Popular Post smac97 Posted October 8, 2015 Popular Post Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) The Brethren have been warning us for many years that the family is under attack. Lest we think this is just some sort of rhetorical hyperbole, I offer Exhibit A in the form of an article published today by Salon Magazine (listed under the topics "Life Stories, Editor's Picks, Babies, Parenting, Life News"): I hate your kids. And I’m not sorry. I can’t remember a time when I felt anything more positive than contempt for children. Yes, even your adorable ones ALANNA WEISSMAN There is no disclaimer here. To the contrary, this article is tagged with "Editor's Picks". Some excerpts (emphases added): I identify as a childfree woman, one of a growing demographic of young people for whom having children is not only not in their present, but not in their future, either, entirely by choice....For many, the decision to be childfree is a matter of practicalities: a baby would not fit in with their career and lifestyle, or they aren’t financially secure, or they haven’t yet found The One. While all those things are true in my case, the main reason is much simpler: I basely, emphatically, viscerally hate children. I can’t remember a time when I felt anything more positive than contempt for children, even when I was a child myself.... Other childfree women have felt this resultant animosity, and have tried to preempt others’ judgment. From data-driven news stories to personal essays—including those in the excellent new collection “Selfish, Shallow, and Self-Absorbed: Sixteen Writers on the Decision Not to Have Children,” edited by Meghan Daum—almost each story by and about childfree women seems to include apologetic, vehement protestations that such women are not baby-haters....But by failing to account for the possibility that there are baby-haters among us, by attempting to subvert the ugly stereotype before it even arises, such authors negate the experiences of—and even the existence of—those of us for whom our reality is in fact one of baby-hating. And by denying that we exist—especially for women, society’s designated nurturers, who feel this stereotype especially acutely—we are denied the chance to prove that, contrary to what one may instinctively characterize us as, this particular facet of our personalities, our identities as baby-haters, does not make us bad people....I’m not a situational baby-hater, either; though a child behaving badly might cause me to shoot some side-eye or make a snarky comment, my inherent dislike of children does not significantly lessen when a kid behaves well, even if I do find them slightly more tolerable. ...I’m not the only baby-hater out there. While I am fairly open about my views, other women have confessed to me in hushed tones their dislike—even hatred—of children or doubt over whether they might ever want any. In fact, even as the stigma against baby-haters persists, science shows that there’s probably a little baby-hater in all of us: new research demonstrates that nothing kills happiness quite like having a baby does. The psychopathy exhibited in this article is self-evident. And yet Salon not only decided to publish it to the world, but to also give it a leg-up by tagging it with "Editor's Picks". Our society has progressed in some ways. We have generally improved in developing a broad societal aversion to antipathy based on categories of people like race and gender. And yet the author of the above article is given a prominent and world-wide platform to declare that she unuapologetically and "emphatically, viscerally hate(s) children", that she claims the label of "baby-hater", along with the approbation apparent with the "Editor's Picks" tag. Would Salon give similar voice and approval to someone bragging about "emphatically, viscerally hat(ing)" black people? Hispanics? Women? Nope, nope and nope. Why? Because we do not presently accommodate such expressions of hatred in "good society." And yet Salon clearly feels such expressions of "emphatic" and "visceral" hatred toward babies is not only acceptable and worthy of broad publication on its website, but that it even merits an "Editor's Picks" tag. The mind reels. So yes, the family is under attack. We must protect our children from people like Alanna Weissman. And in case you are wondering, yes, I say this despite the absence of an overt threat against babies from this person. But the risk stems not from explicit threats, but from the out-and-proud psychopathy of the article in its entirety. I am not sure what to say about Salon's editors. "Outrage" doesn't quite cover it. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 8, 2015 by smac97 6
Gray Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 I find this sort of thing extremely obnoxious. I don't trust people who say they hate kids. 2
jkwilliams Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 I find this sort of thing extremely obnoxious. I don't trust people who say they hate kids. Most of the time they seem to be trying to provoke an outraged reaction. Apparently, mission accomplished. 2
Popular Post smac97 Posted October 8, 2015 Author Popular Post Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) Most of the time they seem to be trying to provoke an outraged reaction. Apparently, mission accomplished. There are times when outrage is merited. If Salon published an article (and tagged it with "Editor's Picks") wherein the author was declaring that he "emphatically, viscerally hates" homosexuals, or women, or Jews, or Hispanics, or Blacks, I do not think there would be such a blithe dismissal. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 8, 2015 by smac97 5
jkwilliams Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 There are times when outrage is merited. If Salon published an article (and tagged it with "Editor's Picks") wherein the author was declaring that he "emphatically, viscerally hates" homosexuals, or women, or Jews, or Hispanics, or Blacks, I do not think there would be such a blithe dismissal. Thanks, -Smac I confess. I am a rabid anti-infantite.
Senator Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 There are times when outrage is merited. If Salon published an article (and tagged it with "Editor's Picks") wherein the author was declaring that he "emphatically, viscerally hates" homosexuals, or women, or Jews, or Hispanics, or Blacks, I do not think there would be such a blithe dismissal. Thanks, -Smac I absolutely agree
jkwilliams Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 In all seriousness, it sounds like something is very wrong with the author. I can understand people who can't deal with kids. But hatred? Yikes.
thesometimesaint Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 I confess the babyhood period of my children wasn't a fun time for them or me. It's a miserable time for both. But we got through it, and they are fine adults now. My oldest turned 42 years old in July.
jkwilliams Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 I confess the babyhood period of my children wasn't a fun time for them or me. It's a miserable time for both. But we got through it, and they are fine adults now. My oldest turned 42 years old in July. I spent about 30 minutes a day with a 4 month old. I love it. 1
Popular Post pogi Posted October 8, 2015 Popular Post Posted October 8, 2015 Controversy makes money. That's all this is. Greed has no soul. 5
stemelbow Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 I just don't believe her for a second. It sounds more like she's expressing her anger towards those who expect her to have children, or something. Sounds like a whiney little kid, ironically. 2
Popular Post JAHS Posted October 8, 2015 Popular Post Posted October 8, 2015 Click bait and we all went for it. 5
jkwilliams Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Click bait and we all went for it. My point exactly.
thesometimesaint Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 I spent about 30 minutes a day with a 4 month old. I love it. Even my youngest Grands are well out of babyhood now. We both like it better. I get to spoil them rotten and send them home to their parents.
jkwilliams Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Even my youngest Grands are well out of babyhood now. We both like it better. I get to spoil them rotten and send them home to their parents. Our kids were born in fairly close succession, so we always had a baby in the house for about 12 years. I don't miss the lack of sleep and getting bodily fluids on me, but I do miss the rest of it.
cinepro Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 There are times when outrage is merited. If Salon published an article (and tagged it with "Editor's Picks") wherein the author was declaring that he "emphatically, viscerally hates" homosexuals, or women, or Jews, or Hispanics, or Blacks, I do not think there would be such a blithe dismissal. Thanks, -Smac No kidding. The author probably believes that babies shouldn't be allowed to get married too. What a freakin' hypocrite. 3
HappyJackWagon Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Smac- Had your title been, "Baby Haters are Bad People", I would have agreed with you. There are many kinds of families. Some don't have children. Some don't want children. But claiming that a person who dislikes children or babies is evidence that the family is under attack is stretching things for an agenda. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 The Brethren have been warning us for many years that the family is under attack. Lest we think this is just some sort of rhetorical hyperbole, I offer Exhibit A in the form of an article published today by Salon Magazine (listed under the topics "Life Stories, Editor's Picks, Babies, Parenting, Life News"): I hate your kids. And I’m not sorry. I can’t remember a time when I felt anything more positive than contempt for children. Yes, even your adorable ones ALANNA WEISSMAN There is no disclaimer here. To the contrary, this article is tagged with "Editor's Picks". Some excerpts (emphases added): I identify as a childfree woman, one of a growing demographic of young people for whom having children is not only not in their present, but not in their future, either, entirely by choice....For many, the decision to be childfree is a matter of practicalities: a baby would not fit in with their career and lifestyle, or they aren’t financially secure, or they haven’t yet found The One. While all those things are true in my case, the main reason is much simpler: I basely, emphatically, viscerally hate children. I can’t remember a time when I felt anything more positive than contempt for children, even when I was a child myself.... Other childfree women have felt this resultant animosity, and have tried to preempt others’ judgment. From data-driven news stories to personal essays—including those in the excellent new collection “Selfish, Shallow, and Self-Absorbed: Sixteen Writers on the Decision Not to Have Children,” edited by Meghan Daum—almost each story by and about childfree women seems to include apologetic, vehement protestations that such women are not baby-haters....But by failing to account for the possibility that there are baby-haters among us, by attempting to subvert the ugly stereotype before it even arises, such authors negate the experiences of—and even the existence of—those of us for whom our reality is in fact one of baby-hating. And by denying that we exist—especially for women, society’s designated nurturers, who feel this stereotype especially acutely—we are denied the chance to prove that, contrary to what one may instinctively characterize us as, this particular facet of our personalities, our identities as baby-haters, does not make us bad people....I’m not a situational baby-hater, either; though a child behaving badly might cause me to shoot some side-eye or make a snarky comment, my inherent dislike of children does not significantly lessen when a kid behaves well, even if I do find them slightly more tolerable. ...I’m not the only baby-hater out there. While I am fairly open about my views, other women have confessed to me in hushed tones their dislike—even hatred—of children or doubt over whether they might ever want any. In fact, even as the stigma against baby-haters persists, science shows that there’s probably a little baby-hater in all of us: new research demonstrates that nothing kills happiness quite like having a baby does. The psychopathy exhibited in this article is self-evident. And yet Salon not only decided to publish it to the world, but to also give it a leg-up by tagging it with "Editor's Picks". Our society has progressed in some ways. We have generally improved in developing a broad societal aversion to antipathy based on categories of people like race and gender. And yet the author of the above article is given a prominent and world-wide platform to declare that she unuapologetically and "emphatically, viscerally hate(s) children", that she claims the label of "baby-hater", along with the approbation apparent with the "Editor's Picks" tag. Would Salon give similar voice and approval to someone bragging about "emphatically, viscerally hat(ing)" black people? Hispanics? Women? Nope, nope and nope. Why? Because we do not presently accommodate such expressions of hatred in "good society." And yet Salon clearly feels such expressions of "emphatic" and "visceral" hatred toward babies is not only acceptable and worthy of broad publication on its website, but that it even merits an "Editor's Picks" tag. The mind reels. So yes, the family is under attack. We must protect our children from people like Alanna Weissman. And in case you are wondering, yes, I say this despite the absence of an overt threat against babies from this person. But the risk stems not from explicit threats, but from the out-and-proud psychopathy of the article in its entirety. I am not sure what to say about Salon's editors. "Outrage" doesn't quite cover it. Thanks, -Smac Yet another example of the fulfillment of prophecy in the last days: calling evil good and good evil.
MorningStar Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 How can anyone who was once a child say they hate children? Ridiculous. Are some children more annoying than others? Definitely. 1
JAHS Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 (edited) "At 5’2” and with a bit of a baby-face of my own, I’m not an especially threatening presence. Likely, this woman had selected me for the task of cradling her child because I look like the last person who would be a monster. Yet, as she straightened up and saw me holding her smiling, gurgling infant at arm’s length, a confused and nauseated look on my face, I could tell that in that moment, she thought me one." Maybe if this were the first baby she held her attitude might be different now. Edited October 8, 2015 by JAHS 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Our kids were born in fairly close succession, so we always had a baby in the house for about 12 years. I don't miss the lack of sleep and getting bodily fluids on me, but I do miss the rest of it. Mine were three years apart. Out of the terrible two's and just starting the frightful fours. Still better than babyhood by a long shot.
lowroom Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 There appears to be a certain amount of hyperbole in this article. That said, I have a few different friends in my life who are purposefully childless - I honestly would rather that some of them did NOT have children. I would say that this is not as much an attack on the family as the wide-spread acceptance of the no-fault divorce from the mid twentieth century or the ability of any couple to be married at will by an Elvis impersonator in Las Vegas. Those strike at the heart of the inception and dissolution of the family. There are any number of social constructs just as damaging to the nuclear family which have been part of society for the last 50 years. This article would not appear to be the harbinger of anything new. 2
jkwilliams Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 Mine were three years apart. Out of the terrible two's and just starting the frightful fours. Still better than babyhood by a long shot. All but one of mine are grown, and, as far as teenagers go, he's really quite pleasant and I enjoy being around him. For some reason, I had a flashback to one night when I was rocking a baby back to sleep after my wife had fed her, and the baby vomited all over me. I got her to sleep and then went back to the bedroom in my vomit-soaked garments. My wife smiled and said, "Getting vomited on by a baby kind of gives you a warm feeling all over, doesn't it?"
thesometimesaint Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 All but one of mine are grown, and, as far as teenagers go, he's really quite pleasant and I enjoy being around him. For some reason, I had a flashback to one night when I was rocking a baby back to sleep after my wife had fed her, and the baby vomited all over me. I got her to sleep and then went back to the bedroom in my vomit-soaked garments. My wife smiled and said, "Getting vomited on by a baby kind of gives you a warm feeling all over, doesn't it?" My youngest is 36 years old, and has two children. Early teen-hood was a bear, all those hormones, with gangling arms and legs. About the age of 16-17 they started to be people.
jkwilliams Posted October 8, 2015 Posted October 8, 2015 My youngest is 36 years old, and has two children. Early teen-hood was a bear, all those hormones, with gangling arms and legs. About the age of 16-17 they started to be people. We have 3 boys and 3 girls. All have presented their own challenges, but as my wife says, none of them are in prison, and we all like each other.
Recommended Posts