Do you want to have kids?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'd like to have them, yeah--somewhere between two and five of them, I'd say--but I don't know if it's in the cards for me, because I don't know if marriage is in the cards for me.

Active dislike for children is one of those animuses that should be critically examined a lot more than it is.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

People shouldn't need to be 'coerced' into having, at the very least, a neutral or mixed opinion of the young of their own kind. Practically everything bad that people say about kids is also, to varying extents, true of the elderly, and it's not socially acceptable or cute or chic to hate them.

Also, disliking children--children specifically--because one is 'an antinatalist' just strikes me as facially absurd. Everybody has, at some point or another, been born, and none of us had a choice in the matter.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Active dislike for children is one of those animuses that should be critically examined a lot more than it is.

What about a second side of the coin: "ZOMGZ I LOVE BABIES! THEY ARE SO CUTE AND I JUST LOVE THEM!"? Doesn't sound very healthy either.

I don't think that's equivalently bad at all, no.

I mean, another part of the reason why I'm not sure kids are in the cards for me is that they do sort of alarm and stymie me and I'm never quite sure how to talk to them or what to talk to them about, but I see that as my problem.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

People shouldn't need to be 'coerced' into having, at the very least, a neutral or mixed opinion of the young of their own kind. Practically everything bad that people say about kids is also, to varying extents, true of the elderly, and it's not socially acceptable or cute or chic to hate them.

I disagree; I think that the elderly are heavily stigmatized and outright excluded from social life in a way that we wouldn't even consider applying to children.

On further thought I'd agree with this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I haven't seen this, at least not to the nearly extent that I have with children, but I'm not surprised that it exists.

In both cases it's unacceptable.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

And that's a horrible thing to say. Small children are in a developmental stage that everyone goes through, they've done nothing wrong or shortsighted or even voluntary in being the way they are, and they ought to be fully integrated into society's everyday life and socialized in age-mixed company whenever practicable so they have a wide spectrum of possible adult role models and don't grow up atomized and depressed. Your (or any adult's) being annoyed with them is simply not as important to society or to the world as their being well-socialized and growing up well-adjusted.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

And that's a horrible thing to say. Small children are in a developmental stage that everyone goes through, they've done nothing wrong or shortsighted or even voluntary in being the way they are, and they ought to be fully integrated into society's everyday life and socialized in age-mixed company whenever practicable so they have a wide spectrum of possible adult role models and don't grow up atomized and depressed. Your (or any adult's) being annoyed with them is simply not as important to society or to the world as their being well-socialized and growing up well-adjusted.

Oh, calm down.  It's just an amusing observation my friends and I made several years ago (and hardly an original one, I'm sure).  Jesus.

It's not amusing.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

  Always a barrel of laughs.

My username is 'The Donald' and my signature has a picture of Donald Winnicott in it, so, yes, I do think I have a pretty good sense of humor. Certainly better than whatever the [Inks] 'Bingdu Mag' is.

Also there’s a big difference between making a mildly-insulting observation in good fun, making it cruelly, and making it cruelly but claiming it was in good fun.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

My username is 'The Donald' and my signature has a picture of Donald Winnicott in it, so, yes, I do think I have a pretty good sense of humor.

...

Um, if that sentence was intentionally funny, then I can't exactly disagree.  I mean, anything involving Donald Winnicott is guaranteed hilarious!! *



*who tf is donald winnicott tho

Certainly better than whatever the [Inks] 'Bingdu Mag' is.

For a moment you lost me.  At first I thought this some 15th century Burmese philosopher you were referencing for whatever tedious point you were trying to make... then I noticed it was the name of the YouTube account I posted...?  Not sure why that was relevant for you to point out, but anyway the video was intended for those without gray lives to enjoy.  I did post a TW for you, so don't blame me that you ignored it.

You know, I think part of the problem is here is that, from my perspective, you are simply not funny. Something like half of the usernames I've had since I've started changing them frequently have been jokes or puns; it's not my fault if they've all gone over your head, or that you think anybody who doesn't share your sense of humor has none, or has a 'gray life'.

Donald Winnicott was first and foremost a man who respected and understood the young. Alison Bechdel discusses him extensively in her second memoir.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Again, that's not the attitude I take issue with, but I really don't want to restart this fracas.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I've seen this 'it's ~problematic~ for a man to want children' opinion before and it strikes me as facially absurd every time, even though on a hyper-theoretical level it makes some sense.

But yeah, Picard is someone who takes all his responsibilities and duties, of any kind, very seriously - which is more than can be said about Kirk...

Remember that Kirk, when he was young, was a swot who had to learn to take life easy, while Picard, when he was young, was a hothead who had to learn to take life seriously. Not saying this abrogates your point, but it's useful to keep in mind.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

This very likely falls under the umbrella of 'easier said than done', but wouldn't one think a simple solution to that, as an individual man in a specific couple trying to decide whether or not to have children, would be to resolve to do more housework and child care and monitor oneself to make sure one does?

Also it's, you know, unbelievably creepy that you think that men who want kids want them only or primarily in order 'to have something that generates acknowledgement in society', but, you know, whatever. (For the record, even if this is true, it's better solved by cultivating more constructive attitudes towards children and fatherhood, not avoiding fatherhood on principle because the desire to be a father is somehow inherently bad.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I read '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.' as implying that it was always and only that, which I still maintain would be an extremely creepy thing to say. My mistake.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

But at 22, nobody should be encouraging a person to have kids, man or woman....or settle down to a contract laden monogamous relationship.  Enjoy yourself, you (likely) have plenty of time to have kids and get married.  Between my 21 and 22 birthdays I got married, joined the Air Force and had a kid.  I should have only done the middle of those things (if any of them).  If it works for you (and it obviously does for many many people), that's great.  For most of us, it doesn't.

Personally I think the idea of having this enormous lacuna in one's twenties when one doesn't have meaningful family responsibilities is perverse, but I'll admit that it's how most people are socialized, it's what most people are prepared for, and I'm shaping up to not really be able to avoid it myself despite really wanting to. This seems like one of those things where how things might ideally be or how one might want the world to be and the way most individual people are actually raised and what they're actually prepared for, at least these days, come into direct and almost irresolvable conflict. People have always wanted to at least have socioeconomic stability in sight before they get married and have kids, and that happens disgustingly late now, at a time in life where female fertility (for women who do want kids) is already starting to decline and, as you said, if one does succeed in having kids one will start to have bad joints and musculoskeletal diseases by the time they're grown.

I'll defer to DFB's analysis of/suspicions about the way the men in his community seem to think. That's definitely concerning.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

But at 22, nobody should be encouraging a person to have kids, man or woman....or settle down to a contract laden monogamous relationship.  Enjoy yourself, you (likely) have plenty of time to have kids and get married.  Between my 21 and 22 birthdays I got married, joined the Air Force and had a kid.  I should have only done the middle of those things (if any of them).  If it works for you (and it obviously does for many many people), that's great.  For most of us, it doesn't.

Personally I think the idea of having this enormous lacuna in one's twenties when one doesn't have meaningful family responsibilities is perverse, but I'll admit that it's how most people are socialized, it's what most people are prepared for, and I'm shaping up to not really be able to avoid it myself despite really wanting to. This seems like one of those things where how things might ideally be or how one might want the world to be and the way most individual people are actually raised and what they're actually prepared for, at least these days, come into direct and almost irresolvable conflict. People have always wanted to at least have socioeconomic stability in sight before they get married and have kids, and that happens disgustingly late now, at a time in life where female fertility (for women who do want kids) is already starting to decline and, as you said, if one does succeed in having kids one will start to have bad joints and musculoskeletal diseases by the time they're grown.

I'll defer to DFB's analysis of/suspicions about the way the men in his community seem to think. That's definitely concerning.

Really? Not having children or romantic partners in ones twenties is perverse to you?

Not in every instance, no, obviously. What's perverse is that it's been institutionalized as its own stage of life, since going through it has little to no positive effect on eventual relational outcomes and provides an opening for behavior that I believe to be morally wrong.

We're not going to agree on what that morally wrong behavior is or on what good it is to avoid it so I'd advise you mosey on down the road and pick some other battle.