Do you want to have kids?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The first two, twins, will be named James Tiberius and John Kennedy--Jim and Jack, for short. One after the greatest starship captain and the other after our greatest Catholic President.

You misspelled "Jean-Luc".

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

I would certainly say that the wise, eloquent, firm but kind authority figure makes for a better captain than the brash, impulsive gambler with an overinflated ego, yes. That's what you meant, right?

Sure, Picard is objectively the better captain, but that's not why most people I know watch Star Trek.

I also think Picard makes for a great character. He can be badass, he can be moving and profound, he can be hilarious, and he can be terrifying as well. Not saying Kirk didn't have his great moments (Wrath of Khan is an amazing movie) but I didn't see as much depth and complexity to him.

Isn't that partially just because Picard is played by a much better actor? I bet there'd be a lot less of a gap if one sat down and read the scripts.

That might be true. Admittedly I haven't seen any TOS episode, so my impression of Kirk isn't fully formed (though I've seen most of the movies and I tend to imagine that the flaws that annoy me in older Kirk would be even worse in younger Kirk). The actor is definitely part of what makes a character, though, even if I agree that the script is the most important part.

Regardless, Kirk's brash idiocy, braggadocio, and suave with the ladies is that same spirit that sent mankind and his absurd ego propelling into space. Without the world's Kirks, there would be no Jean Lucs.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

But if yes, I prefer a daughter

Guys can we all go back to this post for a moment because what the fu[Inks]

That post totally wouldn't be creepy if it weren't for the winking emoji tbh

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I don't at all think that 'shaming' people for not wanting children or for not going out of their way to spend time with children is a good thing or something society should be doing, although I have no clear understanding of where this 'shaming' currently is coming from (other than the baleful, all-blameworthy Dear Old Mom And Dad) since in my area the hip-'n'-trendy thing is to be 'childfree'.

'Shaming' people for supercilious dislike of children that they refuse to see anything wrong with, which I've--again, in my area--seen reach such baffling extremes as hip, sexy, with-it Millennials (and sometimes older people too) getting affronted at the idea that they have to share public spaces with children and young families, is, however, another story.

I default to suspicion of fashionable, 'forward-thinking', 'cutting-edge' cultural trends in general, in which I'd include the idea that interacting with children is and should be an optional part of life. Some aspects of my academic work seek to re-litigate the thirteenth century; many aspects seek to re-litigate the nineteenth; my artistic and literary tastes are increasingly 'party like it's 1945'. Philip Larkin's body of work is not something that I'm seeking to re-litigate or think anybody else should.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The first two, twins, will be named James Tiberius and John Kennedy--Jim and Jack, for short. One after the greatest starship captain and the other after our greatest Catholic President.

You misspelled "Jean-Luc".

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

I would certainly say that the wise, eloquent, firm but kind authority figure makes for a better captain than the brash, impulsive gambler with an overinflated ego, yes. That's what you meant, right?

Sure, Picard is objectively the better captain, but that's not why most people I know watch Star Trek.

I also think Picard makes for a great character. He can be badass, he can be moving and profound, he can be hilarious, and he can be terrifying as well. Not saying Kirk didn't have his great moments (Wrath of Khan is an amazing movie) but I didn't see as much depth and complexity to him.

Isn't that partially just because Picard is played by a much better actor? I bet there'd be a lot less of a gap if one sat down and read the scripts.

That might be true. Admittedly I haven't seen any TOS episode, so my impression of Kirk isn't fully formed (though I've seen most of the movies and I tend to imagine that the flaws that annoy me in older Kirk would be even worse in younger Kirk). The actor is definitely part of what makes a character, though, even if I agree that the script is the most important part.

Regardless, Kirk's brash idiocy, braggadocio, and suave with the ladies is that same spirit that sent mankind and his absurd ego propelling into space. Without the world's Kirks, there would be no Jean Lucs.

That's a good point - and indeed the fact that I myself don't much care about space exploration probably says something about my own personality. I just tend to prefer people who, to speak in Lavenous terms, know exactly what they are doing.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The first two, twins, will be named James Tiberius and John Kennedy--Jim and Jack, for short. One after the greatest starship captain and the other after our greatest Catholic President.

You misspelled "Jean-Luc".

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

I would certainly say that the wise, eloquent, firm but kind authority figure makes for a better captain than the brash, impulsive gambler with an overinflated ego, yes. That's what you meant, right?

Sure, Picard is objectively the better captain, but that's not why most people I know watch Star Trek.

I also think Picard makes for a great character. He can be badass, he can be moving and profound, he can be hilarious, and he can be terrifying as well. Not saying Kirk didn't have his great moments (Wrath of Khan is an amazing movie) but I didn't see as much depth and complexity to him.

Isn't that partially just because Picard is played by a much better actor? I bet there'd be a lot less of a gap if one sat down and read the scripts.

That might be true. Admittedly I haven't seen any TOS episode, so my impression of Kirk isn't fully formed (though I've seen most of the movies and I tend to imagine that the flaws that annoy me in older Kirk would be even worse in younger Kirk). The actor is definitely part of what makes a character, though, even if I agree that the script is the most important part.

Regardless, Kirk's brash idiocy, braggadocio, and suave with the ladies is that same spirit that sent mankind and his absurd ego propelling into space. Without the world's Kirks, there would be no Jean Lucs.

That's a good point - and indeed the fact that I myself don't much care about space exploration probably says something about my own personality. I just tend to prefer people who, to speak in Lavenous terms, know exactly what they are doing.

I must admit, as much as I adore inspiring the imagination or whatever other prissy crap we tell kids in order to make them perform better, my primary value in space exploration is either (A) space weaponry/gaining the upper hand on other stupid countries, or (B) having a fallback planet for when our ridiculous ideology of individualism finally leads to ecological post-catastrophe here.

[angus]

I've made this point to people for years, but stick big hair and a bigger moustache on Patrick Stewart damn if he doesn't look like Ramsay MacDonald. C'mon there's a biopic just waiting to happen right there.

possibly, but with big hair and a moustache, Captain Kirk looks like Ron Jeremy.  Now there's an interesting biopic just waiting to happen.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The first two, twins, will be named James Tiberius and John Kennedy--Jim and Jack, for short. One after the greatest starship captain and the other after our greatest Catholic President.

You misspelled "Jean-Luc".

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

I would certainly say that the wise, eloquent, firm but kind authority figure makes for a better captain than the brash, impulsive gambler with an overinflated ego, yes. That's what you meant, right?

Sure, Picard is objectively the better captain, but that's not why most people I know watch Star Trek.

I also think Picard makes for a great character. He can be badass, he can be moving and profound, he can be hilarious, and he can be terrifying as well. Not saying Kirk didn't have his great moments (Wrath of Khan is an amazing movie) but I didn't see as much depth and complexity to him.

Isn't that partially just because Picard is played by a much better actor? I bet there'd be a lot less of a gap if one sat down and read the scripts.

That might be true. Admittedly I haven't seen any TOS episode, so my impression of Kirk isn't fully formed (though I've seen most of the movies and I tend to imagine that the flaws that annoy me in older Kirk would be even worse in younger Kirk). The actor is definitely part of what makes a character, though, even if I agree that the script is the most important part.

Regardless, Kirk's brash idiocy, braggadocio, and suave with the ladies is that same spirit that sent mankind and his absurd ego propelling into space. Without the world's Kirks, there would be no Jean Lucs.

That's a good point - and indeed the fact that I myself don't much care about space exploration probably says something about my own personality. I just tend to prefer people who, to speak in Lavenous terms, know exactly what they are doing.

I must admit, as much as I adore inspiring the imagination or whatever other prissy crap we tell kids in order to make them perform better, my primary value in space exploration is either (A) space weaponry/gaining the upper hand on other stupid countries, or (B) having a fallback planet for when our ridiculous ideology of individualism finally leads to ecological post-catastrophe here.

(B) is admittedly a very valid reason, and I agree that we'll probably have to get around to it sooner or later because of this. Obviously (A) is sh*t.

[afleitch]

Thinking about this thread a bit more today, I remembered my original post here:

A friend of mine shared this on FB a few days ago, and seems very relevant to post here:

http://www.therooster.com/blog/10-brutally-real-reasons-why-millennials-refuse-have-kids

... and that when my friend shared that article, she received about a dozen 'likes', and then sparked an interesting comment-discussion between her and several of her friends who all agreed that, in a nutshell, they were tired of society trying to shame them for not wanting children.  It certainly resonated with me, too.

[#analysis]
I guess I find it interesting that society has a way to ensure the survival and growth of the human race, by shaming those who don't want to participate in reproduction (* the only basic instinct that an individual can ignore and still survive).

"You don't want children?  What's wrong with you?"
"You often feel awkward and uncomfortable around children?  Are you sick?!  Children are amazing!!"

You could even look at one aspect of the gay marriage debate.  "Of course you can't get married; you can't even reproduce!"  Then once people realized that gay parents can and do exist quite easily, the wall of opposition suddenly had another hole smashed through it.
[/#analysis]


This thread in particular also made me understand that there is a gaping gulf between the culture of my RL social circle and this forum community.  (I now know how BRTD feels...!)  I don't know yet if that's necessarily a good thing or not, but it's certainly making me wonder if I should give AAD another try...

If it helps, there's a gulf between my RL circle of 'parents with kids' and this forum talking abstractly about parents and kids. It happens on discussions about sex, relationships and marriage too so it's nothing new.

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

Yes. Kids are cool. I used to be one.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

The first two, twins, will be named James Tiberius and John Kennedy--Jim and Jack, for short. One after the greatest starship captain and the other after our greatest Catholic President.

You misspelled "Jean-Luc".

Well, you would say that, wouldn't you?

I would certainly say that the wise, eloquent, firm but kind authority figure makes for a better captain than the brash, impulsive gambler with an overinflated ego, yes. That's what you meant, right?

Sure, Picard is objectively the better captain, but that's not why most people I know watch Star Trek.

I also think Picard makes for a great character. He can be badass, he can be moving and profound, he can be hilarious, and he can be terrifying as well. Not saying Kirk didn't have his great moments (Wrath of Khan is an amazing movie) but I didn't see as much depth and complexity to him.

Isn't that partially just because Picard is played by a much better actor? I bet there'd be a lot less of a gap if one sat down and read the scripts.

That might be true. Admittedly I haven't seen any TOS episode, so my impression of Kirk isn't fully formed (though I've seen most of the movies and I tend to imagine that the flaws that annoy me in older Kirk would be even worse in younger Kirk). The actor is definitely part of what makes a character, though, even if I agree that the script is the most important part.

Regardless, Kirk's brash idiocy, braggadocio, and suave with the ladies is that same spirit that sent mankind and his absurd ego propelling into space. Without the world's Kirks, there would be no Jean Lucs.

That's a good point - and indeed the fact that I myself don't much care about space exploration probably says something about my own personality. I just tend to prefer people who, to speak in Lavenous terms, know exactly what they are doing.

I must admit, as much as I adore inspiring the imagination or whatever other prissy crap we tell kids in order to make them perform better, my primary value in space exploration is either (A) space weaponry/gaining the upper hand on other stupid countries, or (B) having a fallback planet for when our ridiculous ideology of individualism finally leads to ecological post-catastrophe here.

(B) is admittedly a very valid reason, and I agree that we'll probably have to get around to it sooner or later because of this. Obviously (A) is sh*t.

Because the PR of China or the Russian/Klingon Federation cornering the market on the previous space minerals we use to power our sex robots is just "okay" and "totally acceptable".

[Antonio the Sixth]

There's a difference between defending our citizens from aggressive and domineering foreign powers and "gaining the upper hand", which implies that we'd become (or remain) just as aggressive and domineering.

[Joe Republic]

Even I don't know what this thread is any more, or if it's an improvement.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I for one am proud of my work here, and thankful to Cathcon for his collaboration.

[angus]

Even I don't know what this thread is any more, or if it's an improvement.

I agree.  Kirk had only three seasons to develop his character, whereas Picard had seven.  Not to mention higher-tech gaffing and makeup.  Also, Picard was able to study Kirk whereas Kirk had no precedent.  Kirk is the George Washington of starship captains.

The comparisons are silly.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

As for not liking children, obviously that involves a sweeping generalization.  My toddler nephews are awesome, for example.  But I'm sure I'm not the only person who sees the similarity between being around small children, and being the only sober adult in a group of drunk people.  That sh**t is tedious and annoying, and I literally count down the minutes until I can escape from it.

If small children are acting drunk then something is wrong.

I have a feeling you might enjoy the video I posted above.

I prefer kids as old people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KBBXJwp_BM

[Antonio the Sixth]

Kirk had only three seasons to develop his character, whereas Picard had seven.

I was sold on Picard by the first season (which isn't even good itself). Besides, Kirk also had 6.5 movies.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm fine with this analogy. That would make Picard the Abraham Lincoln of starship captains (the time distances are about the same!), and Lincoln > Washington. QED.

[All Along The Watchtower]

in my area the hip-'n'-trendy thing is to be 'childfree'.

Well there are certain regions of the US where people (particularly women) who aren't married with children (the horror!) by their late 20s (if not earlier!) are often looked upon with suspicion, at the very least.  Because only an unrepentant sinner wouldn't be in a heterosexual marriage with 3+ children by age 30.

Obviously I'm generalizing like hell, and thankfully attitudes like the above have been starting to change more recently, but still...

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

in my area the hip-'n'-trendy thing is to be 'childfree'.

Well there are certain regions of the US where people (particularly women) who aren't married with children (the horror!) by their late 20s (if not earlier!) are often looked upon with suspicion, at the very least.  Because only an unrepentant sinner wouldn't be in a heterosexual marriage with 3+ children by age 30.

Obviously I'm generalizing like hell, and thankfully attitudes like the above have been starting to change more recently, but still...

I'm aware of those regions. I wasn't under the impression Joe Republic lived in one, and I genuinely don't have a clear understanding of how these social pressures in them work.

I think it's been pretty consistently shown, sociologically speaking, that marrying between ~22-26 and having kids relatively shortly thereafter is associated with the best marital and relational outcomes (not necessarily the best financial outcomes, but que sera sera), and it's a real shame how impracticable that is for many/most people these days, but that's obviously not (typically) the individuals' fault. Even 'back in the day' plenty of people didn't or couldn't or wouldn't marry when they were 'expected' to, for all sorts of reasons.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Nathan, your sociological ideal differs with my single personal experience, so I'm offended!

[Associate Justice PiT]

Kirk had only three seasons to develop his character, whereas Picard had seven.

I was sold on Picard by the first season (which isn't even good itself). Besides, Kirk also had 6.5 movies.

Yeah, but one of them was The Final Frontier. That alone has to be equal to about -5.5 movies.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Kirk had only three seasons to develop his character, whereas Picard had seven.

I was sold on Picard by the first season (which isn't even good itself). Besides, Kirk also had 6.5 movies.

Yeah, but one of them was The Final Frontier. That alone has to be equal to about -5.5 movies.

Well, it was directed by Shatner, so we can hold Kirk morally responsible for that disaster.

[DC Al Fine]

in my area the hip-'n'-trendy thing is to be 'childfree'.

Well there are certain regions of the US where people (particularly women) who aren't married with children (the horror!) by their late 20s (if not earlier!) are often looked upon with suspicion, at the very least.  Because only an unrepentant sinner wouldn't be in a heterosexual marriage with 3+ children by age 30.

Obviously I'm generalizing like hell, and thankfully attitudes like the above have been starting to change more recently, but still...

It's good evidence for how polarized we are as a culture.

I live in a fairly progressive city, Mrs. DC got some crap when she got engaged at 19, and now she's getting even more now that she's having a baby in her early twenties. I'm sure there's a single thirty something woman in Texas getting the same treatment right now.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

In my experience the general rule is that women tend to recirve criticism from someone no matter what choice they make wrt children and men tend not to unless they father children and literally abandon or abuse them.

Very sad but likely very true.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

2. is another one of my least favorite trends in social attitudes involving children. I played outside in the dirt when I was a kid, thank you very much, and this was in the late nineties and early 2000s, not some bygone halcyon midcentury idyll.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Colleges campuses yes; I don't have a high opinion of attitudes in that latter social circle, to say the least. I associate it with rich-person selfishness, especially in the case of men, parenting expectations on whom are more (way more) than lax enough as it is.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

No.

Kids are very expensive. I'd prefer to spend one million dollars on early retirement or a year-long world tour etc. Maybe it's the inner "dismal scientist" lurking inside of me but these considerations matter a great deal to me and I don't feel ashamed about them in the slightest. We live very limited lives and I'd like to spend my life doing anything but changing diapers, giving kids stern lectures to not throw poop on the walls etc.

Another thing that I've considered is that it's weird of me to have a desire to have children when, um, I would not be the one who's pregnant or the one who's expected to take care of the kid etc. If one is a man, one must remember that the desire to have kids is hardly noble. It's a desire to have something that generates acknowledgement in society without all that many risks/consequences.

[dead0man]

You know, it is possible to be a dad that, call me crazy, is equal (or greater) than mom when it comes to taking care of the kids.  Sure, a lot of dad's don't, but a lot of dads do too.

I don't know why you'd think you wouldn't be expected to take care of any kids you might have.  Did something change since I was a young dad?  It was certainly expected that I would help with the kids, and I did.  I've changed thousands of diapers, walked kids to school hundreds of times, driven them thousands of times, never said I was "babysitting" when mom was away.

Millennials get stranger everyday.  It's like we're going backwards sometimes.