"The Childfree life is juvenile and spiritless"

Have at it.

I would have liked to read Amy Blackstone's comments, but they've been removed by the author. The other comments are a good read; they're universally calling out this asshole. (I don't know how long they'll stay up, though.)

The living proof that you don't have to be smart to get a PhD. If i think back there've been quite a couple of persons with PhD who've said very nasty things about my cf-dom.

One of the people commenting said

Quote

In your article, you have made broad assertions without providing any substantiation to back them up.

It did read like a spiritless article; nothing more than a list of bingoes jammed into paragraphs. You could take one of the paragraphs and break it down into bulleted sentences

• The conscious decision of a couple not to have any children is not marriage it is
co-habitation.

• There is a major difference between a couple that wants to have children and are unable
to have them and a couple who has no intention to have any.

• Procreation is vital to a nation’s survival.

• Throughout the ages societies have given incentives to couples producing children, as
they are the future.

The person who wrote this attained a PhD? Huh. I suppose their accreditation is listed somewhere, but my impression is that they merely read a bunch of breeder blogs, copied/pasted the oft-repeated remarks on a page and called it an "article."

"Over time they usually regret the loneliness of not having any loved ones in the later years of life and death."

Please cite your sources, doc. Also, he's making the assumption that loved ones = kids. Just another variation on the well-known bingo.

"A childfree life is a sterile one."

If you're lucky!!!

Good grief, what a ridiculous bingo-fest.

The guy is just another right wing Christian nut job, see his book "Invasion Within: Overcoming the Elitists' Attack on Moral Values and the American Way"

And the school he got his PhD from seems pretty questionable, ended up declaring bankruptcy a few years after he graduated, and there's no mention of a graduate program until it reorganized after bankruptcy. Hmm however there is a evangelical Christian school with a very similar name, although neither school offers a PhD in Human Development like his linkedin page says he has.

In any case, it all sounds like the same shit I get for being an atheist. I'm obviously super messed up.

They are probably a Theocrat trying to disguise that with a Ph. D. and some big words. Sorry Doc, you are a NEANDERTHAL.

He acts like past stigma against the childfree was a GOOD thing, he and his high and mighty "traditionalism". I wonder if he feels that past racism was a good thing? Or anti-semitism? I'm sure a "traditionalist" would still despise gay people. Does he believe in a man having more than one wife like in the Bible? Or selling his daughters? That was Biblical? How much "tradition" do kooks like this want to hang onto?

His tone was one of fear, where his precious manhood feels threatened because every woman in this country doesn't want to life as an incubator/slave, and he can't force them to. His article was almost spitting the words out it was so angry. He is a FREAK if he gives such a damn about how others live their lives.

I've watched episodes where The Three Stooges sounded more intelligent and reasoning than this. I agree, this guy is just ticked off and frightened because anyone would ever decide differently than he did. Major insecurity for sure.

The greatest generation tired to shield their children from the horrors of the 1930's and 40's.
In doing so they created an illusion of an ideal world that never really existed. This is the world this so called PhD is wanting to preserve. You can not preserve that which did not exist. This is why he is no realist. As for traditions, the greatest generation tore them down. They saw war. Total war with mass bombings, continents destroyed, old outdated social orders torn away or made irrelevant. At the end there was little left. The traditional hatreds that caused the war were spent. Newer more frightening ones, and potentially apocalyptic ones, were in place. Reinforcing that fear was the Korean Conflict. The world was looking for a panacea and in the US things like Leave it to Beaver came to be.

The children of that, sheltered as they were bought into that. But crime, war, violence continued. But the heads were in the sand and we only see them pop put to deliver the nonsensical drivel like this person posts. Those of us who are true realists only laugh. Those of us on the front line of crime, poverty, violence and real social justice see and know. And we just laugh at these ivory tower head in the sand types. Their time of awakening will come.

_______________________________________________
“There are three things all wise men fear: the sea in storm, a night with no moon, and the anger of a gentle man.”

I smell a worthless doctorate in "Bible" or similar, from a religious diploma mill, per usual with these wackadoos.

Gee.

All this time I thought it was the breeders and Lifescripters who were spiritless.

Domenick J. Maglio Ph.D. Traditional Realist -- LOOOOOOOOOOOL, this guy’s title alone marks him as a massive asshole.

Traditionally, family and marriage are horrific institutions, that as a woman, I am glad seem to be on the decline. They are how a dude accumulated wealth and power and made sure said goodies went only to dude’s minnie-mes and not any other dudes’. Ensuring that transfer has led to many oppressive acts against women. Alliances between male groups would be made by transferring wealth and sealing the deal with heir-dispensers. If your society is founded on this shit, it should be ruined.

Societies have historically “given an incentive” for large amounts of people reproducing multiple times because historically, most humans did not survive to adulthood, a large population means a large labor and military force, and there was no widespread reliable birth control. With the industrial revolution, technology has outstripped pure manpower as what sustains and elevates a society. The only reason for a large population now (in a society with trains, bombs, robots, and the miracles of modern medicine) is to create more consumers and devalue the individual, especially their labor.

As more things are automated, the more our population needs to decline to ensure individuals stay valuable enough to support themselves. Quality over quantity.

I love how traditionalists talk about the way things used to be, as if all humans lived like middle-class English Victorians up until the 1950s. Anyway, fuck these sexist, ignorant shitheads.

I'm not selfish. I'm thinking about future generations by not polluting the gene pool with my shitty genes. Remember the greatest thing to do for the environment is not breeding. I'm helping save the world and the future by not doubling my carbon footprint via a lil' burden.

Article to back up my opinion.

eyes2

Oh, and he played what I believe to be the most condescending and illogical bingo card there is...the "there's no point in getting married if you aren't going to have children" card. Variations are "you're not a family without children" and "the point of marriage is to have children", which can extend to "it's a sin to be married and not have children - be fruitful and multiply".

This one REALLY gets me going

Apparently, I was under the misguided impression that marriage was about a couple choosing to commit to each other for life because of their strong love for each other. I must have been wrong

How is it that a childed couple loves each other more, and a childfree couple cannot love each other fully? If anything, it would seem to me that the childed couple would have less couple time and more stress from dealing with the kids and all that entails, and the childfree couple would have more quality couple time and lack the kid stress.

Or, am I wrong

And BINGO was his name-o

Quote
redheadedharlot
eyes2

Oh, and he played what I believe to be the most condescending and illogical bingo card there is...the "there's no point in getting married if you aren't going to have children" card. Variations are "you're not a family without children" and "the point of marriage is to have children", which can extend to "it's a sin to be married and not have children - be fruitful and multiply".

This one REALLY gets me going

Apparently, I was under the misguided impression that marriage was about a couple choosing to commit to each other for life because of their strong love for each other. I must have been wrong

How is it that a childed couple loves each other more, and a childfree couple cannot love each other fully? If anything, it would seem to me that the childed couple would have less couple time and more stress from dealing with the kids and all that entails, and the childfree couple would have more quality couple time and lack the kid stress.

Or, am I wrong

You are most definitely not wrong.

I look around at the long-standing relationships/marriages and they are mostly child free ones. The married couples who had kids? Mostly divorced and Hella Bitter about the whole thing. The divorced males are the worst too!

sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken
indecision may or may not be my problem

Every breeder I know, except my 2nd cousin, falls into 1 of 3 categories:

Never married and no longer with their co-breeder
Divorced
Divorced and remarried, some several times.

My 2nd cousin is a successful doctor. She wanted at least one kyd, but didn't want to ruin her body. She ended up inpig anyways and is soon to give birth. She'll be leaving the chyld to a nanny to raise because she doesn't want to throw away her career.

Wow. That article is a total waste of space on the net. I'm glad the commenters are ripping "The Doctor" a new one, since he has NO idea where he's coming from. Traditionalist, my left ass-cheek.

I may be CF, but live far from a hedonistic lifestyle. I earn a modest living and don't travel. FFS, I don't even own a cell phone or drive a car! Sure, I have a nice place to live, but I've made sacrifices in my life so that I could have it.

As for married CF couples not really being married? Where the hell does he get that one from? Marriage isn't solely for the purpose of creating kydz.

CF people are no more or less lonely when they get old than breeders; perhaps even less so. We have time to create friendships, not just give birth to them.

This guy must've gotten his degree off of the back of a pack of matches.

Well isn't he pissed about people choosing different lifestyles? Don't even want to see his opinion on homosexuality.
Well, at least most of us don't see marriage as the religious institution is was before. That guy is stuck on a time women weren't people.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Don't you know how to deal with children?!"
"I don't like animals who act on instinct."
I think you're on to something Akihiko.

Just the first paragraph was enough for me to click that article away and enough to know that this is once again just religious bullshit on how sex is just there to make babies and that marriage means you MUST make babies at all costs.
I puke a little in my mouth every time I see this drivel, because it reminds me so fucking much of my ex. Urgh.