Children and their pious defenders
April 29, 2003 ~ 5:20 p.m.
In a recent entry, rumblelizard opined on the subject of children, namely how ill-behaved they are and how she will not be pressured into having any. I say, good for her. Let me state for the record that her opinions normally make my blood boil; I�m sure she�d say the feeling is mutual. However, we do agree like best buddies on this.
I did promise that if I thought up further examples of how the pious in our society act up, I�d provide them. The subject of children is another good example.
The wife and I know several couples that do not have children. We ourselves don�t have children and don�t plan on it. It�s not just that we�re too old to begin a family (there is something obscene about initiating parenthood at the ages of 33 and 38 respectively). That is a factor, but hardly the overriding one. The biggest factor for us in deciding that we don�t want children is the plain and simple fact that we cannot stand them. W.C. Fields said that children should be seen and not heard; I�d like to take it a step further and say that they should not be seen either. Especially given that most of them look like mini-gangsta adults in their tiny hoodies and track bottoms. As for hearing children, it basically runs the gamut from the defeaning (�Waaaaa!�), to the annoying (�But I want it NOW!!!,�), to the disrespectful (�Yo, Pops, gimme some g�s.�)
What�s even worse is that too many so-called parents don�t believe in discipline anymore. You must smile and act like little Johnny or Susie are perfect angels even if they�re running riot or else you risk severely damaging their self-esteem. When I was a kid and I misbehaved, I got whacked. And it soon made me realize to be neither demanding nor disrespectful. It made me an adult who to this day still respects his elders. For today�s kids, the sentiment is elders schmelders.
Back to the subject of the pious, however. Whenever you mention to most folks that you have no desire for children, you are automatically stuck with a derogatory label: DINK. The pious didn�t label it �two salaries, no children� That would have been a harmless TSNC. Nope. They had to come up with DINK, which gives a good indication of how they really view voluntarily childless couples (as opposed to infertile ones).
Then they hem and haw, shake their heads, and beseech answers from you as to why you are so selfish and unthinking and cruel. How can you not love kids? Children are so precious. Children are gifts from God. Children are the future.
The answers to these busy-bodies� questions are as follows:
(1) Because I love animals more and would much rather have pets.
(2) Preciousness is a very relative concept.
(3) One person�s gift is another�s curse.
(4) Just because some couples, including my wife and I, don�t procreate won�t doom the human species to extinction.
Don�t dictate what some couples do and bother them with your sanctimonious garbage. Learn to live and let live. It is absolutely NONE of the pious� goddamn business what some couples do with their time and money. The wife and I prefer to fix up the flat, eat out twice a week and go on trips with our spare cash and free time, instead of rushing around fulfilling the needs of some brat.
Can you handle that?!
Thank you, Rumblelizard, for setting the record straight that some of us are not so enamored of kids and will not be contributing to the world�s already overflowing population numbers.
� M.E.M.
|
[Sign My Guestbook]
[View My Guestbook]
|
Copyright � 2001-2007 by M.E. Manning. All material is written by me, unless explicitly stated otherwise by use of footnotes or bylines. Do not copy or redistribute without my permission.
AMERICA FOR TRUE AMERICANS!