"... who have either chosen not to have children or who have not had the opportunity, ... "
Thank you for helping me put my finger on something that bothers me about this whole 'cat lady' thing. There's an unspoken assumption that whether or not one has children, a spouse, a traditional (or not) family structure, or dozens of other things is a result of conscious choices. Hello? In what universe does that exist? Most people I know (myself included) have many aspects of their lives they certainly did not choose. I find the notion that people's lot in life is solely the result of their fully informed, freely made choices to be disingenuous and a very subtle form of aggression.
I realize this is not the most important point of the article, but I think this underlying flaw of the 'cat lady' argument needs to have a little more light shone on it.
You have completely missed the point about having children. Those of us who have children have a different worldview than those who do not have children. This was true for me in one 16 year childless marriage and one 39 year marriage with children and grandchildren. It’s not whether we choose, or are able, to have children. It’s whether we have or do not have, regardless of choice or ability.
As for the ableist stuff, as a former polio paraplegic, I’m all about being able. Being able is like being rich. While poverty has its Zen-like benefits for some, rich is better. Same with able. So those of us who are disabled strive to become able to the greatest extent possible in order to improve the quality of our lives.
As for children, I believe, based on personal experience, that having one or more enhances our soul. If we do not have a child, we very often feed our soul with other nurturing experiences, either through surrogate parenting or pets.
Tom, respectfully, from one parent to another, I think it's actually you who has missed the point here. This piece is not a critique of parents or anyone who has chosen to become a parent. As a parent, I would wholly agree with your assertion that it enhances the soul. However, this piece references political rhetoric that, particularly in the US, has ramped up in recent weeks, and which makes the rather bold claim that people with children should be entitled to more votes than childless people. It implies that people without children are of lesser societal value, or their political opinions are less valid than those who have parents. That line of rhetoric is deeply troubling for a number of reasons, and I'm fairly certain that you would agree. For many, even most, having children is enriching and leads to personal growth. Some would love to have that experience but can't. Some make the choice not to have that experience. And some have that experience without making the choice, and for many of them it is not as enriching an experience as it is for those of us that enter into that position willingly. There are a number of reasons to have kids or not have kids, but it's the suggestion that those who do have kids are somehow more socially valuable or valid than those who don't which is the issue at hand.
I am finding it difficult to say something nice about the people behind this rhetoric. Especially when so many rights are being removed and threatened.
I guess the nicest thing I can say and assert is the friendly phrase that opinions are like a$$holes. Everyone has one, but we don't have to let that bother us because we have one, too. It's only when they try to make others the same that it becomes a problem. So yes -- vote, vote, vote. :)
"... who have either chosen not to have children or who have not had the opportunity, ... "
Thank you for helping me put my finger on something that bothers me about this whole 'cat lady' thing. There's an unspoken assumption that whether or not one has children, a spouse, a traditional (or not) family structure, or dozens of other things is a result of conscious choices. Hello? In what universe does that exist? Most people I know (myself included) have many aspects of their lives they certainly did not choose. I find the notion that people's lot in life is solely the result of their fully informed, freely made choices to be disingenuous and a very subtle form of aggression.
I realize this is not the most important point of the article, but I think this underlying flaw of the 'cat lady' argument needs to have a little more light shone on it.
You have completely missed the point about having children. Those of us who have children have a different worldview than those who do not have children. This was true for me in one 16 year childless marriage and one 39 year marriage with children and grandchildren. It’s not whether we choose, or are able, to have children. It’s whether we have or do not have, regardless of choice or ability.
As for the ableist stuff, as a former polio paraplegic, I’m all about being able. Being able is like being rich. While poverty has its Zen-like benefits for some, rich is better. Same with able. So those of us who are disabled strive to become able to the greatest extent possible in order to improve the quality of our lives.
As for children, I believe, based on personal experience, that having one or more enhances our soul. If we do not have a child, we very often feed our soul with other nurturing experiences, either through surrogate parenting or pets.
Tom, respectfully, from one parent to another, I think it's actually you who has missed the point here. This piece is not a critique of parents or anyone who has chosen to become a parent. As a parent, I would wholly agree with your assertion that it enhances the soul. However, this piece references political rhetoric that, particularly in the US, has ramped up in recent weeks, and which makes the rather bold claim that people with children should be entitled to more votes than childless people. It implies that people without children are of lesser societal value, or their political opinions are less valid than those who have parents. That line of rhetoric is deeply troubling for a number of reasons, and I'm fairly certain that you would agree. For many, even most, having children is enriching and leads to personal growth. Some would love to have that experience but can't. Some make the choice not to have that experience. And some have that experience without making the choice, and for many of them it is not as enriching an experience as it is for those of us that enter into that position willingly. There are a number of reasons to have kids or not have kids, but it's the suggestion that those who do have kids are somehow more socially valuable or valid than those who don't which is the issue at hand.
Well said. It is a personal choice, and no one else's business.
Thank You
Very well said. Thank you!
Republicans (and conservatives) back in the day were about freedom and choice. Not so much any more.
I am finding it difficult to say something nice about the people behind this rhetoric. Especially when so many rights are being removed and threatened.
I guess the nicest thing I can say and assert is the friendly phrase that opinions are like a$$holes. Everyone has one, but we don't have to let that bother us because we have one, too. It's only when they try to make others the same that it becomes a problem. So yes -- vote, vote, vote. :)