Evidence That The Family Is Under Attack

[bluebell]

I'm sorry but yes, hating babies DOES make you a bad person.  And i'm sick of people wanting me to be accepting and nonjudgmental about their selfish-narcisitic-badness.  Some characteristics deserved to be judged harshly.  

[pogi]

I'm sorry but yes, hating babies DOES make you a bad person.  And i'm sick of people wanting me to be accepting and nonjudgmental about their selfish-narcisitic-badness.  Some characteristics deserved to be judged harshly.  

 

It is funny how intolerant "tolerant" people are...only accepting others who share or tolerate their twisted world views.  Perhaps they should be more tolerant of my intolerance! 

 

Sorry, I cannot swallow your pill, Ms. Weissman, without experiencing a heinous adverse reaction. 

[Storm Rider]

Please invite each of these baby-haters to the Planned Parenthood Clinic for immediate sterilization as a gift from society to them.  Those are genes that we do not need passed on to one human being.  Never a more self-absorbed being have I ever met.  Rip every bit of their reproductive system out of their body and burn it.  Send the dust to Solon for safe keeping and as thanks for making society aware of these individuals.  I think I have to go take a shower; I just feel dirty having been exposed to such a loathsome creature. 

Edited October 8, 2015 by Storm Rider

[BlueDreams]

I'm sorry but yes, hating babies DOES make you a bad person.  And i'm sick of people wanting me to be accepting and nonjudgmental about their selfish-narcisitic-badness.  Some characteristics deserved to be judged harshly.  

 

I met a woman once who wasn't full baby-hater...but definitely wasn't a fan and had her identity tied into not fitting the general stereotypical mom position. She was planning on the one-only model. Frankly, I felt most of her baby angst was tied to her fears of being a good mother and giving everything to the one child....plus hyperfocusing on her general disinterest in kids. A little emotionally messy would fit. She once suggested that I may want a smaller family once I have kids (to me and my kin, 3-4 is a small/average number...1-2 are starter families). I kinda giggled and said no, not likely. Babies are like my sedative....there's nothing more enjoyable then a tiny little person in one's arms. 

 

Personally, I just can't fully believe the baby haters.....I feel like it's more indicative of something going on up in their own past or they just lacked exposure. 

 

EDIT: started reading the article and nailed it! - held a baby once at 19. Exposure super limited. But geeze really....no room to learn from age 2 on up is never a good sign. I hated my baby-bro at 2.5 because he was taking mom's attention and was competition. Luckily i've grown emotionally a little past that. 

Edited October 9, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Calm]

I'm sorry but yes, hating babies DOES make you a bad person. And i'm sick of people wanting me to be accepting and nonjudgmental about their selfish-narcisitic-badness. Some characteristics deserved to be judged harshly.

There is a significant difference between being uncomfortable around babies and children or not getting feelings of protectiveness and caring due to a recognition of vulnerabilty and an active feeling of hatred. I can understand the first two, but the last...to not only believe it is acceptable, but to celebrate that point of view...there is something rather sick in that attitude.

To hate children just because they are children and not even because of behaviour is bizarre (since she even hates the ones not causing any problems but just existing in her sphere of attention). Does she admit to hating adults who are mentally and emotionally challenged and thus interact with others as children do? Does she hate physically challenged people who are closer in height tochildren than other adults? Is it the vulnerabilty and need for care? Does she plan on not seeing her parents because she will hate what they become if they begin to have health issues and become dependent on others as they age? Would she refuse todeal with any companions that are sick and thus need help from her?

It is possible she is just dramatizing what is only a lack of interest that she is just labeling hate, but if so then to do so is such a twisted way to get attention, like wearing white supremicist paraphenalia to shock people but claiming one isn't really a bad person because one is not racist...as if promoting the expression of racism is okay.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Calm

[rewcox]

There is a significant difference between being uncomfortable around babies and children or not getting feelings of protectiveness and caring due to a recognition of vulnerabilty and an active feeling of hatred. I can understand the first two, but the last...to not only believe it is acceptable, but to celebrate that point of view...there is something rather sick in that attitude.

To hate children just because they are children and not even because of behaviour is bizarre (since she even hates the ones not causing any problems but just existing in her sphere of attention). Does she admit to hating adults who are mentally and emotionally challenged and thus interact with others as children do? Does she hate physically challenged people who are closer in height tochildren than other adults? Is it the vulnerabilty and need for care? Does she plan on not seeing her parents because she will hate what they become if they begin to have health issues and become dependent on others as they age? Would she refuse todeal with any companions that are sick and thus need help from her?

It is possible she is just dramatizing what is only a lack of interest that she is just labeling hate, but if so then to do so is such a twisted way to get attention, like wearing white supremicist paraphenalia to shock people but claiming one isn't really a bad person because one is not racist...as if promoting the expression of racism is okay.

Years ago when our kids were grade school age, a lady on TV said there was no evidence that shows had any affect on children. I looked at my wife and said she obviously doesn't have any children. We knew what happened in our house after watching Karate Kid!

[Stone holm]

Evidence of the family being under attack? I don't think so, although it could be fairly argued that our economic system right now is not conducive to keeping families together.

[Kenngo1969]

 

How can anyone who was once a child say they hate children?  Ridiculous.  Are some children more annoying than others?  Definitely.

Usted sacaron las palabras directemente de mi boca.…

P.S.: And Freud would have a field day with that!

Edited October 9, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[sunstoned]

Controversy makes money.  That's all this is.  Greed has no soul. 

Good point.  I think the motivation for this article was to widen circulation. 

[Meadowchik]

It's too bad.  She was a baby and a child once.  Chances are, anything she does to earn a living is directly or indirectly related to the growth of children or to children grown up.  We're all connected, and childhood and infancy is one universal condition that every human adult has experienced.  In fact, because we are born helpless, rather than able to hunt and eat on our own, one could reasonably argue that this condition is one reason we have civilization at all and all the benefits inherent to it.

Edited October 9, 2015 by Meadowchik

[california boy]

 

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

 

 

Are you being serious here?  You really think that the family is under attack because some people don't want to have anything to do with babies?  I can just see your family crumbling  before my very eyes.  How sad that the attitudes this woman has ANY effect on your family or anyone else's.  

 

Maybe I could buy into your rhetorical hyperbole if you could tell me exactly how this woman's attitudes is "attacking" your family or anyone else's family.  Do you think those that want to have children are now going to not have children because of this woman?  Do you think this is the first time in history a woman wanted nothing to do with children?  Please tell me how this is an attack on anyone's family.  

 

(Rolls eyes)

[bluebell]

Are you being serious here?  You really think that the family is under attack because some people don't want to have anything to do with babies?  I can just see your family crumbling  before my very eyes.  How sad that the attitudes this woman has ANY effect on your family or anyone else's.  

 

Maybe I could buy into your rhetorical hyperbole if you could tell me exactly how this woman's attitudes is "attacking" your family or anyone else's family.  Do you think those that want to have children are now going to not have children because of this woman?  Do you think this is the first time in history a woman wanted nothing to do with children?  Please tell me how this is an attack on anyone's family.  

 

(Rolls eyes)

 

I can actually see Smac's point.

 

When society starts accepting that hating babies is an acceptable choice to make in one's life-when it becomes culturally A-O.K.-then that can reasonably be interpreted (for those who believe in the reality of Satan and his hatred of the plan of salvation) as satan's influence on cultural ideas about children and famil.

 

And Satan's growing influence on attitudes toward children and families can be described as an attack on those things.

[Stone holm]

Are you being serious here?  You really think that the family is under attack because some people don't want to have anything to do with babies?  I can just see your family crumbling  before my very eyes.  How sad that the attitudes this woman has ANY effect on your family or anyone else's.  

 

Maybe I could buy into your rhetorical hyperbole if you could tell me exactly how this woman's attitudes is "attacking" your family or anyone else's family.  Do you think those that want to have children are now going to not have children because of this woman?  Do you think this is the first time in history a woman wanted nothing to do with children?  Please tell me how this is an attack on anyone's family.  

 

(Rolls eyes)

 

I agree this is fairly stupid.  I don't know anybody that "hates" babies, but there are probably a few people who do,  I know a lot of people who don't go bananas over babies -- I like to hold them for like 5 minutes and then am glad to pass them back,  with the number of kids I have -- did my fair share back in the day.  Personally, I find my grandchildren interesting when they can speak in full sentences and carry on coherent conversations -- my wife on the other hand, I think prefers them before that age.  My brother, a confirmed bachelor, on the other hand frequently complains about parents with children who misbehave saying how cute they are.  He prefers them as they become old enough the shop.  There may well be a war on families, but it is not coming from the sources normally indicated.  Its coming from economic sources in the form of making it difficult to reach middle-class status and the difficulty in maintaining middle class standards of living without both parents working, and the corporate demolition of family owned and run small businesses and farms.  That is the true threat.

[bluebell]

I agree this is fairly stupid.  I don't know anybody that "hates" babies, but there are probably a few people who do,  I know a lot of people who don't go bananas over babies -- I like to hold them for like 5 minutes and then am glad to pass them back,  with the number of kids I have -- did my fair share back in the day.  Personally, I find my grandchildren interesting when they can speak in full sentences and carry on coherent conversations -- my wife on the other hand, I think prefers them before that age.  My brother, a confirmed bachelor, on the other hand frequently complains about parents with children who misbehave saying how cute they are.  He prefers them as they become old enough the shop.  There may well be a war on families, but it is not coming from the sources normally indicated.  Its coming from economic sources in the form of making it difficult to reach middle-class status and the difficulty in maintaining middle class standards of living without both parents working, and the corporate demolition of family owned and run small businesses and farms.  That is the true threat.

 

Yeah, it's not satan, it's economics.  That totally makes sense coming from someone who supposedly believes in evil's hatred of everything that God holds dear.  

[jkwilliams]

Yeah, it's not satan, it's economics.  That totally makes sense coming from someone who supposedly believes in evil's hatred of everything that God holds dear.  

 

Scoff if you like, but it is absolutely true that economic factors have a far greater influence on family structure and social well-being than any other factor. When economic security is threatened, that is when families and societies break down. The impact of economics in, say, the United States, is more subtle. If you look at household income over the last 35-40 years, it's nearly flat. But that's only half the story because the workforce participation among women has increased in a big way, so for the same income, you now have two parents in the workforce, and that has had a pretty devastating effect on children. And it's been for what? Little to no real growth in household income.

[Stone holm]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/comedian-brian-slack-received-the-best-birthday-card-ever-from-his-11-year-old-son-antek-a6687991.html

[bluebell]

Scoff if you like, but it is absolutely true that economic factors have a far greater influence on family structure and social well-being than any other factor. When economic security is threatened, that is when families and societies break down. The impact of economics in, say, the United States, is more subtle. If you look at household income over the last 35-40 years, it's nearly flat. But that's only half the story because the workforce participation among women has increased in a big way, so for the same income, you now have two parents in the workforce, and that has had a pretty devastating effect on children. And it's been for what? Little to no real growth in household income.

 

I'm not scoffing at economic factors being an influence, i'm questioning the idea that economic factors can legitimately be labeled as an 'attack'.  An attack, by definition, is something planned and executed to achieve the downfall of an enemy.  It's not something that happens due to natural consequences or happenstance.  Hurricanes don't 'attack' for example.  The stock market doesn't 'attack'.

 

But I certainly could have been misunderstanding Stone holm.  Maybe he was saying that satan is behind the economic woes we are experiencing-that could be defined as an attack then.

Edited October 9, 2015 by bluebell

[bluebell]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/comedian-brian-slack-received-the-best-birthday-card-ever-from-his-11-year-old-son-antek-a6687991.html

 

Did you mean to link to a card from Jack Black's son?

[jkwilliams]

I'm not scoffing at economic factors being an influence, i'm questioning the idea that economic factors can legitimately be labeled as an 'attack'.  An attack, by definition, is something planned and executed to achieve the downfall of an enemy.  It's not something that happens due to natural consequences or happenstance.  Hurricanes don't 'attack' for example.  The stock market doesn't 'attack'.

 

But I certainly could have been misunderstanding Stone holm.  Maybe he was saying that satan is behind the economic woes we are experiencing-that could be defined as an attack then.

 

If there is an attack on the family, it's not coming from troll bait in Salon magazine.

[Stone holm]

Yeah, it's not satan, it's economics.  That totally makes sense coming from someone who supposedly believes in evil's hatred of everything that God holds dear.  

 

Not sure I understand this, but if you would pause take a deep breath and actually look at the situation, most of the problems that are currently facing the American family are economic related.  Costs have gone up while wages have stayed static.  The well paid American blue collar class has almost completely vanished, meanwhile the white collar class has also seen their jobs vanish overseas and wages stagnate.  The mom and pop businesses where the family functioned as an economic unit have been decimated by corporate box stores, family farms (except for the Amish) have been vanishing at an astounding rate along with all the various small businesses which supplied them.  Family farms were just that -- the each member of the family had a role to play.  We are seeing some resurgence in small family farms out here in Vermont growing specialty crops and being run by young dedicated couples -- but they are barely getting by and vulnerable to someone getting sick, etc.  So if you really want to see Satan at work, then look at what the American corporate sector culture has done to the family.

[bluebell]

If there is an attack on the family, it's not coming from troll bait in Salon magazine.

 

Because if satan is attacking the family, he would never use women's attitudes towards children to do so?

 

(I've read blogs like her's many times before-probably three or four a week actually in the last couple of years.  They don't use the word 'hate' towards children, but they are proud that they don't want any and they don't see the use of them in their lives, so this one blog is not an anomaly in that regard.  It's becoming a much more popular ideology to express.)

[jkwilliams]

Not sure I understand this, but if you would pause take a deep breath and actually look at the situation, most of the problems that are currently facing the American family are economic related.  Costs have gone up while wages have stayed static.  The well paid American blue collar class has almost completely vanished, meanwhile the white collar class has also seen their jobs vanish overseas and wages stagnate.  The mom and pop businesses where the family functioned as an economic unit have been decimated by corporate box stores, family farms (except for the Amish) have been vanishing at an astounding rate along with all the various small businesses which supplied them.  Family farms were just that -- the each member of the family had a role to play.  We are seeing some resurgence in small family farms out here in Vermont growing specialty crops and being run by young dedicated couples -- but they are barely getting by and vulnerable to someone getting sick, etc.  So if you really want to see Satan at work, then look at what the American corporate sector culture has done to the family.

 

I agree with that. If Satan is behind the economic destruction of modern families, it's greed, not gay marriage or school prayer, that is driving the devastation.

[jkwilliams]

Because if satan is attacking the family, he would never use women's attitudes towards children to do so?

 

(I've read blogs like her's many times before-probably three or four a week actually in the last couple of years.  They don't use the word 'hate' towards children, but they are proud that they don't want any and they don't see the use of them in their lives, so this one blog is not an anomaly in that regard.  It's becoming a much more popular ideology to express.)

 

Do you really think that an article like that is going to convince someone to hate babies? Personally, I'd rather that people who hate babies or don't want babies refrain from having babies. Leave the baby-having to people who want them.

[bluebell]

Not sure I understand this, but if you would pause take a deep breath and actually look at the situation, most of the problems that are currently facing the American family are economic related.  Costs have gone up while wages have stayed static.  The well paid American blue collar class has almost completely vanished, meanwhile the white collar class has also seen their jobs vanish overseas and wages stagnate.  The mom and pop businesses where the family functioned as an economic unit have been decimated by corporate box stores, family farms (except for the Amish) have been vanishing at an astounding rate along with all the various small businesses which supplied them.  Family farms were just that -- the each member of the family had a role to play.  We are seeing some resurgence in small family farms out here in Vermont growing specialty crops and being run by young dedicated couples -- but they are barely getting by and vulnerable to someone getting sick, etc.  So if you really want to see Satan at work, then look at what the American corporate sector culture has done to the family.

 

I'm guessing you missed my post to jk but i already acknowledged this (and thanks for telling me to take a deep breath-always good advice!).

 

You do bring up another question though.  Are you saying that you believe it's only in America where the family is vulnerable?  Satan doesn't care about the families in other countries?

[bluebell]

Do you really think that an article like that is going to convince someone to hate babies? Personally, I'd rather that people who hate babies or don't want babies refrain from having babies. Leave the baby-having to people who want them.

 

Not at all.  I don't think the article is troubling because it will convince anyone of anything.  I think it's troubling because it illustrates the existence and growing popularity of an evil mind-set.

 

I don't believe the article is an attack on the family but rather, than it is evidence of satan's attack on the family.

Edited October 9, 2015 by bluebell