jkwilliams Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 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. But how does such a mindset grow popular? People aren't going to develop a hatred of babies because of something like this. Where you see Satan, I see an immature and narcissistic person who somehow thinks she's been edgy and brave by proclaiming her hatred of babies. If Satan's attacking the family, he needs a better spokesperson.
bluebell Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) But how does such a mindset grow popular? We are, naturally, selfish and narcissistic creatures. We are inherently lazy in a lot of ways. Not having children is seen, by the admission of a lot of people, as taking the easy road. They don't want to be selfless. They don't want to be responsible for someone else. They want to be able to do what they want to do when they want to do it. They want to come first in their lives (these are word for word justifications for not having children that i've read in the last two months. It certainly does not describe everyone who chooses not to have children, but it does describe some of them). When being selfish becomes acceptable, then more people feel justified in being that way. Cultural peer-pressure is a real thing. When our culture no longer pressures people into positive attributes, then negative ones become more laudable. The same is of course true for when culture pressures people out of negative attributes. Cultural acceptance has a lot of power in our society. When hating babies becomes a valid way to live your life, then that's a sign to me that things are starting to take a turn for the worse in our society in that regard. I don't think that we're there yet, but when people start feeling safe enough to try to make it valid, then that says something to me about the direction our society is facing. Edited October 9, 2015 by bluebell 3
cinepro Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 I am not sure what to say about Salon's editors. "Outrage" doesn't quite cover it. Thanks, -Smac The reason you aren't sure what to say is because there is no good reason to be upset. The article is about a woman who doesn't like children. Now, assuming she is being honest and this is truly how she feels, what is there to be upset about? Should we be upset because we believe that all women should like children? I never believed that. Should we be upset because we believe that all women should want to have children, if they don't like them? I never believed that, and am thankful that a woman that doesn't want kids would choose not to have them. Should we be upset because such a woman put her thoughts into words and published them on a website? Considering the variety of things published on the internet, this would rank pretty low on my scale of outrage. So I don't get it. She doesn't like kids, she doesn't plan on having them, she wrote an article about it. Good for her. 1
jkwilliams Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 We are, naturally, selfish and narcissistic creatures. We are inherently lazy in a lot of ways. Not having children is seen, by the admission of a lot of people, as taking the easy road. They don't want to be selfless. They don't want to be responsible for someone else. They want to be able to do what they want to do when they want to do it. They want to come first in their lives (these are word for word justifications for not having children that i've read in the last two months. It certainly does not describe everyone who chooses not to have children, but it does describe some of them). When being selfish becomes acceptable, then more people feel justified in being that way. Cultural peer-pressure is a real thing. When our culture no longer pressures people into positive attributes, then negative ones become more laudable. The same is of course true for when culture pressures people out of negative attributes. Cultural acceptance has a lot of power in our society. When hating babies becomes a valid way to live your life, then that's a sign to me that things are starting to take a turn for the worse in our society in that regard. I don't think that we're there yet, but if things keep going the way they are then i doubt we are far from it. Do you see hating babies as being seen as a "valid way of life"? Salon trolled us all, very successfully. I for one refuse to panic because some narcissistic twit posted some idiocy in a magazine I never read. 1
bluebell Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 The reason you aren't sure what to say is because there is no good reason to be upset. The article is about a woman who doesn't like children. Now, assuming she is being honest and this is truly how she feels, what is there to be upset about? Should we be upset because we believe that all women should like children? I never believed that. Should we be upset because we believe that all women should want to have children, if they don't like them? I never believed that, and am thankful that a woman that doesn't want kids would choose not to have them. Should we be upset because such a woman put her thoughts into words and published them on a website? Considering the variety of things published on the internet, this would rank pretty low on my scale of outrage. So I don't get it. She doesn't like kids, she doesn't plan on having them, she wrote an article about it. Good for her. She says she 'viscerally hates children'. Do i believe that all women (and men) should not 'viscerally hate children'? Absolutely. Is it good for her to 'viscerally hate children'? No. If it's true it means she's emotionally messed up. 4
jkwilliams Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 She says she 'viscerally hates children'. Do i believe that all women (and men) should not 'viscerally hate children'? Absolutely. Is it good for her to 'viscerally hate children'? No. If it's true it means she's emotionally messed up. I think so. Frankly, I'm glad she spoke out, as it's a nice reminder that such folks are out there. Let's just hope they keep their word and don't procreate. 3
bluebell Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 Do you see hating babies as being seen as a "valid way of life"? Salon trolled us all, very successfully. I for one refuse to panic because some narcissistic twit posted some idiocy in a magazine I never read. I edited my post to be more clear- "When hating babies becomes a valid way to live your life, then that's a sign to me that things are starting to take a turn for the worse in our society in that regard. I don't think that we're there yet, but when people start feeling safe enough to try to make it valid, then that says something to me about the direction our society is facing." And just to clarify further. Having a discussion about this on a message board, and being concerned about such a mindset, is not 'panicking'. That's an emotionally charged word that's kind of one step away from telling me to 'calm down'. And you know how women LOVE that. 2
cinepro Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 She says she 'viscerally hates children'. Do i believe that all women (and men) should not 'viscerally hate children'? Absolutely. Is it good for her to 'viscerally hate children'? No. If it's true it means she's emotionally messed up. I don't think she's saying it's "good", or recommending that more people try to develop feelings of visceral hatred towards children. I think it's just an article about something few people talk about (and I suspect it has a little embellishment thrown in for good effect). As for this article being an indicator that "the family is under attack", I don't think so. The family was under much more attach decades ago when the zero-population crowd was encouraging other people not to have kids. The Church made a documentary about it a few years ago which offers a interesting glimpse into the mindset of these people and their arguments. But it seems that crowd has pretty much died out, which would be ironically expected.
jkwilliams Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 I edited my post to be more clear- "When hating babies becomes a valid way to live your life, then that's a sign to me that things are starting to take a turn for the worse in our society in that regard. I don't think that we're there yet, but when people start feeling safe enough to try to make it valid, then that says something to me about the direction our society is facing." And just to clarify further. Having a discussion about this on a message board, and being concerned about such a mindset, is not 'panicking'. That's an emotionally charged word that's kind of one step away from telling me to 'calm down'. And you know how women LOVE that. I wasn't thinking of you but of the OP, which stated that this stupid article is evidence the family is under attack. I apologize if my wording suggested you were panicking or needed to calm down. Smac97 tends to write a lot of hyperbole, and I think "panic" is an apt description of the overkill in the OP.
stemelbow Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 I edited my post to be more clear- "When hating babies becomes a valid way to live your life, then that's a sign to me that things are starting to take a turn for the worse in our society in that regard. I don't think that we're there yet, but when people start feeling safe enough to try to make it valid, then that says something to me about the direction our society is facing." And just to clarify further. Having a discussion about this on a message board, and being concerned about such a mindset, is not 'panicking'. That's an emotionally charged word that's kind of one step away from telling me to 'calm down'. And you know how women LOVE that. I don't know what you mean "feeling safe enough". Do you think she should feel threatened for saying she hates children? responding to hate with hate is a problem. That she feels safe to say it is fine. That she says it only shows she's lying. I'm sure she's way annoyed by kids when they're in her way at the movies, or they spray her with water at the local pool, or perhaps she's run into a bunch of them that scream, push, and socially disrespect authority. But, come on. No one believes she actually hates all kids universally.
DJBrown Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) 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. Interested in how that theory manifested itself throughout history. The Great Depression, etc. There have been a lot of depressions and periods of economic difficulty throughout history. I am not convinced that a weak economy destroys families as much as people who hate families and children. With what seems like a constant parade of news articles reporting babies being discarded in dumpsters and tax-payer funds going to sell baby parts, how could Salon publish this trash? Maybe it is because we have all of those news stories and controversies regarding the value of life going on that they can get away with this article. Edited October 9, 2015 by DJBrown 1
jkwilliams Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 Interested in how that theory manifested itself throughout history. The Great Depression, etc. There have been a lot of depressions and periods of economic difficulty throughout history. I am not convinced that a weak economy destroys families as much as people who hate families and children. With what seems like a constant parade of news articles reporting babies being discarded in dumpsters and tax-payer funds going to sell baby parts, how could Salon publish this trash? The Great Depression had tremendous effects on the structure of the family, especially among minority groups. Are you suggesting that the Depression did not affect family life and structure?
DJBrown Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 The Great Depression had tremendous effects on the structure of the family, especially among minority groups. Are you suggesting that the Depression did not affect family life and structure? Not as great an effect as a decades long media campaign to convince people that marriage, family, and having children is not the most important thing in life. And that is precisely what is and has been going on in our society for several decades. Why don't young people value marriage, family, and having children like they did 50 years ago? Do you really think it is about economics? The poor today are far richer than the poor from 50 years ago. 2
jkwilliams Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) Not as great an effect as a decades long media campaign to convince people that marriage, family, and having children is not the most important thing in life. And that is precisely what is and has been going on in our society for several decades. Why don't young people value marriage, family, and having children like they did 50 years ago? Do you really think it is about economics? The poor today are far richer than the poor from 50 years ago. I don't think the biggest factor is the media or Satan or whatever you want to call it. It's a combination of a lot of things: economics, discrimination, unequal access to education and healthcare, and changes in technology and medicine--and yes, good old fashioned greed, selfishness, and so on. For example, I think the development of the birth control pill was the greatest single factor in what is called the sexual revolution. It changed so much about how people view sex and its consequences. I don't think Satan was the inspiration behind the pill. I'm not discounting the other factors, but I'm saying it's simplistic to say that Satan is the driving factor here. It sounds more like an excuse to me. We don't have to do anything to change things because Satan is at the wheel. Edited October 9, 2015 by jkwilliams
DJBrown Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 I don't think the biggest factor is the media or Satan or whatever you want to call it. It's a combination of a lot of things: economics, discrimination, unequal access to education and healthcare, and changes in technology and medicine. For example, I think the development of the birth control pill was the greatest single factor in what is called the sexual revolution. It changed so much about how people view sex and its consequences. I don't think Satan was the inspiration behind the pill. I'm not discounting the other factors, but I'm saying it's simplistic to say that Satan is the driving factor here. It sounds more like an excuse to me. We don't have to do anything to change things because Satan is at the wheel. You are claiming that immorality has increased as a result of morally neutral phenomena. Families were much stronger (based upon some pretty basic measures) in past times when the economy was far worse. Black families were much stronger in the past when discrimination was infinitely more obvious and influential. Families have been stronger in the past when people were far less educated. Families were far stronger in the past when health care was far less effective and accessible. Our sexual mores and family strength have been altered dramatically over the last 5 decades. It just doesn't make sense for that to have happened by chance or as a result of morally neutral changes in society. 2
bluebell Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 I wasn't thinking of you but of the OP, which stated that this stupid article is evidence the family is under attack. I apologize if my wording suggested you were panicking or needed to calm down.
bluebell Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 But, come on. No one believes she actually hates all kids universally. That's what she says though. She even went so far as to point out that her hatred of them has nothing to do with them behaving badly. She hates them regardless of if they are bothering her or not. And i meant that she felt safe enough to tell the world that she hates children without seeming to worry that it will negatively affect her career or her social life. 1
bluebell Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 I don't think she's saying it's "good", or recommending that more people try to develop feelings of visceral hatred towards children. I was responding to your statement- "She doesn't like kids, she doesn't plan on having them, she wrote an article about it. Good for her."I don't think it's good for her. 1
stemelbow Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 That's what she says though. She even went so far as to point out that her hatred of them has nothing to do with them behaving badly. She hates them regardless of if they are bothering her or not. And i meant that she felt safe enough to tell the world that she hates children without seeming to worry that it will negatively affect her career or her social life. Are you saying she should feel threatened? I'm still not sure I can agree with you on that.
Teancum Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 Not as great an effect as a decades long media campaign to convince people that marriage, family, and having children is not the most important thing in life. And that is precisely what is and has been going on in our society for several decades. Why don't young people value marriage, family, and having children like they did 50 years ago? Do you really think it is about economics? The poor today are far richer than the poor from 50 years ago. Economics may not be the number one factor but it is high on the list.
bluebell Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 Are you saying she should feel threatened? I'm still not sure I can agree with you on that. If you tell people that you hate black people, should you be concerned that negative consequences might follow? How about if you tell people that you viscerally hate jewish people? Should people be concerned about expressing those kinds of emotions in a publication? Yes, obviously, because doing so would negatively impact both their career opportunities and the way their friends and family look at them. Why should expressing hatred towards babies be any more acceptable? I'm not saying that she should feel threatened, but I do think that we should live in a society where she doesn't feel like that's an acceptable thing to publish to the world, even if she really feels that way. Just like i'm glad we live in a society where it's not acceptable to publish "I hate Jews" blogs either. 4
jkwilliams Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 You are claiming that immorality has increased as a result of morally neutral phenomena. Families were much stronger (based upon some pretty basic measures) in past times when the economy was far worse.Black families were much stronger in the past when discrimination was infinitely more obvious and influential.Families have been stronger in the past when people were far less educated.Families were far stronger in the past when health care was far less effective and accessible. Our sexual mores and family strength have been altered dramatically over the last 5 decades. It just doesn't make sense for that to have happened by chance or as a result of morally neutral changes in society.What isn't morally neutral is the response to change. Blaming the devil means missing predictable patterns that can help us to shore up stable families.
busybee Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 (edited) 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)He didn't say his or anyone else's family specifically. The idea of family is under attack! And it is a multi-pronged attack at that. Here, catch!! I just rolled your eyes back to you. Edited October 9, 2015 by busybee 1
california boy Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 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. Wow. You are making a leap from one article to our entire society turning into baby haters????? Just how often do you run into these people screaming hatred towards all children?? I live in California. NEVER met a baby hater in my entire life. Maybe wherever you live it is becoming common to run into these baby haters that you feel are becoming so prevalent in todays society. Can you tell us how often you run into one of these baby haters? I have met people who have decided to not have children. Seems like a very personal decision. I have yet to hear any of them be unhappy with the fact that I or anyone else has decided to have children.
california boy Posted October 9, 2015 Posted October 9, 2015 He didn't say his or anyone else's family specifically. The idea of family is under attack! And it is a multi-pronged attack at that. Here, catch!! I just rolled your eyes back to you. I get the idea. But when you can't verbalize how someone not liking babies attacks or even affects your family or ANYONE else's family, it becomes a ridiculous statement to make. Still waiting for an actual logical report of how anyone's family is under attack or harmed in ANY way because some people hate babies. Maybe you could provide some evidence if you also think this is an attack on families. Anyone? Anyone? Or perhaps this idea of Satan's attack on the family has become such a part of Mormon culture that people are scrambling to find ANYTHING to justify such a position. Just making the statement is enough these days. Still rolling eyes.
Recommended Posts