Not Bad for a Fence Sitter

maybebabymaybenot

I've only skimmed through this blog, but for a self-proclaimed fence-sitter, she has some great thoughts to share.

It's your hell; you rot in it!

I don't care much for her attitude and she sounds more like a pre-childed than a fence sitter to me, or at best, a breeder pleaser

Parents will never stop focusing on their children – nor should they. And that's not the responsibility of co-workers or employers, nor should it be. But until the current confines of the American workplace are adjusted to make families and work/life balance a priority, there will always be tension Unnecessary self imposed tension. There will always be people feeling like they should have it all, but can’t. Kunin’s argument was that the battle for work/life balance should not be a mother’s issue exclusively; it should apply to fathers as well. I’ll go one step further and say it should be an issue for any human being who wants to be more than a robot, who wants to have a meaningful, rewarding, well-rounded life in addition to their career. In other words, if you don't have kids you are a "robot", is how I take it.down

We just need to make sure that the definition of work/life balance (which seems more like work/parenthood balance these days) includes benefits for the Childfree – who also happen to have families. We have spouses, pets, siblings, parents, nieces and nephews. The difference is that in most cases, we’re not responsible for raising them or ensuring their livelihood. We can put in a full day at the office and still attend our niece’s ballet recital – if we want, and if something hasn’t come up at work. Though parents also have the option of missing recitals (and unfortunately, frequently do), it’s not without a giant heaping of guilt and resentment. And some very major changes in workplace policies and culture are the only feasible solutions. How is taking care of a sick, disabled, or elderly parent, financially and/or physically, not an "option" or the crux of their "livelihood"? I don't like the assumption our life choices are "optional" and self imposed and breeders are not, when they absolutely are, and often times much more so. We didn't "choose" to have elderly or sick parents, or even "choose" to have parents at all as opposed to breeders' CHOICE to spawn.

But until that happens (if it ever does), it seems like the Childfree are the only group that can truly have all that they want, exactly how they want it. Perhaps we’re fortunate that we don’t want more. That we’re content with simple pleasures like putting in a solid day’s work at a job we love because we didn’t opt for a career that was based on needing to support a family; or taking a long stroll with our spouse after a romantic dinner-for-two where we can discuss something other than Junior’s private school tuition; or taking time to volunteer and give back to the community; or retiring early to travel the world and really enjoy life before it passes us by. The implication that childfree people are "content"with "simple things" and don't "want more", meaning a life including kids, is a direct insult..

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!

Her blog is just one big attention-whore-athon. Trying to build up this suspense for everyone to share in -- will she or won't she? Like some kind of damn soap opera cliff hanger only far less interesting.

You've heard of TTC -- trying to conceive? She's TTD -- "trying to decide." Or TTDW -- trying to decide when.

A better title for her website would be, mabyebaby--whenmyfanbasegetsbigenough

I admit that I didn't read the whole thing. I was lucky enough to skip about and find the two or three sane sounding posts, it sounds like!

Thanks for the catch and save, you two. :redface

It's your hell; you rot in it!

Quote
reaperess
I admit that I didn't read the whole thing. I was lucky enough to skip about and find the two or three sane sounding posts, it sounds like!

Thanks for the catch and save, you two. :redface

It was an interesting article; thanks for posting it. The author did make good points, but the problem is she didn't reach any conclusion. And, to a childfree person, it does sound like she slanted toward the parent side of the fence.

One thing that stands out in these articles, no matter who authors them, is this typical message

Quote

Some of the Childfree will say yes – that parenthood is a conscientious choice and they should be prepared to bear the consequences of shouldering a 50-plus hour workweek on no sleep with a few billion pressing needs floating through their minds. But do you really want all your co-workers with children to be panicked about how they’re going to find time to pick up cupcakes for Susie’s graduation or whether they should have sent Jacob to school with a slight fever, instead of focused on their work? What good does that do us as a fellow employee, as a company, as a society?.

Know what? I really don't give a rat's ass.

Typical breeder-think that only a parent has a busy-busy life outside work. Some childfrees balance hectic schedules outside work, whether it's with having more than one job or going to school or participating in extra-curricular functions like animal rescue or charity work. Our own Thom C would be an example of this, I think. From some of the things he's written, he takes classes to continually update is emergency responder skills and does other activities that correspond to his career.

There were several years that between my husband and I, our schedules didn't respond. Between the time taken up with work, meetings related to work, and classes to update my skills, the only time I saw my husband was for about an hour each day; him coming home from work, me heading out.

Quote

Parents will never stop focusing on their children – nor should they. But until the current confines of the American workplace are adjusted to make families and work/life balance a priority, there will always be tension. There will always be people feeling like they should have it all, but can’t.

Yeah, the author is correct in that instance; there is tension between parents and CFs in the assumption that parents lead crazy lives and CFs have time to fritter; but she thinks the answer is accommodation for families. In this, she is coddling their greed.

It is flat out greedy to think that a woman should be able to have a faaaabulous career and still get to be a nurturing, fantastic mother, all on her own. If there is any accommodating to be done, it should be in the realm of the husband or family network. Accommodations at work are going to be at the expense of some people or some facet of the workplace. The company will have to go to greater expense helping these women to be both career-minded and maternal, passing that added cost to the goods and/or services they supply, or the accommodations will have to be made at the sacrifice of other people - typically those without kids.

IMO, the benefits these childbearing women receive should be matched by benefits to those without kids. A 6 week period to give birth and bond with their kid (paid or not)? I want the same. There are a number of worthwhile endeavors (to me) that I've had to put off until the time I'm not working. I'd love to spend 6 weeks working at the Best Friends animal sanctuary in Utah. Shoot, I'd be willing to forfeit a month and a half of pay for the opportunity. Think an employer would sign off on that? pffffft Not when it means having other people pull OT and shifting schedules around. Yet, a childbearing woman is allowed that amount of time off for however many kids she decides to sluice.

The only way to deflate this tension the author writes about is equitable benefits to employees, both childed and not.

Like what Dorisan is saying above, OUR lives are just as hectic and bizzy as a moo's, only for different reasons, some chosen and some beyond our control, JUST LIKE A MOO. I am deeply offended they get time off, often with pay, and can use sick days too, because WE CAN NOT. I have NEVER had an employer allow scheduled time off for elective reasons and allow an employee to use sick days, NEVER. I once worked at a bank where this one woman who worked there for over twenty years had accumulated about 2 months in sick leave. Her mother had surgery and she wanted to go stay and help her, out of state, for a few weeks and they WOULD NOT grant her sick leave pay. She couldn't believe it and said had she known that, she would have simply called in sick for a month. This was back before FMLA, so it could be different now, but I doubt it. It generally has to be a PERSONAL illness for sick day pay to kick in and a whelping moo is NOT "sick".

This bullshit of a specific group of people, namely those who CHOOSE to become parents, getting preferential treatment in the form of PAID leave or even leave without pay but they retain job security and position, is COMPLETE horse shit. No one else can take 3 months off for an elective reason and expect to come back with the same pay and job, everyone waiting on them with open arms and party streamers. If I were the employer and had someone in a PAID position who could be gone for 3-6 months and there wasn't any change in production or quality in their absence, I DO believe I'd be having second thoughts about even needing their services in the first place! BUT, that's not what happens because everyone else is picking up their slack for no extra compensation. EVEN IF it was discovered the moo had been a worthless employee, they can't even legally fire her NOR can they replace her while she's off playing Moo-Cow to her new suckling.fuck

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!