Forwarning, I need sleep, so my thoughts may not make any sense at points, and some points are likely to be non-indicative of intent. Sadly, that happens even when fully awake.
GuardianCentauri
Ah, sorry. I didn't realize that the qualifiers in the previous sentences applied to the last one too.
Um... no. While there were some people in women's rights who supported some theories and policies within the concept of eugenics, yes, that does not mean that all or even most feminists at the time did too. You seem to be putting the blame for the rise of eugenics squarely on the shoulders of not just feminists but on the child-free period, which isn't fair. Eugenics was already a popular concept back then and primarily backed by a lot of men and large portions of the status-quo in general. For some in women's rights, the concept merged to some degree with their support for birth control and abortion. Therefore, I don't think you can conclusively say that eugenics came about because some women were child-free.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
It wasn't my intention to suggest that it was the whole reason behind the eugenics movements of the early 1900's, and on, but it was part of it. Women of upper classes, enjoying their pseudo-freedom (saying pseudo almost strictly because they were still likely under the governance of some man) that when faced with the issue of population disparity between the upper class, and the lower class (the lower class had more kids, thus appearing as a "threat" to the upper classes), and faced with the two solutions (at the time) of either have more kids, themselves, or work to support the lower classes not having children, they generally opted for the latter.
GuardianCentauri
You're going to have to be more specific about what you find so appalling about those pages. I'm a little confused just trying to navigate it because a lot of posts seem to be job postings, which I don't find anything wrong with, interspersed by what appear to be some attempts by one or maybe two individuals to troll the group to provoke angered responses. And sure, some of the replies may not be the most polite or tactfully put, but have you seen much of the internet in general? You can go to a lot of websites all over the place and find people making less than insightful commentary, regardless of whether they are or aren't child-free.
I sympathize with you to a certain degree on any places that restrict children, but I'm really not seeing it being anywhere near as rampant as you claim it is, seriously. I guess that's a matter of opinion on how much is too much, though.
Yes, I saw that. It appears to have been relatively abandoned for other sites. This might be a better example?
http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,84864,page=1
Luckily, through that filth I've managed to locate a forum of moderate people whose complaints and commentary I can read without beginning to feel physically ill.
GuardianCentauri
The statement doesn't say anything about "little leeches"; I don't feel that it's meant to be conveyed that way either. You're adding that in, and it changes the entire context of the statement.
I'm not sure it really does change the statement. Many childfree people readily admit to hating children, actually hating them. Which, to me is like hating any other possible group pointlessly (gays, minorities, women, etc.) for just being what they are. That is what I get from that quoted statement from the site. Mostly because of the inferrence of the word "free." I dislike the term "childfree," because it suggests that being without a child is greater than having one. On the other hand, I dislike the term "childless" for the people who genuinely don't want children. To me, the former is suggestive of a dislike of children, a desire to be "free" from them, and the latter suggests a desire for, but an inability to get. I wish there was a term that could be used for more moderate types.
GuardianCentauri
The impact is in how they may directly or indirectly affect the lives of those around them, which can possibly have an effect on future generations. Maybe they enriched the child's life by providing a larger family and more opportunities to play and interact with. Maybe they inspired the child with ideas or seeing their own lives and careers that would lead the child to do something similar as he or she grows up. Maybe they even raised the standard of living by providing some financial support. It doesn't have to be your own genetic information being passed on in order to have an impact. And on the other hand, simply having children is no guarantee that a person will leave behind a positive effect either.
Also, since you introduced the subject of how something is delivered, I'd like to note that the word "maiden" is somewhat offensive to some people. Strictly speaking, it's just a definition of course, but it has implied for generations that women who don't have children should somehow be labeled by being unmarried or even their distinct lack of children since some versions of the definition imply virginity as well. The same is rarely done to men. Yes, sometimes you'll hear the word "bachelor" tossed around, but it doesn't usually convey the same kind of negative consequences as it does for women. It's similar to how women were originally stuck with the dichotomy of being a Miss or a Mrs. while men are referred to as Mr. regardless of their marital status.
That's true, and a person may give birth to a little monster that grows into a big monster. It's a crap shoot, admittedly. But, as I said, short of doing something grand, their effect will be extremely limited to maybe a handful of generations, if they're lucky.
I rather prefer "Miss," personally, at least until I become a "Mrs.," and I, again personally, loathe "Ms." (miz) As for the use of "maiden aunt" it is purely what I'm familiar with. But, I don't necessarily see the connotation as bad... "spinster" I see as worse, or "old maid." There is "bachelor girl," but that's awkward. I never really cared about labels, unless they were genuinely offensive, such as slurs. Beyond slurs, people can label me as they like, I'm me. But, not everyone has this outlook, so, if there is a better term by which one might refer one of these elder women who have chosen to forego having children, while still being specific to their situation, I'd appreciate knowing that I may update my lexicon.
GuardianCentauri
Traveling with children is generally more costly, and children often require lots of attention, especially when you're bringing them to all sorts of new places every day which can excite, bore, and tire them out long before you're tired of visiting sites yourself. But again, I think the fulcrum of the argument isn't even the various practical problems raised by bringing children while traveling, but the simple fact that just because some do doesn't mean that anyone else has to or should be labeled as selfish for going without children.
We're talking legacy now? I agree with the gist of your statement further up that few people will ever leave behind a monumental legacy, unfortunately, so why is legacy being raised as an argument against career now? Most people won't ever have much of a major legacy or none at all, but that doesn't stop them from pursuing their desired careers and personally enjoying their lives. That applies to those with children as well. However, my counterpoints above offer various ways that a childless person can still have some sort of an impact on the lives of others.
Telecommuting isn't going to work for everyone, nor is everyone going to be content with or want to do it. Couldn't it also be viewed as selfish of you to suggest that people should have to abandon their preferred pick of careers in order to have children that they don't personally want in their own lives? It's simply a choice for each person based on what they want; why can't you leave it at that and leave the judgments of what is supposedly selfish out of it?
On the subject of the very definition of the word selfish, consider the fact that most childless people still don't fit that description most of the time. They sacrifice time for other family members and to hang out with friends and colleagues, etc. Many jobs require some form of cooperation, so a responsible adult also has to learn to balance her or his own needs with those of other co-workers and the company/organization. Being totally self-centered would be a major detriment to that.
True. It may also depend on where you're going. One article I read about the growing lack of acceptance of children in the U.S. compared a flight leg to a country in Africa, from here, and back. On the way to Africa, the writer, and her husband were irritated by the people's children being awake all hours on the flight, etc., but, they had a child while they were there, and when they flew back, they were afraid of what others would feel about their baby. Interestingly, those rambunctious children that annoyed them, before, made themselves busy by fussing over the baby, along with the adults. However, once the flight changed to an American carrier, the attitude was noticably different. I didn't suggest that they were selfish for that reason. I said it was a silly reason to avoid it, though. I meant on its own. She obviously has other things holding her back from it.
Well, it's true that the measure of success, in the end, is largely subjective. I suppose there isn't much for any of us to do that is really going to get our names down in history. In fact, the only woman I know who got into history by becoming a mother was Mary of Nazareth. lol It was just a point against driving one's self into work.
Well, as this person wants to be an animator/storyboard artist/whatever, and there are successful individuals in that field who have children, I fail to see where one would have to give up the career in order to have a child. I'm not suggesting that she should, I'm just offering arguments. Given the demanor she has shown, I will make the judgment that she probably shouldn't be a parent. Not everyone's cut out to be one, I know. And I hate to say, but in civilian jobs, selfishness is often seen, even where cooperation is required. It's amazing how fast some people in the work force will throw a coworker under the bus for something that they participated in. Being selfish doesn't hurt, if they're smart about it, because they would acknowledge what would benefit them best (ie. not get them fired), and adjust accordingly.
GuardianCentauri
Wait... What exactly are you suggesting here? If parents find out by whatever means that their child or their pregnancy has a major problem in terms of a disorder or a handicap, what should they do about it? Abortion? If they found out somehow before ever conceiving, should they be encouraged to never have their own children? Should they perhaps seek out some form of surgery to prevent any chance of accidentally conceiving?
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with any of these ideas myself, so I don't mean it as a judgment of your values. I'm just seeking some clarification on how you feel about this.
I believe abortion would be best in those situations, but if people want to raise those children, more power to them. This is where I get a little callous, because I really don't like how humanity's advances have prevented so many deaths that nature would have otherwise brought on (generally through stupidity). And yes, I think that people who are highly likely to pass on bad genetics should be discouraged from reproducing, but I don't believe they should be unwillingly sterilized. I'd much rather it be willing. I'm more for positive eugenics than negative; encouraging the "right" people to procreate, instead of discouraging the "wrong" ones.
