Stop aging at the cost of having no children - would you do it?

[Farm Boy]

I detest mentally challenged people. They take so much time to care for and talk funny and I would never choose to be friends with one.

Society sort of treats them this way, so long as it doesn't express it too openly. I mean, we don't adequately build space into our interactions or employment or social nets. We leave the "burdens" of them unevenly, and for the most part, we now prevent the existence of many of them who are testable. There is no possible reason to do that other than to live in a society that looks at existent members who are thus, and for the most part determine the world would be better without them. But you can't say it.

 

[El_Machinae]

I dealt in the mental health field for many years, and I can assure you that society is very happy to create the "out of sight, out of mind" position when it comes to that cohort.

Oh, they'll mollify themselves as a person is being strong-armed into a police van "oh, now he'll get the help he needs", they say. They'll tut at the brutality, but think it's necessary and (in the long run) helpful. But Lordy, that's where it stops.

YCG: I don't see much of what you're saying other than denying that personality failings exist. Sure. But I don't see it as a useful conversation. Denying that they exist doesn't require a long conversation. You don't think they exist, okay. I can work with that.

Essentially what you're saying is that you're okay with people having potentially harmful beliefs as long as they express them in a politically correct manner, dogwhistle them, imply them, etc.

No, their beliefs will be less confronted if they use different words, though, and that's what's happening here. But if they change their internal feelings to reflect their softer words, that's even better. We'll attack the dogwhistles when we discover them, but certainly we'll confront the more odious expressions of antisocial beliefs first.

You're not going to go unchallenged if you state proudly that you detest an innocent cohort of people. You can soften your words to prevent your opinions from being confronted. Or, you can change your opinion after being confronted.

 

[Fippy]

Isn't detest a much stronger word than dislike?

 

[Farm Boy]

dislike -> detest -> despise ... abhor?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I dealt in the mental health field for many years, and I can assure you that society is very happy to create the "out of sight, out of mind" position when it comes to that cohort.

Oh, they'll mollify themselves as a person is being strong-armed into a police van "oh, now he'll get the help he needs", they say. They'll tut at the brutality, but think it's necessary and (in the long run) helpful. But Lordy, that's where it stops.

YCG: I don't see much of what you're saying other than denying that personality failings exist. Sure. But I don't see it as a useful conversation. Denying that they exist doesn't require a long conversation. You don't think they exist, okay. I can work with that.

I don't deny that personality failings exist, that's just you misreading the text. I explicitly posted a tl;dr in case someone was going to straw man me, so here goes:

Detesting children is not a sign of personality failing, it is a sign of holding a poor opinion. Whether or not this opinion is reflective of her personality is something you cannot possibly know.

I can say the following:

Detesting children is an irresponsible and morally wrong stance to have.

I cannot say the following without being intellectualyl dishonest:

Detesting children automatically means you have a "personality failing".

But this is what you said. And it's obviously wrong. You cannot straw man a personality from one opinion, not even from many.

You're a smart man and I'm sure you can see the difference, it's obvious. Holding one (or even many) bad opinions does not necessarily mean you have a personality failing. It can also just mean that you've been educated wrongly, that you've been in an echo chamber, that you've fallen for some kind of ideology. None of those are personality failings, even smart and rightful people fall into these traps.

You don't give LM the benefit of the doubt, you directly imply that her "hatred" of children comes from maliciousness, or some other "personality failing", instead of acknowledging that there are sheer infinite reasons for why anyone would hold such a position.

 

[MaryKB]

I love children, I feel they're an absolute blessing, and I would probably spoil mine with affection. But I don't feel there's anything at all wrong with "detesting" them, not everyone's personality is the same.

Children are loud, they're obnoxious, they break things, they make messes, they don't respect property. Not everyone has to like children, not everyone has to be eager to tolerate children. And these traits I described aren't from "bad" children at all, or children raised wrong, those are just things that young people do, that if you don't have a certain level of patience and empathy, you're unsurprisingly going to find extremely bothersome. Women are expected to be maternal, and empathetic, and all too ready to take on the responsibility of caring for and raising children, so you'll very commonly see a woman expressing her feelings like Lemon Merchant did be shamed by our society that doesn't want to let her choose another role.

I don't like dogs. Oh I think they're cute, and I'll pet one, and I'll squee over cute pictures of them, but I'd never, ever want to live with one. Some people will think that makes me a monster, lol!

 

[El_Machinae]

I see, yes, I was conflating the two. That's certainly appreciated nuance.
I think I was using "personality failing" as shorthand for "this is a position that you have a moral obligation to correct for".

 

[Lexicus]

I actually like children in general, I used to be around them quite a bit for my lifeguarding gigs and they generally make the time pass a lot quicker than adults do. But I really really really don't want to raise any children for reasons we've discussed.

 

[Fippy]

shamed by our society that doesn't want to let her choose another role.

Sorry but i disagree with this part, in today's times we can freely choose if we want kids or not.
And if not, we are simply with the wrong guy. In cultured countries anyways, i realize this is probably different in backwards places.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

In that case I agree with you @El_Machinae . I do think detesting children is a questionable position. cheers, Mac, and thanks for your nuance and understanding! always a please to argue with you

for anyone who is completely lost in my writings, as often. a very simple example that really drives home the point:

Almost everyone in 18th century Europe held explicitly racist views. Does that mean that they were all hateful people? No, not really. It was the state of discourse that dominated public opinion. Does that mean that they were all gullible back then? No, neither. It simply means they were not yet conscious of their biases, just like many people today aren't conscious of their biases.

But racism is still disgusting, and holding racist views should not be accepted. Being a racist does not make you a psychopath, or a hate preacher, or an ignoramus (though this one could be argued ). It means you hold racist views, which themselves are inacceptable. It's not your personality that is defective, it is your ideology, your ideas, that are defective.

Sorry but i disagree with this part, in today's times we can freely choose if we want kids or not.
And if not, we are simply with the wrong guy.

maybe where you live..

 

[El_Machinae]

I really like kids, but I probably can't eat a whole one.
[the above is really funny when said in a dry humour]

 

[Fippy]

maybe where you live..

So you are saying that's not the case for where most posters here live? Umm..

 

[Lexicus]

So you are saying that's not the case for where most posters here live? Umm..

You disagreed with something that was never argued. Mary didn't say that people can't choose to have children, she said that there is social pressure on women to stay in the childbearing/maternal role.

 

[Fippy]

There is absolutely no pressure for me on that here.

 

[Farm Boy]

but I probably can't

Make some gloves.

 

[Lexicus]

There is absolutely no pressure for me on that here.

How nice for you.

 

[Fippy]

Oh i see, inner circle here..have fun with feminist thoughts, they are not making women look better overall with their extreme views.

 

[MaryKB]

I don't know where you are, but good for you, I guess?

My sister is a year and a half younger than I am, and she has three children. I've been bothered by my relatives countless times "So when are you going to have a baby? Your biological clock's ticking, you know!" Women who don't have children are often called "selfish", "lazy", and "irresponsible."

I really don't know how this could be news to you? If your little corner of the world really is some egalitarian paradise I can understand you've never been affected, but acting like this isn't a large scale issue most places in the world, to me sounds really strange.

 

[Lexicus]

Oh i see, inner circle here..have fun with feminist thoughts, they are not making women look better overall with their extreme views.

Well, interesting that this is the takeaway rather than something like "huh, maybe not all women share my experience."

 

[Farm Boy]

Men get away a little bit more with that because they can usually still have kids, if they want them*, up until the point where people start telling them, "You know you're kind of old, man." Maybe less of an issue for wealthy ones, but for working schmucks, you don't do your kids favors by dropping dead on them when they're 14.

*And can find an amenable age-appropriate partner, the actual pinch point in practice much of the time.