Read comments for:

Born (Child)Free

Some breed, some screed...

By Alan Thomas

I am quite happy for groups like this to exist, because they are, by their very nature, too selfish and narrow minded to be deserving of kids.

You have to be generous, loving, selfless and kind to be a parent. All characteristics that seem to escape such a group.

Not only that, but why not remind them of who is going to be paying the taxes and supporting the economy when these 'FREE' couples are degenerating in their old age. Not to mention who won't be visiting them ;-)

Posted by: John Braithwaite | Jun 05, 2006 10:42

Personally, I don't see a thing wrong with insisting that parents control their children in restaurant and other public venues. Children running wild in such places are a danger to themselves and to others. Also, if I pay for a a meal, I am also paying for the ambiance in which to enjoy said meal. Granted, I don't expect peace and quiet at a Chucky Cheese, so I don't go there. However, if I am dining at a venue where I can reasonably expect to enjoy the ambiance and the company of my dinner companions, I expect to enjoy it. However, if anyone, be it squalling brat, or loudmouth drunk spoils that ambiance and I will report my displeasure to the management, and expect them to deal with it accordingly.

Posted by: Leslie | Jun 05, 2006 15:46

This essay is so poorly written it shouldn’t have ever made it past a decent editor.

Here are some of its obvious fallacies:

"Childfree. A clever appellation for a group of people who are "childless by choice", the term conjures up happy associations with words like "carefree" or "worry free". On the surface…this childfree movement appears calm and rational, even reticent, in the face of the great discrimination they claim to face."

The author attempts to devalue "the great discrimination they claim to face" and then takes a hostile attitude toward the very group s/he claims is not discriminated against. Hypocrisy at its finest.

"On sites such as Childfree.net, you'll find descriptions like: "We are a group of adults who all share at least one common desire: we do not wish to have children of our own...We consider ourselves childFREE... Most of us are almost afraid [of] the disapproving stares and cries of, 'How can you not want children?!'...We feel like freaks." "

Well, if they feel like freaks, maybe it's because they are freaks."

Ad hominem - i.e. personal attack. Again, the writer claims that the childfree community's complaints of poor treatment are invalid
- while treating them poorly. "How dare those f*cking bastards claim that we hurl obscene insults at them! Anyone could see that those f*cking bastards aren't being insulted at all!"

"Dig under the surface, flip over a log or two, and you'll find a much darker picture. The following comments, from alt.support.childfree…taken from a single thread discussing noisy kids in restaurants:"

The writer is unable to comprehend the Internet convention of ranting (i.e. blowing off steam in angry and hyperbolic terms) versus rational discourse.

"Really sounds like a hate group, doesn't it? (If you don't see it, just substitute racial epithets for "moos", "vermin", etc.)"

False analogy. If you substitute racial epithets for ANY noun in ANY context, any statement will sound like it came from a hate group.

"Roses love water, and need constant hydration."
"Niggers love water, and need constant hydration."

Insta-bigotry - just add racial epithets.

"And this just scratches the surface: when I made a foray into this forum to stick up for parents (essentially, to point out that not all
of us should be tarred with the same brush),"

Translation: I interjected my unwelcome presence into a support board, and trolled its participants with uninformed comments invalidating their opinions and experiences...

"my young children were insulted in brutal and even sexual terms, and thinly disguised threats were made against their lives (to the point
that I reported it to the FBI)."

...for which, predictably, I was flamed.

Then I made empty threats about Internet lawyers and wasted the FBI's valuable time with a trivial complaint.

"To be fair, there are other posters on this forum who use a more moderate tone -- but since they don't confront the hatemongers, and continue to converse with them, they are culpable as well for implicitly supporting this toxic stew of hatred."

Guilt by association - no one defended me, so
they're all suspect. Parents cannot all be
"tarred with the same brush," but CF people evidently can be.

"Moving past the unhinged child haters, even the more moderate "Cfers" suffer from a serious logic deficit."

!!!!!!!!!!! Pot, Kettle, Black!

"If their basic proposition were that there are many mediocre to bad parents whose kids, as a fairly direct result, are no picnic either --
then yes, I'd have to agree with that. But that's an argument for better parenting, not for the elimination of children from the planet, for god's sake!"

Slippery slope. I'll bet the CFers in question WERE arguing for better parenting, not the genocide of all children. Calm down and stop relying on hysterical, hyperbolic appeals to emotion.

"The answer to bad parenting is to set an example with good parenting, not to carp from the sidelines."

Right - and Roger Ebert should stop writing film reviews and start making films himself, because until he makes his own film, he shouldn’t be a film reviewer.

Fact is, every human being on this planet had parents. One does not have to experience the parent/child relationship from both sides to be able to comment on it in an informed manner - having been someone's child is more than enough qualification to comment on inadequate parenting.

"Even more frustrating, this is largely a secular and liberal bunch (like yours truly). Yet they don't seem very savvy as to how
evolution works. They are filtering their DNA right out of the gene pool -- and if, as we secular liberals tend to believe, there is no
supernatural afterlife, the gene pool is all we've got."

No, the childfree are entirely aware of how evolution works - we just don't have any interest or emotional stake in participating in it. Many childfree people (like yours truly) hold the human gene pool so sacred that we have chosen to withhold our own contributions from it for fear of passing on debilitating genetic defects, like the schizophrenia and post-partum psychosis that run in my family.

Furthermore, belief in secular liberal politics is not a hereditary condition - simply because a secular liberal gives birth does not mean that his child will not become a Rush Limbaugh dittohead.

Posted by: Rose | Jun 05, 2006 16:13

[continued]



"Since by definition all people have to start out as children, to dislike children and oppose "breeding" is essentially to oppose the continuation of the human race."

False dilemma. Dislike of children does not signify opposition to the continuation of the human race, it is simply a dislike of children. No desire to have children of one's own is in no way indicative of opposition to OTHER PEOPLE having them.

"Yet a lot of these folks seem to like other adults, as long as said adults are also childfree. Do they really not want another generation of adults to come into existence? Would they actually like to stop the entire human race from procreating, if that were possible?"

Non sequitur. It does not logically follow at all that a preference for the company of other childfree adults means that CFers advocate genocide.

"I'm just not sure they've thought this whole thing through properly."

!!!!!!!!!!!

"There's no question that parents pay less in taxes than non-parents, due to the federal per-child tax
credit. This does essentially mean that childless workers subsidize the taxes of their "breeding" coworkers, because to eliminate the child tax credit in a revenue-neutral way would require lowering taxes for workers who don't have kids."

Parents get a tax break not available to the childfree - full stop.

"But this ignores the fact that someone is going to have to take care of these CFers when they are old and/or disabled. And since it obviously won't be their kids, it's going to have to be other people's kids. So a little advance payment to help raise the generation that's going to be changing their adult diapers someday doesn't strike me as out of order!"

So first, Cfers will pay taxes to support future generations, then pay them health-care workers’ wages later. They get it coming AND going!

"I'm not saying people shouldn't have the choice to not procreate, or that making that choice means someone has less worth as a human being."

Yes, you did. You called the childfree illogical "freaks" and “insufferable whiners”, who are unaware of how evolution works! If this is your idea of giving equal time, you've failed miserably.

"At worst... well, they represent something much more malign, as we may well see in the comments if any
CFers catch wind of this column..."

Translated: If the people I just heaped insult and invective upon ever hear that I heaped insult and
invective upon them, they might be annoyed by that.

What other reaction can be expected? How else should CF people respond to being invalidated, trolled on their own support boards, and insulted? Should they send flowers instead?

Also, the writer takes great pains to invoke the specter of childfree people posing a danger to children, insisting that their rants about noisy children in public cover some deeper, more nefarious intent towards children. This is an example of glib and unsubstantiated muckraking.

If you read the actual statistics as to who murders children most often, you’ll find that the vast majority of those convicted for the abduction, rape, and molestation of children are the parents of those children. The incidence of child assault or murder by adult strangers is incredibly rare by comparison.

Posted by: Rose | Jun 05, 2006 16:15

"someone is going to have to take care of these CFers when they are old and/or disabled. And since it obviously won’t be their kids, it’s going to have to be other people’s kids. So a little advance payment to help raise the generation that’s going to be changing their adult diapers someday doesn’t strike me as out of order!"

Every public, tax-supported benefit that your children receive is paid for not only by people who have kids, but by people who do not. That advance payment you talk about is already being made. Rest assured your children are already benefiting from childfree adults.

Posted by: Kay | Jun 05, 2006 16:19

"Furthermore, belief in secular liberal politics is not a hereditary condition - simply because a secular liberal gives birth does not mean that his child will not become a Rush Limbaugh dittohead."

And even furthermore, if a secular liberal parent's child does in fact grow up to be a fundamentalist Christian, conservative, Rush Limbaugh dittohead, guess what? That secular liberal parent will need to accept that child's religious convictions and politics as part and parcel of that child, and love him or her anyway.
That's a good parent's job, like it or not.

No parent can assume that his child will turn out to be an exact copy of himself, espousing all the same beliefs he does. Children do not exist to be the extensions of their parents egos. They have their own minds, and their own agendas - they are under no obligation to become secular liberals simply because their parents are. They are under no obligation to have their own children simply because their parents did, either.

If you want someone around who repeats everything you say back to you verbatim, get a parrot, for heaven's sake!

Posted by: BlueMondays | Jun 05, 2006 17:54

"You have to be generous, loving, selfless and kind to be a parent."

No, you do NOT have to be generous, loving, selfless, or kind to be a parent. There is no governing body stopping skinflints, the emotionally distant, selfish people, or cruel people from becoming parents. (Would that there were!)

All you have to have in order to become a parent is (if female) viable eggs and a functioning uterus. If male, all you have to have is viable sperm and a means of leaving it in a woman's reproductive tract. I assure you that conception can and does go on even when both parents feel no love for each other, no parental feeling toward their potential child, and have none of the positive qualities you described.

I agree that it takes generosity, love, selflessness, and kindness to be a GOOD parent, but unfortunately those qualities are often lacking in this world. Ask any social worker or family law attorney if ALL parents are generous, loving, selfless, and kind to their children - you probably won't like the answer.

"All characteristics that seem to escape such a group."

I assure you that my equally CF significant other (and those happy spouses and lovers of my equally CF friends and relatives) would be glad to rhapsodize at length about the generosity and kind and loving dispositions of their respective life partners. It IS possible for one adult to show his or her inherent generosity, love, selflessness, and kindness in a relationship with another adult, or with someone else's child, you know.

Posted by: BlueMondays | Jun 05, 2006 18:19

You say that Childfree people are keeping the world from continuing with their choices to be childfree. Let's look at this rationally: there are so many unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, not to mention people who have children by their own choices. The number of childfree people is FAR under the number of people who are actually having children. So the world's continuance is NOT AT ALL in jeopardy with these "insufferable whiners."

Think of vegetarians: we (yes, I'm a vegetarian--a kind, loving, and selfless one" for animals) realize that animals are killed for food EVERY day in order to assure that billions of people eat. We realize that our not eating meat will not stop what's really going on. We realize that our not eating meat will not keep animals alive. But we do not want to participate in the practice of eating meat. (By vegetarians, I do not mean people involved with extremist groups. Not every vegetarian is a member of PETA and tries extensively to stop these things. I'm talking about every day, typical vegetarians).

It's the same with the Childfree. The world will continue. The world will not shut down because a few people have decided not to procreate. Just the same with vegetarians. People will still eat meat, but we don't have to eat it. People will still breed, but we don't have to. IT'S ALL A CHOICE.

Posted by: Mehgan | Jun 05, 2006 20:33

I see from your bio that you were born in Kenya. You will be aware, therefore, that the population of Kenya has grown from 6.5 million in 1950 to 32 million today.

You will be aware that most of Kenya is hot, arid, inhospitable, and incapable of supporting large numbers of people.

You will be aware that the enormous increase in population has resulted in vast urban slums and has aggravated poverty, political corruption, violent crime and human trafficking.

You will be aware that the enormous increase in population has been a prime cause of famine, deforestation, soil erosion, poaching, and the rapid destruction of once abundant and almost indescribably magnificent wild life.

In short, you will be aware that the enormous increase in Kenya's population has caused nothing but degradation, destruction and misery.

Given your background, and given the knowledge that must come from it, I would have thought you would spend your energies pointing out the horrors that rampant human increase is visiting on the only world we know and particularly on the humans who come after us (yes, your children).

Instead, it seems you prefer to promote a natalist view of the world ("The answer to bad parenting is to set an example with good parenting"), and to sneer at a small group who won't buy into that view, and are cheerfully rude about it.

It seems to me that you are deliberately blinding yourself to reality, which include the consequences of your own actions, and are working hard at justifying your own choices in life.

Posted by: Millenium Hand & Fish | Jun 05, 2006 21:22

The charter of the alt.support.childfree newsgroup clearly states that posts from parents are strictly prohibited. The author of this piece should have researched the group enough to learn this rule. If he knew about this rule and chose to post anyway, he deserved everything he got.

Trying to paint childfree people with the same brush as racists is wrong. One cannot choose her race, but she can chose whether or not to breed.

Also, the "support" part of alt.support.childfree happens quite often. Unfortunately, parents like this author tend to skip those threads, as they don't fuel their hatred of us.

Posted by: Her Own Woman | Jun 05, 2006 23:21

This article is just another example of the "us vs. them" mentality that seems to play so well in the press.

I am child-free by choice. I am not selfish and I resent being called so. I am not breeding partly because I think this planet is super over-populated and doesn't need any more people. The gene pool is diverse enough that it doesn't need my particular DNA. As another commenter said, I am a vegetarian for the same basic set of ethical principles. I am trying to make the world a better place through self-control. I don't think that is something to be ashamed of.

Posted by: Suebob | Jun 06, 2006 00:05

In regards to this comment:
"This does essentially mean that childless workers subsidize the taxes of their “breeding” coworkers, because to eliminate the child tax credit in a revenue-neutral way would require lowering taxes for workers who don’t have kids. But this ignores the fact that someone is going to have to take care of these CFers when they are old and/or disabled. And since it obviously won’t be their kids, it’s going to have to be other people’s kids. So a little advance payment to help raise the generation that’s going to be changing their adult diapers someday doesn’t strike me as out of order!"

This is ridiculous. CF people are paying into the system and any social security they receive is money they've helped put there by paying taxes. I don't see how you can say people's children are going to support CF people. That makes no sense.

Posted by: Jay | Jun 06, 2006 15:19

Okay then! Rather than write a bunch of individual posts, I'm just going to make this one big catch-all reply (or divide it into chunks of less than 1000 words as necessary).

First, let me note that this is not my website--I just get paid to write columns for it. Furthermore, I did not post the link on ASCF, nor did I suggest anyone else do so or know in advance that they were going to do so.

So, that said, Rose is first up. She insults both my writing and Prescott’s editing, yet she seems curiously unaware of the rule that within a quoted passage, double quotes need to be changed to single quotes for clarity. Ah well, I’ll manage to figure it out I’m sure. ;-)
“The author attempts to devalue ‘the great discrimination they claim to face’ and then takes a hostile attitude toward the very group s/he claims is not discriminated against. Hypocrisy at its finest.”

(1) I did not initiate a “hostile attitude”, but rather responded in kind to the hostility of others (actually, not in kind: that would have required that I use slurs, threats, and other such language that is not protected, by the First Amendment).

(2) I fail to see how I have “discriminated” against anyone. No civil rights policy that I’m aware of requires someone to be kind toward those who are hostile to them.

”The writer is unable to comprehend the Internet convention of ranting (i.e. blowing off steam in angry and hyperbolic terms) versus rational discourse.”

Make up your mind, Rose! First you take umbrage at my rant, then you write this! Unbelievable.

"False analogy. If you substitute racial epithets for ANY noun in ANY context, any statement will sound like it came from a hate group.”

Point taken. I’ll amend that to say “try substituting the name of an ethnic group”—no epithets needed.

“Parents cannot all be ’tarred with the same brush,’ but CF people evidently can be.”

If we were talking about a group of parents who all posted on a board together and were guilty of “silence=complicity”, then those parents could indeed be tarred with the same brush.

”I'll bet the CFers in question WERE arguing for better parenting, not the genocide of all children.”

I never said “genocide”, which would in any case not be an apt term for the killing of all children, since children as a class are not a distinct ethnic or racial group. I said “the elimination of children from the planet”, which would be what would result if no more “breeding” took place. Understand now?

“Calm down and stop relying on hysterical, hyperbolic appeals to emotion.”

Oh, that’s rich.

“Many childfree people (like yours truly) hold the human gene pool so sacred that we have chosen to withhold our own contributions from it for fear of passing on debilitating genetic defects, like the schizophrenia and post-partum psychosis that run in my family.”

Sorry to hear that; however, that does not strike me as typical of reasons for supporting the CF meme.

”Furthermore, belief in secular liberal politics is not a hereditary condition - simply because a secular liberal gives birth does not mean that his child will not become a Rush Limbaugh dittohead.”

It’s far more likely (‘80s sitcoms aside) that someone will have conservative parents and become liberal than vice versa. But I think you missed my point entirely. What I meant was that since there’s no God, no heaven, no afterlife, our “immortality” lies in our genes.

“No desire to have children of one's own is in no way indicative of opposition to OTHER PEOPLE having them.”

Certainly not. But being “childfree” carries with it a lot more than “no desire to have children of one's own”. Need I remind you of the routine usage of “moos”, “vermin”, etc.? I’ve read quite a bit of your newsgroup, and I’ve seen countless signs of “opposition to other people having [children]”, yet I’ve never seen anyone post anything supportive of anyone having kids, or any recognition of parents who do a good job rearing their children, aside from occasional comments about how they should act in theory, always used to contrast with the specific (bad) example being discussed.

”Non sequitur. It does not logically follow at all that a preference for the company of other childfree adults means that CFers advocate genocide.”

You’re the one using the non sequitor, Rosie dear. Once again, I never said “genocide”, only noted that if people don’t procreate, you don’t get any kids; and without kids, you can’t have adults, childfree or otherwise.

”Parents get a tax break not available to the childfree - full stop.”

Yup—I thought I made that abundantly clear. Other groups of people also get special tax breaks: those who buy hybrid cars, or who have mortgages on their homes…etc. Feel free to argue for a tax system with no exemptions, but if you complain only about specific ones for parents because you aren’t one, be prepared to be scoffed at.

“So first, Cfers will pay taxes to support future generations”

Asserted without evidence.

“ ‘I'm not saying people shouldn't have the choice to not procreate, or that making that choice means someone has less worth as a human being.’

Yes, you did. You called the childfree illogical ‘freaks’ and ‘insufferable whiners’, who are unaware of how evolution works!”

“People who choose not to procreate” are not one and the same with “childfree”. The latter group is (fortunately) a small subset of the former.

Posted by: Alan | Jun 06, 2006 15:54

Now, on to Kay:

“Every public, tax-supported benefit that your children receive is paid for not only by people who have kids, but by people who do not.”

The same is true for every public, tax-supported benefit that childfree adults receive. So?

“You say that Childfree people are keeping the world from continuing with their choices to be childfree.”

No, I say that this is the logical end result of what they stand for.

“Let's look at this rationally:”

Okay, let’s.

“[T]here are so many unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, not to mention people who have children by their own choices. The number of childfree people is FAR under the number of people who are actually having children. So the world's continuance is NOT AT ALL in jeopardy with these ‘insufferable whiners.’ “

So you’d rather put the “world’s continuance” in the hand of the people you regularly denounce? Odd…

“Not every vegetarian is a member of PETA and tries extensively to stop these things.”

Ooh, you really stepped in it here. You’re right, of course, about vegetarians. By the same token, not every person who is childless by choice is “childfree” and hangs out where people engage in angry diatribes against children and parents. Your group is very much analogous to PETA in its being a more radical fringe within a much larger demographic (though I’m far more sympathetic to PETA’s aims than I am to yours).

“And even furthermore, if a secular liberal parent's child does in fact grow up to be a fundamentalist Christian, conservative, Rush Limbaugh dittohead, guess what? That secular liberal parent will need to accept that child's religious convictions and politics as part and parcel of that child, and love him or her anyway.
That's a good parent's job, like it or not.”

If my children were to become “Rush Limbaugh dittoheads”, with all the racism, classism, sexism, and hostility to the environment that implies, I would still love them but I wouldn’t care to spend time with them. Fortunately, that strikes me as very unlikely!

Now, Millennium:

”Given your background, and given the knowledge that must come from it, I would have thought you would spend your energies pointing out the horrors that rampant human increase is visiting on the only world we know and particularly on the humans who come after us (yes, your children).”

The world’s population is expected to stabilize and then start falling in just a few decades. With development comes good and bad effects. One of the effects (which carries some good until it goes too far as in Italy) is reduced fertility rates.

Millennium is concerned that I ”sneer at a small group who won't buy into that [‘natalist’] view, and are cheerfully rude about it.”
Why, if you admit you are “rude”, should I not sneer at you?

Her Own Woman writes:

“The charter of the alt.support.childfree newsgroup clearly states that posts from parents are strictly prohibited. The author of this piece should have researched the group enough to learn this rule. If he knew about this rule and chose to post anyway, he deserved everything he got.”

No one deserves death threats toward them or their children—certainly not for engaging in what some believe is poor netiquette. Give me a fucking break.

”Trying to paint childfree people with the same brush as racists is wrong. One cannot choose her race, but she can chose whether or not to breed.”

Can someone choose whether or not to be born? Hmmm…gotcha there!

And Jay: it’s a fiction that Social Security is put in the “bank” for you when you’re older. It’s always been a system where current workers support current retirees. Why do you think people started receiving benefits within such a short time of the program’s creation?

Posted by: Alan | Jun 06, 2006 15:56

This point of view is moronic at best. People who choose to be childfree aren't trying to thin out the gene pool or stop the world from procreating - they just don't want children of their own. It's not a difficult concept. And they're not joining other forums full of happy parents to tell them they're wrong to have kids.

The slang terms coined by these groups are only results of real life experiences with narrow-minded and selfish parents who think the only purpose to life is procreation and who feel they need to bring it up any chance they get and scold anyone who disagrees. Often times those were the same parents who don't really parent and expect the rest of society to ignore their annoying offspring as they do. The childfree groups are tired of a world where they're forced to deal (physicality, mentally, and financially) with other's kids all of the time and they're starting to stand against it. If all parents would stop trying to blame everything on the world around them or on other people, and actually started looking after their children and taking real responsibility for what they do the childfree wouldn’t have any complaints about them.

This author is more than willing to throw around insults and comparisons to racism because he joined a group that he did not agree with and got a response that was more than expected. Rather than moving on because he had nothing useful to say, he turns around and makes up some flawed logic about them not contributing to the gene pool. In case you were wondering: manners are not genetic, and neither is intelligence. Ironic that he spent so much effort trying to tell this group how wrong they are and then writing this article, only to end this calling _them_ insufferable whiners.

Posted by: Don | Jun 06, 2006 18:27

Why does anyone care whether or not I want to make babies? Why? Because inside most people is still a little bit of a nazi that has to control everything around it. You want me to have kids motherfucker? Make me!

Posted by: Borgir | Jun 06, 2006 23:02

"Once again, I never said “genocide”, only noted that if people don’t procreate, you don’t get any kids; and without kids, you can’t have adults, childfree or otherwise."

Thank you, Captain Obvious. However, surely you realize that the chances of the entire human race waking up one morning and deciding as a whole not to have any more children are NIL. Indeed, when has the entire human race, on the whole, decided to do ANYTHING other than live and die?

Your preposterous slippery slope assertion that the existence of the childfree community is somehow leading to the extinction of the human race isn't improving with repetition, you know. It's still just as preposterous as the first time you stated it. The same rhetoric was used to oppose gay relationships years ago ("If we allow non-reproductive couples to be legitimized, the human race will die out!") Funny, we now have civil unions and health insurance for domestic partners, and the human race is more populous than ever.

Look, sir, you trolled a CF board, and (surprise surprise) nobody liked you for it. If you got onto a BBS full of Unix programmers to extol your neo-Luddite point of view, you wouldn't be welcome. If you got on a Catholic board to extol the necessity of atheism, you wouldn't be welcome.

Why on earth did you imagine that anyone on a childfree board would greet your attempt to "stick up for parents" with anything other than extreme scorn and derision? Why did you even bother them? What were you hoping to accomplish? Did you honestly think you were going to change even one CF person's mind? Or are you just the latest victim of the notion that parents are privileged members of society, who aren't bound by the same rules of courtesy that extend to everyone else? Why did you imagine that you could patronize an entire Usenet group with impunity, simply because you impregnated a woman at least once?

Honestly, if you don't want to subject your precious children to flamage, then here's a thought - perhaps you shouldn't troll childfree support boards. Perhaps you could just let the childfree go on with the business of socializing and supporting each other without your heckling.

Posted by: Francois | Jun 07, 2006 03:22

“I’ve read quite a bit of your newsgroup, and I’ve seen countless signs of “opposition to other people having [children]”, yet I’ve never seen anyone post anything supportive of anyone having kids, or any recognition of parents who do a good job rearing their children, aside from occasional comments about how they should act in theory, always used to contrast with the specific (bad) example being discussed.”

Why on earth would you look for validation of your choice to have children on a CHILDFREE board?! Isn’t that about like looking for validation for your heterosexuality at an Act Up! meeting? If, for example, you look to a Catholic priest to validate your atheism, aren't you being a little silly? And why are the participants on a childfree board in any way obligated to validate your choice to have children?

There are newsgroups where people do in fact write supportive posts about people having children, and where they recognize parents who do a good job rearing their children.

They’re called parenting boards, and there are LOTS of them out there.

Perhaps you could find a nice parenting board and hang out there, you know. Just a thought…

“ “People who choose not to procreate” are not one and the same with “childfree”. ”

Yes, they are.

“The latter group is (fortunately) a small subset of the former.”

Ah, so you don’t object to people choosing not to procreate. Apparently, you object when a large group of people who have all chosen not to procreate like to talk to each other.

Posted by: Francois | Jun 07, 2006 03:56

WTF? I've been listening to goth music for 10 years and it never said anything about The Imperfect Parent. Rip the system you facists!
Kein Mehrheit Für Die Mitleid! BerZeRkeR!!!!

Posted by: Tinkerbell | Jun 07, 2006 12:10

“But being “childfree” carries with it a lot more than “no desire to have children of one's own”. Need I remind you of the routine usage of “moos”, “vermin”, etc.? I’ve read quite a bit of your newsgroup, and I’ve seen countless signs of “opposition to other people having [children]”, yet I’ve never seen anyone post anything supportive of anyone having kids, or any recognition of parents who do a good job rearing their children, aside from occasional comments about how they should act in theory, always used to contrast with the specific (bad) example being discussed.”

“Once again, I never said “genocide”, only noted that if people don’t procreate, you don’t get any kids; and without kids, you can’t have adults, childfree or otherwise.”

Ah, of course, NOW I get it.

So by your logic, seeing as how I am a very happily married woman, I should have no compunction about trolling alt.support.divorce and alt.support.marriagefree, in order to “stick up for” marriage.

After all, it is the responsibility of all divorced and happily single folk out there to validate my blissfully happy life with my darling husband. God forbid that I should allow divorced and happily single people to have even ONE SINGLE PLACE ON THE NET where they can be entirely free from the societal pressures of people like me, and where they can discuss topics relevant to their situation in life. Naturally I have every right to pester divorced and single folk, because marriage is the building block of all society, and if EVERYONE got divorced, or decided to never get married, the world as we know it would cease to exist!

Oh, divorced people claim they are treated like under-log-dwelling freaks by happily married people? Perhaps they ARE freaks who dwell under logs. Does anyone really think that the rest of us want to be subjected to their insufferable whining about their pathetic little broken marriages? Well, marriage is a sacred and beautiful thing - what’s wrong with divorced people that they couldn’t make it work? What’s wrong with those freaky bastards who *gasp* don’t ever want to be married - don’t they realize how great marriage has been for ME? What, doesn’t EVERYONE want to be like me, since I am right?

Hmmm? What’s this? All those divorced people and happily single people are *gasp* flaming me for being a judgmental troll?! What’s the world coming to, when those under-log-dwelling folk without spouses don’t realize their essential inferiority to happy wives like ME! This must mean the sanctity of marriage is no longer respected by society!

Surely this must be indicative of a larger conspiracy by divorced and single people to target happily married people in some vague, nebulous, and totally unsubstantiated manner! This must mean that my darling husband’s life is in danger! I must inform the FBI!!!!

Posted by: Rose | Jun 07, 2006 14:31

Listen up, Rose, because you just don't get it (or are being willfully obtuse). I've been all over Usenet and various message boards and blogs, mixing it up with people for years. I'm a contentious sort, and I've received more flames than I could possibly count. Your implication, that I run off crying because I am shocked (SHOCKED) that someone would flame me, is more preposterous than you can possibly imagine. Everywhere else I've gone, the flames only invigorate me to give as good as I get (though I make it a policy not to use profanity or crude slurs, even in response to same, simply because I find it a more effective tactic to not be seen stooping to that level). ASCF, however, is the only forum I've ever been to where the so-called "flames" rose to the level of discussing specific, graphic harm to my children, who--even you should recognise--have nothing to do with my actions vis-a-vis perceived violations of netiquette.

That is not a "flame", it is a threat of violence against innocent children (something our "breeder" society, as you probably know, considers among the most serious crimes possible). So I stand behind both my original report to the FBI as well as my recent update to them.

Posted by: Alan | Jun 07, 2006 15:37

So, Alan, what exactly was this "threat" your kid got on the board you had no business on? Could you give us a link to the discussion where it occurred so we can see the context it was used in, or should we just take your word for it that it was a warranted and viable threat?

also... you claim to "...make it a policy not to use profanity or crude slurs, even in response to same, simply because I find it a more effective tactic to not be seen stooping to that level" after calling the people from the child free groups freaks and hatemongers, and flippantly comparing them to racists. So much for your policy.

Posted by: Don | Jun 08, 2006 01:46

The threats were in some cases thinly veiled, but thinly veiled implicit threats are still illegal (otherwise, anyone could get away with threatening people just by making slight adjustments to their verbiage). One of the threats was explicit, however. Unsurprisingly, the posts were not archived, but here is a link to my post where I quoted the posts (and note that no one in the ensuing discussion claimed that I had invented or altered them):

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.childfree/browse_thread/thread/cc35de7bab614783/6df37e1ef1479542?lnk=st&q=alanslackerinc+%22even+coincidentally+harmed%22&rnum=11#6df37e1ef1479542

Some lowlights follow.

****************************
"ALL breeders who invade here deserve to be burned to
death AFTER watching their vermin being tortured to death.
Got that?...Pete"

"Look, asshole, you deserve to die. Learn to accept that. Any breeder who posts here, deserves to be tied to a chair and killed SLOWLY with a
propane torch and a large quantity of methyl-ethyl ketone...AFTER watching their children being raped and tortured to death...Pete"

"Citizen Ted" made the threat explicit:

"So, unless you want Pete driving a gas truck into your pweshuss baby's soccer practice, I strongly advise you to quickly and quietly fuck off and stay fucked off.
- TR"
******************************

Still going to scoff, Don? If the public were polled, what percentage do you think would agree that this is a threat and that the people in question are a danger to society? (I'm guessing somewhere north of 90%.)

Posted by: Alan | Jun 08, 2006 15:34

You admit that you trolled a board that makes no secret of the fact that people like you are strongly disliked and unwelcome. You were flamed in rude and hyperbolic terms, which should come as a surprise to no one. Did you honestly imagine that no one would ever carry another pregnancy to term if you, and only YOU, failed to "stick up for parenthood" on a childfree support board? Isn't that rather like going over to a homosexuals' support board to "stick up for" straight sex? Parents are the majority in our society, not some persecuted underclass - why on earth do they need you to "stick up for" them? While you're at it, maybe you could go to a local Democratic party get-together and "stick up for" the Republican party, because like parents, the GOP is a powerless minority in our society, desperately in need of a brave champion like you.

As for the above comments constituting any kind of real threat to your children - oh please. Pete's been going off on over-the-top spit-flecked rants about that imaginary gas truck for so long on ASCF that it's a running gag. You are hardly the first parental troll at ASCF, yet no real gas trucks have ever been employed against anyone, at least that I know of. Pete is the pure id of ASCF; it would be absurd to take anything he says seriously (although it is very funny to observe the reactions when people like you do so.) No childfree person wants to harm your children; I think I can safely assert that most of the participants on ASCF would be happy as clams if they never had to inhabit the same restaurant as you or your children.

As for the above comments warranting the involvement of the FBI - right, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has nothing better to do than referee the avoidable little flaming matches you like to instigate on the Internet. Forget about pursuing bank robbers and serial killers - someone flamed Alan Thomas on USENET! Oh NOES! I know I’ll sleep better at night knowing that my tax dollars are going toward investigating such pressing and far-reaching concerns, truly; because so long as idle threats are being bandied about between anonymous strangers on Usenet - on a day ending in Y - NO ONE is safe.

Posted by: Rose | Jun 08, 2006 19:03

Scoff I shall... Those quotes you gave aren't threats to you or your kids. Wishing anything on anyone is not the same as saying you plan to make it happen. I personally think all stupid people deserve be ground up and baked into Soylent Green - but that doesn't mean I plan on taking a meat grinder to anyone or would ever try to eat them. It doesn't matter what any percent of the public thinks, the fact is there was no threat. If you are genuinely worried about that type of comment, you should stay out of groups focused on things you don't agree with. The bottom line is you knowingly entered a forum where you were not welcome for your opinions, and when you wouldn't leave the members resorted to flaming you. Rather than take the hint and just leave, you blogged it where you felt you could take the advantage. And now that's not working out.

I'd also like to see your responses to those "threats" you collected - because if anyone really felt threatened in a situation like that, either they'd leave after the first one or respond appropriately - which it didn't appear you were doing. Honestly, if I had kids and felt someone was really threatening to rape and murder them, I would have done more than just emailed the FBI’s online terrorism unit (especially after getting that form response email). You obviously knew there was no threat, and now you’re simply trying to make the entire child free community appear like the few extremists you provoked. From the link you gave you look to be more concerned with winning that online argument rather than protecting your kids from the “threats.”

Posted by: Don | Jun 09, 2006 05:59

Rose, you're full of shit. Life doesn't work this way: you can't hide behind this "pure id" rationalisation. Law enforcers know that the Internet, along with its many positive attributes, often allows disparate disturbed minds to band together and reinforce each other. This has resulted in quite a number of crimes, including those against children. And you certainly facilitate this by tolerating such talk in your midst.

BTW, I consider it 99% likely that it's "just talk" as you say. But for those of us who have children we dearly love, something you couldn't possibly comprehend, a one percent chance of a threat against them is incredibly alarming and completely unacceptable. I know I'd rather have a 99% chance of dying myself than a 1% chance of something happening to my kids.

As for the idea that thinly veiled threats are not still threats, that's absurd. This would allow any Mafioso to threaten a jury, say, with impunity: "I hope someone comes to your house and violently murders your family." Ridiculous. And of course, as I pointed out, in any event "Citizen Ted" made the threat explicit: if you don't get the hell out of here, Pete's going to kill your kids. (Doesn't matter if he didn't believe this: a threat is a threat, and it's not the responsibility of the person being threatened to determine how serious the threatener is.)

Now, Don, enlighten me: what are the steps you believe would have demonstrated that I was serious? Perhaps it would interest you to know that I bought a gun today (and not just a little .22 either), something this former NRA opponent never expected to do. And I WILL issue a very direct threat, one that I am absolutely serious and sincere about. If any of you freaks ever cross my path, I will shoot you. I won't make elabourate claims like Pete did about how I'm going to slowly torture you to death. I'll just shoot you. Then I'll shoot you some more. Then I'll reload and shoot you a few more times. Once I'm convinced that even Pete's paramedic buddies couldn't revive you, I'll call the authorities and put my fate in the hands of a jury (and guess what? In this "breeder" society of ours, I'd come out with a slap on the wrist and you fucking damn well know it).

Posted by: Alan | Jun 09, 2006 14:37

You actually wasted the FBI's time with your pathetic little message board argument, and now you're threatening to shoot and kill anyone who "crosses (your) path"?

Someone actually pays you to write - and I use the word generously here - for this site? I find it difficult to believe that anyone would so frivolously waste money on such tripe, especially when you return to post explicit threats of violence against any reader who dares to disagree with your sloppy ramblings. What you have presented is intellectual chicken scratch, followed by invective and and an impotent attempt at intimidation.

I also find it downright frightening that someone of your obviously deficient mental state is responsible for the well-being of children.

Posted by: Jon | Jun 09, 2006 15:31

So much for your policy against profanity and crude slurs, eh Alan? How very mature of you. You've demonstrated an actual threat in that post of yours (Quick - some one email the FBI!), though I doubt you've the balls to follow through on any part of it. But cheers to you for letting some random extremist’s rant affect you so deeply as to change your view on guns. That's a real great example you're setting for your kids. I can just hear their mother explaining it now... "Well, daddy had to go to jail because he tried to kill some random stranger because they didn't want kids, so write him a letter when you get back from therapy!"

I hope this site's administrators are taking note of you're comments in here; because while the usual readers aren't perfect, I'm sure they wouldn't condone open death threats to anyone who doesn't share their views on parenting. But who knows, maybe _this_ is the "hate site," because your actions certainly fit the definition.

Posted by: Don | Jun 09, 2006 16:56

Tell that to the five younger brothers and sisters I all but raised while I was still a teenager, while my mother went in and out of institutions for post-partum mental disorders, Mr. Thomas, sir. I’m sure they’d be fascinated to hear that I don’t know what it is to love and care for a child, especially since I was making sure all five of them were fed and taken care of when I was FOURTEEN. You’re an adult man who only has two kids, only four nights a week, and who has an ex-wife helping him care for them? LUXURY! You're getting off LIGHT! Imagine doing housework and getting meals for your entire family because your mother was in the hospital and THEN doing your homework every night, all before you were old enough to drive a car. I’ll bet you a hundred bucks against a dime that I’ve changed more diapers, endured more screaming tantrums, soothed more boo-boos, done more laundry, and refereed more stupid fights than you EVER have before I was old enough to buy beer, oh great virtuous Daddums.

You’re just another of that ridiculous breed of single fathers who feel entitled to hosannas and blowjobs for *GASP* taking care of _your own children_ - oh cry me a river, that doesn’t make you super-special, virtuous, or superior in any way, that’s just what you irrevocably signed on to do the second you knocked up your wife, buster. Try being the oldest daughter of a big old-fashioned Catholic clan of seven children where nothing with a penis is ever expected to lift a finger. Said oldest daughter is expected to be Virgin Mother 2.0 every second of every day, and like it.

And you know what? Twenty years later, every single one of my younger brothers and sisters, and both of my nieces, idolize me. I am the Hip, Free-Spirited Big Sister/Aunt with panache to burn, and not only that, but I have helped them with homework, helped them dress for the prom, and nursed them through first crushes and broken hearts. Who has the energy to play with the nieces when their exhausted parents have had it? Their childfree aunt and uncle, that’s who.

Look, pal, I HAVE raised children, children who already existed and who are my own flesh and blood. Just because they didn’t come out of my body doesn’t make my contribution to their lives any less valid. My husband and I helped my schizophrenic brother become self-supporting, and helped put my three youngest sisters through UC Irvine, USC, and Berkeley - top that, oh slacker Dad.

I could easily have had kids if I’d wanted ‘em - it’s not like my husband and I can’t afford them. But instead I got a tubal ligation as soon as I could, and never looked back. I know EXACTLY what it is that I’m missing, and I’m damn glad I’m missing it. Don’t even try the “I have CHILDRUUUUUN and you DOOOOON’T, neener neener neener” baiting on me, because I envy your life about as much as I envy a caged animal its fleas. After all, anyone could see from your example that parenting makes people more tolerant, more loving, and banishes all irrational hatred for one’s fellow man.

It’s painfully obvious that you are just demonizing the childfree the same way that previous generations demonized Jewish people, the Romani, and homosexuals. As your phallic, masturbatory “FEAR MY BIG GUN!” threats prove, you’re just another scared middle-class white guy blaming all the world’s problems on X other demographic out of fear. For all your airs about your proudly secular liberalism, you’re just a closet dittohead who thinks he’s hit on the last social group it’s safe to hate in America. The only thing funnier than your absolute certainty that the childfree are all coming to get YOUR CHILDREN is your spluttering amazement that those evil childfree bastards actually have the gall to rationally assert that there’s nothing bad or evil about their decision at all.

In short - we’re here. We don’t want to be parents, and we aren’t ashamed of that. We’re not going anywhere. Now make like a good secular liberal whom Parenthood Has Made Into a Better Person™, and get used to us.

Posted by: Rose | Jun 12, 2006 13:30

I learned about the concept of being 'childfree' years ago when my first child was a small baby and I was scouring the net for parenting boards and ran into them. I learned that there were two types of CF'rs...

There are those who made the valid and reasoned choice not to have children, and then there were the militant, slightly frightening, whackjobs filled with anger against 'breeders' and their 'spawn'.

I was frankly shocked at the latter. Not at the people choosing not to have kids but at the level of anger and the disgust by some against those who do. And the level of infantile tantrums that some resort to.

It was an unpleasant but incredibly necessary awakening for me. When once I read that someone took glee in 'accidentally' ramming a shopping cart with an infant in it, I had to accept that there were dangerous people out there that I had to watch out for so that I may protect my children.

So YAY for the childfree sites and their diatribes and craziness. Without them I would have never known of their existance. And as a result, would be walking around with a false sense of security that seemingly normal adults could be expected to act in an adult fashion.

Thank you to them for opening my eyes.

Posted by: JR | Jun 17, 2006 13:17

Good call, JR.

Posted by: Alan | Jun 19, 2006 16:29

I wish all those great parents would breed like rabbits, but my gawd, the world is full to bursting with horribly misbehaving and borderline delinquent kids!

Some of you pahrunts need to check yourselves, because frankly, your parenting skills suck. Don't think it's not obvious that you care more about yourself and the latest shiny thing over there than taking the time to raise well-adjusted, well-behaved children.

It's not my fault your parenting skills suck. Why take it out on those of us who had the foresight to plan birth control?

Oh, and Alan, so sorry you're so scared of usenet. It's a rant board, not peer reviewed journalism.

Posted by: me | Jun 25, 2006 06:12

*Psssst* Jr, whatever you do, do not google "toddlerkon". You will never sleep again. Unless of course, you like that sort of thing. I hear some pahrunts do.

The DOB estimates about what, .5 % of children are born into families that sexually abuse their own offspring. Those are the ones that are caught.

Golly gee, pahrunts are soooo wonderful!

Posted by: me | Jun 25, 2006 06:33

If you really are a great parent, there is no reason for you to be offended by the childfree ranting message boards. Parenting is hard work, and if you're doing everything you need to do in order to raise healthy, well-adjusted kids, well then, more power to you.

The problem is, of course, is that there aren't that many truely great parents. Most just muddle along. And you know it. That's why you're offended by the ranting of childfree folks.

How many of you planned not only the number but the timing of your children? How many of you bothered to have premaritial counseling with the person you had children with? You know, to insure a stable environment for your kids.

How can The Most Important Job In The World be done WELL without proper advance planning?

And you wonder why childfree people are peeved?

Because WE have to pay taxes for teenage welfare mothers, for drug rehab programs, and for incarcerating your bratty kids after they grow up, because you did such a lousy job of teaching them right from wrong.

Just remember, the truely great parents are as disgusted by you as the childfree are.

Posted by: me again | Jun 25, 2006 13:59

You wrote:
"But this ignores the fact that someone is going to have to take care of these CFers when they are old and/or disabled. And since it obviously won’t be their kids, it’s going to have to be other people’s kids. So a little advance payment to help raise the generation that’s going to be changing their adult diapers someday doesn’t strike me as out of order!"

Um the childfree will, of course, be paying for the services when they get old. So why do you think it is fair to double dip? Social security most likely is not going to be there for us. We will be living off of the retirement money that we have EARNED. At least that of which hasn't been picked out of our pockets for the precious children .

Posted by: Kellie | Jul 14, 2006 19:30

i've had the misfortune to run afoul of these ... "types". i enjoy running them up their own flagpole because when you actually attempt to engage them in intelligent dialogue, the conversation very quickly breaks down as they have no intelligent reasons to support their hatred of children. so far, every one i've encountered resorts to "i shouldn't have to breed if i don't want to and my rights are compromised because i'm forced to encounter vermin everywhere i turn". well, duh. basically, daddy or mommy didn't give them what they wanted when they were kids so wah, wah, wah. or they're embarrassed to admit they're mortally afraid of labour (btw: wierdly enough, most of these s/c "cf by choice" that i've encountered are women) and not woman enough to admit it. about the most rational ones are the ones that are child free by choice because they feel they have issues (medical or emotional)that should not be inflicted on a child and that's fair - no problem with that here, i think that's very responsible. but why, then, crap all over me because i happen to enjoy having babies and - sorry, guys - i happen to love my kids? there is no right that says you shouldn't have to deal with kids if you don't like them - if you want a restaurant guaranteed child-free, start your own and more power to you - but there ARE rights that say i don't have to deal with your negative and hating attitude! there is also a court system to which i can resort if your negative and hating attitude has an impact on my children, so maybe think about that before you go spewing and ranting off.

Posted by: threenorns | Jan 28, 2008 08:06

Frankly I thought this was pretty brave a thing to write. No doubt many of these people are not only militant, but downright bigoted and child-hating - I certainly come across more than my fair share of those. And yeah, that's "freaky." But, in the long run I'm glad they're not having children. Who could be less suited?

Posted by: AnaBanana | Feb 20, 2008 21:06

Threenorms and AnaBanana, I strongly agree with both of your posts--thanks for the feedback!

Posted by: Alan | Feb 21, 2008 23:20

Thank you for being part of this site, and this article in particular. I lost what I felt was a very dear friend over this subject. My friend "Jane" and her husband "Bob", had decided they just were not the parenting type. They were cool people, and kids liked them, and I looked forward to them being cool "aunt and uncle" to my future kids. When I did finally get pregnant with my son, and emailed her my awesome news, boy was I surprised. We had not seen each other in about 1 year. Her reply to my email, though disguised as silly and fun used many of the "rants" from the childfree movement. "Don't get me started on parking spots for expectant moms LOL." She said. I was hurt and dismayed and felt like crap. Here I was sharing with her what I felt was the happiest news in my life, and I was informed that she was living a childfree lifestyle. I researched this movement on the internet, and cried. Not because of them, but because my friend, who I supported in her decision to not have kids, found she needed to assert her new group to me at a time I needed her to say that's awesome, I'm so happy for you. It ruined our friendship, and I have not spoken to her in 8 years. Some people shouldn't be parents and are. I applaud those that now they don't want kids, and don't have them. Just please don't criticize me for choosing to be a parent. Lastly, on more than one occasion, my son has been complimented on his good behavior in restaurants, that not only makes him proud, it makes his "breeder moo" proud as well, LOL. Keep up the good writing.

Posted by: tiehea | Apr 26, 2008 10:54

Leave a comment: