Conservative posters about CF millennials

[Lenona]

This long thread is from 2017, but it's worthwhile.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3527308/posts?q=1&;page=61

The above is the third page of comments. This comment caught my eye:


"While some in the millennial generation are narcissists, you’re a fool if you think that’s the only driving force behind this.

"Short version: its unaffordable. Especially for millenials.

"I’m just slightly too old to be a millennial but I’m in the same boat. I’m more than halfway to 6 figures, we owe no money on car payments, wife works a little part time, and we borrowed less than double my yearly salary to buy our house.

"We are barely making it. We are paycheck to paycheck. The next big house repair item will finish us, and we are letting the small stuff go because we have to.

"Yes, it really is that bad nowadays. Don’t kid yourself, the younger generation has a considerably lower standard of living than those that came before with no real chance of changing it, even for the motivated hard workers.

"Basically we are paying all of our money to take care of the bastard children of the irresponsible. I make more money today than I’ve ever made and am simultaneously more broke than I’ve been since high school.

"A lot of millenials are in this same spot and those that are hard workers are saying 'you know, I work too hard to have nothing.' So they cut expenses like marriage and children out, or they slough off into easier jobs, because hey, why work like a dog at a high paying job to end up with nothing to show for it?

"For some forsaking marriage and kids is narcissism. For far too many, it’s the result of a rational analysis of the situation followed by a rational decision to forego these things. And I don’t blame them a bit for it."

69 posted on 2/21/2017, 3:04:11 AM by JamesP81 (The DNC poses a greater threat to my liberty than terrorists, China, and Russia. Combined.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


And:

"Have you ever noticed that people who know what’s best for you in terms of making your life decisions for you sound disturbingly like those irritating liberals who know what’s best for you and are much more capable of making your life decisions for you?"

92 posted on 2/21/2017, 10:17:00 AM by Silentgypsy (Mind your atomic bonds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]
___________________________________________________

And, I would add, what is stopping conservative parents from having MORE babies if they're so anxious about the low American birthrate?

Oh, they don't want to lose what little time, money, and energy they have?

Neither do others. Especially many who are poor.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <edc3a7db-a2d7-450f...@googlegroups.com>,

Lenona <leno...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>This long thread is from 2017, but it's worthwhile.
>
>https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3527308/posts?q=1&;page=61

What I don't understand (seriously - not rhetorically) is why they call not
having kids "narcissism". Isn't having kids the ultimate narcissism?
Wanting to create a "little me" - to "carry on the line" ?

Not to mention the obvious fact that the head narcissist-in-chief has had a
bunch of children (from/with many different women).

Kinda downplays the theory that narcissists don't have kids, doesn't it?

--
So to cure the problem of arrogant incompetent rich people we should turn
the government over to an arrogant incompetent trust fund billionaire
who knows nothing about government and who has never held a job in his
entire spoiled life?

[Lenona]

On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 10:28:02 AM UTC-5, Kenny McCormack wrote:

> What I don't understand (seriously - not rhetorically) is why they call not
> having kids "narcissism". Isn't having kids the ultimate narcissism?
> Wanting to create a "little me" - to "carry on the line" ?

As you know, it's based on the idea that "only selfish people don't want children."

Which is sort of like saying "only selfish people don't want pets or houseplants."

Or, "only LAZY people don't want children."

Seriously. Would anyone accuse a childfree firefighter, doctor, or teacher of being lazy or selfish?

Why do priests and nuns never get accused like that? (I assume the main answer is that serving God is the only "better" occupation than parenthood, and that having to forfeit sex somehow proves their unselfishness.)

Not to mention all the famous people in history who never had children, whether by choice or not?

You can see that 2-part list here (it may need to have a few names removed, but I'm in a rush):

https://www.childfreebychoice.com/history.htm

https://www.childfreebychoice.com/history2.htm

[Lenona]

> As you know, it's based on the idea that "only selfish people don't want children."
>
> Which is sort of like saying "only selfish people don't want pets or houseplants."
>
> Or, "only LAZY people don't want children."

It's all related to the idea that refusing to reproduce, per se, is as morally wrong as refusing to earn a living, assuming there's no disability involved. (Why couples who refuse to adopt seldom get called selfish is a mystery to me.)

I'm sure that attitude was around long before the 1950s.

However, in 1985, the journalism professor Ellen Willis pointed out that single men didn't have it much better than single women, in the 1950s, because bachelors often could not get promoted at work. Even today, men (in highly religious communities, at least), risk being ostracized if they aren't married by a certain age. Not to mention the unmarried women!

Which is one reason I now believe that anti-abortionists care less about punishing women, single or married, for having sex, than about punishing ANY adult under 40, male, female, rich, poor, unhappily married or happily alone, who has zero children or only one. (After all, plenty of CF and childless people don't even HAVE sex lives, especially the poor!)

[Lenona]

> As you know, it's based on the idea that "only selfish people don't want children."
>
> Which is sort of like saying "only selfish people don't want pets or houseplants."
>
> Or, "only LAZY people don't want children."

I'm also reminded of the parents who say to their college kids "what do you MEAN, you won't go into law or medicine when I'm ORDERING you to?!"

Many old-fashioned parents truly believe that a child who makes such a refusal must be either horribly selfish or a traitor to the family.

I think that on the rare occasion the CF truly need to explain themselves (usually to relatives, if only to keep the peace), the best line is "I didn't have kids for the same reason I didn't become a surgeon or a ditchdigger; I just didn't want to."

But I also like this one:

"I love elephants, but I don't want them living in my house."

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <eb6573c1-110e-4fc9...@googlegroups.com>,

Lenona <leno...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, November 16, 2022 at 10:28:02 AM UTC-5, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
>> What I don't understand (seriously - not rhetorically) is why they call not
>> having kids "narcissism". Isn't having kids the ultimate narcissism?
>> Wanting to create a "little me" - to "carry on the line" ?
>
>As you know, it's based on the idea that "only selfish people don't
>want children."

I don't think "narcissism" is synonymous with either "selfish" or "lazy".
They mean completely different things.

Yes, I know (and this is not a criticism of you) that nowadays, people tend
to use words sloppily and don't really care about what words actually mean.
They (words) are just stones to be thrown at your opponents; it doesn't
matter what those stones are made of.

As I said, a narcissist is quite likely to have children - lots of them -
as monuments to how great they are.

>Which is sort of like saying "only selfish people don't want pets or
>houseplants."
>
>Or, "only LAZY people don't want children."

BTW, I freely admit to being lazy. It is part of why I sensibly chose to
be CF.

That, and the fact that I never, ever, saw any percentage in parenthood.

BTW (again), you cannot simultaneously insist that X (for any X) is a
great thing (in fact, the greatest thing ever) and that you will be
instantly happy once you have X *and* also that being X is your civic duty.

If the first were true (that it is great and that you will be instantly
happy), then the second is irrelevant and would never ever be mentioned.
That you (rhetorical you, not you personally) have to mention the second,
invalidates the first.

>Seriously. Would anyone accuse a childfree firefighter, doctor, or teacher of
>being lazy or selfish?

Yes. I don't see why not.

All of those people (members of those professions) are expected to be
parents too.

>Why do priests and nuns never get accused like that? (I assume the
>main answer is that serving God is the only "better" occupation than
>parenthood, and that having to forfeit sex somehow proves their
>unselfishness.)

Because religion has a special status in our culture, that protects it from
any criticism. It is a legally protected form of insanity.

>Not to mention all the famous people in history who never had children,
>whether by choice or not?

To be fair, a lot of famous (and productive) historical figures were pretty
shitty human beings. Childfree or not.

--
To most Christians, the Bible is like a software license. Nobody
actually reads it. They just scroll to the bottom and click "I agree."

- author unknown -

[Lenona]

> >As you know, it's based on the idea that "only selfish people don't
> >want children."

> I don't think "narcissism" is synonymous with either "selfish" or "lazy".
> They mean completely different things.

I meant that saying childfree people are automatically selfish is as ABSURD as saying that such people are automatically lazy.

And if you mean that narcissism is a mental disorder while being selfish is not, yes, I knew that.

According to the Mayo Clinic “Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental disorder in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings."

However, I looked up the synonyms for "narcissistic" just now.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/narcissistic

Guess which synonym is at the top?

It's still safe to say that not all selfish people are narcissistic, of course.

> >Seriously. Would anyone accuse a childfree firefighter, doctor, or teacher of
> >being lazy or selfish?
> Yes. I don't see why not.
>
> All of those people (members of those professions) are expected to be
> parents too.

I just think one would have to have a hell of a nerve even to THINK (never mind accuse openly) of a stranger in those professions as selfish when we all know how hard they work and how important their work is. If you know them personally and you have OTHER reasons to accuse them of being selfish, that's different, of course.

(Ralph Nader has plenty of enemies in Big Business, but I never heard anyone accuse him of being selfish for choosing to be CF so he could work more efficiently.)

> >Why do priests and nuns never get accused like that? (I assume the
> >main answer is that serving God is the only "better" occupation than
> >parenthood, and that having to forfeit sex somehow proves their
> >unselfishness.)
> Because religion has a special status in our culture, that protects it from
> any criticism. It is a legally protected form of insanity.

Yes, but given that there's no shortage of anti-Catholic hatred among OTHER Christians, why don't the latter accuse them of selfishness for being CF?

> >Not to mention all the famous people in history who never had children,
> >whether by choice or not?
> To be fair, a lot of famous (and productive) historical figures were pretty
> shitty human beings. Childfree or not.

I know. Gandhi and Einstein were both semi-rotten fathers.

But I doubt any fan loves them any less for that - or would love them less if they'd never had children.

My point being if you love a celebrity, you're not going to care, really, what his/her status is.

Someone pointed out that the only real reason we care about Marie Curie's status is that her older daughter followed in her mother's footsteps (Irene was a chemist, physicist, and politician), and Eve was a journalist who wrote her mother's biography. I.e., they actually accomplished something. But had they never existed, Curie would still be world-famous.

[Telecat Johnson]

On Friday, November 18, 2022 at 6:41:37 AM UTC-8, Lenona wrote:
> > >As you know, it's based on the idea that "only selfish people don't
> > >want children."

The ONLY good conservative is a DEAD conservative. Like Geoff Miller.