Women who are "not maternal" having kids

99nsr125

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Thankfully not all of us!

Said at 14 I didn't want kids. Put up with decades of "ah you'll change your mind"; "don't you want one of those ?"; "it's not natural to not want kids".

Etc etc

Hate kids, don't want em and don't want to be around them. People who don't want them should stand their ground and not have them.

I don't see a plus in having an unwanted child.

Does this translate into relationships, do you feel less of a desire to form a relationship as children is the natural progression

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

So it's more a case of " criminally abusive nutjobs and men unable or unwilling to protect their children from them having kids"?

I'd an aunt who wasn't maternal. She was visibly bored at school plays and not good with the kids when they were sick. The bar for not maternal is a bit lower than and different from abusing and chronically neglecting your children.

Agricola

notsoyoungwan wrote: »

Far from it, actually. I work with the elderly and see so many people who don’t see or hear from their (adult) kids from one end of the year to the next. There’s no guarantee whatsoever that the kids will stick around- they might head off to Australia and settle there, or they may be around but not be dependable in any shape or form. Loneliness is a big problem for many elderly people, even if they have families.

Plus, having kids so that you won’t be lonely in your old age, and putting the expectation on the kids that they’ll stick around to be that support is incredibly selfish.

I realize plenty of older people have families who do next to nothing for them. My point is simply that the idea of being alone in old age is surely a small factor in why people decide to have kids.. ie the hope they will have someone in the end. If you have them, there's a chance (and a good chance, I'd argue) that you will have people to look after you in some shape or form in old age. If you don't have kids, the chances of being isolated and lonely is higher.

DaeryssaOne wrote: »

That is such an incredibly selfish reason to have kids especially if you don’t particularly want them in the first place. Why put yourself through 20 years of something you never really wanted on the off chance they’ll provide some decent company when you’re older?!

There are lots of people like this. One of my best friend's parents was tough as nails with him growing up. As soon as he hit 15, he had to be out working in the summer and soon as he reached 18 he had to part fund his college education or he would be out the door. She told him in no uncertain terms when he was 21 that she'd done her bit and now wanted her life back.

She does however now enjoy the supplemental income he now provides her from the UK by way of his well paid professional role and I'm certain she'll expect to be catered for appropriately when she reaches old age. So for her, kids were part a box ticking exercise and part an insurance against hardship in old age.

meeeeh

Agricola wrote: »

There are lots of people like this. One of my best friend's parents was tough as nails with him growing up. As soon as he hit 15, he had to be out working in the summer and soon as he reached 18 he had to part fund his college education or he would be out the door. She told him in no uncertain terms when he was 21 that she'd done her bit and now wanted her life back.

She does however now enjoy the supplemental income he now provides her from the UK by way of his well paid professional role and I'm certain she'll expect to be catered for appropriately when she reaches old age. So for her, kids were part a box ticking exercise and part an insurance against hardship in old age.

I don't know about kicking out someone at 21 but what's wrong with summer work? I funded all my travels with it, at 18 I could afford a month of interrailing in Europe and so on every subsequent summer. The rest was spent on drink and cigarettes.

professore

Elsa Tasty Season wrote: »

So it's more a case of " criminally abusive nutjobs and men unable or unwilling to protect their children from them having kids"?

I'd an aunt who wasn't maternal. She was visibly bored at school plays and not good with the kids when they were sick. The bar for not maternal is a bit lower than and different from abusing and chronically neglecting your children.

You explicitly asked if I knew any women who weren't maternal. I provided 3 admittedly extreme examples. Less extreme ones aren't so obvious, and you rarely hear about them unless you see the dynamics in someone else's house, since people living in the house often think it's all normal.

professore

Agricola wrote: »

There are lots of people like this. One of my best friend's parents was tough as nails with him growing up. As soon as he hit 15, he had to be out working in the summer and soon as he reached 18 he had to part fund his college education or he would be out the door. She told him in no uncertain terms when he was 21 that she'd done her bit and now wanted her life back.

This isn't necessarily the same thing at all. Wanting what's best for your kids and letting them see what the real world is like is healthy, as long as they know you love them and its for their own good. Often this is the fathers role. If its a case of getting rid of them ASAP that's a different story.

professore

meeeeh wrote: »

I don't know about kicking out someone at 21 but what's wrong with summer work? I funded all my travels with it, at 18 I could afford a month of interrailing in Europe and so on every subsequent summer. The rest was spent on drink and cigarettes.

Summer work is great.

99nsr125

Agricola wrote: »

I



There are lots of people like this. One of my best friend's parents was tough as nails with him growing up. As soon as he hit 15, he had to be out working in the summer and soon as he reached 18 he had to part fund his college education or he would be out the door. She told him in no uncertain terms when he was 21 that she'd done her bit and now wanted her life back.

She does however now enjoy the supplemental income he now provides her from the UK by way of his well paid professional role and I'm certain she'll expect to be catered for appropriately when she reaches old age. So for her, kids were part a box ticking exercise and part an insurance against hardship in old age.

What a cųnt

Greentopia

I'm not even sure what being maternal really means beyond the dictionary definition. I don't have kids, never wanted them apart from a brief moment of madness in my late 30s when I thought it might be a good idea -thankfully it didn't happen. But if I'd had any I'm sure I would care for them very well as I do have a caring personality and I would take the responsibility seriously- isn't that what maternal should mean?

For me behaved kids-fine, but screaming demanding snotty nosed nightmares-keep them away from me thanks, I like peace and quiet. The vast majority of the time it's down to how well socialised and trained (or not) the kids are and not any inherent characteristics though, I've found from comparing how kids generally behave in different countries.

Had the usual "you'll change your mind" "it's different when they're yours" "who will look after you when you're old" patronising ignorant BS from people in this country when I was younger and just ignored it all. Am approaching menopause now and glad I never had any. More time for myself and my partner, more money in my pockets, freedom to do and go where I please, no financial pressures or worries about paying for school and college fees... there's just too many advantages for me in not having them.

wrote:

Ah when they are really tiny they're grad, they start being horrible when they start moving, your second home it Temple Street A&E then and it only gets better when they start going to school. They're hilarious though.

I found the first six months of my first child's life ineffably difficult. Nothing had prepared me for that loss of freedom. Nothing. No warnings. If there is such a thing as post natal depression for fathers I had never heard of it. I can thoroughly relate to every single person here who says they never want a child because I was that selfish, self-absorbed, myopic, emotionally immature doltish cúnt with puerile certainties about life, too. Of course, at the time being unaware of the extent of personal sacrifice involved in childrearing I wouldn't have perceived myself as being selfish and self-absorbed. In my own mind, I simply "loved my freedom".

I am a wiser, more lived man now, by any standard. The most civilising - and that is precisely the word - experience any human being can have is that of love in all its forms. Above all other experiences, it makes us better, more rounded, more philosophical, kinder human beings. Love is the engine of all growth in a human being. To be able to guide, protect, nurture and encourage - to love - such little vulnerable needy lives and their futures is the deepest of honours in our short lives. It gives meaning to one's life that outlives them. To be able to make a difference through being a better, less self-absorbed and more caring person puts personal growth into a different category. To challenge yourself to always be the strong one, to always be equanimous because you are the role model for those little lives builds a character motivated by selflessness, by giving, by love at a level that is rarely required in the relationship between two mature, strong, independent intelligent child-free adults. That "giving" difference is what makes a good parent more emotionally rounded than somebody who doesn't have that obligation.

For sure, remaining single is the easy option and I dearly wish that every single person who doesn't want to engage in the self-sacrifice and challenges of child rearing avoids having them. For everybody's sake. There are, as I said, many forms of love and the important thing to anybody's spiritual and emotional growth is that antidote to anger that is the ability to give and receive love.

.......

99nsr125 wrote: »

Does this translate into relationships, do you feel less of a desire to form a relationship as children is the natural progression

Huh?

What century do you live in?

So all homosexual relationships, and all relationships for women over 35 are a waste of time because children are the natural progression?

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

I found the first six months of my first child's life ineffably difficult. Nothing had prepared me for that loss of freedom. Nothing. No warnings. If there is such a thing as post natal depression for fathers I had never heard of it. I can thoroughly relate to every single person here who says they never want a child because I was that selfish, self-absorbed, myopic, emotionally immature doltish cúnt with puerile certainties about life, too. Of course, at the time being unaware of the extent of personal sacrifice involved in childrearing I wouldn't have perceived myself as being selfish and self-absorbed. In my own mind, I simply "loved my freedom".

I'd say most parents can relate to this. Unless you grew up in the kind of household where you were always looking after kids anyway, or you had them really really young, then it's basically impossible to prepare anyone for the monumental shift that occurs on the first child.

Lots of little personal freedoms that you didn't know existed, like going and taking a **** when you feel like it, closing the door and spending as long as you like in there, just evaporate overnight.

Even when there are two of you to care for the child, your decisions impact all 3 of you; any decision to exercise personal freedom and leave the house, means the other person is left holding the baby. You can no longer just say, "I'm going out, seeya", and walk out the door.

The first six months is definitely the hardest. Once they start becoming more responsive, and start walking and talking, it's a different kind of difficult, but at least you can knock some craic out of it. There's no fun in a newborn.

spookwoman

Deleted User wrote: »

I found the first six months of my first child's life ineffably difficult. Nothing had prepared me for that loss of freedom. Nothing. No warnings. If there is such a thing as post natal depression for fathers I had never heard of it. I can thoroughly relate to every single person here who says they never want a child because I was that selfish, self-absorbed, myopic, emotionally immature doltish cúnt with puerile certainties about life, too. Of course, at the time being unaware of the extent of personal sacrifice involved in childrearing I wouldn't have perceived myself as being selfish and self-absorbed. In my own mind, I simply "loved my freedom".

I am a wiser, more lived man now, by any standard. The most civilising - and that is precisely the word - experience any human being can have is that of love in all its forms. Above all other experiences, it makes us better, more rounded, more philosophical, kinder human beings. Love is the engine of all growth in a human being. To be able to guide, protect, nurture and encourage - to love - such little vulnerable needy lives and their futures is the deepest of honours in our short lives. It gives meaning to one's life that outlives them. To be able to make a difference through being a better, less self-absorbed and more caring person puts personal growth into a different category. To challenge yourself to always be the strong one, to always be equanimous because you are the role model for those little lives builds a character motivated by selflessness, by giving, by love at a level that is rarely required in the relationship between two mature, strong, independent intelligent child-free adults. That "giving" difference is what makes a good parent more emotionally rounded than somebody who doesn't have that obligation.

For sure, remaining single is the easy option and I dearly wish that every single person who doesn't want to engage in the self-sacrifice and challenges of child rearing avoids having them. For everybody's sake. There are, as I said, many forms of love and the important thing to anybody's spiritual and emotional growth is that antidote to anger that is the ability to give and receive love.

What does that say about people who cannot have children, there is more to life to having children and wanting to remain childless is not selfish if its by choice.
If they choose to have no children because there is too many people in the world, because they don't have the money, because they don't have the time, because they have an illness, because there is a high probability that the child could be autistic, disabled. There many reasons why someone may choose to not have children and I would not call it selfish I would call it having a bit of cop on.

.......

Deleted User wrote: »

I can thoroughly relate to every single person here who says they never want a child because I was that selfish, self-absorbed, myopic, emotionally immature doltish cúnt with puerile certainties about life, too.

Perhaps YOU were a selfish, self-absorbed, myopic, emotionally immature doltish cúnt with puerile certainties about life - but dont tar everyone else with the same brush.

Deleted User wrote: »

......being unaware of the extent of personal sacrifice involved in childrearing I wouldn't have perceived myself as being selfish and self-absorbed.

It is precisely because I have thought about the extent of personal sacrifice involved in child rearing that I am childless by choice.

As for all your posturing about love being the engine of growth, where does that leave people who were not loved by their parents, who never find a partner, who never have children? Are we all lesser beings than you in your ivory tower?

I contend that some people NEED to be loved to feel fulfilled. Others do not. Some of us attain personal fulfillment from things other than creating little humans to love us.

So perhaps you have assauged your neediness with procreation. I personally have never felt that need.

Shenshen

One thing that's always puzzled me is the role of self-sacrificing martyr some parents seem to cast themselves in.
I'm sure that being responsible for a child mean giving up pretty much everything else, but - let's face it, that was your choice. The only reason that child exists in the first place is the parents' selfish desire to have a child, no other reason.

FriendsEV

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Actually had a situation years ago where a colleague brought her newborn in and one of the other staff brought his Weimeraner puppy in.

12 one way - me the other!!!!!

Why do the women who are not paternal love animals?

Let me guess you have 2 dogs and a cat

Treat them like babies

meeeeh

Deleted User wrote: »

I found the first six months of my first child's life ineffably difficult. Nothing had prepared me for that loss of freedom. Nothing. No warnings. If there is such a thing as post natal depression for fathers I had never heard of it. I can thoroughly relate to every single person here who says they never want a child because I was that selfish, self-absorbed, myopic, emotionally immature doltish cúnt with puerile certainties about life, too. Of course, at the time being unaware of the extent of personal sacrifice involved in childrearing I wouldn't have perceived myself as being selfish and self-absorbed. In my own mind, I simply "loved my freedom".

I am a wiser, more lived man now, by any standard. The most civilising - and that is precisely the word - experience any human being can have is that of love in all its forms. Above all other experiences, it makes us better, more rounded, more philosophical, kinder human beings. Love is the engine of all growth in a human being. To be able to guide, protect, nurture and encourage - to love - such little vulnerable needy lives and their futures is the deepest of honours in our short lives. It gives meaning to one's life that outlives them. To be able to make a difference through being a better, less self-absorbed and more caring person puts personal growth into a different category. To challenge yourself to always be the strong one, to always be equanimous because you are the role model for those little lives builds a character motivated by selflessness, by giving, by love at a level that is rarely required in the relationship between two mature, strong, independent intelligent child-free adults. That "giving" difference is what makes a good parent more emotionally rounded than somebody who doesn't have that obligation.

For sure, remaining single is the easy option and I dearly wish that every single person who doesn't want to engage in the self-sacrifice and challenges of child rearing avoids having them. For everybody's sake. There are, as I said, many forms of love and the important thing to anybody's spiritual and emotional growth is that antidote to anger that is the ability to give and receive love.

Sorry but this is load of tosh. There are selfless parents, there are selfish parents, there are selfless parents who are bad at parenting and there are selfish parents who are doing a decent job at bringing up kids. There are selfless child free people an there are selfish child free people.

This type of threads annoy me, they categorise people by one thing and ignore all the rest. People who want to kick women who have kids grab the opportunity with both hands, smug parents use it admonish "selfish" childless people or whatever. Sometimes kids are great, sometimes they are annoying brats, the same child can be both. There is one thing I learned as a parent is that I would dislike some people equally if they had kids or not and if they were a great parent or not. And that people who tell me puppy is just like child are morons (try kicking a child out into the garden after they pee themselves).

/rant off

misstearheus

*reads Thread Title, gets Popcorn!"

I'll leave the key in the lock! :pac::pac::D

Malayalam

Deleted User wrote: »

I found the first six months of my first child's life ineffably difficult. Nothing had prepared me for that loss of freedom. Nothing. No warnings. If there is such a thing as post natal depression for fathers I had never heard of it. I can thoroughly relate to every single person here who says they never want a child because I was that selfish, self-absorbed, myopic, emotionally immature doltish cúnt with puerile certainties about life, too. Of course, at the time being unaware of the extent of personal sacrifice involved in childrearing I wouldn't have perceived myself as being selfish and self-absorbed. In my own mind, I simply "loved my freedom".

I am a wiser, more lived man now, by any standard. The most civilising - and that is precisely the word - experience any human being can have is that of love in all its forms. Above all other experiences, it makes us better, more rounded, more philosophical, kinder human beings. Love is the engine of all growth in a human being. To be able to guide, protect, nurture and encourage - to love - such little vulnerable needy lives and their futures is the deepest of honours in our short lives. It gives meaning to one's life that outlives them. To be able to make a difference through being a better, less self-absorbed and more caring person puts personal growth into a different category. To challenge yourself to always be the strong one, to always be equanimous because you are the role model for those little lives builds a character motivated by selflessness, by giving, by love at a level that is rarely required in the relationship between two mature, strong, independent intelligent child-free adults. That "giving" difference is what makes a good parent more emotionally rounded than somebody who doesn't have that obligation.

For sure, remaining single is the easy option and I dearly wish that every single person who doesn't want to engage in the self-sacrifice and challenges of child rearing avoids having them. For everybody's sake. There are, as I said, many forms of love and the important thing to anybody's spiritual and emotional growth is that antidote to anger that is the ability to give and receive love.

Yeah, I knew you would get an oul kick in the nuts for expressing yourself thus, but I found it very moving, for what that's worth. I don't get the impression at all that you were trying to be condescending to people who choose to be child free - I think that's a perfectly ordinary and rational choice - but rather that you were trying to express some aspects of that almost ineffable experience of becoming a mother or father. The opening to pure unconditional love that can for a time exterminate the ego. An experience for many (not all) that can be so incredibly and unexpectedly transformative on all levels of the human psyche, body, emotions,generating radically new directions in one's life in terms of personal and communal philosophy, sense of meaning and so on. An experience - almost transcendental in some senses - that some spend the whole rest of their lives trying to put into words. Because, for some people, myself included, it is the biggest experience they ever have in their lives and even death pales into insignificance compared to it. It's absolutely not for everyone, nor is it at all necessary, and many parents perhaps do not experience the utter transformation of everything they knew before, but some do - and for those who do, that experience however faultingly they express it, is wholly valid and true for them.

.......

Malayalam wrote: »

don't get the impression at all that you were trying to be condescending to people who choose to be child free...

Really??

Deleted User wrote: »

I can thoroughly relate to every single person here who says they never want a child because I was that selfish, self-absorbed, myopic, emotionally immature doltish cúnt with puerile certainties about life, too.

spookwoman

FriendsEV wrote: »

Why do the women who are not paternal love animals?

Let me guess you have 2 dogs and a cat

Treat them like babies

Maybe because women are not men and therefore incapable of being "Paternal" :pac:

Malayalam

....... wrote: »

Really??

Yeah, my impression was it was a purely personal expression, not an assessment or a prescription for wider groups. And in the medium of written words on forums sometimes we put in a word or phrase that is imprecise, or unintentional, and whereas in regular life across the kitchen table we could correct ourselves or clarify our meaning in the next breath, here it's not possible for such nuance.

Just my impression anyway.

But overall, people should be able to express passionately for both points of view and not be judged too harshly for either.

seamus

spookwoman wrote: »

What does that say about people who cannot have children

Well, nothing, because he was referring to people who choose to not have children.

As cliché and arrogant as it sounds, unless you have a child of your own, or have played the permanent carer role for someone, it is next to impossible to understand the experience.

That said, I don't subscribe to a choice one way or another being the "right" one. There is no right choice at the end of the day, and people who have kids are selfish, people who don't have kids, are selfish. Claiming any kind of one-upmanship or moral superiority about your choice just indicates that you're a vacuous moron.

Likewise, it's impossible for me to understand the "experience" of being in a warzone, or cave diving, or orbiting the earth.

Just because I haven't and/or won't have these experiences, doesn't mean someone who has, is in anyway superior to me. Nor are they things I should or must experience to get everything out of life.

Children, just the same. Do or don't, up to you. Childlessness freedom through your 30s and 40s is a life experience that I won't have, that someone else will. Some choices in life are binary, you don't get to do both. Sometimes you don't even get a choice.

.......

Malayalam wrote: »

Yeah, my impression was it was a purely personal expression, not an assessment or a prescription for wider groups.

A personal expression? It was.

Not an assessment or prescription for wider groups?

The poster categorised those who are childfree by choice as:

selfish, self-absorbed, myopic, emotionally immature doltish cúnt with puerile certainties about life

Its there in black and white. Forever.

coffee_cake

I think the "too" at the end seals it as being wider group rather than purely personal, unless someone in the thread had earlier used the same description fot themselves

Malayalam

....... wrote: »

A personal expression? It was.

Not an assessment or prescription for wider groups?

The poster categorised those who are childfree by choice as:



Its there in black and white. Forever.

'Fraid not, because the word cúnt - and it is the controlling noun in the whole expression to which all the previous adjectives are attached - is singular therefore it is not a group reference.

.......

Malayalam wrote: »

'Fraid not, because the word cúnt - and it is the controlling noun in the whole expression to which all the previous adjectives are attached - is singular therefore it is not a group reference.

Yes. He said he was that cúnt too.

Sorry Malayalam, youre on a hiding to nothing here.

The poster was quite clearly categorising the child free by choice as selfish, self-absorbed, myopic, emotionally immature doltish cúnts with puerile certainties about life.

Malayalam

....... wrote: »

Yes. He said he was that cúnt too.

Sorry Malayalam, youre on a hiding to nothing here.

The poster was quite clearly categorising the child free by choice as selfish, self-absorbed, myopic, emotionally immature doltish cúnts with puerile certainties about life.

Lol, ya reckon? Maybe.
I think the ''too'' falls under my qualification already expressed of unintentional or imprecise words, which we would clarify over the kitchen table in real time. I think he was refering wholly to himself. But sure lookit, he can clarify that, and I hope people would not pile in on someone for the careless use of a tiny adverb. Otherwise his expression was a sweet one of overwhelming parental love as a transformative experience, HIS experience - one which I attest to.

Bredabe

I would consider it selfish and self-absorbed to bring a child into the world knowing it would suffer because of something its born with, especially conditions which are painful and not supported in the health service.

How can it be considered to be a good thing to bring a child/children into the world knowing they would suffer emotionally or physically because the world can't or will not support them with the types of conditions they inherited.

Lots of SLD in my family of origin(this is the main reason I didn't have genetic children) its heartbreaking to see how few life opportunities they are afforded because they can't* read properly, don't remember, can't work with instructions all the time having a sky-high IQ. Not at all surprising lots of ppl live lives of quiet desperation and end that suffering too early in their lifespan.

*Im aware there are therapies for some of these, but with waiting lists and costs on min wage jobs, these are so out of reach they may as well not exist.

.......

Malayalam wrote: »

Otherwise his expression was a sweet one of overwhelming parental love as a transformative experience, HIS experience - one which I attest to.

Sounded like a load of rubbish to me.

Frankly he was making out that he was a higher being than anyone who never had a child or even who experienced love.

A wiser more lived man for having had children. Remaining single being the "easy option".

Offensive on many levels.