What am I if I don't reproduce? (Male childlessness whinging)

More from childless men, because their grief is silent and hidden, dontcha know? Someday someone should calculate the proportion of articles about the (1) regretfully childless, (2) happily childfree, and (3) regretful breeders. I bet it's something like 1000:50:1.

Quote

I’m not sure I’d feel so weird if I were a 43-year-old woman who didn’t have a family.

Bull. Shit.

Clearly this guy isn't familiar with the crazy cat lady or spinster stereotype, or more likely, he chose to ignore it in order to make a point.

Quote

But there isn’t a 43-year-old man who’s single and cool: he’s a loser and he lives in his mum’s basement.

Again, bullshit.

George Clooney was incredibly fucking cool... until he married and bred, like a total sheep.

Quote

I wanted a son. I never thought about having a daughter. I knew I couldn’t change my childhood, which was traumatic, but I thought I could give a child – a boy – the childhood I didn’t have.

Of course he didn't, he's a typical wannabreed, only thinking of the Kodak moments; teaching the kyd to fish/hunt/play sports and all the other "manly" things that Og's like him think of.

What a bunch of attention-seeking, selfish, generalizing, sexist and missing-"dikwerx" nonsense.

Basically it slipped this dude's mind that women of any age, who have no pweshusss chuyldren are not at all seen as "cool" in this pro-natalist dump of a society, but rather harassed, annoyed and totally branded as "weird" or even "mentally ill"??

And having a sprog for making up for a "childhood he never had"? And the price for his selfish Kodak bullshit is introducing a human being into the suffering of the world. How thoughtful of him -.-
Whats up with this obsession with own DNA anyway? What is stopping these oggies from adopting a freaking sprog if they're so "desperate" and "depressed", and for a change being humane and give a future to an abandoned sprog?!

And Mick Jagger as a role model for a freaking oldie wanna-og?! Really? I guess it slipped his mind that Mickie is a freaking millionaire and can afford all that kiddie crap including their "golden future" without even thinking about it.

Finally... a PhD about chyuldless whining?! Really?! Is that how low academics have sunken nowadays??

"I had a shitty childhood" is not logical backup for wanting to have a kid. Hell, "I had a shitty childhood" is one reason given for the CF choice, too. A shitty childhood is an event...a long, drawn-out one, but an event. How you react to that event is up to you. Giving your own kids a non-shitty childhood is what you should do if you choose to have kids...but it shouldn't be the reason for having those kids in the first place.

Quote
bastet-the-bass-cat
Finally... a PhD about chyuldless whining?! Really?! Is that how low academics have sunken nowadays??

His PhD is probably in sociology, and his ongoing research might well be on a different subject, even if his dissertation topic was something like 'perceptions of involuntarily childless men'. It's just that getting a PhD requires demonstrating that you can delve into a very specific subject and become an expert, which is why all PhD descriptions tend to sound ridiculously narrow. People also generally focus on minutiae that nobody else has shown interest in because it's easier to become an expert in something nobody else is trying to understand, and in that context I can see why male childlessness was a good topic to get a PhD in: he's probably one of the few people in the whole world who gives a fuck about it.

What I noticed is that for someone with a PhD, he really doesn't have a very scientific mind.

First, the generalizations! His research seemed to have involved a qualitative study, which implies small-scale and which does not allow generalization. His sample was probably self-selected men who are unhappy about being childless. What it allows him to do is to describe that the phenomenon exists (there are men unhappy about being childless) and the parameters of it (they experience sadness, hopelessness, etc), it doesn't allow him to generalize about the entire population of men without children.

Second, he spouts off statistics about 25% of men not having children and 20% of women not having them, as evidence that the male situation is worse. Yet there is no research that he mentions, or that I am aware of, which tackles the very important point of how. many. are. by. choice. I cannot look at those figures and say "25% of men are childfree!" and it's equally ridiculous for him to say "25% of men are involuntarily childless!"

Third, he makes assumptions galore, like that "broody" is a natural rather than social thing, which is scientifically unjustified.. And of course in his personal life he exemplifies the bandwagon fallacy of confusing widespread with desirable (reproduction is common, therefore it is paramount).

In other words, he has the brain of a typical breeder, it's just lucky for the world that he hasn't reproduced.