Has anyone read Richard Littlejohn’s appaling column today? Talking about Jalal Ahmed’s (anti-war protester) job at Luton airport, he says:
“Airport officials insist: ‘He would be in a supervised environment at all times.’
Somehow, I doubt that’s the kind of ’supervised environment’ most of us would like to see him in. That would involve orange jumpsuits, armed guards, razor-wire and large dogs.”
Wow. He is actually saying that someone who has committed absolutely no crime whatsoever and was peacefully demonstrating against and illegal war should be sent to Guantanamo – a prison which tortures its inmates and is going to be shut by the new US presidency?
god the formatting on that front page is just awful, you’re a national newspaper forgoodness sake, at least make an effort on your appearances if nothing else.
(also, yay diana! bet the express are kicking themselves over missing that one)
I posted this to the Mail’s comments just now, but I suspect it won’t get past the censors…
“I can’t believe that so many people are opposed to an increase in benefits that many people desperately need. If the EU was CUTTING benefits, you’d be the first to complain as well! But no – so many comments here amount to “we defend our right to treat our citizens like dirt!”
I find it hilarious to read all the anti-EU comments from ex-pats in France, Spain etc. – who gave you the right to freedom of movement and employment in Europe? If Britain, or your chosen country of residence, pulled out of the EU, that freedom would disappear overnight, so shut up and stop complaining.
The EU has also helped bring about the longest sustained period of peace in Europe in history, and you’d do well to think about that.”
Another mis leding headline. My girl friend is on maternity and she used to come home with £180 a week, when she went on maternity she got six weeks at £160 and 33 weeks at £116 (net) which in total is £4,788. under this scheme she would get about an extra £500 hardly treble? Also small employers (NI deductions of less than £45,000 a year) can claim a 104.5% of the cost back.
How is providing for your fellow man ‘madness’? Oh, sorry, of course, I forgot, only women get maternity benefits and they’re not worth anything. If men could have children it’d be very different.
What a horribly misogynistic headline. Is there a woman alive who’d disagree with an increase in maternity benefits?
As for Sangatte, that queue is there every day, recession or not. Like the daily insane preacher quotes it’s simply an eternal non-story headline on standby for easy apoplexy.
Giddy – I know the ones, those self-loathing, borderline psychotic ’superwomen’ that choose not to have kids or a family and instead work 70 hours a week, looking down on motherhood as a weakness and leave all their money to their dog when they die as a recluse.
…not that I’m being misogynistic there. I think men who choose to deny their instincts and not eventually have a family are just as bad, but with the women who do it (because big money business is usually a male dominated world) there seems a peculiar psychosis where they become self-hating misogynists themselves in order to succeed.
Hang on – why is choosing not to have kids ‘denying your instincts’ – it’s up to individuals to choose whether they want to start a family or not. I don’t want children myself, I don’t see I’m denying myself anything.
Today’s headlines – immigrant-bashing (clearly they all want to come to England, even though it’s a hellhole riven with crime according to er…the Mail!), hideous misogyny, business as usual then.
Steven, what are you on about? I don’t want a family and I’m hardly mysogynistic. I just think children are disgusting and horrible and I don’t have the correct temprament for childrearing anyway. I would much, much rather have a good career than a family though I’m not a workaholic. I’m not denying any instincts of mine, trust me, I don’t have a maternal instsinct and thought many times of self-sterilisation(though I reckon the state wouldn’t let me).
All I’m denying myself is years of boredom, pain, anger, tantrums, waking up in the night, and having no money.
I don’t have kids and won’t for a long time (I’m 28) but I think anyone who puts career in front of family is missing out on a huge amount of life. Boredom, pain, anger? Sounds like the average job to me. Having no money? Well, that’s what happens when you put another human being’s needs before your own. If you think children are disgusting and horrible, then I’d argue that is symptomatic of something and not a natural response.
Of course not everyone who chooses not to have kids is mental, but I think for a lot of people it’s a sign of some kind of maladjustment or another, or bowing to outside pressure to achieve something in an area you couldn’t with a family. It’s your instinct to reproduce and if you lack them it’s as odd to me as lacking the equally powerful instinct to survive. Sure, people choose to commit suicide, but nobody does so just for the sake of it.
Of course it’s everybody’s choice to put work and money before having kids, but I’d argue it’s a pretty hollow one. I don’t want kids until at least 40 and even then know it’d be a huge hassle and drain tor raise them, but if you think spending your life as a desk jockey and driving a slightly nicer car is preferable nurturing a life (including adopting if you’re gay or infertile), then I think that’s symptomatic of a pretty poor malaise in society.
With you, Charlie and Lith. Why should choosing to be child-free be seen as some gross deviation from nature? Everything we eat, wear and do is to some extent “unnatural”: I hope that as a species the human race has progressed beyond such a narrow view. As for me, I love kids. I also love elephants, chocolate and comedy, but I don’t feel the need or desire to squeeze any of these out of my vagina and take full responsibility for their moral and emotional development for the next 18 years. Unnatural? Perhaps. Understandable? Absolutely. Anyone else’s business to judge and comment on? Definitely not.
I agree that ‘unnatural’ behaviour is not anything to be condemned or seen as a deviation from nature. Thankfully we’re free of most of the animalistic traits we had, , but to choose not to bring up a child, even adopting one, is a pretty self orientated and therefore shallow (in my opinion) way to live.
I’m 100% an athiest and believe we cease to exist upon death, but think to live a completely materialistic life is existentially a wasted one. I don’t think you have to have children to have some validity on your life, but you need to do something to support your fellow man, be that in doing volunteer or mentoring work instead of raising a child.
Probably explained myself badly, I was attacking people who put money and social advancement in front of everything, even a sense of personal identity and social responsibility. Having children usually ticks one of those boxes (but not always, there’s millions of selfish appalling parents too) so my point isn’t really children vs no children, but a sense of nurturing and responsibility vs not having one.
You can have that and be childless just as much as you can have 6 kids and kidnap one for a press reward like Karen Matthews. Apologies if I’ve caused unnecessary offence, I was attacking some of the mentality that leads people to not having children, not the practise, and of course a mentality that is in no way exclusive to childless people.
You seem to feel, Steven, that there are only two choices we make in life, having a family or furthering a career, and that only the former of these will be fulfilling. You are making certain assumptions: firstly, that doing a desk job must necessarily be soul-destroying and materialistic. But not everyone has the same career: some people won’t have a desk job. Some might be astronauts, zoo keepers, ship captains or any number of other jobs portrayed in the children’s cartoon series Mr Benn. Some will have desk jobs they can’t wait to get to every day. Many people have jobs they find enjoyable and rewarding. They may also have careers which also have a nurturing element, such that they don’t feel the need to have a family in addition – being a teacher or childcarer, for example, or working with animals.
Secondly, life has many other facets: it is not a polarisation of work and family. Child-free people may want to concentrate on their relationship with their partner, or pursue a much-loved hobby, care for a pet or do charity work: any number of things. Children are not the only thing which makes our lives fulfilling. To be honest, I would feel rather sorry for anyone who viewed their children in that respect, as kids don’t stay around forever.
As for instincts, we have many of them. Reproduction is one, of course. So why don’t I choose to have unprotected sex every month during ovulation until I have produced a veritable army of offspring? Why are you able to say you wish to delay having a family until 40, when the instinct to produce one is ever present? Answer: instincts are something we have learned to control, even manipulate, in our long evolutionary journey. You choose to suppress your reproductive instinct for a period of time, I choose to suppress mine permanently. In an overpopulated world, how can anyone tell me I am making the selfish choice?
I’m homosexual, and yeah I dislike Children. I’m not a fan of them and to be honest I have one aim and that is to keep my parents secure for the rest of there lives like they did for me.
So furthering my career it is, I’m not going be a slave to work mind.
I’m also intend to enjoy life, by the way just to piss of the Mail more JSA goes up for me by 4 pounds a week, oh how will i cope, maybe spend the extra four pounds on getting to the job centre as they fail to reimburse you and I live about 15 miles away.
“to choose not to bring up a child, even adopting one, is a pretty self orientated and therefore shallow (in my opinion) way to live.”
I’m going to be a bit less articulate than the others and say: fuck you! Incidentally, you say you want to delay having kids until your 40s. In doing so, you’re increasing the risk of various congenital problems. Wouldn’t that be, hmm, a bit “self-orientated” and “shallow”?
I’m 34 and my children are seven and eight years old. I’m of the opinion that if you’re going to have kids, you should do it when you’re young and fit. Leaving it until you’re older is insane! Who wants to be a pensioner dealing with surly teenagers?!?
The way I see it, my kids will be adults and hopefully more or less independent by the time I’m in my mid-to-late forties, leaving me able to hopefully enjoy a few active and enjoyable years before I turn old and crumbly.
Anyway, all that aside, I agree with the sentiment that there’s a lot of people out there who don’t give a toss about anyone, and it’s a horrible way to live. It’s got nothing to do with whether you have or want kids, but the mean-spirited attitude which puts money-making and the needs of business above the well-being of society as a whole is disgusting and I can’t stand it.
I mean, really – why the hell should anyone be concerned about the well-being of big corporations? Since when have they been concerned about the well-being of us? Every single one of us is expendable and replaceable.
True enough, Railroad Man. I lived in London for a while, and met plenty of knobhead City types who cared for nothing and no-one except cash. The sad thing was that many of them did have families, who took second place to money and success.
True, Antigherkin. I live in a very wealthy area, but I live in a shoebox, because my life choices have cost me dearly in financial terms. However, I don’t care – I’m fortunate to have a job that’s bearable and not too demanding, and what my children lack in terms of physical space at home is more than made up by the fact that we do fun and interesting stuff with them all the time. I’m horrified by how dull the lives of many of their friends are, simply because their parents are working every hour God sends to afford their “lifestyle”.
Moggie – Thanks for the reasoned response. However when I say I’ll have kids at 40, I may adopt, and delaying isn’t selfish, but a reasoned decision to be in a position where I have enough money and resources to make my children’s lives as fulfilling and with as many opportunities as possible, rather than doing it young and having them grow up in poverty and having to struggle like I did. How that makes me selfish is beyond my understanding. And as we’re being so reasoned, I’d reiterate that even if you don’t want kids born of you or your partner, to not adopt or foster or do some mentoring or youth work at some point in your life is seriously lacking in social responsibility and to those people I’d say back – fuck you!
I hardly think it makes me evil to argue that (IMO) it’s an essential part of the human experience to spend a proportion of your life given over to someone rather than something, and one largely revolving around giving with nothing in return than receiving a salary or stipend.
But is it not selfish to create that someone purely for the purpose of loving and raising them? Not that there’s anything wrong with that: I think selfishness guides many of our actions, and as long as there are no negative consequences to others, I say, why the hell not? But still, to be truly unselfish a potential parent must surely adopt or foster. Most don’t, though, and when on occasion some judgemental members of the baby-maker brigade (look, I invented a new brigade!) condemn the life choice of the child-free as “selfish” when what I can only assume is genetic arrogance has led them to expend their parental feelings on a created offspring rather than one of the many with no home or family seems a bit rich. And they can shove the cat lady stereotypes as well.
Personally, I do youth work (I’m a Rainbow leader), and like Matt, intend to invest much of my life in ensuring the comfort and happiness of the previous two generations of my family rather than starting another one. I may also, should I ever find myself in a position to do so, get into fostering. But these are all personal choices. I wouldn’t seek to judge another person for finding fulfillment in another area, even if that is something I can’t personally understand, like workaholism or money hoarding. It doesn’t affect me, it doesn’t negatively affect anyone else but them (unless they are neglecting friends and family), ergo it’s not an issue to concern myself with. Good luck to them.
It’s hardly all or nothing, is it? You can give back to society in so many different ways, and to “spend a proportion of your life given over to someone” hardly requires kids. To suggest that everyone who chooses to remain childless is inevitably a soulless wage-slave is just bizarre. Perhaps you’re the one with the “maladjustment”?
Gordon Clown; I don’t often modderate comments on here – but we don’t need graphic detail like that. You have to think about people who are behind work proxy servers and content filtered networks. Please resubmit your comment once you’ve altered it…..or not.
Antigherkin – Maybe I’m just coming from a nihilist perspective where I think the only thing of true value in this world is the objective value of human life. To me people who live purely self absorbed lives are missing out on the whole tapestry life has to offer, and as I believe there is nothing else afterwards, I feel a duty to challenge that life as I believe it’s throwing away the only thing of value you truly have in pursuit of ultimately meaningless shiny objects.
Of course though, those who care for parents or animals or work or contribute towards helping out humanity childless or not are living what I consider a valid life. Those who seek purely to accumulate fleeting subjective prestige or wealth at the expense of others, whether having children or not, are worthless individuals who I pity.
I probably just unduly kicked it off by equating Altruism with Reproduction, which was of course simplistic and inaccurate, but I didn’t realise It’d provoke such offence, so am duly chastised and have corrected my remarks, as to be fair we all make sweeping statements here that are very basic distillations of complex points simply for brevity and I hope I’ve explained my point a bit more fully here now.
As I “bat for the other side”, I can’t have offspring, not that I’m sure I would want any anyway. Some people just don’t fancy the idea I suppose which is fair enough.
My partner and I could always foster children though and incur the full wroth of Littlejohn at the same time!
“I don’t have kids and won’t for a long time (I’m 28)”
Fair enough
“but I think anyone who puts career in front of family is missing out on a huge amount of life. ”
Oh, ‘cos you’re an expert on having a family are you? Hang on, I’ll just read the first bit of the quote again… and it appears that no, you have no experience of what you are talking about.
“but to choose not to bring up a child, even adopting one, is a pretty self orientated and therefore shallow (in my opinion) way to live.”
To paraphrase Moggie, fuck you!! Opinions (masquerading as fact) like yours are more for the DM forum than this site.
Stevie H – How is my comment ‘opinion masquerading as fact’ when in the very but you quoted it said IN MY OPINION. It was never stated as fact, and also you don’t need to have had a family to understand raising a family is a huge part of life, going millions of years down the evolutionary record. If you think raising a family is trivial, I’d say you had no idea what you’re talking about.
And as for the ‘fuck you’, I’d argue straw man attacks and suppression of debate are more at home on the DM site than here, maybe you should check it out.
…and by life, I mean ‘part of the human experience’. You can argue the personal merits of doing so or not, but it’s silly to argue it isn’t a huge part of what makes us human and to not experience it is missing out on something quite major.
Whether that’s a good or a bad thing is a different debate, but to claim as Stevie H does that such an opinion is debatable is frankly stupid. Reproduction and child rearing is a massive part of our psyche and biology and to reject it is fair enough, but to deny it is moronic.
I’m not even going to read the above, I got about a third of the way in.
I seem to remember a Sun headline a few years back about Eastern europeans queuing up outside the British Embassy for a work permit. The photograph was completely misused, as the Embassy had been shut in the morning, and these were mostly ppl getting tourist visas waiting for the building to open.
Well I’ve got children, grandchildren and a caravan I just give thanks daily that there are such a variety of people, men and women, young and old, Left and Right, here on this website that detest the Daily Mail with its evil propaganda, who are prepared to do some research and write about it. Thank you one and all whether you are AC, DC or whatever. Your Country Needs You.
Christ (or whatever deity you believe in, if any) talk about going off topic.
Having read the comments here I feel a) depressed and b) angry. Depressed because I worked too hard that I forgot to settle down, now I am getting to my mid forties I am getting scared. Angry because I refused to take the few opps that I had.
Also there seems to be a lot of vitriol as to who has the better life style. Surely we, as intelligent socially aware people can appreciate each others lifestyle choices, however much they may jar against what we hold dear.
I’m feeling a sense of mischievous glee right now. Normally I’m the one taking stick from other contributors for something I’ve said, but this time it’s Steven who’s getting the flak…and how! Me, I like children and get on very well with my younger relatives but I am totally unsuited to be a father myself. It saddens me sometimes but I’ve gotten used to the solitary life.
And antigherkin…I KNOW what makes Littlejohn horny. I read his novel ‘To Hell in a Handcart’ , loosely based on the Tony Martin case. It’s full of references to oral sex, so much so that Littlejohn is clearly giving himself away. The novel btw is awful and finishes off with a massive copout. Mickey French, the main character, is woken up by the sound of the Romanian gypsy burglar (yes really) running down the hall towards him. So he shoots the gypsy dead in what could reasonably be described as self-defence, in contrast to Tony Martin who shot Fred Barass in the back as Barass, a toe-rag admittedly but only 16, was running away. So Littlejohn shamefully ducked the moral complexity involved in asking how far does self-defence go.
Excuse me everybody for rambling on like this but I am slightly pissed and it isn’t often that I’m not the one getting the boos and catcalls on this site. I guess if I was a family guy I wouldn’t be sitting here boozing away.
Can I just say that I’ll do what I want with my life. I’m 21, I don’t want kids or to settle down right now and would like to focus on my career. If I want to have kids when I’m older, I’ll do so, if I don’t then I don’t have justify myself. Also, can’t you have a career and kids these days? I’ll do what I want to.
Nah, I’ve been posting on here for about 28 months if you mean me! This is my first controversy apart from the odd comment about apathetic, greedy teachers that is!
daveyp, I’m aware of all the sex in To Hell in a Handcart. My partner decided to read it for a greater insight into Littlejohn the man (turns out, he’s a cunt. Who knew?). After he read out various sex scenes to me, I couldn’t stomach wading through the book myself. That Littlejohn is one sick puppy.
I recommend this review by Zoe Williams, save anyone interested the bother of having to read his actual book:
Re arguments on Mailwatch, I don’t think that’s surprising. It’s an atypical Daily Mail idea that all those opposed to them or to the left politically must have identical views and opinions, all of which involve hugging trees, wearing open-toed organic sandals and reading the Guardian, but us clever folk know that’s not the case. There are a diverse range of opinions here, leading to debate and argument on occasion. As long as we all recognise the manipulative propaganda of the Daily Mail, I don’t see it as a problem.
What is the maternity benefits story? I cannot find it amid the CANCER! IMMIGRATION! CELEBRITY! CRIME! content on the DM’s front page. And I was forced to skip much of this page because of the kids v. no kids debate here.
Anyway, I am very excited about the prospect of more money to read Mailwatch and breastfeed in public all day long.
Love the picture I remember a similar one a few years ago when Bulgary joined the EU. The queue was literally 10 people long, yet the Mail somehow thought this “proved” immigration was out of control!
who’s to blame for the recession? Yep, working mother and immigrants, and don’t you forget it Mail readers
Has anyone read Richard Littlejohn’s appaling column today? Talking about Jalal Ahmed’s (anti-war protester) job at Luton airport, he says:
“Airport officials insist: ‘He would be in a supervised environment at all times.’
Somehow, I doubt that’s the kind of ’supervised environment’ most of us would like to see him in. That would involve orange jumpsuits, armed guards, razor-wire and large dogs.”
Wow. He is actually saying that someone who has committed absolutely no crime whatsoever and was peacefully demonstrating against and illegal war should be sent to Guantanamo – a prison which tortures its inmates and is going to be shut by the new US presidency?
He really excelled himself today.
god the formatting on that front page is just awful, you’re a national newspaper forgoodness sake, at least make an effort on your appearances if nothing else.
(also, yay diana! bet the express are kicking themselves over missing that one)
I posted this to the Mail’s comments just now, but I suspect it won’t get past the censors…
“I can’t believe that so many people are opposed to an increase in benefits that many people desperately need. If the EU was CUTTING benefits, you’d be the first to complain as well! But no – so many comments here amount to “we defend our right to treat our citizens like dirt!”
I find it hilarious to read all the anti-EU comments from ex-pats in France, Spain etc. – who gave you the right to freedom of movement and employment in Europe? If Britain, or your chosen country of residence, pulled out of the EU, that freedom would disappear overnight, so shut up and stop complaining.
The EU has also helped bring about the longest sustained period of peace in Europe in history, and you’d do well to think about that.”
Well they can cue so why not let them into the UK?
Be afriad, be very afraid!!!
Another mis leding headline. My girl friend is on maternity and she used to come home with £180 a week, when she went on maternity she got six weeks at £160 and 33 weeks at £116 (net) which in total is £4,788. under this scheme she would get about an extra £500 hardly treble? Also small employers (NI deductions of less than £45,000 a year) can claim a 104.5% of the cost back.
How is providing for your fellow man ‘madness’? Oh, sorry, of course, I forgot, only women get maternity benefits and they’re not worth anything. If men could have children it’d be very different.
What a horribly misogynistic headline. Is there a woman alive who’d disagree with an increase in maternity benefits?
As for Sangatte, that queue is there every day, recession or not. Like the daily insane preacher quotes it’s simply an eternal non-story headline on standby for easy apoplexy.
Surely the Wail could have come up with the answer – free Durex for all immigrants, bloody obvious!
“What a horribly misogynistic headline. Is there a woman alive who’d disagree with an increase in maternity benefits?”
Probably quite a few CBI or IoD members. Y’know, the career single-minded types who have a bit extra testosterone pumping around them.
Giddy – I know the ones, those self-loathing, borderline psychotic ’superwomen’ that choose not to have kids or a family and instead work 70 hours a week, looking down on motherhood as a weakness and leave all their money to their dog when they die as a recluse.
…not that I’m being misogynistic there. I think men who choose to deny their instincts and not eventually have a family are just as bad, but with the women who do it (because big money business is usually a male dominated world) there seems a peculiar psychosis where they become self-hating misogynists themselves in order to succeed.
Hang on – why is choosing not to have kids ‘denying your instincts’ – it’s up to individuals to choose whether they want to start a family or not. I don’t want children myself, I don’t see I’m denying myself anything.
Today’s headlines – immigrant-bashing (clearly they all want to come to England, even though it’s a hellhole riven with crime according to er…the Mail!), hideous misogyny, business as usual then.
Steven, what are you on about? I don’t want a family and I’m hardly mysogynistic. I just think children are disgusting and horrible and I don’t have the correct temprament for childrearing anyway. I would much, much rather have a good career than a family though I’m not a workaholic. I’m not denying any instincts of mine, trust me, I don’t have a maternal instsinct and thought many times of self-sterilisation(though I reckon the state wouldn’t let me).
All I’m denying myself is years of boredom, pain, anger, tantrums, waking up in the night, and having no money.
I don’t have kids and won’t for a long time (I’m 28) but I think anyone who puts career in front of family is missing out on a huge amount of life. Boredom, pain, anger? Sounds like the average job to me. Having no money? Well, that’s what happens when you put another human being’s needs before your own. If you think children are disgusting and horrible, then I’d argue that is symptomatic of something and not a natural response.
Of course not everyone who chooses not to have kids is mental, but I think for a lot of people it’s a sign of some kind of maladjustment or another, or bowing to outside pressure to achieve something in an area you couldn’t with a family. It’s your instinct to reproduce and if you lack them it’s as odd to me as lacking the equally powerful instinct to survive. Sure, people choose to commit suicide, but nobody does so just for the sake of it.
Of course it’s everybody’s choice to put work and money before having kids, but I’d argue it’s a pretty hollow one. I don’t want kids until at least 40 and even then know it’d be a huge hassle and drain tor raise them, but if you think spending your life as a desk jockey and driving a slightly nicer car is preferable nurturing a life (including adopting if you’re gay or infertile), then I think that’s symptomatic of a pretty poor malaise in society.
With you, Charlie and Lith. Why should choosing to be child-free be seen as some gross deviation from nature? Everything we eat, wear and do is to some extent “unnatural”: I hope that as a species the human race has progressed beyond such a narrow view. As for me, I love kids. I also love elephants, chocolate and comedy, but I don’t feel the need or desire to squeeze any of these out of my vagina and take full responsibility for their moral and emotional development for the next 18 years. Unnatural? Perhaps. Understandable? Absolutely. Anyone else’s business to judge and comment on? Definitely not.
I agree that ‘unnatural’ behaviour is not anything to be condemned or seen as a deviation from nature. Thankfully we’re free of most of the animalistic traits we had, , but to choose not to bring up a child, even adopting one, is a pretty self orientated and therefore shallow (in my opinion) way to live.
I’m 100% an athiest and believe we cease to exist upon death, but think to live a completely materialistic life is existentially a wasted one. I don’t think you have to have children to have some validity on your life, but you need to do something to support your fellow man, be that in doing volunteer or mentoring work instead of raising a child.
Probably explained myself badly, I was attacking people who put money and social advancement in front of everything, even a sense of personal identity and social responsibility. Having children usually ticks one of those boxes (but not always, there’s millions of selfish appalling parents too) so my point isn’t really children vs no children, but a sense of nurturing and responsibility vs not having one.
You can have that and be childless just as much as you can have 6 kids and kidnap one for a press reward like Karen Matthews. Apologies if I’ve caused unnecessary offence, I was attacking some of the mentality that leads people to not having children, not the practise, and of course a mentality that is in no way exclusive to childless people.
You seem to feel, Steven, that there are only two choices we make in life, having a family or furthering a career, and that only the former of these will be fulfilling. You are making certain assumptions: firstly, that doing a desk job must necessarily be soul-destroying and materialistic. But not everyone has the same career: some people won’t have a desk job. Some might be astronauts, zoo keepers, ship captains or any number of other jobs portrayed in the children’s cartoon series Mr Benn. Some will have desk jobs they can’t wait to get to every day. Many people have jobs they find enjoyable and rewarding. They may also have careers which also have a nurturing element, such that they don’t feel the need to have a family in addition – being a teacher or childcarer, for example, or working with animals.
Secondly, life has many other facets: it is not a polarisation of work and family. Child-free people may want to concentrate on their relationship with their partner, or pursue a much-loved hobby, care for a pet or do charity work: any number of things. Children are not the only thing which makes our lives fulfilling. To be honest, I would feel rather sorry for anyone who viewed their children in that respect, as kids don’t stay around forever.
As for instincts, we have many of them. Reproduction is one, of course. So why don’t I choose to have unprotected sex every month during ovulation until I have produced a veritable army of offspring? Why are you able to say you wish to delay having a family until 40, when the instinct to produce one is ever present? Answer: instincts are something we have learned to control, even manipulate, in our long evolutionary journey. You choose to suppress your reproductive instinct for a period of time, I choose to suppress mine permanently. In an overpopulated world, how can anyone tell me I am making the selfish choice?
Sorry, that was in reply to your previous post, not the more reasoned one I just read.
I’m homosexual, and yeah I dislike Children. I’m not a fan of them and to be honest I have one aim and that is to keep my parents secure for the rest of there lives like they did for me.
So furthering my career it is, I’m not going be a slave to work mind.
I’m also intend to enjoy life, by the way just to piss of the Mail more JSA goes up for me by 4 pounds a week, oh how will i cope, maybe spend the extra four pounds on getting to the job centre as they fail to reimburse you and I live about 15 miles away.
Madness? This. Is. Sparta!
Steven:
“to choose not to bring up a child, even adopting one, is a pretty self orientated and therefore shallow (in my opinion) way to live.”
I’m going to be a bit less articulate than the others and say: fuck you! Incidentally, you say you want to delay having kids until your 40s. In doing so, you’re increasing the risk of various congenital problems. Wouldn’t that be, hmm, a bit “self-orientated” and “shallow”?
I’m 34 and my children are seven and eight years old. I’m of the opinion that if you’re going to have kids, you should do it when you’re young and fit. Leaving it until you’re older is insane! Who wants to be a pensioner dealing with surly teenagers?!?
The way I see it, my kids will be adults and hopefully more or less independent by the time I’m in my mid-to-late forties, leaving me able to hopefully enjoy a few active and enjoyable years before I turn old and crumbly.
Anyway, all that aside, I agree with the sentiment that there’s a lot of people out there who don’t give a toss about anyone, and it’s a horrible way to live. It’s got nothing to do with whether you have or want kids, but the mean-spirited attitude which puts money-making and the needs of business above the well-being of society as a whole is disgusting and I can’t stand it.
I mean, really – why the hell should anyone be concerned about the well-being of big corporations? Since when have they been concerned about the well-being of us? Every single one of us is expendable and replaceable.
I would say that my reasons for not wanting children are nothing to do with my career or anything like that, it’s just a personal choice.
Maybe we should go back to uniting against the common enemy here, the Mail XD
True enough, Railroad Man. I lived in London for a while, and met plenty of knobhead City types who cared for nothing and no-one except cash. The sad thing was that many of them did have families, who took second place to money and success.
True, Antigherkin. I live in a very wealthy area, but I live in a shoebox, because my life choices have cost me dearly in financial terms. However, I don’t care – I’m fortunate to have a job that’s bearable and not too demanding, and what my children lack in terms of physical space at home is more than made up by the fact that we do fun and interesting stuff with them all the time. I’m horrified by how dull the lives of many of their friends are, simply because their parents are working every hour God sends to afford their “lifestyle”.
An opportunity for Mail readers to have an ill informed bash at the EU.
Moggie – Thanks for the reasoned response. However when I say I’ll have kids at 40, I may adopt, and delaying isn’t selfish, but a reasoned decision to be in a position where I have enough money and resources to make my children’s lives as fulfilling and with as many opportunities as possible, rather than doing it young and having them grow up in poverty and having to struggle like I did. How that makes me selfish is beyond my understanding. And as we’re being so reasoned, I’d reiterate that even if you don’t want kids born of you or your partner, to not adopt or foster or do some mentoring or youth work at some point in your life is seriously lacking in social responsibility and to those people I’d say back – fuck you!
I hardly think it makes me evil to argue that (IMO) it’s an essential part of the human experience to spend a proportion of your life given over to someone rather than something, and one largely revolving around giving with nothing in return than receiving a salary or stipend.
But is it not selfish to create that someone purely for the purpose of loving and raising them? Not that there’s anything wrong with that: I think selfishness guides many of our actions, and as long as there are no negative consequences to others, I say, why the hell not? But still, to be truly unselfish a potential parent must surely adopt or foster. Most don’t, though, and when on occasion some judgemental members of the baby-maker brigade (look, I invented a new brigade!) condemn the life choice of the child-free as “selfish” when what I can only assume is genetic arrogance has led them to expend their parental feelings on a created offspring rather than one of the many with no home or family seems a bit rich. And they can shove the cat lady stereotypes as well.
Personally, I do youth work (I’m a Rainbow leader), and like Matt, intend to invest much of my life in ensuring the comfort and happiness of the previous two generations of my family rather than starting another one. I may also, should I ever find myself in a position to do so, get into fostering. But these are all personal choices. I wouldn’t seek to judge another person for finding fulfillment in another area, even if that is something I can’t personally understand, like workaholism or money hoarding. It doesn’t affect me, it doesn’t negatively affect anyone else but them (unless they are neglecting friends and family), ergo it’s not an issue to concern myself with. Good luck to them.
It’s hardly all or nothing, is it? You can give back to society in so many different ways, and to “spend a proportion of your life given over to someone” hardly requires kids. To suggest that everyone who chooses to remain childless is inevitably a soulless wage-slave is just bizarre. Perhaps you’re the one with the “maladjustment”?
Gordon Clown; I don’t often modderate comments on here – but we don’t need graphic detail like that. You have to think about people who are behind work proxy servers and content filtered networks. Please resubmit your comment once you’ve altered it…..or not.
thanks
Antigherkin – Maybe I’m just coming from a nihilist perspective where I think the only thing of true value in this world is the objective value of human life. To me people who live purely self absorbed lives are missing out on the whole tapestry life has to offer, and as I believe there is nothing else afterwards, I feel a duty to challenge that life as I believe it’s throwing away the only thing of value you truly have in pursuit of ultimately meaningless shiny objects.
Of course though, those who care for parents or animals or work or contribute towards helping out humanity childless or not are living what I consider a valid life. Those who seek purely to accumulate fleeting subjective prestige or wealth at the expense of others, whether having children or not, are worthless individuals who I pity.
I probably just unduly kicked it off by equating Altruism with Reproduction, which was of course simplistic and inaccurate, but I didn’t realise It’d provoke such offence, so am duly chastised and have corrected my remarks, as to be fair we all make sweeping statements here that are very basic distillations of complex points simply for brevity and I hope I’ve explained my point a bit more fully here now.
Fair enough Steven. Apology accepted.
I’m intrigued by these explicit comments Merk mentions. What filth has been hidden from us? Stop this nanny state censorship gone mad!!!!
NOW MERK SAYS WE CAN’T SEE FILTH
As I “bat for the other side”, I can’t have offspring, not that I’m sure I would want any anyway. Some people just don’t fancy the idea I suppose which is fair enough.
My partner and I could always foster children though and incur the full wroth of Littlejohn at the same time!
Aljardi – didn’t you know that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve?!?
I’ll get me coat.
Railroad Man & all other Mailwatch users.
Sorry about ramming my sexuality down your throats. P-p-p-pick up a penguin! You couldn’t make it up!
Don’t use words like ramming and throats around Littlejohn, you’ll only make him horny.
@ Steven:
“I don’t have kids and won’t for a long time (I’m 28)”
Fair enough
“but I think anyone who puts career in front of family is missing out on a huge amount of life. ”
Oh, ‘cos you’re an expert on having a family are you? Hang on, I’ll just read the first bit of the quote again… and it appears that no, you have no experience of what you are talking about.
“but to choose not to bring up a child, even adopting one, is a pretty self orientated and therefore shallow (in my opinion) way to live.”
To paraphrase Moggie, fuck you!! Opinions (masquerading as fact) like yours are more for the DM forum than this site.
Stevie H – How is my comment ‘opinion masquerading as fact’ when in the very but you quoted it said IN MY OPINION. It was never stated as fact, and also you don’t need to have had a family to understand raising a family is a huge part of life, going millions of years down the evolutionary record. If you think raising a family is trivial, I’d say you had no idea what you’re talking about.
And as for the ‘fuck you’, I’d argue straw man attacks and suppression of debate are more at home on the DM site than here, maybe you should check it out.
…and by life, I mean ‘part of the human experience’. You can argue the personal merits of doing so or not, but it’s silly to argue it isn’t a huge part of what makes us human and to not experience it is missing out on something quite major.
Whether that’s a good or a bad thing is a different debate, but to claim as Stevie H does that such an opinion is debatable is frankly stupid. Reproduction and child rearing is a massive part of our psyche and biology and to reject it is fair enough, but to deny it is moronic.
I’m not even going to read the above, I got about a third of the way in.
I seem to remember a Sun headline a few years back about Eastern europeans queuing up outside the British Embassy for a work permit. The photograph was completely misused, as the Embassy had been shut in the morning, and these were mostly ppl getting tourist visas waiting for the building to open.
Well I’ve got children, grandchildren and a caravan
I just give thanks daily that there are such a variety of people, men and women, young and old, Left and Right, here on this website that detest the Daily Mail with its evil propaganda, who are prepared to do some research and write about it. Thank you one and all whether you are AC, DC or whatever. Your Country Needs You.
Christ (or whatever deity you believe in, if any) talk about going off topic.
Having read the comments here I feel a) depressed and b) angry. Depressed because I worked too hard that I forgot to settle down, now I am getting to my mid forties I am getting scared. Angry because I refused to take the few opps that I had.
Also there seems to be a lot of vitriol as to who has the better life style. Surely we, as intelligent socially aware people can appreciate each others lifestyle choices, however much they may jar against what we hold dear.
I’m feeling a sense of mischievous glee right now. Normally I’m the one taking stick from other contributors for something I’ve said, but this time it’s Steven who’s getting the flak…and how! Me, I like children and get on very well with my younger relatives but I am totally unsuited to be a father myself. It saddens me sometimes but I’ve gotten used to the solitary life.
And antigherkin…I KNOW what makes Littlejohn horny. I read his novel ‘To Hell in a Handcart’ , loosely based on the Tony Martin case. It’s full of references to oral sex, so much so that Littlejohn is clearly giving himself away. The novel btw is awful and finishes off with a massive copout. Mickey French, the main character, is woken up by the sound of the Romanian gypsy burglar (yes really) running down the hall towards him. So he shoots the gypsy dead in what could reasonably be described as self-defence, in contrast to Tony Martin who shot Fred Barass in the back as Barass, a toe-rag admittedly but only 16, was running away. So Littlejohn shamefully ducked the moral complexity involved in asking how far does self-defence go.
Excuse me everybody for rambling on like this but I am slightly pissed and it isn’t often that I’m not the one getting the boos and catcalls on this site. I guess if I was a family guy I wouldn’t be sitting here boozing away.
@ Steven – as Gary Larson said
“Just plain nuts”
Can I just say that I’ll do what I want with my life. I’m 21, I don’t want kids or to settle down right now and would like to focus on my career. If I want to have kids when I’m older, I’ll do so, if I don’t then I don’t have justify myself. Also, can’t you have a career and kids these days? I’ll do what I want to.
Great,
“Our” pet homunculus has got up to mischief whilst the grown ups were arguing…..
Has anyone noticed how many arguments have developed on here recently?
…is there a troll working for the DM stirring it up? Nothing like a good witch hunt to go with my Mai- I mean, Guardian
*Shifty Eyes*
Nah, I’ve been posting on here for about 28 months if you mean me! This is my first controversy apart from the odd comment about apathetic, greedy teachers that is!
make that 18 months (no edit button!!!)
daveyp, I’m aware of all the sex in To Hell in a Handcart. My partner decided to read it for a greater insight into Littlejohn the man (turns out, he’s a cunt. Who knew?). After he read out various sex scenes to me, I couldn’t stomach wading through the book myself. That Littlejohn is one sick puppy.
I recommend this review by Zoe Williams, save anyone interested the bother of having to read his actual book:
http://www.newstatesman.com/200107230051
Re arguments on Mailwatch, I don’t think that’s surprising. It’s an atypical Daily Mail idea that all those opposed to them or to the left politically must have identical views and opinions, all of which involve hugging trees, wearing open-toed organic sandals and reading the Guardian, but us clever folk know that’s not the case. There are a diverse range of opinions here, leading to debate and argument on occasion. As long as we all recognise the manipulative propaganda of the Daily Mail, I don’t see it as a problem.
What is the maternity benefits story? I cannot find it amid the CANCER! IMMIGRATION! CELEBRITY! CRIME! content on the DM’s front page. And I was forced to skip much of this page because of the kids v. no kids debate here.
Anyway, I am very excited about the prospect of more money to read Mailwatch and breastfeed in public all day long.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1159646/Breastfeeding-son-natural-thing-world–hes-nearly-says-Nell-McAndrew.html
Good front page article on immigration stats btw.
Where was part 1?
Love the picture I remember a similar one a few years ago when Bulgary joined the EU. The queue was literally 10 people long, yet the Mail somehow thought this “proved” immigration was out of control!