Things that seem feminist but aren't: The childfree movement
Posted by Anonymous User
I found this little ‘gem’ browsing the internet and made me so angry that I had to unload some of it here. I hope you folks don’t mind.
LINK> http://atthewelcometable.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/things-that-seem-feminist-but-arent.html
-
First of, since when are we a movement? It's like saying the hipster sub-culture is a "movement." I love it when people use words that they don't even know what they mean, best of all they publish their ignorance on an internet blog for the whole world to see. The disturbing part is that these 'people' consider themselves feminists, which is indeed is a movement, but I wonder if they know that. Oh and apparently all childfree are liberals, exclusively. Further down that vein, the site seems rather conservative leaning; "The Welcome Table; Justice, faith, feminism, food and family". Did anyone explain to these people that right-wing political orientation and feminism are and for the most part always have been utterly incompatible? What's next? Feminists pro-lifers? I can't even....
Excerpts followed by my commentary:
“At a basically level, it's simply people who do not want to have children, but it's often expressed as a disdain for children and, particularly, their parents.†Bang on and deal with it. It’s the parents choice to reproduce therefore it’s the parents responisbily to “deal†with the results of said ‘choice’.
“they should be free to not have children without being burdened by social pressure or disapproval.  (By the same token, of course, young women who want children should be able to do so without being burdened by the social pressure or disapproval, even if they aren't yet entirely financially stable.)" Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! If you’re not “yet†financially stable you’re not fulfilling the first and most basic requirement to be a parent. End of.
“Some of the oft-repeated beliefs--that children are solely the responsibility of their parents,†They are! You fucked, you spawned, your problem and yours alone. In what language are these ‘people’ gonna understand this very simple premise?
“that parents shouldn't be afforded "special privileges" (often including things like maternity leave or flexible work schedules)†They shouldn’t [refer to my previous comment].
“that people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them†I won’t repeat myself again
“that children should be kept out of the public sphere as much as possible until they are able to act in adult-like ways†Ideally yes! Keep the product of your fucking out of other people’s hairs. It’s no one’s fault but your own that you decided to breed and then proceeded to not do the job you’re expected to do which is, wait for the shocking revelation: parenting.
“--are not simply not feminist, but actively anti-feminist.†Eh? How? On what basis? How is it anti-feminist of me not to pander to irresponsible people breeding for no other reason than to fulfill some backwards, archaic, patriarchal, selfish motive?
“I tend to think that "choice" has become an overused and problematic concept.†And I agree. Many people shouldn’t even be afforded the ‘choice’ to breed at all.
“Somehow we've gone from arguing that women should have choices regarding childbearing to the idea that having children is just another choice.†IT IS A CHOICE (dear lord, these people are thick, aren’t they). Spawning is no mandate neither by law, nature, social construct, or some invisible guy in the sky. If you believe any of that, THAT is anti-feminist.
“I'd say there is good response to keep those two ideas separate.†Why?
“Yes, women should have choices about whether, when, and how to bear children.†Notice there’s no option for not having them at all, your choices are: when - implying you will have them and it’s only a matter of time/timing - and how - again implying that it will happen there’s only the argument of methodology.
“But, if we reduce having children to a choice women may or may not make, we open the door to a lot of legal discrimination.†Eh?
“Most women have children at some point in their lives. Most women will be mothers. And if we entirely privatize the experience of childrearing, as the childfree movement seeks to do, we are leaving those women without necessary social, emotional, and material resources.†I don’t know where are we “leaving†these women since she never finishes the sentence but I get the gist of the unresolved point.
As classist as it may be, women and their men "without the necessary social, emotional, and material resources" should specially not reproduce. Bringing up a fulfilled, happy, well adjusted adult costs a lot of money, time, effort, expertise and a truck load of resources. This is reality. This is the world we live in. Don’t go on brainwashing people from poor backgrounds into breeding so you can have cheap labor when their futureless kids grow up.
“If we want children kept out of public spaces, then we are consigning women--often the primary caregiver to children--to their homes for a good portion of their adult lives.†Oh, cry me a freaking river, will ya! Again: choice! Get it yet? No? I didn’t think so...
“If we make parents into our enemies, then we are making enemies out of most women.†:headbrick
“I would hope that more young, feminist women, whether they have children or not, or want children or not, would begin to speak out against the more problematic judgments of the childfree movement.†The Feminist Movement has already been taken over by a hoard of mooing cows that try to shun, segregate, shut up and stamp on every single childfree woman they come across that don’t udder rub them with pacifying sentences such as: “I’m childfree but-but-but I looove childrenâ€.
“When women complain about how it's unfair that their coworker gets maternity leave when it was her choice to get pregnant, it may be using the language of feminism, but it is an anti-feminist argument.†No it fucking isn’t, but forget feminism for a second, from the Labor Movement perspective; that someone is allowed to get special treatment over other fellow workers for something that is essentially self-inflicted is beyond preposterous.
You shouldn’t get special treatment because you have something growing in your uterus and was put there by you and whoever you decided to sperm infect you. You and the sperminator should had arranged for the necessary provisions for the event before hand, and the whole deal should be shouldered by you two and no one else.
“When parents are constructed as the enemy, remember that the "parents" being referred to are often mothers†Not true you stupid cow, as a feminist when I say parents I’m always thinking about the sperm donor too either if he’s in-house or absent.
“and making most women into the enemy is not feminist.†Whatever. I’m not one of those all inclusive, happy-hippy, earth mother, politically correct feminist. So blow me. I’m not gonna turn the blind eye to unacceptable, irresponsible behavior from women, purely because they’re women and I’m a feminist.
LINK> http://atthewelcometable.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/things-that-seem-feminist-but-arent.html
-
First of, since when are we a movement? It's like saying the hipster sub-culture is a "movement." I love it when people use words that they don't even know what they mean, best of all they publish their ignorance on an internet blog for the whole world to see. The disturbing part is that these 'people' consider themselves feminists, which is indeed is a movement, but I wonder if they know that. Oh and apparently all childfree are liberals, exclusively. Further down that vein, the site seems rather conservative leaning; "The Welcome Table; Justice, faith, feminism, food and family". Did anyone explain to these people that right-wing political orientation and feminism are and for the most part always have been utterly incompatible? What's next? Feminists pro-lifers? I can't even....
Excerpts followed by my commentary:
“At a basically level, it's simply people who do not want to have children, but it's often expressed as a disdain for children and, particularly, their parents.†Bang on and deal with it. It’s the parents choice to reproduce therefore it’s the parents responisbily to “deal†with the results of said ‘choice’.
“they should be free to not have children without being burdened by social pressure or disapproval.  (By the same token, of course, young women who want children should be able to do so without being burdened by the social pressure or disapproval, even if they aren't yet entirely financially stable.)" Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! If you’re not “yet†financially stable you’re not fulfilling the first and most basic requirement to be a parent. End of.
“Some of the oft-repeated beliefs--that children are solely the responsibility of their parents,†They are! You fucked, you spawned, your problem and yours alone. In what language are these ‘people’ gonna understand this very simple premise?
“that parents shouldn't be afforded "special privileges" (often including things like maternity leave or flexible work schedules)†They shouldn’t [refer to my previous comment].
“that people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them†I won’t repeat myself again
“that children should be kept out of the public sphere as much as possible until they are able to act in adult-like ways†Ideally yes! Keep the product of your fucking out of other people’s hairs. It’s no one’s fault but your own that you decided to breed and then proceeded to not do the job you’re expected to do which is, wait for the shocking revelation: parenting.
“--are not simply not feminist, but actively anti-feminist.†Eh? How? On what basis? How is it anti-feminist of me not to pander to irresponsible people breeding for no other reason than to fulfill some backwards, archaic, patriarchal, selfish motive?
“I tend to think that "choice" has become an overused and problematic concept.†And I agree. Many people shouldn’t even be afforded the ‘choice’ to breed at all.
“Somehow we've gone from arguing that women should have choices regarding childbearing to the idea that having children is just another choice.†IT IS A CHOICE (dear lord, these people are thick, aren’t they). Spawning is no mandate neither by law, nature, social construct, or some invisible guy in the sky. If you believe any of that, THAT is anti-feminist.
“I'd say there is good response to keep those two ideas separate.†Why?
“Yes, women should have choices about whether, when, and how to bear children.†Notice there’s no option for not having them at all, your choices are: when - implying you will have them and it’s only a matter of time/timing - and how - again implying that it will happen there’s only the argument of methodology.
“But, if we reduce having children to a choice women may or may not make, we open the door to a lot of legal discrimination.†Eh?
“Most women have children at some point in their lives. Most women will be mothers. And if we entirely privatize the experience of childrearing, as the childfree movement seeks to do, we are leaving those women without necessary social, emotional, and material resources.†I don’t know where are we “leaving†these women since she never finishes the sentence but I get the gist of the unresolved point.
As classist as it may be, women and their men "without the necessary social, emotional, and material resources" should specially not reproduce. Bringing up a fulfilled, happy, well adjusted adult costs a lot of money, time, effort, expertise and a truck load of resources. This is reality. This is the world we live in. Don’t go on brainwashing people from poor backgrounds into breeding so you can have cheap labor when their futureless kids grow up.
“If we want children kept out of public spaces, then we are consigning women--often the primary caregiver to children--to their homes for a good portion of their adult lives.†Oh, cry me a freaking river, will ya! Again: choice! Get it yet? No? I didn’t think so...
“If we make parents into our enemies, then we are making enemies out of most women.†:headbrick
“I would hope that more young, feminist women, whether they have children or not, or want children or not, would begin to speak out against the more problematic judgments of the childfree movement.†The Feminist Movement has already been taken over by a hoard of mooing cows that try to shun, segregate, shut up and stamp on every single childfree woman they come across that don’t udder rub them with pacifying sentences such as: “I’m childfree but-but-but I looove childrenâ€.
“When women complain about how it's unfair that their coworker gets maternity leave when it was her choice to get pregnant, it may be using the language of feminism, but it is an anti-feminist argument.†No it fucking isn’t, but forget feminism for a second, from the Labor Movement perspective; that someone is allowed to get special treatment over other fellow workers for something that is essentially self-inflicted is beyond preposterous.
You shouldn’t get special treatment because you have something growing in your uterus and was put there by you and whoever you decided to sperm infect you. You and the sperminator should had arranged for the necessary provisions for the event before hand, and the whole deal should be shouldered by you two and no one else.
“When parents are constructed as the enemy, remember that the "parents" being referred to are often mothers†Not true you stupid cow, as a feminist when I say parents I’m always thinking about the sperm donor too either if he’s in-house or absent.
“and making most women into the enemy is not feminist.†Whatever. I’m not one of those all inclusive, happy-hippy, earth mother, politically correct feminist. So blow me. I’m not gonna turn the blind eye to unacceptable, irresponsible behavior from women, purely because they’re women and I’m a feminist.
Quote
“But, if we reduce having children to a choice women may or may not make, we open the door to a lot of legal discrimination.â€
So there's this person's real attitude. Children aren't a choice. It's just something that happens to most women. Yay.
Yeah, fuck off. Just because I'm a feminist doesn't mean I'm going to give udder rubs to every woman I see. Especially with some ugly kid hanging at a tit.
If we're going to get maternity leave for moos, then we better get some sort of other accommodations for CF people who are ill, mentally or physically. If I ever need to take it, I better not get any attitude. Oh, and my vacations better not be cancelled because some mooturd has to take her kid to Disney. Fair is motherfuckin' fair.
If this is going to be how the feminist movement is going to be, then I don't want anything to do with it.
If you frequent any corners of the internet heavily populated by 20- and 30-something women who consider themselves liberals, you know about the childfree movement. At a basically level, it's simply people who do not want to have children, but it's often expressed as a disdain for children and, particularly, their parents. Could this cunt BE any more stereotypical in her prejudicial thoughts? I am 50 years of age, don't consider myself a Liberal, and don't hate children just for the sake of the age group to which they belong, but rather bad behavior allowed, condoned, and encouraged by their parents. I don't have anything against parents, per se', except in certain cases which includes this ridiculous "attachment parenting" nonsense which negatively affects "the village", those who feel entitled to freebies of the state JUST BECAUSE they have kids like with tax breaks, WIC-Welfare, Medicaid, etc............................Oh, and childfreedom is NOT a "movement", but like loaf shitting it is a lifestyle choice which doesn't impose on or negatively affect anyone else. I guess I don't fit her "mold" as a member of the "movement". She'd probably refer to me as one of those, "old, bitter, lonely, childless women":headbrick
It seems as though many young women feel that this is a very feminist position: they are exercising their choice not to have children, after all. And, yes, they should be free to not have children without being burdened by social pressure or disapproval. (By the same token, of course, young women who want children should be able to do so without being burdened by the social pressure or disapproval, even if they aren't yet entirely financially stable.) NO, no no no. If they are NOT financially stable then "the village" will be forced to pick up the tab for their irresponsible lifestyle choices, which is WRONG. Since when is it "okay" and socially acceptable for strangers to have to foot the bill for the consequences of irresponsible behavior for people who purposely make bad choices? Spawning while financially unable to properly take care of their offspring is akin to prisoners who CHOSE to commit crimes expecting innocent bystanders to feed, clothe, and house their sorry asses, IMHO. The excuse their shitbag will "pay for us in our old age", "become a contributing member of society", or will one day cure cancer is woefully inadequate, likely untrue, and their kids are more likely to become a criminal than a Nobel Prize winner.
But, when you really look at the online rhetoric of childfree advocates, it looks a whole lot less like feminism than like libertarianism. Some of the oft-repeated beliefs--that children are solely the responsibility of their parents, that parents shouldn't be afforded "special privileges" (often including things like maternity leave or flexible work schedules), that people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them, that children should be kept out of the public sphere as much as possible until they are able to act in adult-like ways--are not simply not feminist, but actively anti-feminist.
If children aren't solely the responsibility of their parents, then who IS responsible for them? WHY does this stupid cunt think it's okay to have kids she can't afford? This common mindset is a puzzling to me as it is infuriating and the main reason I LOATHE Moos. 
I tend to think that "choice" has become an overused and problematic concept. Somehow we've gone from arguing that women should have choices regarding childbearing to the idea that having children is just another choice. I'd say there is good response to keep those two ideas separate. Yes, women should have choices about whether, when, and how to bear children. But, if we reduce having children to a choice women may or may not make, we open the door to a lot of legal discrimination. I don't even know what any of that means! "...open the door to legal discrimination?" WHAT? If having kids isn't a choice, then what is it? I suppose this way of thinking is what gave birth to phrases like, "I fell pregnant", AS IF pregnancy just happens and isn't a choice. Well, maybe in the 1950's that's true, but most of the cows today weren't even born until the 1970's or later, so that shit is a moot point!:headbrick
Most women have children at some point in their lives. Most women will be mothers. And if we entirely privatize the experience of childrearing, as the childfree movement seeks to do, we are leaving those women without necessary social, emotional, and material resources. If we want children kept out of public spaces, then we are consigning women--often the primary caregiver to children--to their homes for a good portion of their adult lives. If we make parents into our enemies, then we are making enemies out of most women. God, could any of that be any more illogical?
I would hope that more young, feminist women, whether they have children or not, or want children or not, would begin to speak out against the more problematic judgments of the childfree movement. When women complain about how it's unfair that their coworker gets maternity leave when it was her choice to get pregnant, it may be using the language of feminism, but it is an anti-feminist argument. When parents are constructed as the enemy, remember that the "parents" being referred to are often mothers, and making most women into the enemy is not feminist. Being anti-child/anti-childbearing and being feminist are not the same thing, and I do think we need more feminist voices critiquing the excesses of the childfree movement. I am so sick and tired of loaf shitting moos and their overwhelming NEED to be granted special privileges and concessions above and beyond what anyone else gets in the workplace. If they want Moo-Leave, then it shouldn't be any different than anyone else's leave regarding pay, time off, or job security. The FMLA pretty much covers anything related to 3 months of protected (and paid if it's earned time)leave for ALL, but that isn't good enough for these greedy cows. They want additional benefits and pay not afforded to the rest of the employees, many of whom are mothers who have retired their baby ovens. What about all those working moms who are done with making babies? No, these bitches want EXTRA pay and time off which isn't available to anyone else while they are in a decade long quest to crank out as many kids as they possibly can, going on Moo-Leave every time the season changes.
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!
It seems as though many young women feel that this is a very feminist position: they are exercising their choice not to have children, after all. And, yes, they should be free to not have children without being burdened by social pressure or disapproval. (By the same token, of course, young women who want children should be able to do so without being burdened by the social pressure or disapproval, even if they aren't yet entirely financially stable.) NO, no no no. If they are NOT financially stable then "the village" will be forced to pick up the tab for their irresponsible lifestyle choices, which is WRONG. Since when is it "okay" and socially acceptable for strangers to have to foot the bill for the consequences of irresponsible behavior for people who purposely make bad choices? Spawning while financially unable to properly take care of their offspring is akin to prisoners who CHOSE to commit crimes expecting innocent bystanders to feed, clothe, and house their sorry asses, IMHO. The excuse their shitbag will "pay for us in our old age", "become a contributing member of society", or will one day cure cancer is woefully inadequate, likely untrue, and their kids are more likely to become a criminal than a Nobel Prize winner.
But, when you really look at the online rhetoric of childfree advocates, it looks a whole lot less like feminism than like libertarianism. Some of the oft-repeated beliefs--that children are solely the responsibility of their parents, that parents shouldn't be afforded "special privileges" (often including things like maternity leave or flexible work schedules), that people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them, that children should be kept out of the public sphere as much as possible until they are able to act in adult-like ways--are not simply not feminist, but actively anti-feminist.
If children aren't solely the responsibility of their parents, then who IS responsible for them? WHY does this stupid cunt think it's okay to have kids she can't afford? This common mindset is a puzzling to me as it is infuriating and the main reason I LOATHE Moos. I tend to think that "choice" has become an overused and problematic concept. Somehow we've gone from arguing that women should have choices regarding childbearing to the idea that having children is just another choice. I'd say there is good response to keep those two ideas separate. Yes, women should have choices about whether, when, and how to bear children. But, if we reduce having children to a choice women may or may not make, we open the door to a lot of legal discrimination. I don't even know what any of that means! "...open the door to legal discrimination?" WHAT? If having kids isn't a choice, then what is it? I suppose this way of thinking is what gave birth to phrases like, "I fell pregnant", AS IF pregnancy just happens and isn't a choice. Well, maybe in the 1950's that's true, but most of the cows today weren't even born until the 1970's or later, so that shit is a moot point!:headbrick
Most women have children at some point in their lives. Most women will be mothers. And if we entirely privatize the experience of childrearing, as the childfree movement seeks to do, we are leaving those women without necessary social, emotional, and material resources. If we want children kept out of public spaces, then we are consigning women--often the primary caregiver to children--to their homes for a good portion of their adult lives. If we make parents into our enemies, then we are making enemies out of most women. God, could any of that be any more illogical?
I would hope that more young, feminist women, whether they have children or not, or want children or not, would begin to speak out against the more problematic judgments of the childfree movement. When women complain about how it's unfair that their coworker gets maternity leave when it was her choice to get pregnant, it may be using the language of feminism, but it is an anti-feminist argument. When parents are constructed as the enemy, remember that the "parents" being referred to are often mothers, and making most women into the enemy is not feminist. Being anti-child/anti-childbearing and being feminist are not the same thing, and I do think we need more feminist voices critiquing the excesses of the childfree movement. I am so sick and tired of loaf shitting moos and their overwhelming NEED to be granted special privileges and concessions above and beyond what anyone else gets in the workplace. If they want Moo-Leave, then it shouldn't be any different than anyone else's leave regarding pay, time off, or job security. The FMLA pretty much covers anything related to 3 months of protected (and paid if it's earned time)leave for ALL, but that isn't good enough for these greedy cows. They want additional benefits and pay not afforded to the rest of the employees, many of whom are mothers who have retired their baby ovens. What about all those working moms who are done with making babies? No, these bitches want EXTRA pay and time off which isn't available to anyone else while they are in a decade long quest to crank out as many kids as they possibly can, going on Moo-Leave every time the season changes.
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!
Unfortunately when i read smth. that claims to be feminist on the internet it's always about moo's rights, maternity leave, accomodating moos at work, breastfeeding, SHAMS, women having it all etc. I agree...if you want to stay at home and crap out kids - your choice but don't claim that this is feminism. The feminism i used to know was getting women out of the kitchen and offering them equal opportunities as men. It seems that nowadays it's going backwards.
I've read somewhere else (don't remember exactly where) that the CF movement is misogynist because we hate mothers. I don't know where they pull this crap from. So, giving women the chance to choose NOT to have kids is sexist because that equals hating mothers?
I've read somewhere else (don't remember exactly where) that the CF movement is misogynist because we hate mothers. I don't know where they pull this crap from. So, giving women the chance to choose NOT to have kids is sexist because that equals hating mothers?
Quote
blackpearl
I've read somewhere else (don't remember exactly where) that the CF movement is misogynist because we hate mothers. I don't know where they pull this crap from. So, giving women the chance to choose NOT to have kids is sexist because that equals hating mothers?
Obviously. If you're not stroking SAHMoo's udders by living exactly as she does, you must be a misogynist.
Honestly, I think these women are just brainwashed. They obviously aren't all that bright to begin with if they found themselves as a SAHMoo, and in order to keep them compliant, they have to be kept feeling superior, so their controllers (a Og male, society, whatever) beat in this kind of "war is peace" mantra about how "childfree is misogyny."
I don't hate mothers, I hate MOOS. Perhaps I should add that to my signature line.
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
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!
------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
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!
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.