Childfree as I wanna be.

[Rinky vs.4.0]

Why are some people patently incapable of understanding what the term 'childfree' means? And why are people who are NOT childfree so insistant on arguing with people who ARE about what the term means?

Let's get this straight once and for all, right? Childfree means you do not have and do not want a child, ever.

Once more, for the record. You DO NOT HAVE AND DO NOT WANT A CHILD, EVER.

It does not mean 'I don't want kids now but I might one day!' The term for THAT state of affairs is 'childless' or 'undecided'.

It doesn't mean, 'I have a kid, but I wish I didn't.' There is already a perfectly useful term for that in the OED. It's 'parent'.

It doesn't mean, "I had a kid, but it died/I gave it to someone else/I never see it." These people are called birth mothers/fathers.

Basically, it does not mean whatever you want it to whenever you want it to.

This rant has been brought to you by the following exchange on LJ:

Idiot: "I've never understood the vehemence with which certain CF individuals insist that you can't be childfree if you've ever produced offspring."

Me: So I guess you also don't understand why vegetarians insist that people who eat meat shouldn't call themelves vegetarian. or why atheists think people who believe in God shouldn't apply that label to themselves?

Idiot: No, it's like someone saying you can't be vegetarian because you ate meat in the past or atheist because you used to believe in God.

Me: *headdesk* No, it isn't because to claim to be 'childfree' when you have produced a child is in TOTAL CONTRADICTION to the commonly agreed-upon definition of the word!

So once more, so we can all get it into our heads: CHILDFREE MEANS NEVER HAVING OR NEVER WANTING TO HAVE CHILDREN. There's a reason someone bothered to invent the word, and that was to distinguish it from all other non-child having situations and avoid confusion.

Got it? Lovely. Have a nice day.

[Kari]

;l

I get this all the time.

Nosy Coworker: Your wedding photos are lovely!

Me: Thanks. It was a great day.

Nosy Coworker: How long you been married?

Me: A little over a year.

NC: That's great! So. When are we gonna see baby pics on this desk?

Me: Oh, I'm not planning on having any children.

NC: *blink blink* What?

Me: My husband and I are childfree.

NC: What on earth...? I've never even heard of such a thing. What, don't you like kids?

Me: I like kids fine. I'm just choosing not to have any.

NC: But you'll change your mind one day, right?

Me: Well, no. Childfree means you don't ever want kids and won't have any. That's me.

NC: But but....then why did you get married??

Me: *headdesk*

[iciclespark]

^ Yeah. Reminds of this ethicist twat they gave an honourary degree to at a local university who is against gay marriage because she sees the reason for marriage as being procreation. *screams*

[RedHead]

I am childless currently, but I am very pro-childfree for those who want that. So, I DO understand the meaning of the word in terms of "Not having children and never wanting to have them" but about the person who has produced a child, and maybe given them up for adoption because they didn't want it and it was an accident, but then planning to never have or want anymore children....why must that person identify as a birth mother and not childfree. Let's say the girl was 16 when it happened, must she always consider herself someone's birth mother when her current views, practices, and values are consistent with the childfree lifestyle. Aren't biologically producing a child and actually rearing one two completely different things?

[Rinky vs.4.0]

Excuse me, did you read my original post. Do you realise you're doing EXACTLY what I'm complaining about?

Yes, birthing and rearing they are different things, but this is entirely irrelevant. Again, let me refer you to the defintion of childfree, which has been repeated for emphasis several times in my original posts (and now all of you reading this know why!).

Childfree means you do not have and do not want a child, ever.

Once more, for the record. You DO NOT HAVE AND DO NOT WANT A CHILD, EVER.

Her birth-motherdom is a BIOLOGICAL FACT and won't go away just because she wants it to or decides to 'identify' with something she is clearly not.

Why is this so hard?

[Charles:]

So in other words, she's a birth mother, currently childless, but aligns herself with childfree ideas. That's a lot to type. Someone needs to come up with a word for that.

[Pete!]

BiMoC'Less/Free-Wannabe?

[Rinky vs.4.0]

BiMoC'Less/Free-Wannabe?

Childfreewannabe would work for me.

[RedHead]

Excuse me, did you read my original post. Do you realise you're doing EXACTLY what I'm complaining about?

Yes, birthing and rearing they are different things, but this is entirely irrelevant. Again, let me refer you to the defintion of childfree, which has been repeated for emphasis several times in my original posts (and now all of you reading this know why!).



Her birth-motherdom is a BIOLOGICAL FACT and won't go away just because she wants it to or decides to 'identify' with something she is clearly not.

Why is this so hard?

Well, yes, I did read your original post. It's not that I don't UNDERSTAND what you're saying, but I'm trying to create a conversation here. I agree with Charles that that's a lot to type/say in conversation. But the point that I am trying to make is that why is the biological nature of having actually birthed a child so alinged with the attitude. Childfree is an attitude and a lifestyle, right? Having physically given birth to a child is a fact, yes, but can an action be inconsistent with a general opinion and lifestyle?

I know the definition is that you don't HAVE children, but isn't having children (as in rearing them) intrinsically different than solely giving birth to a child. I guess in addition to my example of a 16 year olf who got knocked up and gave her kids up for adoption and never wants any more kids would be a surrogate mom who never wants kids of her own.

Can being pregnant and birthing be consistent with a childfree lifestyle if you never plan to raise the kid, have any others, or have anything to do with kids at all? I mean not all people get pregnant on purpose; it can happen even when you're trying to avoid it.

[Rinky vs.4.0]

I wouldn't say it was, no. It seems most odd to me to claim you 'never want to have children' yet go on the have them, even if you then fob them off on somebody else.

These arguments though are continually stemming from people who are NOT childfree. Can you imagine how much this gets on the tits of people who are? It's like being a heterosexual running around the gay forum continually questioning all the gay rights terminology.

Childfree is not just an airy-fairy idea that's fun to play with. It's a reality for people who ARE actually chidlfree and we don't appreciate people who aren't trying to police our own fucking vocabulary for us, you know?

[Master Shaman]

People just want to identify themselves with trendy labels. It's like those chicks who make out with girls in bars, to show that they are fashionably bi, while the thought of eating hair pie appeals to them about as much as it appeals to me.

[Steve SFM]

So in other words, she's a birth mother, currently childless, but aligns herself with childfree ideas. That's a lot to type. Someone needs to come up with a word for that.

Or, not. Why does everyone need a label?

I realize that you may have been kidding. ;)

But, yeah, Helen's right. "Childfree" seems to me to have a very specific meaning. People can have whatever attitudes they choose to have, but they don't need to infringe on a label that has been constructed for a certain reason - in this case, as a reaction to stupid social pressure to have kids.

Oh, and I personally am a person without children who doesn't intend to have children, but reserves the right to change my mind. What should I be called?

I prefer "Steve". :D

Steve the Sweet Fat Man

[Rinky vs.4.0]

Great. Now I've got some twit - again, a non-CF-er - saying I cannot honestly call myself 'pro-choice' because obviously by my definition CF women must have abortions upon becoming pregnant.

I'd like to reply that I'm not against CF women becoming birth mothers - I'm just against them becoming birth mothers and calling themselves CF. But right now I cannot because LJ is being a fucktard today and won't let me post. So I'll spew here instead.

Do people really feel its so unfair to deny a sodding LABEL to someone? Is telling someone they shouldn't call themselves by a label that BY DEFINITION cannot and does not apply to them the new fascism? Answers on a baby-hating postcard below!

[Steve SFM]

And people wonder why I haven't posted on LiveJournal since last year sometime.

Steve the Sweet Fat Man

[Rinky vs.4.0]

I like LJ in general. I dislike the anti-CF faction on LJ who go out of their way to demonize CF-ers and create excessively stupid strawmen arguments because they simply cannot wrap their tiny brains around the subject or the idea of people ranting in communities created for that precise purpose.

[Fox in Socks]

People just want to identify themselves with trendy labels. It's like those chicks who make out with girls in bars, to show that they are fashionably bi, while the thought of eating hair pie appeals to them about as much as it appeals to me.sorry this post was useless.

edit--my post i mean. i hate fake lesbians though.

[iciclespark]

To drive everyone mad, let's look at this scenario:

Teenager is CF in attitude and stance. Teenager is 15. Teenager's boyfriend is dumb and can't use a condom right. Teenager gets knocked up. Parents refuse to allow an abortion. Teenager fails at home methods of abortion. Teenager pops out kid against will, it is given up immediately. Teenager tries to forget trauma.

Is she no longer CF because she was forced to carry to term?

(This is my evil side causing debate, and also wondering what people think.)

[Rinky vs.4.0]

No, she isn't. She had a child, albeit in an appalling scenario. She's a birthmother.

I have no compunction in saying she's not CF because CF is a fact, not an opinion and it's not insulting, demeaning or depriving someone of a human right to say, 'This label does not apply based on the facts of the situation.' And frankly, considering the scenario you'd think the last thing a person who experienced THAT would be worried about was whether they could call themselves Cf or not.

[Boomer #8]

Well..........................It's debatable.

IMO if you give up your kid for adoption and don't want nor intend to have any more children, you are childfree.

It makes sense, since being childfree, IMO, =no children. And when you give up your kid for adoption, you give up the right of parenting.

[Rinky vs.4.0]

There's no 'relatively'. It's like being 'relatively' pregnant. Either you are or you aren't. Either you had a kid or you didn't. If you did, you aren't childfree. If you think you are, you don't understand the basic defintion of the word.

Again, why is this so hard for people to understand? Did reading comprehension levels sink to a new low while I was away?

[Boomer #8]

Sorry. I edited my post....

...and why are being such a hard ass on this?[post100]

[Rinky vs.4.0]

Because I'm childfree and pissed off with people who aren't trying to redefine the term to suit themselves? Read the orginal post and try to figure it out.

[RedHead]

What if you had a friend who was "childfree" and who you later found out was a birthmom long ago. Would she be not allowed to consider herself childfree anymore?

Why is childfree a factual status and not an attitude? I am not trying to demonize anyone here. I agree with the idea of childfree, athough I am not. I am trying to raise an intellectual debate.

[Rinky vs.4.0]

Yes, I would consider her no longer childfree. Does that make me a bad person? No, I don't think so. Does that make HER a bad person? No, it doesn't. It does not imply judgment, merely facts.

Cf is 'just an attitude'? What attitude is that, then, precisely? Of course CF a fact and not an attitude. Again, READ THE DEFINITION.

[devnull]

i think the resistance to limiting the term to "never had a child, never will" is stemming from people wanting in to a conversation. i'm technically childfree, but i can see having the same exact opinions about children as someone who'd given up an unwanted child at 15. we'd be kindred spirits on that level, and if we wanted to discuss the attitude of not having, not wanting a child, then we'd naturally look to the "childfree and fabulous" forum. so -- they don't want the label just because it's cool, and they don't want to piss anyone off (well, some might), they just don't want to be kicked out of a conversation they feel they have a right to have. not that anyone's doing that, but i think that's where the resistance to limiting the definition comes from.

[Kollins]

And people wonder why I haven't posted on LiveJournal since last year sometime.



Snob!

[RedHead]

I think my resistance comes from the fact that someone who may believe themselves to be childfree, someone who esposes the attitudes and lives the lifestyle of the childfree community can be dismissed from said community because they may have birthed an unwanted child and subsequently given that child up. How is this woman different from a woman who had an unwanted pregnancy that ended in miscarriage and why should they be considered different? Getting pregnant is not always a choice and to be eliminated from a community based on a mistake that you had no intention of ever happening and went out of your way to correct (by giving the child up) seems...I don't know...not right?

I guess I just don't understand why the term childfree is decided on a factual basis and not on attitude and living the lifestlye.

[iciclespark]

^ That was sort of the point I was getting at; the idea of said teenager in my example being ostracized from a community upon revelation of her horrifying childhood experience. The choice to carry the child to term was not optional. I wouldn't hold her any more responsible than, say, someone forced to do something completely against their will in a kidnap/hostage situation. While by biological fact, she is a birthmother, psychologically, she was an egg harvesting machine. She did not have the choice to remain CF, despite her wishes. A vast exception indeed, and it certainly does not create a rule that all teens who pop out a kid and give it up should suddenly be welcomed and re-labeled due to choosing not to have any more children.

With abortion rights being debateable again in some places, I'm afraid of such scenarios happening. I can't imagine how awful it might feel to be told, "You don't belong here" due to something you did not choose. It creates a person who doesn't belong anywhere: she doesn't belong with women who want children, because she doesn't; she doesn't belong with sad birthmothers wondering about their lost crotchdroppings - she doesn't care; she doesn't belong amongst childfree people because they shriek about her spawning.

I certainly can read, and fully understand the definition of childfree. It's not so much the label here, but the ability to commune with like-minded people. As we cling to our label, do we become irrational to the point of drawing a line in the sandbox and declaring that certain people cannot come play with our toys because they are 'different'? Do we become so obsessed with the label that we are no better than those who are 'childfree in my mind', clutching onto a label to be defined, to be 'in', to be part of a group?

On that note, this is too early in the morning to be waxing so philosophical. Fucking hell. I miss sleep.

[Paul]

I never realised the "Child FreeTM" label was so prestigious.

[Nancy]

I don't think Helen's trying to be a thread nazi. I think people are infusing the term childfree with their own emotional interpretations. And it can get very irritating when someone won't concede that facts are facts. If Helen were kidnapped by aliens and forced to have a child, she would no longer be childfree. It doesn't matter what her attitude is.

The question of whether non-childfree people are excluded from the discussion is another one entirely. Of course they are. That doesn't mean nobody likes them!

[iciclespark]

But do we then exclude Helen from this forum, stating, "OMGWTF you SPAWNED bitch! Get lost!", or do we still welcome her, recognizing her circumstances were horribly unfortunate? Are we uber-picky elitist, or are we a bit more open and say, "Hey, Helen's been violated here, that wasn't her fault, and she may now be a birthmother by definition, but she's still awesome and sproglet-loathing like us, so she can hang"? Where is the balance between being overly inclusive and stretching definitions, to being uber-snobs? What's next - if you've ever been pregnant, you're not welcome? i'm fearing exclusion created by labels; I'm not disputing the accuracy of the label itself. bTW, this so does NOT apply to parents who want to join CF comms, because they irk the fuck out of me. 'You guys are so cool, and even though I raise 3 kids, I'm like, CF inside, and I TOTALLY support you.' Um fuck off. Thanks. Nor does this apply to people who want kids later on.)


edit -sorry, Tiffany, I accidentally edited your post instead of quoting it. I hope I've restored it all properly.

[Nancy]

But do we then exclude Helen from this forum, stating, "OMGWTF you SPAWNED bitch! Get lost!", or do we still welcome her, recognizing her circumstances were horribly unfortunate? Are we uber-picky elitist, or are we a bit more open and say, "Hey, Helen's been violated here, that wasn't her fault, and she may now be a birthmother by definition, but she's still awesome and sproglet-loathing like us, so she can hang"? Where is the balance between being overly inclusive and stretching definitions, to being uber-snobs? What's next - if you've ever been pregnant, you're not welcome?
I'm fearing exclusion created by labels; I'm not disputing the accuracy of the label itself.

I understand your concerns, Tiff. The thing is, if a definition is stretched too far, it ceases to have any meaning. I'm honestly not trying to be glib: it just seems to me from what I've seen that the childfree community is deliberately and unapologetically exclusionist. That may seem snobbish or unfair to some but I think the insistence on this comes from many, many instances of being misunderstood and/or condescended to by "breeders."

(BTW, this so does NOT apply to parents who want to join CF comms, because they irk the fuck out of me. 'You guys are so cool, and even though I raise 3 kids, I'm like, CF inside, and I TOTALLY support you.' Um fuck off. Thanks. Nor does this apply to people who want kids later on.)

^ This is just what I mean.

[Fox in Socks]

i thought@ had determined this subforum wasnt exclusionist ;)

But I have a question, as childfree is of a similar mindset, if youre childfree and the condom breaks or whatever and you end up knocked up is it more likely you would abort?..i mean you technically would no longer be childfree as you got pregnant.....im just curious. and confused!

[Rinky vs.4.0]

And 'ostracised' from WHAT community, anyway? It's not like there an Official Childfree Treehouse to be banned from. It's not like if you're not CF you're going to get a big 'BREEDER' sign branded on your forehead and be spat at it the street. And it's the minority of online CF hangouts that don't allow anyone not absolutely CF to join in - and those only do so because they've learned from those that do that allowing one in means everyone wants in and soon you're overrun with parents and pro-lifers (see: the joke that the original childfree LJ community has become in that regard - there seem to be more non-Cf than CF there these days and it's become just another place to get bingoed) bingoing people left, right and centre. So again, what are people losing out on when I say that if they had a child, they're not childfree? If it's just access to a few totally exclusionist forums, well, I hardly consider that a problem.

[Charles:]

I'm fearing exclusion created by labels; I'm not disputing the accuracy of the label itself.

(BTW, this so does NOT apply to parents who want to join CF comms, because they irk the fuck out of me. 'You guys are so cool, and even though I raise 3 kids, I'm like, CF inside, and I TOTALLY support you.' Um fuck off. Thanks. Nor does this apply to people who want kids later on.)

:r

So wait...you don't want to be exclusionist??
If you're going to argue, that in your example, Helen should be included, then how can you say people who have kids (who weren't necessarily planned, but instead of being a deadbeat, decide to be actively involved) can't participate if they can identify with most of the childfree ideas.
I can clearly understand what Helen is saying and I've never called myself CF, but if I didn't have Tristan, I would.
I mean, fuck...I'm with Steve. Why do we even need to worry about labels so much. If you indentify with a childfree lifestyle, you identify with a childfree lifestyle. It doesn't mean you ARE childfree, nor do I think it means you can't intelligently participate in childfree discussions. Of course..what do I know...I have a kid.

[Pete!]

This forum is nowhere near as exclusionist as OMA.

[Steve SFM]

This forum is nowhere near as exclusionist as OMA.

Well, you've worked hard over the years to make it that exclusionist. Give Helen time.

:D

Seriously, I guess that by Helen's definition - which I take her word for is the accepted one - I'm not truly "childfree", because I refuse to say never. That's fine. I'll live. And I don't see myself being excluded from this forum because of it.

Steve the Sweet Fat Man

[ebby]

Look, people are getting bogged down in words and labels.

Childfree means one thing. That the person does not have, nor plans to have, nor wants to have any offspring at all.

For those other cases - even the unplanned, unwanted pregnancy brought to term and given up for adoption. They are no longer childfree. It's not that they are thus completely excluded from all childfree debate, however the label "childfree" no longer applies to them as they would then be childless by choice but not by biology.

Do correct me if I'm wrong here by the way, as I'm only a childless gay man who really isn't decided on his childfree status as yet :)

[Master Shaman]

Yeah, but then again you don't go around shouting what a big dyke you are. Sure, it's fine for anyone to have CF views, but to try to alter the meaning of a word so that it includes... you, well, it's not.

As for me, I feel the same as ebby, and I believe that many, if not most gay males feel this way.

[iciclespark]

:r

So wait...you don't want to be exclusionist??
If you're going to argue, that in your example, Helen should be included, then how can you say people who have kids (who weren't necessarily planned, but instead of being a deadbeat, decide to be actively involved) can't participate if they can identify with most of the childfree ideas.
I can clearly understand what Helen is saying and I've never called myself CF, but if I didn't have Tristan, I would.
I mean, fuck...I'm with Steve. Why do we even need to worry about labels so much. If you indentify with a childfree lifestyle, you identify with a childfree lifestyle. It doesn't mean you ARE childfree, nor do I think it means you can't intelligently participate in childfree discussions. Of course..what do I know...I have a kid.

The example I've brought up is someone who did not have any parenting role in the child given up; you have chosen to become a parent and love your son and do parental things like coach his sports teams. That's a HUGE fucking difference from someone who shot a kid out in her teens and sent it packing, and never wants another child crossing her labia ever again. While the latter is someone who is not childfree, I am certain that person has views a lot more similar to mine and faces certain difficulties in, say, access to sterilization than a woman who already has children. It is that sort of 'being in the same boat' I look for most in a CF comm. You have a child. You won't have doctors tell you to fuck off if you suggest sterilization in NEARLY the same proportion as I would (I already brought it up with a doctor and got the evil eye, so I'm getting an IUD first).

Thus, in say the childfree LJ comm (distinguished from cf_hardcore), I would be content if our hypothetical forced to deliver teen were a member, even if she can't call herself childfree. (cf_hardcore is exactly what it advertises: fit the strict definition, or else. I wouldn't want it any other way.) Parents in there piss me off. I'm sorry. As Helen mentioned, the reason may be the bitterness over recent events where the freaking mods banned a CF'er for defending herself against bingo statements and parents admonishing a CF person.

Does this mean the same should go here? Not necessarily. That's a mod call. Does it mean it is impossible for a parent to provide me with any useful advice? Of course not - I asked Ellen for IUD/BC advice. She's a woman, as well as a parent.

As for identifying, on the basis of dictionary.com, that's something I would be inclined to doubt as 100% accurate. Moving beyond the fact you often counter everything said by CF people on certain issues (the 'pre-pregnant' statement), the definitions applicable here would be:

a) to consider as united or associated with

Meh. You can't truly, as a parent, be associated with people committed to not having children ever.

b) To associate or affiliate (oneself) closely with a person or group (usage note: In the sense “to associate or affiliate (oneself) closely with a person or group,” identify suggests a psychological empathy with the feelings or experiences of another person, as in Most young readers of The Catcher in the Rye will readily identify (or identify themselves) with Holden Caulfield.)


You cannot be affiliated with a group for which you do not meet the criteria. You cannot truly know how it feels to be denied vacation, treated as a leper, or denied choice in reproductive health on the basis of the fact you refuse to procreate. You have procreated, and you take a role in that child's life. Sympathy for a group? Yes. Agreement with its frustrations at certain things? Sure. But knowing those experiences or feelings? Not so much.

Can you sympathize with CF people and have similar views of poorly-behaved kids? Yes.


As for Helen and Nancy, I'm probably explaining myself piss poorly due to being sick and not sleeping well all week, but lemme try again:


Definition of childfree is exactly as Helen says. I agree. It should not be changed. It cannot be stretched.
When it comes to communities, with the exception of the 'hardcore' ones, the only people who do not fit the definition but who could possibly fathom the problems faced by CF people are people like my imaginary teen, and they're the only people I'd comprehend wanting to join. In other words, they are experiencing what I experience, and I get the relationship and desire to be in such a community, even if by definition, they are not CF. Kinda like ebby says. I like ebby.
I do not understand why a parent would want to hang out in a CF community. I just don't. The value systems and our views of procreation are completely opposite. If they are respectful and not bingoing me, I am content to let them stay, but I don't get what the appeal is for them.
I hope that all communities do not become uber-strict exclusionary, for fear of people not fitting any label at all being left with nowhere to go for advice that eg a CFer may be able to provide due to similar views/problems. I like having some of each.
My brain hurts now. I need some serious vitamin C and to be tucked in to bed tonight to watch a fun DVD like Mean Girls. [post50]

[Froglover]

Firstly, I completely understand what the term 'childfree' means. I realise there is a commonly agreed-upon definition of the word. I am definitely childfree.


However, maybe some people believe it can also mean 'I don't want kids now but I might one day' because they are taking the word at face value.


For instance, a person may currently be disease-free or a computer may currently be virus-free, but in the future both may well become infected.


Some people may believe that, technically, they are as 'childfree' as they are 'childless' or 'undecided'. Maybe that is why people argue that they are just as childfree as the rest of us. I am not saying they are right, but this may explain some of the confusion. Just a thought.

[iciclespark]

Helen, I totally get why you are pissed off about redefining of these labels. But then that's exactly why I hate labels. The boxes are too small sometimes. I fit the definition completely... do not have children, do not ever want them. However, to me CF is as much about the attitude as it is about the actual facts of that situation. I don't know that I was born CF - that's not a biological fact. It's just as much about the fact that it's my choice to define my own life, and no one else's.

Many people, me included, do not see parenthood only as biological fact. There are some people who have family histories that cause them to identify as CF, and those people may or may not acknowledge biological ties as being parental in nature at all. I do think that has a place in the CF community and its attitudes.

I think there are many people who may or may not be birthparents who are childfree in attitude. I have no problem with those people saying that they have CF views or are CF-sympathetic. This is how I come to terms with those who don't qualify in the full meaning of the word. I consider that a lot like being an LGBT-sympathizer, and I understand why some get very upset with the quasi-bisexuals and pseudo-lesbians. I'm straight, but I identify with LGBT concerns in some respects. Biological fact makes me straight, attitude makes me sympathetic.

I might as well delete all my posts. This was what my brain has been aiming at.

[Froglover]

To the person who gave me an unsigned red dot.


Please do explain exactly why my post deserves a red dot and a comment like that?


I did not say I agreed with those people or that they are right. I was merely offering a possible explanation for some of the confusion.


Unbelievable.

[ebby]

Froglover - I didn't give you the red dot, and as I don't know what was said therein I can only speculate that perhaps you didn't express your point very clearly in your post above.

Indeed, were I to take the term "Froglover" at face value I might ascertain that you are a lover of frogs from a rather different perspective than perhaps you might intend it to mean. However, it is the meaning behind the term that should be important, not any possible interpretation which involves frogs in your womanly parts.

[Nancy]

Have a green one, Froglover. :)!

I love ebby too. ;n

I think there are many people who may or may not be birthparents who are childfree in attitude. I have no problem with those people saying that they have CF views or are CF-sympathetic. This is how I come to terms with those who don't qualify in the full meaning of the word. I consider that a lot like being an LGBT-sympathizer, and I understand why some get very upset with the quasi-bisexuals and pseudo-lesbians. I'm straight, but I identify with LGBT concerns in some respects. Biological fact makes me straight, attitude makes me sympathetic.

Nicely put. For the record, my earlier posts were an effort to define the word childfree as analytically as possible, not to sympathize with excluding people.

[beauty of speed]

To the person who gave me an unsigned red dot.


Please do explain exactly why my post deserves a red dot and a comment like that?


I did not say I agreed with those people or that they are right. I was merely offering a possible explanation for some of the confusion.


Unbelievable.

Your logic didn't really make sense though. Regardless of what your stance is on being childfree, comparing it to being infected with a disease is faulty. The identity of or choice to be childfree is not the same as becoming diseased/infected, which is largely involuntary.

It's also a pretty negative connotation - being diseased vs. being childfree. A bit more sensitivity would've lead you to pick a better/more logical comparison.

For the record, I did not red dot. Ta!

[Fox in Socks]

you need to go premium frog lover.

[iciclespark]

Your dot was signed and perfectly explains why, given the set-up of every childfree comm I've ever been to, your post makes absofuckinglutely little sense. And, as Ben pointed out, it's a really negative comparison as well.

For example, this forum, in this thread (http://www.atforumz.com/showthread.php?t=286210):


What does 'childfree' mean?

Childfree means you do not have children, either biological or adopted, AND do not wish to have any in the future for a variety of reasons. If you do not have children now and wish to have them in the future, you are not childfree, you are childless.

Who are the childfree?

Any individual who does not have, and wishes never to have children.

How is this something that can be mistaken? Seems pretty clear to me. Thus, your post hurts my flu-addled brain, and being lazy, I use dots over PMs. You'll live. At some point I gave you green in the green dot thread. It evens out.

[Froglover]

Your logic didn't really make sense though. Regardless of what your stance is on being childfree, comparing it to being infected with a disease is faulty. The identity of or choice to be childfree is not the same as becoming diseased/infected, which is largely involuntary.

It's also a pretty negative connotation - being diseased vs. being childfree. A bit more sensitivity would've lead you to pick a better/more logical comparison.

For the record, I did not red dot. Ta!

You are missing my point. I was certainly not comparing disease with being childfree. The voluntary/involuntary point is totally irrelevant. I was solely referring to some people taking a word (any word) at face value. Disease-free and virus-free were the first examples that popped into my head.


I was trying to illustrate the fact that something/someone can currently be 'free', but that may well change in the future (regardless of whether it's voluntary or not). Some people may believe childfree to technically mean the same thing as childless or undecided, thus confusion on their part ensues.

[Froglover]

Your dot was signed and perfectly explains why, given the set-up of every childfree comm I've ever been to, your post makes absofuckinglutely little sense. And, as Ben pointed out, it's a really negative comparison as well.

See my reply to Ben.

Your message had the word 'yeesh' at the end of it. I have never heard that word before and have no idea what it means. I thought it might mean 'sheesh' or something! If that is your name, then I stand corrected. I was expecting to see 'iciclespark' or another name that I recognise. :)

[Froglover]

you need to go premium frog lover.

I am well aware that there is probably a Froglover-bashing thread in the Money Pit in which various people are taking great delight in ripping me to shreds and dissecting/criticizing every little thing I say or do.


I realise my grammar is not perfect. I never claimed to have perfect grammar. Spelling is my forte. :) I realise I may not post in a style that some people expect a person around here to post in. I don't know how one is 'supposed' to post. To repeat myself: my intentions here have always been good.


Does a Froglover-bashing thread worry me? Not at all. If it worried me I would no longer be posting here on atforumz. I post here because I like many of the people here. :D Looking back over all my past posts and threads, I have done nothing 'wrong', nothing to warrant such a thread being created about me.


I have defended and explained myself in many different posts. Some people choose not to believe me and seem to be highly suspicious of me. Some people accuse me of all manner of things. I am passive-aggressive, I have ulterior motives, I am a bitch, I am stupid, I am a whiny complainer, I want drama/attention, I am subversive, I am insane, I am mean, I am judgmental, I am not genuine, blah blah blah.


Some people have made their minds up about me and that is that. I have learned that defending myself (or something I said) to some people does absolutely zilch. A complete waste of time.


If bashing and hating Froglover satisfies and amuses some people, then go for it. Say whatever you want. :) As I have said before, all of those assessments of me are wrong. Entirely untrue. Carry on. I am sure you will. You have more material now. ;)

[Kollins]

Froglover, sheesh (or yeesh)! Denali suggested premium for you because then you can see who has sent you a dot, whether or not they sign it. You need never endure the mystery of an unsigned dot, then! TMP has nothing to do with it. (Although TMP can be a real blast sometimes)

[Fox in Socks]

uhhhhhmmmm. i meant you should go premium so you can see who dots you as it seems to worry you so much. You know, I never really noticed you much, only for the jumproping cats, but youve been picked up on the radar. and you know, you ARE a bit passive aggressive. Whats up with the martyr hat? If everyone is so bleeding awful, why do you stay? You like incessantly bash the people here, and then cry you feel victimized. I'm starting to understand the frustration with you.

eta-or what troll C said. *bes slow*

[Steve SFM]

If bashing and hating Froglover satisfies and amuses some people, then go for it. Say whatever you want. :) As I have said before, all of those assessments of me are wrong. Entirely untrue.

Actually, being that they're opinions, they're neither true nor untrue.

Steve the Sweet Fat Man

[Froglover]

uhhhhhmmmm. i meant you should go premium so you can see who dots you as it seems to worry you so much. You know, I never really noticed you much, only for the jumproping cats, but youve been picked up on the radar. and you know, you ARE a bit passive aggressive. Whats up with the martyr hat? If everyone is so bleeding awful, why do you stay? You like incessantly bash the people here, and then cry you feel victimized. I'm starting to understand the frustration with you.

eta-or what troll C said. *bes slow*

I apologize, denali. I can now see the names of the people who dot me. :) I can also read the posts about me in the Money Pit.


It doesn't worry me if someone omits their name, but I find it a bit cowardly when people don't sign their red dots. That was my point, plus I was wondering why my post deserved a red dot. I didn't understand the 'yeesh' word that iciclespark used.


I am not a martyr. I've never been a martyr in my life. Other people have no hesitation in saying what they feel about me. Sometimes I say what I feel. It's discussion.


I have never said everyone is awful and I don't incessantly bash them. I have always said 'some people' because that is exactly who I am referring to. I have never made blanket statements about people in general here on atforumz. I like and enjoy many people. 'Some people' is the key term here.

[SMMY]

I apologize, denali. I can now see the names of the people who dot me. :) I can also read the posts about me in the Money Pit.


It doesn't worry me if someone omits their name, but I find it a bit cowardly when people don't sign their red dots. That was my point, plus I was wondering why my post deserved a red dot. I didn't understand the 'yeesh' word that iciclespark used.


I am not a martyr. I've never been a martyr in my life. Other people have no hesitation in saying what they feel about me. Sometimes I say what I feel. It's discussion.


I have never said everyone is awful and I don't incessantly bash them. I have always said 'some people' because that is exactly who I am referring to. I have never made blanket statements about people in general here on atforumz. I like and enjoy many people. 'Some people' is the key term here.

Now that you've gone premium, take it to the Money Pit, Biotchhhhhhhh!

[Steve SFM]

^ Yes, being that this thread was actually INTERESTING until FL started in with her passionate defenses of her honor.

Steve the Sweet Fat Man

[Froglover]

For the record, I like Denali. I was not referring to her personally.

[Master Shaman]

For fuck's sake, stop being so whiny and shrieky. Call us cunts and assholes already or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[jeth]

Yes, please. Let's stop sullying up this thread with the passive-aggressive self-defense posts.

Now, back on subject:

Childfree, by definition, is someone who does not have and does not want a child. If they had a child, even if it was involuntary, their definition would change.

Just because you do not fit the definition of childfree does not mean you cannot post in this childfree forum, or participate in the various threads we have going on in here. Even a parent can probably identify with some of the frustrations we gripe about in here. Hell, I know one parent who was helping me set up a rating and points system for running over stupid, unattended children in bicycles in one of the neighborhood children threads. I think everyone, childfree, childless, birth parent, active parent, etc. can have a valid contribution to this forum so long as they remember the one big rule - do not bingo anyone. Just don't.

[SMMY]

For the record, I like Denali. I was not referring to her personally.

well then, you'll understand that we may or may not have been referring to you or someone like you. I mean we can see how an individual may or may not like certain other individuals but still need to respond or not respond to their posts. And always retain or not retain plausible deniability at all costs or not at all. I hope did or did not offend you or someone like you in any way but if I did or did not, I'm sorry or I'm not as I haven't commited to that position yet.

[Master Shaman]

I think everyone, childfree, childless, birth parent, active parent, etc. can have a valid contribution to this forum so long as they remember the one big rule - do not bingo anyone. Just don't.

Because it needs to be repeated.

[jeth]

And in such giant letters!

[nirak]

NC: But but....then why did you get married??



My answer to this is always "because I wanted health insurance"

That usually leaves them with a confused look on their face.

[ebby]

My answer to this is always "because I wanted health insurance"

That usually leaves them with a confused look on their face.


Tax benefits. Another good one :)

[iciclespark]

See my reply to Ben.

Your message had the word 'yeesh' at the end of it. I have never heard that word before and have no idea what it means. I thought it might mean 'sheesh' or something! If that is your name, then I stand corrected. I was expecting to see 'iciclespark' or another name that I recognise. :)

If you look at the dot, the end should read is, standing for iciclespark, since I am lazy as fuck to type it and figure if I am posting within the red to which your dotted post lies, it should be easy to guess. If my sick brain missed the cue, I apologize. I do, however, try very hard to sign them all as such, unless giving dots to premium members, since I know they will see who gave the dot anyway.

Yeesh, honey, is an exclamation that often means something akin to "Goddamn, why are you so slow?" or "Holy shit, why is this so hard to follow?" or "My brain fucking hurts morenow."

The fact you immediately stormed in here to cry about a red dot is but one example of why people are irked by you.

That said, I am interested in this rating system that Jess speaks of...

[jeth]

I think we settled on bonus points for kids on Big Wheels because they are old-skool. :p

[Fox in Socks]

My answer to this is always "because I wanted health insurance"

That usually leaves them with a confused look on their face.ive said this a few times. i know the look you speak of. but honestly. that health insurance benefit rocks.

[iciclespark]

I think we settled on bonus points for kids on Big Wheels because they are old-skool. :p

YESSSS!!! I miss my Smurfs Big Wheel! It was awesome! Those were the days when toys were COOL. I'm still bitter that no one ever bought me Hungry Hungry Hippos, which is why I died laughing at the part in Donnie Darko where he says the same thing.

[jeth]

I wanted Hungry Hungry Hippos too! But then I played it at someone else's house and discovered it was totally overrated.

The only thing I ever wanted and never got was a hoverboard. Because, you know, they don't exist.

Hmpf!

[iciclespark]

I used to make my cousins play Hungry Hungry Hippos non-stop and they never understood why I liked it so much. I never understood why they wouldn't just give it to me if they hated it so much.

I seriously think I ought to buy Hungry Hungry Hippos NOW. And Fashion Plates. I had a set when I was young and in a fit of "I'm tired of you leaving your toys everywhere!!!!!!" my mom grew into Demon Tori and threw my Fashion Plates in the garbage. :a

[Rinky vs.4.0]

My answer to this is always "because I wanted health insurance"


I'd be inclined to say, "PRESENTS," with an absolutely deadpan expression.

[nirak]

I'd be inclined to say, "PRESENTS," with an absolutely deadpan expression.

Heh- I've used this one a few times, too.

(The presents were pretty nice!)

[Charles:]

Does this mean the same should go here? Not necessarily. That's a mod call. Does it mean it is impossible for a parent to provide me with any useful advice? Of course not - I asked Ellen for IUD/BC advice. She's a woman, as well as a parent.

As for identifying, on the basis of dictionary.com, that's something I would be inclined to doubt as 100% accurate. Moving beyond the fact you often counter everything said by CF people on certain issues (the 'pre-pregnant' statement), the definitions applicable here would be:

a) to consider as united or associated with

Meh. You can't truly, as a parent, be associated with people committed to not having children ever.

b) To associate or affiliate (oneself) closely with a person or group (usage note: In the sense “to associate or affiliate (oneself) closely with a person or group,” identify suggests a psychological empathy with the feelings or experiences of another person, as in Most young readers of The Catcher in the Rye will readily identify (or identify themselves) with Holden Caulfield.)


You cannot be affiliated with a group for which you do not meet the criteria. You cannot truly know how it feels to be denied vacation, treated as a leper, or denied choice in reproductive health on the basis of the fact you refuse to procreate. You have procreated, and you take a role in that child's life. Sympathy for a group? Yes. Agreement with its frustrations at certain things? Sure. But knowing those experiences or feelings? Not so much.

Can you sympathize with CF people and have similar views of poorly-behaved kids? Yes.



Thanks for the lesson on semantics. However, prior to me having a child I didn't want them, nor planned on having any, so technically, I was childfree at one point, thus meeting the criteria.. I mean..if we're arguing semantics. So I do think I can indentify slightly.

[RedHead]

Sure. But I would then argue that someone who popped out a kid they never wanted, sent it packing, and still holds very childfree views, is childfree. That person had biological offspring, but they're not a parent, and if they want nothing to do with the child in 18 years, they still won't be a parent. I consider adoption really to be an alternative to abortion, and someone who had an abortion or miscarriage, but still held CF views would, in my mind, be CF. That is just me though, and I'm fine with just calling them sympathetic, and leaving the whole biological offspring out of the deal.



This is basically what I was trying to say. Why do some CF'ers not see this person as being childfree as well?

If adoption is an alternative to abortion, then would CF women who accidentally got pregnant and aborted not be considered CF anymore, but rather be a CF-sympathizer?

And to whoever said that a non-CF person can't relate or identify because they were inherently part of a different group etc... Do you really think that a doctor would be more willing to sterilize a 25 year old woman who has had a child? Wouldn't the excuse for not doing the procedure become.... "but you might want more" ?

[Autumn]

If we wanted to get really technical, the word "free" doesn't mean "never had" or "doesn't want". It means: Not controlled by obligation or the will of another

So, technically, a woman who has had a baby, or been pregnant, but is not longer an active parent should be able to label themselves childfree. Because, technically, they are free of child. Having a child doesn't automatically make you a parent - it does make you a sperm donor/baby suitcase. The parenting part comes after the baby is born. So, in theory (and in reality, sadly) a man or woman can choose, AFTER BIRTH, to not be a parent. To be free.

All that being said, I understand the label and understand the general agreement is that if you have kids, regardless of circumstances, you are not child free. Biologically, you are a parent, and that's that. But I think we should allow people to have their labels, whatever label makes them feel best, and try not to take offense when people don't have the same grasp of the concept as you.

*waits*

[Boomer #8]

^^Yes. I agree.

[jeth]

And to whoever said that a non-CF person can't relate or identify because they were inherently part of a different group etc... Do you really think that a doctor would be more willing to sterilize a 25 year old woman who has had a child? Wouldn't the excuse for not doing the procedure become.... "but you might want more" ?

I'm sure that barrier question would come up, but if the woman put her foot down about it there's not much the doctor could do to prevent her from having it done.

I knew a girl who got pregnant and had a baby at 19. She asked to be sterilized and was told that the rules of that particular hospital were that you either had to be 24 with at least one child to pursue sterilization, or 30 with no children. So a 25 year old with a kid would have a much easier time getting it done than a 25 year old without a kid.

[iciclespark]

I'm sure that barrier question would come up, but if the woman put her foot down about it there's not much the doctor could do to prevent her from having it done.

I knew a girl who got pregnant and had a baby at 19. She asked to be sterilized and was told that the rules of that particular hospital were that you either had to be 24 with at least one child to pursue sterilization, or 30 with no children. So a 25 year old with a kid would have a much easier time getting it done than a 25 year old without a kid.

Same deal around here, as far as I can tell. Hence one of the reasons I didn't bother trying to get sterilized yet. In some places in Canada, they won't give you an IUD if you've never had kids, even if you accept all the risks (higher expulsion, uterine perforation). I'm lucky that thus far, I've had no hassles in the process. We'll find out for sure Thursday.

[Charles:]

So, does the same treatment go for males too? I've never asked about vasectomies, but are they as discouraged as tubals?

[Kari]

So, does the same treatment go for males too? I've never asked about vasectomies, but are they as discouraged as tubals?

Oh, good lord no. Men can get snipped pretty much anywhere without an argument. It's a much simpler procedure than a tubal anyway. They may raise an eyebrow if, say, a 21 year old guy got one, but they wouldn't refuse it outright. I know guys in their 20's who were unmarried and childless and got vasectomies.

*wishes hubs would get one*

[RedHead]

I'm sure that barrier question would come up, but if the woman put her foot down about it there's not much the doctor could do to prevent her from having it done.

I knew a girl who got pregnant and had a baby at 19. She asked to be sterilized and was told that the rules of that particular hospital were that you either had to be 24 with at least one child to pursue sterilization, or 30 with no children. So a 25 year old with a kid would have a much easier time getting it done than a 25 year old without a kid.

I really sympathize with the childfree who can't get sterilized! I think it's completely unfair to limit a voluntary surgical procedure because a woman *might* change her mind. I mean, come on...why don't the doctors just have the woman sign a release form/waiver or even have a psychiatric evaluation if they feel so strongly about it and then do the procedure? It seems like it's an easy buck for them. I suppose this all goes back to the pre-pregnant discussion and it all just makes me sick.

[jeth]

^ It's not just the issue of voluntarily sterilization either. There are doctors who will give less effective treatment options, or bar patients from pursing treatment options that will end their suffering for good, in the name of preserving fertility despite the patient's protests that they absolutely, positively don't want kids and that they are a-okay with having it all yanked out in the name of better health.

Unless you manage to make it to 30 without kids, that is. Then maybe they'll consider ensuring that your long-term health comes first.

[iciclespark]

^^
I have never been denied better treatment, but a doctor seriously tried to warn me off a test due to fertility. I was in emerg and they wanted to check me for blood clots in my legs and lungs. So doctor offers to do a leg ultrasound, or a CT scan. He tells me the ultrasound, if it comes up positive, will result in a CT scan to get more info anyway. Why does he offer the ultrasound first?

Because the CT scan is significantly more radiation which can be bad for fertility, as he tells me.

I demand the CT scan and tell him to fry my uterus for all I care. I'm thinking, "If there's really a blood clot in my leg right now, or my lung even, I could DIE. I won't be spawning if I'm dead, for fuck's sake."

(Thankfully, no blood clots. But damn! Just do the better test already!!!!)

[Master Shaman]

It's standard procedure to do the ultrasound.

[iciclespark]

Then why offer the CT scan? See, he offered them as equal choices but then went all "fertility blah blah"

There was also the factor I am utterly terrified of hospitals, so after 6 hours, he tells me I can either do CT scan now, wait for results, go from there, OR go home taking blood thinners, come back tomorrow, do ultrasound, wait for results, if positive do CT, wait.... Um no. Get me the fuck outta dodge, bitch.

[Master Shaman]

The ultrasound is pretty much the first step, usually.