or more big cardboard boxes, cut out "doors" and "windows", give them cheap markers to color the "house" and they'll be occupied for hours. Playdoh is very cheap and can also keep the occupied for hours. Finger paint works, too, as long as someone else has to clean up. If you don't happen to like their parents, you can kill two birds with one stone by buying something guey that sticks or stains and is incredibly hard to clean/wipe off. The more messy it is, the more they'll love it.
Kids also scare easy, so if you want to keep them from doing something, just make up an absurdly terrifying scary story about a kid that did that same thing and got eaten up alive by a freakish and hellish monster that came out of the toilet.
Ouch. Don't let your kids know this. This is sad.
malayataylor
07-24-2010, 03:42 AM
^ Ditto.
Conclusion: Parenting is not for everyone. like really! Reading some of these posts makes my stomach turn. Why have kids if you can't fully "like" or love them? I don't get it at all. If you don't like them give them away for adoption. It is still an option.
Geesh now the crazy shit I see on the news about parents hurting their kids makes sense now.
If you're pregnant and you don't want to be, Abort it. Don't bring a child into this world if you can't love him/her unconditionally. Sick!
Vyanka
07-24-2010, 03:59 AM
^ Ditto.
Conclusion: Parenting is not for everyone. like really! Reading some of these posts is makes my stomach turn. Why have kids if you can't fully "like" or love them? I don't get it at all. If you don't like them give them away for adoption. It is still an option.
Geesh now the crazy shit I see on the news about parents hurting their kids makes sense now.
If you're pregnant and you don't want to be, Abort it. Don't bring a child into this world if you can't love him/her unconditionally. Sick!
For serious. I understand not wanting kids & it's not for everyone, cool... but sheesh, some of these thoughts sound so depressing.
I am so glad for my brother's kids, for real. They're are part of my therapy(that unconditional love & their sweet affection) when I have to deal with drunken grown idiot men every night who bring nothing but bad energy.
BarbieDancer88
07-24-2010, 04:04 AM
ummm... wow.
malayataylor
07-24-2010, 04:04 AM
Yeah it's pretty simple. Don't like em=Don't have them. Don't want them=Abortion/Adoption.
Don't want kids=Don't have unprotected sex. I thought everyone knew this.
If you don't want kids , fine. That is awesome that you made that decision BUT If you already have them and you're posting that you
don't like them.. that's a bit scary and I recommend adoption.
I feel sorry for kids with parents that don't genuinely love them. This is coming from an ex baby hater btw.
Hopper
07-24-2010, 04:10 AM
Feminists have characterised them as burdens on women and environmentalists have characterised them as a threat to the planet, creating negative attitudes toward them.
I have never heard environmentalists call them a threat either. Yes, disposable diapers are a threat, but there is cloth. Having too many kids is also a threat, but everyone I know has 4 or less kids.
I think it's irresponsible to have lots of kids. I don't care what anyone thinks. If you want to have kids, fine. But having more than a few is totally irresponsible.... I'm sorry, that IS totally disgusting. So yes, people like that are a threat to evolution, the environment, and society...
I also hate how feminism is blamed for everything. If it wasn't for feminism more women would be forced into mass reproduction and birth control would be practically nonexistent. So therefor, more of the above mentioned scenario.
I too think it's irresponsible to have lots of kids. I have several friends who had 4 kids but that's as far as I'd go. ...It makes me sick when I see these breeders who have kids they can't afford. There was a lady in the paper who had 9 kids by 8 fathers and she never had a job! There's a thing called birth control or keeping legs shut.
Nope, no feminists or environmentalists here who think children are a threat. If it's four or less per family.
malayataylor
07-24-2010, 04:14 AM
^ A married woman with four kids ? nothing wrong with that.
A single woman with 3-4 kids? I'd question that. 3-4 kids and 3-4 different dads? Now that's fucking irresponsible.
Hopper
07-24-2010, 04:15 AM
I think it's irresponsible to have lots of kids. I don't care what anyone thinks. If you want to have kids, fine. But having more than a few is totally irresponsible. My mom is a nurse and she told me about an inbred couple (inbred on both sides of the family.) that she cared for in the hospital. The woman was pregnant with twins that brought her grand total up to 9 and they wanted two more after that. I'm sorry, that IS totally disgusting. So yes, people like that are a threat to evolution, the environment, and society. Oh, and I doubt they were using cloth diapers either.
I also hate how feminism is blamed for everything. If it wasn't for feminism more women would be forced into mass reproduction and birth control would be practically nonexistent. So therefor, more of the above mentioned scenario.
Women were not "mass-producing" babies before feiminism. This is more of the alarmist tosh I was talking about. How many children is a woman physically capable of bearing in her child-bearing years? It depends on the fertility and virility of the couple, which isn't always high.
Shouldn't nature have worked it out by now so that women and females in all other species don't reproduce at a rate too high for the planet to handle? If not, then "evolution" is a "threat" to itself. Environmentalists are always talking about us "interfering with the balance of nature", yet here they want us to interfere because apparently they believe there is no balance in nature.
What has an inbred couple got to do with everyone else? You picked a pretty unrepresentative example to make your point with.
You are talking as if you wish to control other people's reproduction. That's ironic, since feminists always talk about a woman's right to control her own reproduction. Really they mean women should merely have the means of controlling their reproduction so the state can control it for them, "for the good of the environment and society". Or to put it another way, the state will tell them what their reproductive rights are.
Hopper
07-24-2010, 04:22 AM
I too think it's irresponsible to have lots of kids. I have several friends who had 4 kids but that's as far as I'd go. These are all people who have good careers, and in most of the cases the last one was unplanned (one actually had a vasectomy). Actually, I figure I'd be ok with one, none or even adopting because there are so many who need homes. It makes me sick when I see these breeders who have kids they can't afford. There was a lady in the paper who had 9 kids by 8 fathers and she never had a job! There's a thing called birth control or keeping legs shut. That was for a program to help needy people, but someone like that isn't needy, but greedy.
Four children for one family is not large. You've heard of the famous large Catholic family?
It's sickenning to hear mothers of large families referred to as "breeders". They are merely reproducing at their natural rate and number. You talk as if children are a plague.
What makes you think people can't afford large families? Maybe if they forego a little excess and pointless western materialism and consumerism they'd scrape through. Which is more important, jet-ski's and home theatre and a front and back entertaining deck on the house, or children? Cutting down on the material possesssions instead of the number of children would help "save the planet" too.
Also, if a family has just 6 or 7 children, then because of the time between births, the eldest are likely to be a few years into adulthood by the time the youngest are born.
Those women are having numerous kids by numerous fathers because welfare provides them with the finacial means to do that.Removing state welfare is the best birth control in this case, not keeping legs shut. The former will take care of the latter.
Hopper
07-24-2010, 04:24 AM
Ugh, I know what you mean, lol.
TRy reading a child abuse book like "A Child Called It". That book is graphic and shocking. While reading it, periodically put yourself in his shoes, think of the time when you were that young, and how'd feel being treated like that by your own mother.
The reason I suggest this^^ is cuz it will remind you of the sheer innocence and love children have. Once you have that present in mind, you might see them in a new light. So when they start acting a little reckless, you'll think of the awful abuse many go through. For me, I want to embrace children after reading stories like that.
How did we get from large families to child abuse? Are you saying that children are more often abused in large families? Maybe in the case of greedy welfare single mothers they are but I don't know why that was brought into it either.
Hopper
07-24-2010, 04:31 AM
Huh so FEMINISTS are to blame for the way kids are today? No, that once again is another way to blame WORKING WOMEN. No, it's not womens fault that we are seeing this problem. Yes, both parents have to work, but once again that isn't a feminist problem. Second, many parents aren't doing their job, but this doesn't have to do with feminism either.
I didn't say anything about working women in my comment about feminists. I was talking about the attitude in feminist propaganda toward children - i.e. toward women having "too many" children.
The large increase of women in the workplace due to the influence of feminism (as opposed to an honest and independent desire for a career or need of a job) has bidded down wages in the employment market and the resulting doubling of household incomes has bidded up prices. This has created an economic situation where many women who would rather not work do have more economic need to doso despite this, because it is the close to the norm for all women to work. Also, feminist influence in government (which bypasses women altogether, so I couldn't blame them four this) has resulted in policies which influence people to obey their agenda out of economic necessity.
These are the real reasons why "both parents have to work".
In all of history both parents of a family have frequently had to work, but.feminists have always aimed to force, by various means, all women into the workforce. Did you read my quote from Simone de Beauvoir.a leading "mainstream" feminist? She was certainly not alone.
I recongnise that many parents don't do their job and this is a reason why many kids are obnoxious. Feminists created a negative attitude toward children, well behaved or not, by characterising them as an obstacle to women's freedom and well-being. We are apt to forget this phase of feminism now that they have publicly moderated their views, having safely installed some of their political advances in government policy and the public mind.
I don't get your hatred towards women who work. I intend to be a working mom, but even so I intend to teach my kids manners. My mother worked and we still learned maners. Incidentally, I know a few stay at home moms with the worst kids I've ever seen. Will you blame working women on this too?
I have no problem with women who decide to work. My problem is with women who choose to work because of the pervasive feminist assumptions which are very popular in the mainstream today, namely that being a housewife and stay-at-home mother is slavery and drudgery and that women need to be in the workplace to be self-fulfilled and economically independent. They are not genuine motives for women to be in the workplace instead of working at home and caring for her children.
You can believe my views about the nature of feminism are incorrect but you you cannot characterise them as hatred of women. You can't just assume that you are right and try to shut up everyone who disagrees with you.
Yes, being a stay-at-home mother all by itself doesn't make a woman a good parent. That is why in that post I was also pointing out the wrong attitudes of parents. It wasn't all about feminism.
I have never heard environmentalists call them a threat either. Yes, disposable diapers are a threat, but there is cloth. Having too many kids is also a threat, but everyone I know has 4 or less kids.
Environmentalists believe we are overpopulating the planet and believe in restricting birth rates. This has led to a negative attitude to babies and young children - i.e.they don't want too many. The fear of overpopulation led to a dislike of large families and hence a dislike of young children - that was the association created in many people's minds.
flickad
07-24-2010, 05:26 AM
How is it, Hopper, that you have turned a thread which was about how to like kids into one that debates feminism? I'm not sure that anti-feminist rhetoric is especially appropriate here. Maybe you should start your own thread about how a woman's place is barefoot and pregnant at the kitchen sink, if that's what you want to talk about, though I'm not sure you'll make any friends that way either, given that this site consists of mainly working women.
Maybe you're on the wrong site. I'm sure that Ladies Against Feminism would appreciate your sexist views more than we do.
Hopper
07-24-2010, 05:56 AM
How is it, Hopper, that you have turned a thread which was about how to like kids into one that debates feminism? I'm not sure that anti-feminist rhetoric is especially appropriate here. Maybe you should start your own thread about how a woman's place is barefoot and pregnant at the kitchen sink, if that's what you want to talk about, though I'm not sure you'll make any friends that way either, given that this site consists of mainly working women.
Maybe you're on the wrong site. I'm sure that Ladies Against Feminism would appreciate your sexist views more than we do.
I didn't turn it into a thread about feminism. I made one comment about feminism and then someone who didn't like it made it about feminism. My comment was relevant to the topic. It's not my fault if somebody wants to make it an issue.
Why is my anti-feminist rhetoric not appropriate here? Because strippers are working women? Did you read my posts? I said I do not oppose women working. And your characterisation of women who do choose to stay at home ("barefoot and pregnant at the kitchen sink") is just as derogatory and stupid as hating on women who work outside of home. So - we are allowed to hate on housewives/stay-at-home mothers but not women working outside the home? This stupid and derogatory statement reveals the true nature of feminism.
My views are not sexist. Many women agree with them, because many women are not feminists. Many women oppose feminism, because they are not mainstream media conditioned drones. "Woman" and "feminist" are not interchangable terms. "Sexist" is merely a feminist catchword used to vilify and intimidate anyone who does not bend to feminist ideology. Baxially you are just being intolerant toward other people's POV, by claiming that feminism is the only enlightened and just one.
flickad
07-24-2010, 07:36 AM
^^
You did turn it into a thread on feminism by making the original comment. Naturally you're going to get an objection to the comment you made.
I don't hate on women who choose to stay home and look after a family. I hate on the men who would like to force them to do it or who view it as their role or as the default. Your comments suggest that you view housewife and mother as the default status for women, purely because they are women. That is sexism. Sexism is not just a catchword, it is a term that describes discrimination that is gender-based.
I don't know too many women who agree with you. In fact, I don't know any. Most women are feminists in the sense that they believe women are entitled to the same rights as men.
So, is it intolerant to be against the point of view of racists, because I think that equality is the only just and enlightened view? This is essentially the same thing. Your argument doesn't hold water. I don't have to tolerate what isn't just, and discrimination is never just. Your view amounts to putting women into a particular box just because we have vaginas. That's discrimination.
princessjas
07-24-2010, 10:44 AM
^^
You did turn it into a thread on feminism by making the original comment. Naturally you're going to get an objection to the comment you made.
I don't hate on women who choose to stay home and look after a family. I hate on the men who would like to force them to do it or who view it as their role or as the default. Your comments suggest that you view housewife and mother as the default status for women, purely because they are women. That is sexism. Sexism is not just a catchword, it is a term that describes discrimination that is gender-based.
I don't know too many women who agree with you. In fact, I don't know any. Most women are feminists in the sense that they believe women are entitled to the same rights as men.
So, is it intolerant to be against the point of view of racists, because I think that equality is the only just and enlightened view? This is essentially the same thing. Your argument doesn't hold water. I don't have to tolerate what isn't just, and discrimination is never just. Your view amounts to putting women into a particular box just because we have vaginas. That's discrimination.
^^Hopper has proven himself to be a close-minded sexist who feels superior to all women over and over again. I no longer even waste my time pointing out how ridiculous his posts are because, well anyone reading it can see it. I have no freaking clue why he is even allowed to remain on this site, to he honest.
Kellydancer
07-24-2010, 12:22 PM
Yeah it's pretty simple. Don't like em=Don't have them. Don't want them=Abortion/Adoption.
Don't want kids=Don't have unprotected sex. I thought everyone knew this.
If you don't want kids , fine. That is awesome that you made that decision BUT If you already have them and you're posting that you
don't like them.. that's a bit scary and I recommend adoption.
I feel sorry for kids with parents that don't genuinely love them. This is coming from an ex baby hater btw.
You sum it up perfectly.
Kellydancer
07-24-2010, 12:26 PM
Four children for one family is not large. You've heard of the famous large Catholic family?
It's sickenning to hear mothers of large families referred to as "breeders". They are merely reproducing at their natural rate and number. You talk as if children are a plague.
What makes you think people can't afford large families? Maybe if they forego a little excess and pointless western materialism and consumerism they'd scrape through. Which is more important, jet-ski's and home theatre and a front and back entertaining deck on the house, or children? Cutting down on the material possesssions instead of the number of children would help "save the planet" too.
Also, if a family has just 6 or 7 children, then because of the time between births, the eldest are likely to be a few years into adulthood by the time the youngest are born.
Those women are having numerous kids by numerous fathers because welfare provides them with the finacial means to do that.Removing state welfare is the best birth control in this case, not keeping legs shut. The former will take care of the latter.
You are twisting my words (as usual). I don't care how many children someone has, AS LONG AS THEY ARE PAYING FOR THEM. The lady I was referring to was definitely a breeder because she was making babies WE pay for. MOST people can't afford to have 6 or 7 kids, most couples I know can only afford a couple of kids and that's both people working.
_Avery_
07-24-2010, 12:30 PM
I dunno, but this is A BIG family! :D
http://bitchfork.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/249270409_664e6841fa_o1.jpg
/threadjack!
Kellydancer
07-24-2010, 12:32 PM
^^
You did turn it into a thread on feminism by making the original comment. Naturally you're going to get an objection to the comment you made.
I don't hate on women who choose to stay home and look after a family. I hate on the men who would like to force them to do it or who view it as their role or as the default. Your comments suggest that you view housewife and mother as the default status for women, purely because they are women. That is sexism. Sexism is not just a catchword, it is a term that describes discrimination that is gender-based.
I don't know too many women who agree with you. In fact, I don't know any. Most women are feminists in the sense that they believe women are entitled to the same rights as men.
So, is it intolerant to be against the point of view of racists, because I think that equality is the only just and enlightened view? This is essentially the same thing. Your argument doesn't hold water. I don't have to tolerate what isn't just, and discrimination is never just. Your view amounts to putting women into a particular box just because we have vaginas. That's discrimination.
Exactly. I don't care if a woman (or a man for that matter) stays home, I just don't like when people (and it's mostly men) who state it's what women should do. I know a few of these sexist idiots and they are scary because they use the bible or some thing like like nature to "prove" their point.
papillonluvr
07-24-2010, 02:02 PM
^ Ditto.
Conclusion: Parenting is not for everyone. like really! Reading some of these posts makes my stomach turn. Why have kids if you can't fully "like" or love them? I don't get it at all. If you don't like them give them away for adoption. It is still an option.
Geesh now the crazy shit I see on the news about parents hurting their kids makes sense now.
If you're pregnant and you don't want to be, Abort it. Don't bring a child into this world if you can't love him/her unconditionally. Sick!
I know you may not be addressing this to me, personally, but I did post that I don't always like my daughter.
I feel a need to clarify, so forgive me if it sounds like im starting something, but I just want to speak up for some women who are like me.
I LOVE my daughter no matter what. I would never want to hurt her or give her up or anything. I feel intense mommy guilt when i do have to put her in daycare for long periods of time. But, as some parents would and have said, I don't always like what she does. Think about parents of teenagers-they no doubt love their kids, but sometimes they just drive you batshit crazy. I know I did to my parents at times and that they didn't always like me, but I never thought they didn't love me unconditionally. Sometimes, and for some families more than others, you just need a time-out or some breathing space or alone time. Like when my daughter decided to pour fruit punch all over my white dog, or the every-other-hour temper tantrums when she doesn't get her way. I do not like that she does these things and it makes me upset and angry. I am not mother teresa with the patience of a saint. But I would never hurt her or leave her-I just don't like her 100% of the time. Doesn't mean I don't love her.
malayataylor
07-24-2010, 03:25 PM
I know you may not be addressing this to me, personally, but I did post that I don't always like my daughter.
I feel a need to clarify, so forgive me if it sounds like im starting something, but I just want to speak up for some women who are like me.
I LOVE my daughter no matter what. I would never want to hurt her or give her up or anything. I feel intense mommy guilt when i do have to put her in daycare for long periods of time. But, as some parents would and have said, I don't always like what she does. Think about parents of teenagers-they no doubt love their kids, but sometimes they just drive you batshit crazy. I know I did to my parents at times and that they didn't always like me, but I never thought they didn't love me unconditionally. Sometimes, and for some families more than others, you just need a time-out or some breathing space or alone time. Like when my daughter decided to pour fruit punch all over my white dog, or the every-other-hour temper tantrums when she doesn't get her way. I do not like that she does these things and it makes me upset and angry. I am not mother teresa with the patience of a saint. But I would never hurt her or leave her-I just don't like her 100% of the time. Doesn't mean I don't love her.
I was not referring to you. Didn't even see you posts.
Hopper
07-25-2010, 05:09 AM
I dunno, but this is A BIG family! :D
http://bitchfork.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/249270409_664e6841fa_o1.jpg
/threadjack!
You've read the t-shirt, now meet the organisation: http://www.angelafranks.com/margaret_sanger.htm
flickad
07-25-2010, 09:56 AM
It's well known that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist, as were many during that era. Eugenics was a hot topic during the 1920s and made its way into American law. Forced sterilisations were common at that time. I'm not sure that's relevant to birth control in the current era. There is no popular movement to forcibly sterilise or otherwise control legislatively the fertility of women like Michelle Duggar.
Kellydancer
07-25-2010, 11:31 AM
It's well known that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist, as were many during that era. Eugenics was a hot topic during the 1920s and made its way into American law. Forced sterilisations were common at that time. I'm not sure that's relevant to birth control in the current era. There is no popular movement to forcibly sterilise or otherwise control legislatively the fertility of women like Michelle Duggar.
Agreed. Yes, many of the early planned parenthoos advocates were racists and did use birth control to prevent "those people" from breeding. Certainly wrong, but much different than birth control today. I've never heard of anyone even upset by the Duggars. Strange yes that they have all of those kids, but they can afford them. To me that's different than the women (like the one I mentioned) who have many kids by different dads. I have these friends who are part of a family of 6 kids. It's a larger family than most have today but they are close and like the Duggars could afford them.
femmefatale88
08-06-2010, 01:00 AM
I think it might be easier to make the kids not like you than to make yourself like them. Try looking meaner.
This one is a great idea. My sister used to make really scary faces at kids (behind their parents' backs of course), and it would really scare them off and not bother her. Some of them cried though. I also feel uncomfortable around children because it's like they expect me to be nice to them and talk to them but I really have nothing to say to them and I'm not even that friendly to adult strangers (besides for work), let alone children strangers.. They are always following me around too and staring at me and trying to talk to me and I'm like uhh what do I say!
carmenssecret
08-10-2010, 09:57 PM
i don't like kids either. I don't have the patience for them. It doesn't help that no one seems to think it's important to control their children in public or teach them how to behave. It's my biggest pet peeve. I hate going to a nice fancy restaurant and having to deal with screaming children running around. Or people who just let their kids throw an endless fit in the grocery store without even trying to calm them down or tell them to stop, like it's completely appropriate and everyone should just have to deal with constant screaming. Learn to control your damn kids. End rant.
i dont hate kids but this is totally how i feel!!! Ppl learn to block out their children and feel that everyone else to learn to do so!!! Ughhhh
i think everyone on this thread who feels strongly about their hatred to the point you loose your appetite or the bucket thing .... Should just ask yourself why do you hate them!
My guy friend dated a girl who hated them, like hated hated them so she thought until she started bleeding and cramping one day and he rushed her to a hospital and the doctor told her she lost her baby! She didnt even kno she was prego! Omg she broke down in the worst way! I think she prob didnt like kids because she was always told she couldnt have them!! Until my friends "super sperm" got a hold to her ass!
carmenssecret
08-10-2010, 10:08 PM
I too think it's irresponsible to have lots of kids. I have several friends who had 4 kids but that's as far as I'd go. These are all people who have good careers, and in most of the cases the last one was unplanned (one actually had a vasectomy). Actually, I figure I'd be ok with one, none or even adopting because there are so many who need homes. It makes me sick when I see these breeders who have kids they can't afford. There was a lady in the paper who had 9 kids by 8 fathers and she never had a job! There's a thing called birth control or keeping legs shut. That was for a program to help needy people, but someone like that isn't needy, but greedy.
Girl some of those type females do that shit to get more gov benefits! the singer Fantasia breaks down this logic in her book! which makes since if thats all u want out of life im just grateful thats not my hearts desire!
carmenssecret
08-10-2010, 10:10 PM
I too think it's irresponsible to have lots of kids. There was a lady in the paper who had 9 kids by 8 fathers and she never had a job! There's a thing called birth control or keeping legs shut. That was for a program to help needy people, but someone like that isn't needy, but greedy.
Girl some of those type females do that shit to get more gov benefits! the singer Fantasia breaks down this logic in her book! which makes since if thats all u want out of life im just grateful thats not my hearts desire!
Kellydancer
08-10-2010, 11:17 PM
Girl some of those type females do that shit to get more gov benefits! the singer Fantasia breaks down this logic in her book! which makes since if thats all u want out of life im just grateful thats not my hearts desire!
That's why we need to change the system where it doesn't reward people for having babies they can't afford and making them know that having kids out of wedlock is usually a bad idea.
anouk.oui
08-11-2010, 05:39 AM
i hate most kids apart from family. theyre easier to put up with if theyre your own blood i think. think about how people put up with you back in your lil shit days lol
but at least i went from positively not wanting kids to maybe having one and im okay with that.
i would hate to work in childcare. in eastern europe kids are really really controlled so theyre always quiet and walking in straight lines which is kindof unnerving and here in aus i see kids slapping adults and knocking over expensive shit its like grrrr
guess you gotta find middle ground and put up wit that
Spankie55
08-11-2010, 07:43 AM
That's why we need to change the system where it doesn't reward people for having babies they can't afford and making them know that having kids out of wedlock is usually a bad idea.
Exactly!! I mean I have a son and I am receiving a few benefits,But I don't rely on the government to take care of my baby. He's on medicade,and that's the only benefit I receive. Some woman do have a baby every year to rack up on benefits and taxes and what not. Don't get me started with the welfare office. Half the people in there are from Mexico and don't speak english. They get their oldest child to fill out the applications for benefits because the parents know they aren't legal citizens and can't do it them selves. I hope I don't sound racist,because I'm not. I'm just frustrated that many Americans out there need help and they can't get it because Maria and Jose are taking all the benefits,and they don't even speak fucking English. The way i would do it is if anyone in your house hold is an illegal,tough fucking shit!! No benefits for you my dear.
And then there are the trailer trash hoes in there with 15 kids!!
Kellydancer
08-11-2010, 10:47 AM
Exactly!! I mean I have a son and I am receiving a few benefits,But I don't rely on the government to take care of my baby. He's on medicade,and that's the only benefit I receive. Some woman do have a baby every year to rack up on benefits and taxes and what not. Don't get me started with the welfare office. Half the people in there are from Mexico and don't speak english. They get their oldest child to fill out the applications for benefits because the parents know they aren't legal citizens and can't do it them selves. I hope I don't sound racist,because I'm not. I'm just frustrated that many Americans out there need help and they can't get it because Maria and Jose are taking all the benefits,and they don't even speak fucking English. The way i would do it is if anyone in your house hold is an illegal,tough fucking shit!! No benefits for you my dear.
And then there are the trailer trash hoes in there with 15 kids!!
Exactly. I don't mind helping out those who fall on hard times, but very hard to understand why I'm paying for the illegals and the welfare queens to keep making babies. Where I used to live it was common to see teen moms having babies and of course they were all on welfare. I'd see so many breeders and it disgusted me. The people not speaking English bothers me too. In fact the public aid office here only hires bilingual and it's because the growing population on welfare are illegals. Yet when I needed help I couldn't get it though I have been a taxpayer since I was 16.
Spankie55
08-11-2010, 04:47 PM
This country unfortunately is slowly,but surely falling to pieces. It makes me so angry because there are men and woman out there dieing for us,and we can't even reap the benefits of being american!! Why is it so hard to kick someone out of the country. i'm all for immigration,but do it legally. Become a citizen,learn english and get a damn job and pay some damn taxes!! I understand that they come here and have babies here which become US citizens,but that is soooo not fair!
Hopper
08-29-2010, 05:51 AM
^^You did turn it into a thread on feminism by making the original comment. Naturally you're going to get an objection to the comment you made.
Yes, naturally - because of the conditioned reflexes of other people here like yourself. My comment about feminism was merely a statement of a historical fact which we are apt to forget now that feminists have finished berating us into line and can afford to "mellow" a little.
I don't hate on women who choose to stay home and look after a family. I hate on the men who would like to force them to do it or who view it as their role or as the default. Your comments suggest that you view housewife and mother as the default status for women, purely because they are women. That is sexism. Sexism is not just a catchword, it is a term that describes discrimination that is gender-based.
I suggested all that, or you just read it into the actual words I wrote? I'd better clear that up.
The issue is not what you or I think wives should do. The issue is whether women are forced to do what other people think they should do. I have the right to my opinion about what wives should do. I have no way to force them to and no wish to force them either, so it is impossible for "oppression" or "discrimination" to result from what I think. I couldn't even know what is good for any given woman to do. That's why we have individual freedom.
I quoted Simone de Beauvoir earlier as saying she believed women should be forced out of the home and into the workforce. Beauvoir did "hate on" housewives. She viewed that as the default status for women. Beauvoir was not alone in her belief. Beauvoir was one of the first, leading feminists, which means she was one of the people who created feminism. If you disagree with Beauvoir, you disagree with feminism. Or if you agree with feminism, you agree with Beauvoir and therefore you also do "hate on" housewives.
"Sexist" pre-feminist society, in contrast, never passed a law saying that women should work in the home. There was pressure on many wives from their husbands or parents to be housewives when they did not wish to be, but at the same time women have always worked when it suited them. Some ran businesses or worked for their families' businesses. Some were maids, cleaners cooks and nannies. There were seamstresses, factory workers - a whole range of jobs in many industries. There were women in the arts and academia, which is where the first feminists came from.
Feminists reversed social pressures on women so that wives felt inadequate as housewives and obliged to be in employed work. Women were made to feel ashamed to be housewives. They were told that housewives were mindless, sexless, drug-addicted, neglected, subjugated, gossiping, nagging drudges who were unattractive even to their own husbands. They told women that children would ruin their lives and their bodies. The new feminist woman, in contrast, was a smart, capable, independent, sexy, perpetually youthful heroine. Feminists harangued wives into the workforce and their husbands into keeping silent.
This was (and still is) the sole reason many (not all, many) women entered careers or the workforce. Some women put off having children and even getting married until they were successful career women. Later many of these women regretted these decisions. Some realised early and switched, others realised too late to do that. That is at least as tragic as women who are pressured into being housewives and miss out on careers.
There is nothing oppressive about being a housewife. It is simply the most convenient, practical, easiest and happiest arrangement for most wives and their families. There is nothing particularly desirable about being in the workforce. For most men this is simply a means of earning an income for their families. Most men don't work because of a special professional calling and neither do most working women. Working for the income is nothing necessarily to be jealous of. The husband could have a tedious factory or office job, or any of many other types of job which are no more interesting than household tasks. And housework is not all menial tasks either - that is a feminist charicature. Some wives have always been drudges, but as many others have been energetic, creative, respected matriarchs. It's the wife's choice what type of housewife she is. Feminists presented only the poor option.
If both spouses work, the children must be put in daycare, which is expensive and difficult for many families to afford. Both spouses also have to share the other household tasks in addition to their jobs (which could both be more than five days, eight hours per day). They could hire help, but that costs money too. It makes sense for one spouse to care for the home and the children, and since the wife will probably be pregnant at intervals, it makes the most sense for this role to be hers. Yes, I know that is based on their sex, but I am not proposing any laws, just stating a fact: pregnancies interrupt work for nine months at a time.
There is nothing inherently unequal about the roles of breadwinner and housewife. This division of labor is based on the fact that other work is required to support the family than merely earning income. In one sense, supplying income for other family activities is the least important of them. It is burdensome for both spouses to deal with both areas of family care.
I am not stating any of this is as a reason for wives who genuinely wish or need to work to not work. Of course this won't suit all women and if they wish to work then they can get around these difficulties for the sake of that wish.
I don't know too many women who agree with you. In fact, I don't know any. Most women are feminists in the sense that they believe women are entitled to the same rights as men.
So, is it intolerant to be against the point of view of racists, because I think that equality is the only just and enlightened view? This is essentially the same thing. Your argument doesn't hold water. I don't have to tolerate what isn't just, and discrimination is never just. Your view amounts to putting women into a particular box just because we have vaginas. That's discrimination.
I doubt that you would want to know any woman who agrees with me. You also appear not to understand what you are disagreeing with
I didn't say that women are inferior or should have fewer rights than men, so my views of women are not the same thing as racism. I never expressed a view about "putting" women into anything. Not only feminists believe women should have the same rights as men and (conversely) any person who believes women should have the same rights as men is not automatically a feminist. If somebody opposes feminism he is not automatically a sexist. Women already had the same rights as men before feminism
The other reason you can't compare discrimination based on sex to discrimination based on race is that there are bigger, innate differences between the sexes than there are between races. We do routinely discriminate between the sexes for many reasons. There is a lot of sexual discrimination in strip clubs. Only female strippers are hired and the customers would not pay a male stripper. You can think of other examples. You discriminate every day. None of this discrimination takes away rights from women. Discrimination does not necessarily mean restriction of basic rights.
So feminism is not about basic rights.
Hopper
08-29-2010, 05:53 AM
^^Hopper has proven himself to be a close-minded sexist who feels superior to all women over and over again. I no longer even waste my time pointing out how ridiculous his posts are because, well anyone reading it can see it. I have no freaking clue why he is even allowed to remain on this site, to he honest.
Possibly because unlike you I give actual reasons for what I say.
Hopper
08-29-2010, 05:54 AM
You are twisting my words (as usual). I don't care how many children someone has, AS LONG AS THEY ARE PAYING FOR THEM. The lady I was referring to was definitely a breeder because she was making babies WE pay for. MOST people can't afford to have 6 or 7 kids, most couples I know can only afford a couple of kids and that's both people working.
I couldn't see why you brought up single welfare mothers in response to what I said. That's where the confusion arose. I was talking about normal families who do have children who they do provide for by their own efforts. Welfare, although it is widespread, is another issue.
Ask yourself why most people can't afford six children.
Hopper
08-29-2010, 05:55 AM
I dunno, but this is A BIG family! :D
http://bitchfork.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/249270409_664e6841fa_o1.jpg
/threadjack!
Big yes but they are not a welfare family. They look happy and the parents obviously did a tremendous job of raising them and the parents obviously love and value every child. The person who made that poster characterised this as "using her vagina as a clown car". That's so funny. Obviously it's a birth control message, so does that mean that a woman can use her vagina as often as she likes - even more often than Mrs Duggar did - as long as she is using contraception?
How many families have 14 children? Not many, so the people who made that poster are not telling everyone to have less than fourteen children. They are using an extreme instance for impact. So what number of children is okay with them? It must be less than what people do have on average, or the poster would be pointless. Feminists are telling people to have fewer children than they wish to, though it is none of their business. And this supports my original comment here about feminists and children.
Funny how criticising working women (which is what I was accused of doing, but never did) at this website is "hating" but reviling or ridiculing mothers (also women) is funny. Why is it people reacted to my simple comment about feminism but not to this disgusting mockery of motherhood? The reason is decades (whole lifetimes for most of us) of feminist conditioning, which supports my original comment.
Hopper
08-29-2010, 05:58 AM
It's well known that Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist, as were many during that era. Eugenics was a hot topic during the 1920s and made its way into American law. Forced sterilisations were common at that time. I'm not sure that's relevant to birth control in the current era. There is no popular movement to forcibly sterilise or otherwise control legislatively the fertility of women like Michelle Duggar.
Agreed. Yes, many of the early planned parenthoos advocates were racists and did use birth control to prevent "those people" from breeding. Certainly wrong, but much different than birth control today. I've never heard of anyone even upset by the Duggars. Strange yes that they have all of those kids, but they can afford them. To me that's different than the women (like the one I mentioned) who have many kids by different dads. I have these friends who are part of a family of 6 kids. It's a larger family than most have today but they are close and like the Duggars could afford them.
The following is quoted from the article, which I know you all read before posting these comments.
PPFA'S CLAIM: Lastly, PPFA maintains that we should not judge its early-20th-century foundress with our "late 20th-century values."
THE TRUTH: Many people, mostly those not part of the social and economic elite, challenged Sanger during her life-- thereby showing that our supposed "late 20th-century values" are actually enduring and eternal ones--and they still challenge PPFA today. Would PPFA suggest that we not judge the Nazi eugenicists (who borrowed their sterilization law from the "model law" written here in America) because their bigotry was popular and culturally conditioned?
Sanger was a eugenicist who believed that all "unfit" people should be sterilised and that all women who produced "unfit" children should be sterilised. By "unfit" she meant anyone who was diseased, mentally or physically defective, criminal or delinquent or poor. Some leading eugenicists included their ideological opponents (e.g. Christian fundamentalists) among the unfit who should be forcefully sterilised. (This was a policy carried out by the Nazis in Germany - sterilisation of dissenters.)
The only difference between Sanger's movement and the Nazis in Germany was that Sanger's didn't succeed in taking over the government.
There is a movement today to control reproduction. It already happens in some third world countries, under pressure from influential international organisations run by western "humanitarians". Whoever made that poster is obviously upset about the Duggars.
Kellydancer
08-29-2010, 01:06 PM
Yes, naturally - because of the conditioned reflexes of other people here like yourself. My comment about feminism was merely a statement of a historical fact which we are apt to forget now that feminists have finished berating us into line and can afford to "mellow" a little.
I suggested all that, or you just read it into the actual words I wrote? I'd better clear that up.
The issue is not what you or I think wives should do. The issue is whether women are forced to do what other people think they should do. I have the right to my opinion about what wives should do. I have no way to force them to and no wish to force them either, so it is impossible for "oppression" or "discrimination" to result from what I think. I couldn't even know what is good for any given woman to do. That's why we have individual freedom.
I quoted Simone de Beauvoir earlier as saying she believed women should be forced out of the home and into the workforce. Beauvoir did "hate on" housewives. She viewed that as the default status for women. Beauvoir was not alone in her belief. Beauvoir was one of the first, leading feminists, which means she was one of the people who created feminism. If you disagree with Beauvoir, you disagree with feminism. Or if you agree with feminism, you agree with Beauvoir and therefore you also do "hate on" housewives.
"Sexist" pre-feminist society, in contrast, never passed a law saying that women should work in the home. There was pressure on many wives from their husbands or parents to be housewives when they did not wish to be, but at the same time women have always worked when it suited them. Some ran businesses or worked for their families' businesses. Some were maids, cleaners cooks and nannies. There were seamstresses, factory workers - a whole range of jobs in many industries. There were women in the arts and academia, which is where the first feminists came from.
Feminists reversed social pressures on women so that wives felt inadequate as housewives and obliged to be in employed work. Women were made to feel ashamed to be housewives. They were told that housewives were mindless, sexless, drug-addicted, neglected, subjugated, gossiping, nagging drudges who were unattractive even to their own husbands. They told women that children would ruin their lives and their bodies. The new feminist woman, in contrast, was a smart, capable, independent, sexy, perpetually youthful heroine. Feminists harangued wives into the workforce and their husbands into keeping silent.
This was (and still is) the sole reason many (not all, many) women entered careers or the workforce. Some women put off having children and even getting married until they were successful career women. Later many of these women regretted these decisions. Some realised early and switched, others realised too late to do that. That is at least as tragic as women who are pressured into being housewives and miss out on careers.
There is nothing oppressive about being a housewife. It is simply the most convenient, practical, easiest and happiest arrangement for most wives and their families. There is nothing particularly desirable about being in the workforce. For most men this is simply a means of earning an income for their families. Most men don't work because of a special professional calling and neither do most working women. Working for the income is nothing necessarily to be jealous of. The husband could have a tedious factory or office job, or any of many other types of job which are no more interesting than household tasks. And housework is not all menial tasks either - that is a feminist charicature. Some wives have always been drudges, but as many others have been energetic, creative, respected matriarchs. It's the wife's choice what type of housewife she is. Feminists presented only the poor option.
If both spouses work, the children must be put in daycare, which is expensive and difficult for many families to afford. Both spouses also have to share the other household tasks in addition to their jobs (which could both be more than five days, eight hours per day). They could hire help, but that costs money too. It makes sense for one spouse to care for the home and the children, and since the wife will probably be pregnant at intervals, it makes the most sense for this role to be hers. Yes, I know that is based on their sex, but I am not proposing any laws, just stating a fact: pregnancies interrupt work for nine months at a time.
There is nothing inherently unequal about the roles of breadwinner and housewife. This division of labor is based on the fact that other work is required to support the family than merely earning income. In one sense, supplying income for other family activities is the least important of them. It is burdensome for both spouses to deal with both areas of family care.
I am not stating any of this is as a reason for wives who genuinely wish or need to work to not work. Of course this won't suit all women and if they wish to work then they can get around these difficulties for the sake of that wish.
I doubt that you would want to know any woman who agrees with me. You also appear not to understand what you are disagreeing with
I didn't say that women are inferior or should have fewer rights than men, so my views of women are not the same thing as racism. I never expressed a view about "putting" women into anything. Not only feminists believe women should have the same rights as men and (conversely) any person who believes women should have the same rights as men is not automatically a feminist. If somebody opposes feminism he is not automatically a sexist. Women already had the same rights as men before feminism
The other reason you can't compare discrimination based on sex to discrimination based on race is that there are bigger, innate differences between the sexes than there are between races. We do routinely discriminate between the sexes for many reasons. There is a lot of sexual discrimination in strip clubs. Only female strippers are hired and the customers would not pay a male stripper. You can think of other examples. You discriminate every day. None of this discrimination takes away rights from women. Discrimination does not necessarily mean restriction of basic rights.
So feminism is not about basic rights.
Have you personally asked women why they entered the workforce? I have asked MANY older women (many incidentally NOT feminists) why they went back to work and the reason is because they were NOT happy being housewives. Yet by your comments you say women are happiest being housewives. You are aware that drug use among housewives back in the 50's and 60's was common, don't you? I don't care if a woman works or stays at hme but it should be HER choice, not anyone else's, including her husband. Btw, I could have been married now if I would have been willing to be a housewife, but that's not my dream and never was.
As for discrimination against the sexes you are comparing strip clubs discriminating against men with other sexism and it's not the same thing. At my last job I was paid less than my male coworker though I had more education. That is wrong and illegal. It's different than a club not hiring a male dancer. If you want to speak about discrimination in the clubs, I can tell you many stories of clubs that bypassed quality women managers to hire stupid guys with no experience and I'm sure I'm far from alone. So while clubs often only hire women as dancers, they often only hire men for management and that is wrong.
Also, you are aware that there are different forms of feminism, aren't you? They are feminists who believe in much of what the other feminist groups believe in except they differ on issues like abortion. There are feminists who support pornography rights. I consider myself a feminist but disagree on various issues. The core belief of being a feminist is believing women have equality to men, and that I agree. Women should be allowed to do whatever a man does, and yes I include combat and upper management. So what if they get pregnant and have to take off 2 months or so? Maybe it would be better if both parents were included in parental leave? That would make it fair.
Btw, there are many cases where a woman makes more than her husband. This is likely to be my situation if I marry the guy I love because I am more skilled. No way would I give up my education and skills to have him support me on a lesser salary. When I hear chauvinists like you state that being a housewife is the best I have to laugh because no it's not a good idea if the person with the larger salary quits their job to stay at home. I would be fine with a husband staying at home and the argument chauvinist makes about these guys are that they are "lazy" "sissies", etc. If someone should stay at home it should be the lesser salaried person, not automatically the woman.
flickad
08-29-2010, 08:54 PM
Newsflash: I can disagree with Simone de Beauvoir without disagreeing with feminism. Not only has feminism moved on since its early days, it exists in different forms. Since I support equal rights for both men and women, by definition I fall within one of the strains of feminism. In this sense, feminism is about basic rights - the rights of women to enter into any field that a man can and for equal pay (as well as the same political rights and civil rights that a man has).
I would personally find it oppressive to be a housewife. Not everyone does, but many of us do. If you think it is so ideal, perhaps you ought to try it.
While it is true that legislation did not specifically state that women had to stay at home, women were debarred from various professions and from universities at one time. They also received wages which were a fraction of the male wage. Combined with social pressure, these factors were enough to force most women into the home. Birth control was also non-existent at one time. The advent of the Pill made it easier for women to leave their traditional roles and, tellingly, they did so in droves when given the option.
Women did not have the same rights as men before feminism. They did not have the right to vote, for instance, before many years of agitation by first wave feminists. As I said before, they did not have the right to equal pay for equal work or to enter various professions. They were not allowed into many pubs. Et cetera.
Your views are akin to racism because there are different forms of racism. Ever hear of the oxymoron 'separate but equal'? This is what your views amount to. You think that there is a role for women and one for men simply by virtue of gender.
Yes, you are entitled to your views, but I am entitled to mine and am further entitled to critique yours if you insist on putting them out there on a public forum.
And whether or not I would want to know the hoardes of female chauvinist pigs of whom you speak, don't you think it's odd that I haven't come across any, if they exist in such numbers? I mean, I wouldn't want to know any wingnuts either, and I do come across those now and then.
flickad
08-29-2010, 09:07 PM
The following is quoted from the article, which I know you all read before posting these comments.
PPFA'S CLAIM: Lastly, PPFA maintains that we should not judge its early-20th-century foundress with our "late 20th-century values."
THE TRUTH: Many people, mostly those not part of the social and economic elite, challenged Sanger during her life-- thereby showing that our supposed "late 20th-century values" are actually enduring and eternal ones--and they still challenge PPFA today. Would PPFA suggest that we not judge the Nazi eugenicists (who borrowed their sterilization law from the "model law" written here in America) because their bigotry was popular and culturally conditioned?
Sanger was a eugenicist who believed that all "unfit" people should be sterilised and that all women who produced "unfit" children should be sterilised. By "unfit" she meant anyone who was diseased, mentally or physically defective, criminal or delinquent or poor. Some leading eugenicists included their ideological opponents (e.g. Christian fundamentalists) among the unfit who should be forcefully sterilised. (This was a policy carried out by the Nazis in Germany - sterilisation of dissenters.)
The only difference between Sanger's movement and the Nazis in Germany was that Sanger's didn't succeed in taking over the government.
There is a movement today to control reproduction. It already happens in some third world countries, under pressure from influential international organisations run by western "humanitarians". Whoever made that poster is obviously upset about the Duggars.
There was also legislation in line with Sanger's views during her lifetime. The infamous case of Carrie Buck is one example of it in action. The overarching values, then, were very much in line with Sanger's views at that time, even if dissenters existed. Rarely if ever has there been complete homogeneity at any point in history.
Kellydancer
08-29-2010, 10:07 PM
I too would like to meet all these radical feminists that Hopper has met. I've been a member of feminist organizations and most I've met have not been these man haters Hopper claims they are. Oh sure a few were but generally they're not given much respect by others because they are nuts. In fact easily 90% of every feminist I've met has had a husband or boyfriend. I know there are lesbian feminists but haven't met many of them either (and the few I've met haven't been the radical ones).
Sadly, there are guys like Hopper and it's scary. I had a guy friend who was brainwashed by his church that proper women stay at home so he looked for that, which he found in a 24 year old. His church was so chauvinistic that they were more like a cult. They would preach this hatred against women. The funniest tirade one of their youth ministers got on was how women on tv in the 50's were proper housewives because "God wanted it that way". They didn't like when I spoke up and stated those women playing wacky housewives on tv were in fact career woman and in many cases (Lucille Ball comes to mind) were very smart business women.
flickad
08-30-2010, 01:34 AM
^^
When I said female chauvinist pigs I meant women who agree with Hopper. But you have a valid point too.
Kellydancer
08-30-2010, 10:37 AM
^^
When I said female chauvinist pigs I meant women who agree with Hopper. But you have a valid point too.
I've met a few women like him and to me they are brainwashed. One said her lifelong dream was to be a stay at home mother but the "feminists" ruined her dream. I had to tell her that no, they didn't ruin her dream the economy did. I have met housewives who were feminists so I don't think the two are always exclusive. I've met women who hate to call themselves feminists because of the "man haters", and women in between. I always tell women that feminism is not the idea that women hate men, it's the idea that woman are equal and should have the same options as men. The fact that women now can choose whether to be a mother is a feminist idea. I never understand these women who always cut down feminists and they have careers. They don't realize that without feminism they would be almost forced to be housewives whether they wanted it or not.
TheBrownFox
09-09-2010, 09:47 AM
It's totally up to you whether you do or don't want kids in the future. No man or woman should ever feel like they HAVE to get married or HAVE to have kids, just because "everybody's doing it." It's not fair to you or to the child(ren). You never know though, because some of the people who swear they don't wanna get married, end up unexpectedly meeting and falling in love with the love of their life. :) We don't really know what the future holds, but some life events can really change your perspective on things.
But yeah, it's good to be honest with yourself and others about what you want out of life, and not be like those girls in that The Pregnancy Pact movie, getting pregnant at the same time because they thought it's "cool." :P
Kellydancer
09-09-2010, 10:44 AM
It's totally up to you whether you do or don't want kids in the future. No man or woman should ever feel like they HAVE to get married or HAVE to have kids, just because "everybody's doing it." It's not fair to you or to the child(ren). You never know though, because some of the people who swear they don't wanna get married, end up unexpectedly meeting and falling in love with the love of their life. :) We don't really know what the future holds, but some life events can really change your perspective on things.
But yeah, it's good to be honest with yourself and others about what you want out of life, and not be like those girls in that The Pregnancy Pact movie, getting pregnant at the same time because they thought it's "cool." :P
This part is something most of us never take in consideration when it comes to saying "never". Years ago I was so anti marriage and anti kids that my family finally accepted I'll never change. A few years ago I went to the doctor to look into getting a tubal. She spoke to me and said she thought for me it would be a bad idea because my reasons could change (financial, didn't want the responsibility, etc). I avoided weddings like the plague.
Now? Strangely I have changed. I actually do want to marry and have kids, but only with the right guy. The guy I love now would make a terrific husband and father (once he gets over his issues) and since we reconnected I've thought a lot of marriage and parenthood. In fact I have known for a long time I wanted to marry him and have babies with him. If things don't work out will I want to with someone else? Maybe, maybe not but you never know. This is why I don't believe people when they say they definitely don't want something because I've seen the most anti marriage/anti children people become spouses and parents.