I’ll See Your Selfless and Raise You an Altruistic

When last I blogged, I was venting my ire at Mommybloggers who were discussing how angry the on-line childfree community is.  Or, at least the small bits and pieces of the childfree community they happened upon one afternoon.

In my research regarding the video that started this whole thing, I read some of the blog written by one of the Mommybloggers involved in the “momversation” about the childfree.  In her blog entry about the video, she refers to “bringing a life into the world and nurturing it” as selfless.  Um, no.  Sorry.  I’m going to have to disagree with that assessment, as did one of her commenters, whereupon the blogger attempted to clarify her claim somewhat by saying that she “wouldn’t get 13 stitches in my yaw-yaw for nothing.  ”

The common definition of selfless is “having little or no regard for oneself.”  A woman chooses to get pregnant because she desires to be a mother.  How is that having little or no regard for oneself?  She’s doing exactly what she wants to do and doing it for no one (save her spouse, perhaps) except herself.  A woman who chooses to have a child may have to endure some not-so-pleasant side effects (painful labor and childbirth, an episiotomy and the resultant stitches, a cesarean, gestational diabetes, or even death due to something such as eclampsia), but she does so willingly because she knows (or certainly should know) that those are the requirements/possibilities that go with having a child.  A child that she chooses to have because she wants to be a mother.

And while I do believe that adoption is certainly a more altruistic method of becoming a parent (providing a loving home to a child in need of one), even that choice involves someone adopting a child because s/he wants to be a parent.

Another problem with this “parents are so selfless” propaganda is that it fuels the “childfree are so selfish” bullshit.  Choosing to remain childfree is not selfish and, depending upon the reasons someone chooses the childfree path or what the childfree person does with his/her life, it’s quite possible that the childfree choice is more altruistic than becoming a parent.

Interestingly, in delving into the definition of selflessness and altruism, I stumbled upon The American Heritage Science Dictionary definition for altruism:

Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental or without reproductive benefit to the individual but that contributes to the survival of the group to which the individual belongs. The willingness of a subordinate member of a wolf pack to forgo mating and help care for the dominant pair’s pups is an example of altruistic behavior. While the individual may not reproduce, or may reproduce less often, its behavior helps ensure that a close relative does successfully reproduce, thus passing on a large share of the altruistic individual’s genetic material.

Ha.  Kind of funny, no?

If you’re interested in reading the opinions of some other childfree people with regard to the momversation video, check these out when you get a chance:

The Confused Dildo

The Childless By Choice Project

No Pasa Nada

Available Light

Mental Meatloaf

Crossposted from EriePressible

Equal Time

I have a few Google alerts … you know what those are, right?  You enter search terms and you get an e-mail from Google pointing you in the direction of websites and blogs that contain those words/phrases.

I’ve been getting a lot of alerts on the term “childfree” lately, thanks to a video published on momversation on February 11th featuring the MommyBlogger-in-Chief, Dooce.  A lot of bloggers, childfree and childed alike, have been discussing this video.  Because I have a loose rule that I don’t visit “mommy blogs,” (I read quite a few blogs by people who have children…there’s a difference) I kept putting off visiting momversation to watch the video.  I thought I was getting the gist of it by reading other blogs that were discussing the video.

Today, in light of the fact that I couldn’t stand watching MSNBC’s constant coverage of Michael Jackson’s press conference and there I couldn’t find any episodes of Law & Order or House, and it only took me about 20 minutes to do my taxes, I decided to buckle my seatbelt and check it out.

It wasn’t what I expected from what I had read on other websites.  First and foremost, I was expecting the video to be an actual conversation amongst several women (who I understood from reading other blogs did NOT include any childfree women… of course not, after all, the video was posted on MOMversation).  But it’s not a conversation at all.  It’s a video of three women’s monologues about the childfree … a topic about which they haven’t the vaguest understanding.

And they do quite the half-assed job of even pretending to understand.  Dooce starts out trying to be very open-minded, but she quickly devolves into blathering about how she made such a sacrifice having a child and how much more she likes herself now, as opposed to who she was before she had a child.

Dooce did not sacrifice anything to have a child.  At least she wasn’t sacrificing anything she didn’t want to give up willingly.  If you make the conscious choice to have a child, please don’t make yourself sound so altruistic.  You had a kid because you wanted to have a kid, which means any sacrifices you made were made willingly and in furtherance of having what you wanted – a child.  As for liking herself more now than she did before she had kids?  Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that now she’s proudly on medication?  Just sayin’.

Rebecca Woolf, one of the other momologuers, apparently read something written by a childfree individual who was upset that there were kids in a coffee shop, because she made this statement:

If you don’t like the fact that I’m in a coffee shop and I have a kid, you know, what can I do?

I’ve read a lot of childfree blogs, forums, websites, etc., and I have a metric ton of childfree friends.  Hell, one of my favorite topics to write about is childfreedom, which means I’m pretty sure that I’ve got a better idea of what’s in childfree blogs than three women who, according to MamaDooce, spent one afternoon reading childfree blogs.  Good job on researching the topic.  (/sarcasm)  So, I feel pretty confident when I say that I’ve never read anything written by a childfree person that laments the fact that there are children in public, unless said children are behaving like ill-mannered, tantrum-throwing, undisciplined little assholes and their parents aren’t doing jackshit to alleviate that situation.  Most of us don’t go around breathing fire on perfectly well-mannered children.  Of course, the way the majority of childfree people behave doesn’t make for good blogfodder or, in this case, videofodder.

They talk about the childfree being angry?  This is one of the things that absolutely enrages this childfree person – leaving out the whole story so as to paint the childfree all as child-hating monsters.

To paint all childfree with the same brush – that of childhating, angry nutjobs – is as disingenuous as the childfree painting all mothers as irresponsible breeders who allow their children to fling food in five-star restaurants.

Dana Loesch, married with kids at 21, but thinks she was “childfree by choice” at one point in her life.  Excuse me for a second while I chuckle.  Most childfree people give the subject matter much more thought than anyone could have possibly given it by the time she reaches the ripe ol’ age of 21.  But, yeah, thanks for contributing to the ever-condescending “you’ll change your mind” bingo.  And Dana very snottily tells us:

You want to not have kids?  Whooooooo!  Then don’t have kids.  But don’t look down on us because we did.

(Unfortunately, you have to watch the video to get the full effect of the incredible condescension with which the above quote is delivered.)

The vast majority of the childfree do not “look down” on people simply becasue they have children.  I’ll buy that for a quarter.  Of course, that’s as long as you’re willing to stop telling us that we can’t truly know love if we don’t have a child, how we couldn’t possibly understand something because we don’t have kids, or that you were once childfree yourself before you had kids.  No.  You weren’t.  You simply hadn’t had kids yet.  There’s a difference, but you apparently didn’t come across that distinction in your afternoon of research.

And Her Dooceness tells us that she would be much more sympathetic to the childfree’s plight if they weren’t so angry.  If you expect us to work every holiday for you so you can spend it with your kids, schedule our vacations around yours so you can take vacations when your kid’s school is on break, sit idly by while we get screwed at every turn, and then tell us that you understand, but you’d be much more sympathetic if we weren’t so angry, well, so as to not mince words or risk being misunderstood, let me just say, fuck that noise.  Put simply, we wouldn’t be so exasperated, annoyed, and angry if you’d pull your own weight around the office, as opposed to expecting your childfree co-workers to constantly pick-up your slack.  Or maybe you hadn’t noticed that’s what we do because you’re too busy running off to ballet recitals and parent-teacher conferences?

Dana also admonishes us for screaming “discrimination” at the same time we’re actively discriminating against children.  I’m not sure what she means by the childfree discriminating against children.  Is she referring to the fact that many of us think it’s inappropriate to take a five-year-old to a 10:00 p.m. showing of an R-rated movie?  Is she referring to the idea that children should be taught to behave like little human beings in public, as opposed to wild animals and, if they do behave like the latter, the parents should remove them from public?  If that’s the case, then there are a hell of a lot of parents who discriminate against children, too, because I know an awful lot of people who would agree with the childfree on these issues.  As a matter of fact, my siblings and I were raised by two of them.  But, just like with the coffee shop statement, I’ve no idea what this mother is prattling on about, since she leaves out any kind of example or background.

Let me cut to the chase:

This video is a joke.  An afternoon of blog-reading isn’t anywhere near the amount of research this topic deserves and the fact that Momversation couldn’t be bothered to include any balance from the childfree exemplifies Momversation’s dismissal of the childfree.  I’m neither surprised nor disappointed.  It’s par for the course.

And last but not least, this trilogy of soliloquies is incredibly hypocritical.  If mother’s don’t want the childfree passing judgment on their choices and their children, then maybe they should lead by example.  After all, they are the majority.  And, you know, they’re so much more mature than the rest of us.

Oy.

Crossposted from EriePressible.

Does Not Compute

A tweet from Phoena, linking to a tweet from ChildfreeOnline, led me to this article… an article that just does not compute with my brain.

The article itself is bad enough, taking what I’m assuming is a tongue-in-cheek approach to coming up with “excuses not to have sex.”  I say “tongue-in-cheek” because I’m assuming that most men aren’t stupid enough to believe that their spouses have actually contracted a case of Acute Disseminated Encephalomyelitis Elephantiasis, especially since Excuse #10 assumes that the guy is not a dummy.

Sigh.  Just sigh.

This article bothers me on so many levels, I’m just no sure where to start.

First, there’s this whole “mothers don’t want to have sex” assumption.  I know plenty of women who have children and still like to have sex on a regular basis.  And by “regular basis,” I’m talking more than once a month.  Perhaps my friends are the exceptions to the rule?

Second, there’s the encouragement of dishonesty in a relationship.  If one spouse isn’t in the mood to have sex, why does s/he need to come up with an excuse?  Why isn’t honesty good enough?  Why would anyone need an “excuse” other than the truth?

Third, I don’t understand why a woman wouldn’t want to have sex with her spouse on a regular basis.  Perhaps the couple isn’t doing it right if the female half of the couple views it as a chore, rather than something enjoyable that should be looked forward to and desired.

Then there’s the phrases like “wifely duty” or assuming that all women would choose cleaning house over sex (I’ve never ever chosen household chores over sex and seriously question the sanity of anyone who would).  How very enlightened of the author.

Finally, we get to the comments, most of which, fortunately, call out the author of the article as being full of shit.  But there are are few doozies:

There’s “ashley”

But when we do do it, thank goodness it doesn’t last long.

She says that like it’s supposed to be a good thing.  Huh?

And “Jedediah” adds his point of view with:

I have four kids and I can tell you, I love my kids. But after getting married and popping out that first kid?… I am here to tell you. Do not get married. the average American woman views you as a bank and sperm donor. Nothing more. …

Then there’s “Jessica”:

…However I’d consider changing #10 to sex in exchange for 10 diaper changes… Now you might be onto something!

Because apparently Jessica requires payment of some sort to have sex.

And let’s not forget “a male perspective,” who says:

Too many women view men as nothing more than a life support system for a bank account. Sex after marriage is simply for making babies…So many women are just scam-artists.

A sexual relationship is a natural and healthy part of a marriage/intimate partnership.  Sex is good for you.  Why wouldn’t you want to include that in your relationship on a regular basis?  Why would you want your partner to see you only as the mother of his children, as opposed to his partner?

Argh.  So many times, women really piss me off and are their own worst enemy.

Crossposted from EriePressible