"Your time is limited so don't waste it living someone else's life.
Don't be trapped by Dogma which is living with the results of other people's thinking.
Don't let the noise of other's opinions drown out your inner voice.
And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition, they somehow already know what you truly want to become."
- Steve Jobs

Saturday, June 19, 2010

The Shame of Not Wanting Children - The Social Stigma of Leading a Ward-Free Life by Carolyn Ray

An excellent article by Carolyn!
===============================
Priceless quote (8/8/2000) from a reader's letter: "My husband and I (both child free, 15 year marriage) have likened staying child free to running down a hall with people throwing chairs in your way, trying to trip you up. The journey requires a definite thoughtful resilience in the face of overwhelming disapproval from family, friends and religious organizations."
--Jennifer Enright-Ford
You do have a choice. Have you ever thought about it? Do you feel guilty just questioning the idea that you will reproduce? 

What I am about to say may shock you. You might feel a bit afraid of thinking about this subject at all. You might be scared you'll change your mind about having children if you think too carefully about it. But considering life without children does not make you a bad person. Thinking before making a decision is good. And if you love children and want some, a little discussion won't change your mind. If you do "change your mind" as a result of reading this discussion, or start to develop doubts, maybe you should give the matter more thought before it's too late. If I can prevent even one unwanted child from coming into the world to lead a loveless life and one would-be parent from taking on a burden that he or she really doesn 't want, I will have succeeded in my purpose. 

Children are not toys. They are not property. They are not rational abstractions that we can discuss without knowing the details. They have lives and interests all their own. It was once typical, even in the United States, for adults to create chil dren so that they could use them for their own purposes: if they needed workers for the farm, for example, they could produce them. And even now, if people are bored or their marriage is rocky, some hope to distract themselves with a new duty. 

Currently, a popular view is that children are creatures who naturally demand sacrifice. Sacrifice is considered by many to be an intrinsic good. It is common for people to say, with an air of moralistic condescension, "What do you mean, children are too large an investment? You have to make some sacrifices in in life!" Perhaps it's true that some sacrifices have to be made in life. But why this sacrifice, in particular?
Many people are unable to imagine a person who is happy without children. There are some eccentric artists and philosophers who never had children, but of course they're oddballs. It is unthinkable that any of the nice people in one's social circle wo uld intentionally go childless. 

Even if they are vaguely aware that there are people with children who are not at all happy, still many people think that living without children increases the risk of unhappiness. This may be true for some people. But there is no good reason to think that it is true for all people, and plenty of reasons against thinking so. 

I am convinced that there are many parents who never wanted children. They created them anyway because they didn't know how to stand up for what they really did want. Judging by the way many parents behave toward children, and by the things they comp lain about, it seems pretty clear that most people don't like children very much at all. They are bothered by a high percentage of the natural behavior of healthy children.
Some of these very people will try hard to convince others to have children too. Why would this happen? Some people genuinely believe that a happy life is not possible to the ward-free adult. But for others, I think defensiveness is part of the reas on for the inconsistency. Whether one voices any criticism of them or not, some people who have created children without really wanting them will consider someone else's decision not to live with children as an implied accusation of a lack of foresight. And others who are happy to live with children consider the decision to do otherwise as an assault on their values and their lifestyle. The rest of the cause can be attributed to unthinking conformity to established practice. 

As simple as this idea seems to me, and indeed as simple as it may seem to you, nevertheless sometimes people do not understand my point. People think I am over-intellectualizing the matter — that normal human beings have strong emotional needs t hat can only be gratified by living with children. 

Of course it would be a waste of time and even morally wrong in some cases to attempt to persuade people who really want children that they should not live with them or that in fact do not want them. But this is never my purpose. 

My only contention is that there is an alternative lifestyle, and that people who have never thought about WHY they want children and WHETHER they really want them, ought not to have children until they consider the alternative. If possible, the matte r should be discussed with an objective third party who is not under his or her own religious or familial pressures to reproduce. 

"Children Might Be Nice..." versus "When Will the Misery of Being Childless End!?"
Examine your feelings very carefully!
I have considered what it would be like to have a very large house. Sometimes when I have lived in cramped quarters, the idea of 20 rooms with large closets creates a quiet longing in me. But when I think about my preferred lifestyle, my preferred ca reer, etc., it is hard for me to justify having an apartment much bigger than the one I have, let alone own a house. 

On the other hand, I want a dog very badly, and the fact that I cannot currently have one is torture for me (my apartment complex doesn't allow them). I think about dogs all the time. I can't wait to have one or two or three as my constant companions . I walk other people's dogs, and have thought about working as a trainer just to be near them. 

The basic difference between my feelings about a large house and my feelings about a dog boils down to: "might be nice" versus "when will the misery end?" 

If you are miserable without babies, children, and teenagers in your daily life, then you know what you want. Unfortunately, most people can't say this, and the result is offspring which competes, often quite unsuccessfully, for its parents' t ime instead of integrating smoothly into their lives. If you think it might be nice to have a cute little baby, think more — a lot more. 

Have You Done The Cost-Benefit Analysis?
List all of the things that you would like to buy and add up how much they would cost. Then get a current estimate of the cost of caring for a child. Would you be happy to give up the other things, if that's the only way you could afford the child?
Many people find themselves counting the money the child has cost AFTER it is spent — secretly, of course, because it would be shameful to let people know that the cost of the child is even a consideration.
This is not intended to imply that there are some things that are more valuable, intrinsically, than children. However, I do think that these are the sorts of things that many people would rather have and that help them feel regret at having had childr en. They ought to give these options serious thought, and not allow themselves to be cowed by taboos forbidding the calculation.
Children crave loving companionship above all else. They are not interested in lots of intellectualized reasons for bringing them into the world. They want to be around adults who adore them. You can lie to your kids, but if you don't really want t hem, they will pick up on it. How many people do you know personally who have told you that one or both parents were cold to them, or seemed more interested in their jobs, or beat them? I know many such people. Their parents should never have given bir th; once they did, they should have sought help either in finding more suitable homes for their unwanted burdens or in learning how to appreciate their new charges.
In what follows, I address prevalent attitudes toward living with children, and the persuasive techniques people use to convince others to live with children. I draw on real-life examples to make my arguments. I write in the first person for the most part, because I believe this device serves as a reminder that there is a real person behind these ideas. I will start my describing my own attitude. 

My Personal Desire
Let me be as blunt as possible. I don't want children. It's not that I can't have them, or that I don't feel capable of raising them, or that I am by nature irresponsible, or that I haven't thought enough about it, or that I don't have a suitable paren ting partner. I've thought about it for many years, both before and after rigorous philosophical training. I just don't want them in my personal life. Not even one.
It has been expressed to me all my life that such an attitude is shameful. Yet I see no more shame in not wanting children than I see in not wanting to be a dress designer or not wanting to run a farm. All three of these are worthy occupations; I do n ot condemn the people who sincerely choose them. I see this as a matter of interest and taste. I can do many, many things with my life. Living with children is just one of those many things.
Whether this attitude will change in the future for me, I don't know and I don't need to know. Given the rate at which unwanted children are born, children are remarkably — shamefully — easy to come by, at any time of life, contrary to common myth. True, eggs go bad, health goes bad, and husbands and wives die. But none of those reasons nor any other is a good enough reason to create a currently unwanted child because I might change my mind. I don't even have a reason to th ink it will ever be too late. 

Reactions to the Decision to Lead a Ward-Free Life
As a woman who has decided not to have children (unless her interests and values change in a way which she does not foresee at present), I listen to a lot of well-meant lectures — and some not-so-well-meant insults. I have also heard reports of a rguments from people whose partners or families are pressuring them to have children. I get the most pressure from people — both parents and non-parents — who have not examined their own alleged "interest" in living with children. If these le ctures were intended to create a genuine love of and desire for children, one could see the point. But they seem designed to persuade me to create children even in the absence of desire for them.
Below, I list a number of the attempts at persuasion that I have heard or that have been reported to me. I'll tell you what I think of each. If you are childless and wish to remain so, I hope that this discussion will help you develop the strength of your convictions. If you have or want children, I hope that the discussion will help you to feel more comfortable with others' decisions to live a ward-free life. 

Emotional Arguments
This group of arguments plays directly on the social stigma of not wanting children, and on other generic emotions such as fear of the unknown, loneliness, and insecurity. None of them make use of what I would consider an appropriate emotional reason for living with children: genuine love and desire for them.
  1. But it's so sad when people don't have children! Their lives are so empty and unfulfilled! Do you want to be like that? The pity is misplaced. I don't have children, but I don't feel emptiness and a lack of fulfillment; it is wrong to assume that all ward-free people do. My life is extremely full of activities and people I love — so much so that I feel overtaxed as it is. There is no longing keeping me awake at night, no sense that there is someone missing. Not everyone's life requires the same things. Your life may require children; mine does not.
    There are people who feel empty and unfulfilled and don't know why. But it is quite possible that any given feeling of emptiness stems from some underlying problem that has nothing to do with children. If so, children can make matters worse by distrac ting attention and energy from that problem. Perhaps the emptiness stems from a longing to get an education, advance in a career, find a more attentive lover, or do something adventuous; or perhaps it is due to depression or psychosis that requires treatm ent, any of which can be more difficult or effectively "impossible" to accomplish with a child around. Unless a person expresses emptiness by peering sadly into strollers or offering free babysitting during their leisure hours, it would be irresponsible a nd unfounded to try to convince the person that the problem is a unrecognized desire for children.
    If you think that the saddest thing you have ever heard is the story of the parents who couldn't make their own baby, listen to the story of the person who regretted having children, or the story of a child who was regretted.
    And in the end, doesn't a desperate and unexamined sense of emptiness seem a rather poor foundation upon which to begin a new life?
  2. What if your husband wants children? Won't it be cruel not to give him any, now that he's stuck with you? The answer to this question for me is quite simple: Any man who wants children in his personal life is incompatible with me at a very basic level, and I wouldn't let him "get stuck" with me. Of course, it isn't that easy for some people. It is easy to understand why many people are so frightened by the social stigma that they don't discuss the matter openly before marriage. Then they have to deal with a much more difficult problem.
    Let us imagine that I marry a man who has not been open with me on this topic, and he begins to pressure me to have children. Supposedly, I love this man, and would not want to deprive him of anything. Therefore, it would be very painful for both of us if I were to deny him children. Wouldn't it be reasonable to compromise and give him just one child?
    I contend that such a compromise would be exceedingly cruel. Even in the case in which I have to do the least work — where a child is adopted rather than carried in my body, and my husband does most of the caregiving — there are severe probl ems with the arrangement.
    • There is no evidence so far that I will ever change my mind about children. If that is the case, then I will be living with a child I don't want. I will be miserable. It is not a good compromise if the happiness of one partner requires the misery o f the other.
    • What about the child's well being? The child would have to live with someone who doesn't want her! This is a horrible thing to do to a human being. It is much worse than preventing my husband, a grown man whose self-esteem and integrity are mostl y formed, from living with a child.
    It is quite possible, if this man's longing is severe enough, that the marriage must end. This would be a much better compromise. Hopefully, he would overcome the social stigma and be more responsible the next time he discusses marriage with someone w ho so openly declares her disinterest in children.
  3. You say you don't want them now, but I know you'll like it once it gets here. A friend of mine from college made this argument to persuade her fiance to make children part of their lives, even though he said he didn't want to. You might have had enough experience with someone to convince yourself that the intrinsic appeal of a new babie will change his mind. It might be a reasonable strategy to use when choosing a new kind of ice cream. It is a terrible risk to take with a child. You can't take it back to the store or use up the whole thing yourself if you are mistaken. As a lover of children, do you really want to subject a child to an uninterested father?
  4. But I want grandchildren before I die! I gave you life. Can't you give me this one little thing? Grandchildren require the cooperation of someone else. That one would even feel comfortable expressing such a wish to an adult child is incredible (in the United States, at any rate), given that so many adults take their parents' feelings very serious ly, and in certain kinds of cases consider them to be a moral injunction, in the sense that the parent would not wanting that thing if it weren't a right thing to want.
    Moreover, attempting to make an emotional connection between the birth of a child with one's own death can play on an adult child's worst fears, even to the point of suggesting that a child had better be produced so that the grandparent will live longe r.
    This is not to say that it is wrong to want grandchildren, or to fantasize about them. But it is wrong to say this to an adult child without qualification; for example, "I've always wanted grandchildren, but I am behind your decision 100%. Only your needs are important in this decision. I've realized that what I especially want is to have a relationship with a child. Since you have decided not to give birth, I have arranged with my neighbor to supply babysiting in exchange for their child's company. " If you are a person who is being pressured by a parent to have children, you should realize that this is the way a responsible person — whether your parent or anyone else — should respond to decisions you make about your own life. If this is not the response you are getting, do not give in to the pressure. Children make life hell for adults who don't really want them; and in turn, those adults make the children's lives hell.
    If you are a parent who is feeling the urge to discuss the absence of grandchildren, keep in mind that such expressions of desire must be carefully controlled, lest a daughter or a son feel compelled to comply with it and bring forth a child for no oth er reason than that someone wants to be a grandparent.
  5. But sweet little babies! How can you not want that in your life? I think this "argument" is supposed to convey the idea that the person finds babies irresistible, and is confused and shocked that there is someone who does not.
    However, I contend that even if a person finds a quiet baby irresistible, it might be possible that he or she won't find a crying baby — or 7-year-old, or a 14-year-old — so irresistible, or even that he or she doesn't really like to be with children or babies the way a caregiver has to be with them. Arguing in this way is an expression of a very superficial and unreflective interest in babies in particular, and it has nothing to do with a genuine desire for real children.
Character Assassination
These arguments have one thing in common: aggressive attacks on the character of the person who is considering not living with children. They seek to persuade by threatening to think ill of the person who does not want to have children.
  1. You must have been an unhappy child. That's why you don't want to live with children. You should see a psychologist and find out what's wrong with you. This sort of argument disguises itself as concern for a difficult childhood. But it is a cruel attempt to persuade by means of hurting the person's feelings or making him or her feel ashamed of having a bad family life. And it works; most people wish to think well of their families, and a lay-familiarity with psychoanalysis can be enough to convince them that there really is something wrong with them because they don't want children.
    If your decision is attacked in this way, after you get over the shock of the attack, consider: what is the point of bringing this up? Should the threat of the stigma of being an unhappy child persuade you to have children? Hopefully it will not! If you were an unhappy child, there are probably some things you should straighten out in your life before you try to help some children with theirs. And if you weren't an unhappy child, then who cares if someone thinks that you were? Are you going to have a child just to prove what you already know?
  2. You're only thinking about the bad parts. If you were a more positive person, you'd want to live with children. This argument, too, is intended to persuade people to create children, although it seems to express hopeless resignation. How does it work? No one, except self-described cynics, wants to be thought of as a negative person. One is supposed to think, " Yes, that's true, I was only thinking of the bad parts. But I'm not the sort of person who only thinks of negative things. Since I am so upbeat and fun-loving, I guess I really do want children."
    However, it seems to me that some of the last people who should be persuaded to live with helpless, innocent children, are negative people who are already focused on how bad it will be. So the critic either doesn't really believe that the person is ne gative, or doesn't really care what kind of life the person's potential children would lead.
  3. Why do you hate children so much? Hold your ground long enough, and you will eventually hear this accusation. It is a well-aimed shot; people are terribly afraid of being accused of hating children. Hans Christian Andersen and the Grimms brothers are famous for witches whose goal in life is to torture, kill, and eat children. After all, a person who hates children must hate human beings, potential, carefree happiness, life, love, sexual union, playfulness, puppy dogs and kittens, and pretty much all that is good about the world. Th e argument is a subtle sort of character assassination, and it works by exaggerating the case.
    The critic makes it sound like the only alternative to hating children is desiring to live with them. It works! Husbands especially, but wives too, fall for it; and the result is children who have at least one parent who "doesn't really HATE them, I guess." I have heard several of my male friends persuade themselves as follows: "My wife wants children, but I've never been interested. I guess I dont' really HATE them, so maybe it wouldn't hurt to have a couple — she'll take care of them most o f the time anyway, since I'll be at work." Sounds like a wonderful father, doesn't it?
Thought-Free Arguments
I have often heard it asserted that thinking "too much" about certain subjects is bad — and the more important the topic, the worse it is to think about it carefully. Romantic love is one topic people try to protect from thought; reproduction ano ther. The following sentiments seem to recommend acting without thinking.
  1. I can't believe you have ever even considered not having children! I haven't! (Or, I've always assumed everyone has children.) I can't count the number of friends and acquaintances who have said this to me. Sometimes it is offered, indignantly, as a reason for having children; other times it is expressed in a tone of wonderment, as though for the first time the person is discovering that perhaps they have their own life to live without an umbilical tie to another person.
    A person might be praiseworthy for never having considered theft or murder. But to never have considered not having children is an error and should be corrected with all speed before an innocent and helpless being is on its way!
  2. It's just what adults do. You grow up, you get married, you have children. I was close to a woman who used this argument to justify having her own children. I had known her for many years, and she had never showed any interest in children at all — no stopping in the street to smile at a baby, no babysitting, no playing with the neighbors' children, no interest in her small cousins and nieces and nephews. After 5 years of marriage, she told me she would cease taking birth control pills in preparation for pregnancy. I expressed my surprise, and asked her what had made he r change her mind. She said that it wasn't really a change of mind, but rather that she had always implicitly considered having children to be part of growing up. You don't have to be particularly INTERESTED in children per se. It's simply the next thin g that adults do.
    But the argument assumes what needs to be justified. If I ask why an adult should have children, it is not informative to tell me that adults have children. Clearly, adults have children; you can see them everywhere. But WHY do they do it? If it is merely that people have told them that that is what adults do, then woe to the children!
Intellectual Arguments for Having Children
Intellectually inclined individuals offer more contrived, academic reasons that a person should have children, and contrived, non-emotional reasons for their decision to have children. Whether any of the arguments in this section add to a general list of reasons for someone to have children, there are two things to keep in mind: (1) someone who has children for one or more of these reasons might still not genuinely want a real child, and (2) the mere fact that someone else thinks any of these is a good reason for having children doesn't have to say anything about how you should feel about it.
Although there are many intellectual exercises that can be performed on and with children, intellectual arguments have very little to do with making, raising, and loving real children. Using an intellectual argument against someone's desire to lead a ward-free life probably means one of two things: that one is for some reason ashamed of the emotional desire for the company of children, or that one doesn't have the desire but has tried to make sense of the idea of human parenting just by talking about it. I find these arguments to be the most objectionable because they are so far removed from the reality of living with children. Children don't need to know that you had good intellectualized reasons for bringing them into the world; they need to kno w that you adore them.
This first argument is on the borderline between intellectual and emotional. Although the threat of unhappiness does much of the persuasive work, it seems to have an intellectualizing, rationalistic undercurrent; in addition, I have some logical probl ems with it that make it seem more appropriate to handle it here.
  1. You only have a limited amount of time — later you might regret your decision not to have children, and then it will be too late! You're better off having them now while you can. This argument seems to have a lot of power; but it is fraught with difficulties, so I'll spend some time on it.
    It must be terrible for people who really want children, to discover that they are no longer able to reproduce. Being able to literally create a child as well as raise one is a big part of the fun, and missing the window is understandably regrettable.
    How much more terrible to have a child and regret that decision! The mere fact that I might someday in the future wish that I had had children does not justify bringing into the world a life I do not now want whole-heartedly. There are already millions (yes, millions) of children who suffer abuse and neglect because their parents unthinkingly gave in to social expectations, and did not magically develop a taste for parenting once the children arrived; I'm sure there still will be plenty of the m once I reach menopause. If I truly come to want children, I'll know exactly where to get some — and how wonderful it will be to not only live with a child I adore, but to know that I rescued it from abuse or neglect! Hedging against regret I mi ght feel in the future is a rather random strategy for pursuing happiness.
    The Future Regret Argument seems to compare creating children to doing homework in school: "You may not want to write that paper tonight, but you'll be sorry when you see that 'D' on your report card! Think of your career — don't you see that gi ving up one night of leisure could mean the difference between a job or not?" But children aren't like papers; you don't get them over-with, and then sigh with relief as you look to your future. Children are your future. It would be more reasona ble to compare the decision to have children to the decision to stay in school for the next twenty years; and if you're having trouble writing that paper tonight, how do you think you're going to feel in five years?
    In fact, the argument, taken to its logical conclusion, is absurd. Consider any person who has one child — might she not regret not having TWO children, and shouldn't she have another to hedge against this regret? How about a person with two chi ldren — ought he have THREE? How about a person with ten children — might ELEVEN be the right number?
    In addition, if this strategy for hedging against future regret were valid, we could also say, "In the future, you might regret having had children — so don't."
    This absurdity — that the risk of future regret means I both should and should not create children now — shows that there is something wrong with the argument that considers future regret to be a problem. Regret is a waste of precious time. It is better to accept my past decisions and move boldly into my future. If I find when I am 50 that I want children, regret is not nearly as effective a life strategy as adoption, foster-parenting, teaching, or babysitting. In fact, babysitting and t eaching are great ways to satisfy uncertain parental urges now, while I take some more time to decide whether I want to live with children.
  2. Society would be much better off if more talented people like you had children. There is no question that the world would be a better place for everyone if every person who had children were talented — with respect to caring for and showing love to children! Then we would not have cruel parents and clueless parents. But the fact that someone is talented at something(s) says nothing about whether it is the right decision for them to create new human beings. People should do what will make them happy, and children should have parents who want them. "So ciety" is not served by thwarting either of these objectives.
  3. You'd be a great parent! Are you just going to let your ability go to waste? I love to teach and to play and to find creative ways to improve life in general. Children like me. Therefore, many people think it is contradictory that I say that I don't want children. I have heard people express their own "desire" to have childr en by citing such qualities in themselves, without ever mentioning that they crave the company of a child. But there are many ways for a person to express abilities; why is it assumed that this expression eventually must be directed toward a child?
  4. People throughout history have chosen to have children, so there must be some value in it. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it. Are you saying that these people are all wrong, that you know something they don't? This argument is actually rather silly and trivial in the best cases (e.g., where the cases cited are cases in which parents actually adore children); naturally, people who want children see some value in creating and living with them. It is incorrect in the worst cases (e.g., where people gave in to social pressures); in these cases, there was something at work other than a genuine valuing of children.
    My point is never to deny that there are people who want children and who find the experience of raising them extremely valuable. Rather, the point is to help people to respond to the barrage of arguments they may face when they show doubts about havi ng children.
  5. But it is natural to want to nurture something! Look at how you take care of your plants and pets — don't you think you're trying to make up for not having children? I nurture the plants in my garden, my pets, and the wild visitors to my property. I lavish attention on my friends. But my urge to nurture is not context-free. When I acquire plants and animals, it is not because I am filling a need to nurture someth ing. I acquire them because I want my life to be full of plants and animals, and my response to their presence and their needs is to nurture them. The mere fact that a child is something which requires nurturing does not make them similar enough to plan ts and animals to make me want one.
  6. If you're worried about having to be the primary caregiver, then it doesn't mean you can't have children! What you need is a husband who is willing to stay home with them. I enjoy nurturing my neighbor's children for about 15 minutes per week, and then I want to move on to the ward-free activities that fill my life. But children need more than a few minutes, which I can only hope they get at home. I am responsible for a ny life I bring into the world, and I have to be prepared to care for it even when I don't feel like it or when my profession requires more of my time than expected. If a few minutes of nurturing is all I want, then it would be cruel to call forth a life whose day is more than a few minutes long.
  7. Reproduction is a natural human activity, so human happiness requires reproduction. It is true that the nature of human beings is such that they can make babies. But it is a natural human act in virtue of the fact that humans are animals, and it is animal nature to make babies. It is amazing and wonderful, surely, but as a human fun ction, it carries no special force, certainly not the force of necessity.
    The nature of human beings, as animals, is also that they can overpower other human beings and take their possessions or kill them. The mere fact that such action is possible to us does not mean that we must act this way, or even that we must act this way in order to be happy. There are many natural human functions which should be curbed. The random production of children without genuine interest in them is one of them.
  8. All human beings need to give selflessly to someone else; children give us the opportunity to exercise selflessness. It is commonly believed that human beings need, whether they feel it or not, to give selflessly of themselves in order to be truly fulfilled, to feel fully human, etc. Children are seen as the recipients of character-building self-sacrifice, and peopl e who don't want children are objectionably selfish, self-centered, uncharitable by nature, egostical, childish.
    One might ask why a living with a child is required for a human being to give selflessly. Mother Teresa, for example, was single and childless, yet her admirers think of her as selfless. There are plenty of ways in which one might sacrifice one's va lues, happiness, leisure time, or whatever else it is that one is supposed to sacrifice for the sake of a child, and none of them involve creating a new life. Finally, there is no reason to suppose that self-sacrifice is an inherent need in human beings at all. In fact, an attitude of selflessness has to be carefully cultivated. I will return to selflessness in a later section.
  9. Having a child is a unique experience. There's no substitute! While there is no question that there is no experience like having/raising a child, uniqueness alone doesn't constitute a good reason for doing ANYTHING, nevermind calling forth a new individual person. There are many experiences like no other that a human life can endure: e.g., skydiving, practicing medicine, serving in the marines, training animals for the movies, practicing law, teaching algebra to high school students, etc. All of these experiences are in some way like no other; there are myriad good things to say about each of them. Yet no one would argue that another person ought to do some or all of them simply in virtue of their uniqueness.
    Nor is it reasonable for someone to argue for his or her own engagement in that activity by simply pointing out that it is unique. A special interest in the subject is a reasonable expectation; and a medical school student who is not the least bit int erested in biology, science, or people's health is very likely to be questioned by friends as to the choice of discipline. Why, then, would no one question a person's decision to have children, even if the person never showed any interest in children?
    It might be replied that while not everyone can be a lawyer, ANYONE can be a parent, and thus there is a disanalogy between being a lawyer and being a parent. This doesn't save the argument; after all, while it takes a special kind of person to become a goodanyone can become a bad lawyer. Just so, it takes a special kind of person to be a good parent, though ever so many people become BAD PARENTS. Just swing a rope, and you'll hit a few in your neighborhood. lawyer,
    The real reason, I suspect, that people don't ask other people why they have decided to have children despite never having shown any interest in them, is that they are afraid of putting them on the spot about a personal decision that can't be defended. In many cases, this is probably best for one's own mental health. But a close friend should consider it one of the requirements of friendship, to question what seems to be an unreflective judgment.
Moral Arguments for Creating Children
There are various version of morality floating around out there, and there's no telling what sort you will run into next. However different these moralities are, their objections to a ward-free existence can be dealt with in pretty much the same way. Here are some I have heard.
  1. That's an awfully selfish attitude, isn't it? In an episode of the television sitcom Mad About You, Jaimie is trying to hide her pregnancy from her mother so that she can surprise her; she tries to throw her off track by suggesting that she is not even sure she wants children. Her mother is appalled. She replies, "That's an awfully selfish attitude, isn't it?"
    Forgetting for the moment any special moral interpretations of the word 'selfish,' several questions arise. First, 'selfish' in the vernacular implies that someone is hurt by the selfish decision; if this is a selfish decision, whose welfare is hurt b y a woman's decision not to have children? Is it Jaimie's? Obviously not. Ordinary people wouldn't call an act "selfish" if the only the actor got hurt. In order for the claim to be meaningful, we must suppose that there is a party other than the acto r who is hurt by the decision. The most logical answer is that it is the potential father; perhaps he wants children, but his cruel wife refuses to give him one. But if the husband is not making this accusation, why would the mother?
    And wouldn't a husband be selfish to expect his wife to not only live with children she doesn't want but to create, carry, and give birth to them, all for him? Sadly, I have heard it said that this attitude is selfish despite the absence of a boyfrie nd or husband to disappoint. So, toward whom are these women and these couples displaying selfishness by refusing to have children? Perhaps the woman is being selfish toward her possible future children by not bringing them into existence! If that's the case, then to fulfill her moral obligation, she'll have to create as many children as possible — we wouldn't want to cheat any viable eggs.
    Perhaps Jaimie's mother meant that it would disappoint her if there were no grandchildren. If any attitude can be called brutally selfish, it is the attitude that a daughter should create, carry, give birth to, and be responsible for children she does not want so that her mother can "be a grandmother." The very idea should make our stomachs turn. Yet we accept that it is natural for a woman to consider the desires of persons who would have no part in raising or paying for her children were s he to have them.
    Another possible interpretation is that Jaimie is not a "giving" person — she is too selfish with her time to give any up for a child. Since childlessness is selfish, and selfishness is morally wrong, childlessness by choice can be taken as a cle ar sign of moral failure. (I deal with other aspects of selflessness and its special burden for women in another essay, and for an eye-opening account of the psychological ramifications of selfless behavior, see Codependent No More: How to Stop Controlling Others and Start Caring for Yourself, Melody Beattie (New York: MJF Books, 1992).)
  2. Children are a blessing. How can you reject this great gift? The idea here is that children are intrinsically — i.e., without reference to anything else or any desire of any person's — valuable. But why think so? If someone wants a child, and she manages to give birth to one, it is appropriate to say that THAT child is a blessing to her. But why would anyone think that EVERY child is a blessing, aside from vaguely defined religious injunctions to reproduce? If a couple does not want children, or is not in good financial circumstances, and the woman becomes pregnant, that pregancy is not a blessing to them. It is a burden.
    The sentiment used to make sense, when it was common for babies (and mothers) to die at birth or shortly thereafter, and when a man's wealth was counted by how many children his wife or wives had born him. With modern medicine, woman's liberation, and the decline of the importance of physical labor, it no longer makes a lot of sense to calculate wealth in this way. It really doesn't make sense in third world countries, where every new baby means that there will be less food for others. But more impo rtantly, a child is a blessing if you WANT a child; if you don't want a child, in what possible sense can it be a blessing to have one? Thus, as an argument for bearing and raising children, this one is pretty unconvincing.
  3. It is a virtue to have children. People don't make this claim explicitly. It is implied. Mothers often get more respect from people than they got when they were childless. Children are expected to respect their parents, simply because they are in the general vicinity of the child. "Family man" and "Mother" are both terms that engender respect. Certainly, carrying a child can be difficult and giving birth is painful; and there are many things a sincere woman can do to make sure that her fetus gets superior nutrition and protection. But one cannot tell just by knowing that a woman is pregnant or a mother, whether this special effort has been made. In most cases the fetus is carried and born automatically as long as no one interferes. So the implication is that people are virtuous i f they do not interfere with reproduction.
    But consider: If having children required a virtuous character, a lot fewer people would have them! Conception is one of the easiest things in the world to do for most people; it takes no thought, no energy, no insight, no good works, no virtue at all . Many vicious, despicable people make babies and then torture them once they arrive. You just need the animal parts in good working order and they will happen automatically. I don't know of any version of morality that considers that a virtue.
    Apparently, people confuse two types of behavior and treat them as one. On the one hand, there's making the baby, bringing it into existence. On the other, there's taking care of the child and doing it well. If someone does a great job of raising a c hild, he or she is worthy of praise. But there are plenty of people who make a babies, keep them, and don't take care of them properly; these people should be condemned for mistreating a helpless and innocent human being.
    But choosing not to make a baby is very different from neglecting or abusing a child. Yet sometimes it seems as though these two behaviors are considered equally bad.
I'll conclude now by simply listing some questions that many parents seem to have avoided considering until it was too late.
Who really wants kids, and how can they know? People who are happy with their work and hobbies, but still feel a desperate longing for children which babysitting cannot relieve, are probably the kind of people who would be miserable without children. These people should still consider carefully the amount of time, money, mental and physical energy, etc., which children require before they make their final decision. Once the child is here, it is too late.
Questions Potential Parents Should Ask Themselves Aside from questions like "Will I keep a Downs' Syndrome baby or put it up for adoption?" there are other, nonstandard questions that I suggest that people ask themselves. Here are some:
  1. Do I recognize that each child is an individual with its own personality and preferences, and that I can only influence these to a limited extent?
  2. Do I really LIKE children? Do I enjoy playing all levels of children's games? Do I enjoy being with someone who is frequently rambunctious, loud, uninhibited, deliberately trying, and who requires my constant supervision?
  3. Do I enjoy the idea of parenting? Specifically, do I enjoy the idea of correcting someone else, feeling like I have to correct someone else, monitoring another person's behavior and finding creative and sensitive ways of expressing the same thing over and over until it is understood?
  4. Does a disrupted sleep schedule bother me? Or am I the type of person who gets irritated or ill if my 11:30-8:00 schedule is shifted or interrupted? Do I take the irritation out on other people? How will I feel when the baby cries at 2:00 and th en at 5:00? Would I ever feign sleep while my partner tends to the baby?
  5. Is a committed relationship my style, or do I tend to have friends and lovers for a while and then move on when I lose interest? How do I feel about starting a close and intimate relationship with an unknown person with unknown interests (i.e., th e child) that will last the rest of my life?
  6. When I daydream about being a parent, am I picturing the child at a certain age? How do I feel about children at other ages? Do I fully realize that a rambunctious 13-year-old will be my responsibility just as surely as the cuddly newborn is? Am I interested in 13-year-olds?
  7. When I daydream about having a child, do I picture the child doing certain kinds of activities, such as little league? How do I feel about the child engaging in activities that I am not interested in, strongly dislike, or disapprove of? (E.g., if I enjoyed contact sports as a child, will I be disoriented by my son's love of the piano and interior decorating? Will I need to "keep trying" if I have a girl?)
  8. Do I lose my temper with people who don't catch on immediately? How will that translate into a parent-child situation?
  9. Do I expect to be such a wonderful parent that I will never have to discipline my splendid child, or do I expect to make mistakes that I will see reflected in my child's behavior? How will I treat the child when I realize that something I have don e — such as lying to my child — has interfered with his or her purity of spirit?
  10. If you are considering "giving" your lover or spouse children, though you don't especially want them, on the condition that he or she take over most of the responsibility for their daily nurture, have you considered the idea that your partner might fall ill, die, or leave you with the kids? Do you have a fallback plan for that eventuality? Or are you hoping that you will become more interested in caring for the children in such a case, or perhaps that you will be able to quickly meet another pers on who will take full responsibilty for them while you do the things that are more important to you?
  11. Is your principle reason for having children that you and your lover want to "make something together" or "make something that will be part of both of us"? If so, do you also love _children_? What if the child's personality and interests doesn't much resemble either of yours — will the fact that it has half of each of your chromosomes be enough for you?
  12. Do you have extra money that you don't think you'll be using for anything else? Or do you expect your years with your child to be years of "sacrifice"? If the latter, are you accustomed to "hardship" or do you think it is possible that you will r esent the cost of the child who is preventing you from buying other kinds of luxuries?
Living in an industrialized, informationalized society, we have the luxury and the responsibility to think about children as real human beings. We have the luxury and responsibility to assess our own worth without reference to any potential l ives we are able to create. You have the luxury and the responsibility to think about it before you commit.
Is it possible to live a full and happy life without children? The answer depends on who you are. For at least some people, the answer is "Absolutely!"
The interesting question remaining, then, is, "Who are you?"



Friday, June 18, 2010

WAGs, Kids and World Cup Dreams - BBC 3

I've just watched all the episodes of this programme and I have mixed views from eye-rolling at the hypocrisy of the World Cup being held somewhere so poor at a cost of millions that would have helped so many of the people, these girls and their partners enormous salaries, to genuinely liking one or two of them by the end of the series.

It's good that the programme got the appalling poverty and issues in S.Africa onto our screens, and the presence of WAGs would hopefully mean that our brainwashed impressionable teens would also tune in, if only at first to see how they wore their hair and whether they packed any Jimmy Choos.    



I'm afraid "Aimii" the "model" needed a good hard slap or ten.  Firstly for spelling her name so stupidly.  Secondly for behaving like an entitled brat whenever the work got too hard, and finally for running away to her 4 star hotel in the dying days of the trip, hiding behind pathetic excuses about stress and her skin and her ulcers and how they could affect her "career".  With a face like that love, I'm surprised you even have a career, but I guess people aren't really looking at your face are they?

Imogen bless 'er - so dim but still likeable.  She mucked in, she had a few tantrums, but she was nursing a smashed heart and I know from personal experience that it's a rocky road that can be distracting.  She seemed to show genuine talent for connecting with the Jo'burg street boys, and I hope her foray into helping the London homeless shelters lasts long after the cameras have gone away.

Elen Rivas also nursing an even more smashed heart, seemed on edge and distracted but also came across as genuine, however I felt that there was too much focus on her tabloid lifestyle rather than how the trip was changing her outlook on life.

Ellie Darby - super girl, hard worker, warm, caring, she was great.  But how much does her other half earn?    How much does Emile Heskey, Chantelle Tagoe's other half earn?  It's all very commendable that Chantelle got stuck in and organised the "charidee" night that raised £40k for the S.African causes (why she hired those two RIDICULOUS PR people is beyond me though).....but if Heskey earns a 5 or 6 figure sum PER WEEK, then to be honest, a £40k total from one charity event, is an insult.  All these massively overpaid footballers could donate £10-£20k per week out of their salaries, to good causes - and still barely feel the pinch in their bank balances.


Chantelle bonded with a lovely little abandoned boy Moses, at one of the creches - his little eyes followed her everywhere and his shy smile grew bigger and bigger as she spent time with him.  Then she left him, promising to sponsor him until he's 18.   I wonder how long it took that little boy to realise that each morning as he looked for her, she too had abandoned him.  She could have adopted him easily and given him a wonderful life.  But no.  Easier to shovel money at him when what he needs is love and stability.

Interesting to note that the girls all accepted a monetary fee to do this documentary, plus a deal for a TV programme about their "glamourous" lives back in the UK.  The undercurrant of selfish self-PR that just takes the edge off the seriousness of the S. African plight.

I noticed that the entire programme never broached questions such as this to the girls.  Never were they asked "how much does your husband earn per week and are you willing to donate 20% of it to these causes you profess to care so much about?"  I'd have LOVED to see them answer that question.  Ellie and Chantelle both questioned briefly the huge salaries, but never went in depth and also never seemed to express any sort of embarrassment about the sums of money they swim around in on a daily basis.

Ellie gushed "I feel blessed to have been given this opportunity".  Er you could take such opportunities at any time love, just Google "volunteering in Africa", pick a project, and off you go.  Why wait until a TV company and cameras come along?  Oh wait, could it be a bit of conscience easing self-PR?  Why surely not.......

Let's have another programme filmed 2 years later, to see if they are still helping out, donating, fundraising, and "caring so much" about S. Africa.

Let's also address the glaring elephant in the room about OVERPOPULATION and it's consequences in the developing world.  There are too many kids - unwanted kids.  not enough contraception and birth control education in S.Africa, or too much religion and "old traditions" that are stopping the widespread use of contraception.  So many kids, and what future do they have?  Why isnt' anything being done to curb the birthrate?

Saturday, June 12, 2010

GLAMOUR magazine chooses Cheryl Bleeding Cole as "Woman of the Year"

I've just finished flicking through a copy of GLAMOUR magazine that a friend dropped on my desk when she'd read it. Well that was an hour and a half of my life I'll never get back. How disappointed I was at your various choices of "Women of the year" and especially the choice of the ubiquitous Cheryl Cole as the ultimate "Woman of the year". Oh please. It's bad enough she was voted "Most Inspiration Woman of the Decade" recently by "the good surgeon guide" (go figure at the source of the award), but now GLAMOUR is gushing about how wonderful she is? I mean seriously - what has she done that's truly inspirational? She's pretty. She judges a talent show. She sings/mimes to mediocre pop songs, and she stuck with her cheating husband until he predictably cheated on her again. Truly inspirational :-/ I for one am sick to death of the mass media worship laid at this woman's feet, and worry for any young girl who gazes gooey-eyed at her and declares her a "role model".She has a voice that is mediocre to say the least.  Does she play any instruments?  Does she write and compose her own songs or is there a team of "co-writers" behind her.  There are far more girls out there with more talent in their little fingers than Cheryl.  But they're maybe not as pretty and don't have the saccharine title of "The Nation's Sweetheart" or the mass media fawning over their every move.

I won't comment on the winners of the other categories, my beef is with the award given to Ms Cole.
Here are some women that I find truly inspiring and who beat Ms Cole hands down for the ultimate "Woman of the Year" award.

  • Dr Andrea Marshall - fighting to conserve Manta rays off the coast of Mozambique, her groundbreaking research and discovery of a new species, plus her utter dedication to these beautiful mammals, is marvellous.
  • Dame Ellen MacArthur - as well as her amazing sailing achievements she head up the Ellen Macarthur Trust, which uses sailing to help young people regain their confidence while on their way to recovery from cancer, leukaemia and other serious illness.
  • Kanwal Ahluwalia - programme manager for WOMANKIND's West African programme, which focuses on supporting existing and developing new partnerships with women’s organisations in Ghana to reduce violence against women, HIV and AIDS.
  • Christine Schuler Deschryver - devoted her life to helping the women and girls of the Congo with the V-Day global movement to end violence against women and girls, in particular mass rape and genital mutilation of women and young girls.
  • Emma Morris - sold her house and used her savings to set up "Change 2 change" that works with young people in the criminal justice system to reduce antisocial behaviour and reoffending rates through cognitive behaviour therapy.
I could go on but you get my drift. There are hundreds of selfless women all over the world fighting for justice for women, animals, kids, and society. They DESERVE respect, awards and accolades.

If your awards were only meant to be within the field of "fashion/media stars and z-list celebs" then fair enough, but as a popular magazine you really should be trying a bit harder to give us women REAL role models, and not perpatuating the Cult of Celebrity that is sucking the life out of our teenagers and the soul out of the entertainment and music industries.

Now let's see. A primped and groomed plastic mediocre pop puppet, or any of the above women. I know who i'd give the award to. Come on GLAMOUR, do a bit better with next years awards.

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

Lower class kids and Uni places

All these articles are talking about how the gap is widening between rich and poor people attending Universities. And they all mention how Universities are being told to allow "poorer and lower class students" to attend Uni.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279498/Universities-aim-break-middle-class-dominance-family-backgrounds-checks.html


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/10123297.stm


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5i8Hy1vBMCTDBDYyUYUxCpwAqT9Fg


To quote:


"Teenagers from disadvantaged homes are less likely to achieve the top grades required by leading universities, and are also less likely to take the subjects needed to study on highly selective degree courses."


"Talented youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds are still failing to realise their potential, says the report. "


"Poorer youngsters are more likely to underperform in exams than their better-off counterparts, which means they might miss out on the grades needed for the most competitive courses. "


Firstly and most importantly - if your grades are shit and you are, essentially, stupid - then you should not go to Uni and waste a place suited to someone with a brain. If a "poor youngster underperforms in an exam" then they should not be handed a Uni place. If a "talented youngster from a disadvantaged background" is not realising his potential, then by all means give him guidance and encouragement but ultimately, THEY are the only ones who can push themselves forward and achieve the grades and performance needed for a Uni place. Then THEY must maintain that high standard in order to get their degree. If they have a marvellous brain but choose to bum around and do feck all with their lives, then surely it's their decision and they should still not be handed a Uni place or forced against their lazy will, to go to Uni?


"The report found that one of the main reasons many poor students are not attending top universities is because of their exam grades." - well, yes.......so??? Isn't that what it's all about? Do well - climb up the education ladder. DO shit, don't climb up the ladder. Why should someone with poor grades go to Uni???? What is this culture of forcing EVERY schoolkid to go to Uni? My grades were poor and I have no A levels and I knew all along I didn't want to go to Uni, I would resent being forced to go or being made to feel inadequate for not going.


Not everyone is suited to a degree education. One of my exes was a stoner who spent his late teens and early twenties bumming off work and lying around at home. He had no interest at all in Uni and would have resisted strongly if he was forced to attend. His grammar was terrible, his spelling lousy, his grades poor. Some years later he has his own successful business fitting satellite systems and is about to buy his second property. Not getting a degree didn't do him any harm, and he was more suited to doing electronics wiring manual stuff than he was writing a thesis. He learned it all on the job and not by reading books. My grades were average, my school reports always said "must try harder", "has the potential but doesn't try". Decades later I'm doing OK despite having no Uni education.


This culture of "everyone MUST go to Uni" needs to stop. The graduate job market is still overcrowded. It's not at all elitist to admit that richer people may just well be better suited to Uni, simply because their upbringing may mean they have the intelligence to perform well and gain good entrance grades.


A feral council estate teen who has been dragged up by alcoholic parents is far less likely to perform to a high standard. But similarly, a rich kid with an attitude and an apathy problem will also NOT be pushed into a Uni place. I think the buck stops with the individual. If you really want it bad enough, you will work hard, try hard, and reap the rewards, whatever your background. The aforementioned feral teen may have alcoholic parents but if he recognises his ability and has a burning desire to succeed, then he will go for it. Adult guidance can help yes, but taking someone with lousy grades and no real promise and trying to get them into Uni is just wrong.


Parents have to stop thinking their kid HAS to have a degree in order to go forward in life. Yes there are instances where a career choice requires a degree, but ultimately if your exam grades aren't good enough, tough. Re-sit the exams, try harder, if you still fail, tough - time for a career re-think.

Monday, November 09, 2009

Strictly a load of X-Factor bollocks, the dumbing down of a nation with Mainstream Media co-operation

I am still trying to break my car-crash rubbernecking addiction to the Daily Mail website, although I *DO* surf other news websites too. One thing I've noticed over the past few years, particularly on the Mail website, is the rise and rise of "headlines" pertaining to the manufactured and staged "controversies" on TV "talent" shows. These "controversies" have grown alongside the headlines, and they now feed off eachother to the point that these TV shows are now grossly distorted parodies on the scale of WWF for fakeness. They also command FAR too much space in our newspapers at a time when we should be concerned with far more important events.

It's now a vicious circle that has to stop. If I see one more headline that is a play on "Strictly" I will scream. If I see those stupid-assed Jedward monsters once more with their stupid-assed hairstyles, I will scream louder. If people are still banging on about Arlene Phillips and Alesha Dixon I will plant a sparkly stiletto in their eyeball. I am refusing to read all the pontificating in the media today about how these two untalented twats have yet to be booted off Cowell's moneymaking machine that is the X-Factor. It should really be renamed "The £££ Factor". Viewing figures are at 14 million, which is nearly a quarter of the goddam population FFS. The TV producers are rubbing their hands at the ratings, Cowell is laughing all the way to the bank, people who can genuinely sing (but are still nothing spectacular) are going home in tears after being beaten by talentless twats who are being kept alive by a dumbed-down society who find it amusing to let the "underdog" win through. Or in the case of f*cking "Strictly", some overweight unco-ordinated fading TV star who couldn't dance for shit.


The SuBo fiasco really did explode the link between the media and these TV shows. Ridiculous amounts of column inches were devoted to the sheer amazement that, OH MY GOD, an UGLY woman has a talent! Ugly fat hairy people can sing! Have we been so brainwashed that our perception of talent is inextricably linked to beauty and physical perfection? Appearances on Oprah, bloody Demi tweeting about her, American fan frenzy - all because an ugly bint had a modicum of talent. Sooooo overrated. Gordon Brown trumpeted how he called Cowell up to ask how she was doing after her breakdown - a puerile PR stunt geared to try to make him appear trendier in the eyes of his dumbed-down country (who never even elected him in the first place). Parents of 19 year old young men blown to bits in Iraq spoke loudly of how Mr Brown had never phoned THEM to ask how they were coping with the loss of their sons. It seems a fat hairy bint who could sing was of more importance to our Glorious PM.


What they fail to realise is that on building up the untalented twats such as Jedward, they are setting them up for a nasty fall when they are discarded by those who promised them everything. How many have we already seen thrown into the gutter and reviled by those who once loved them and voted for them? Gareth Gates anyone? Michelle McManus? Jedward know they can't sing. Some say they are "enjoying it while they can". But they are young, naive, pumped up by the Yes Men around them and convinced of their own Star Immortality. Deep down they probably believe that they will become real bona fide stars, that Cowell will somehow transform them into Timberlake. That they can't POSSIBLY be dropped because the entire country seems to "love" them. But it's only a matter of time.


Anyways I digress, and I care very little for these idiots who thrust themselves into the spotlight and allow themselves to be royally butt-fucked by TV producers and Cowell. My main rant is that we as a country seem to be forgetting the more important issues, drowned are we by so many "headlines" about such insignificant and staged twaddle. Banks are still giving out massive bonuses, RBS is accepting yet another Govt handout. We pay more tax than the rest of Europe on our Diesel fuel. Our unelected Prime Minister is still wrecking the country. Feral Chav Breeding is on the rise, the family unit is breaking down irreversibly, Obama still hasn't closed Guantanamo (Yes We Can! Er it seems not....), and the Middle East Wars continue. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and have more babies that my taxes keep paying for.


Do these Strictly X Factor Bollocks headlines help to keep the nation diverted, pacified, and hypnotised from reading and even caring about the utter shitpond the country - the world is floating in? Do our media and TV people care so little about lending a huge helping hand in the mass-dumbing down of an entire gullible nation? Newspapers all need a massive kick up the arse and they need to knock heads and collectively make decisions to ignore certain "headlines" and especially certain "celebrities". How much paper has been wasted printing shit about Britney, Lindsey, Paris, Peaches?? Insignificant specks of humanity on the global scale of things. But while our Nation of Stupids continue to be interested in these twats, the media will feed off them to make money. It truly sickens me. And yeah you'll all post on here saying "well you're just as bad as you're ranting about it".


It's just very worrying when more people vote for talentless twats than vote for their Country's leader. Maybe we should turn the General Election into a Talent Show, where all the party leaders have to slug it out in Jello while wearing bin liners and trying to sing Karaoke to Britney. It's about the only thing that will get the interest of our foetal-brained Public.


As from today I will endeavour to stick to REAL news websites such as truthout.org, which provides uncensored unbiased real news reporting from around the world. It just means there won't be as many amusing links posted on my Facebook :P I'm sure you'll all survive.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Forget Hollywood heroes, here's a real one......

Tom Cruise may be playing the Last Samurai on the big screen but in Taiji, Japan, American Nicholas Hensey is the Last Samurai on the present day reality stage.

Since September 29, Nik has been hunkered down in the southeastern coastal village of Taiji, Japan, home of some of the world's most vicious and cruel dolphin killers. Each day that he is there, the killers become angrier and more threatening. On October 3rd, some sixty Striped dolphins were rounded up and slaughtered with knives and spears.


Nik and his two crewmembers Brooke McDonald of Canada and Morgan Whorwood of Britain disrupted the hunt with their cameras. They were attacked by fishermen and then arrested by local police. There were no charges and the trio was released. Their continued presence discouraged further dolphin drives until October 23 when some thirty Mellon headed whales were seen being driven into the Bay.


Nik, Morgan and Brooke began to bang rocks together to distract some of the whales away and seventeen of them were able to escape the drive. The other thirteen were penned to await slaughter. On the evening of October 23, Brooke and Morgan departed from Taiji. On October 24, Nik found himself alone in Taiji when the slaughter began. He climbed the cliff to film the slaughter and this resulted in an attack by fishermen who began to hit him with sticks.


[b]He stood them down and at one point challenged any of the fishermen to a duel with kendo swords. These are bamboo swords used for training in the art of Japanese swordsmanship. Nik has been a student of Kendo for some time. "If you want me to leave, I will, if you beat me in a duel. Who's up for it? Which one of you dolphin killers wants to have a one on one with a man and not a defenseless dolphin. Bamboo swords and no armor?" There were no takers[/b] and later that evening Ric O'Berry arrived to reinforce Nik's efforts.


Ric O'Berry is a world famous dolphin defender who has spent nearly four decades working with dolphins and Nik was happy to see him arrive. Since October 1st, the Japanese fishermen have slain 60 Striped dolphins and 13 Mellon headed whales. Last year during this period they had slaughtered hundreds of dolphins so clearly Nik and his crew have had some impact. Nik Hensey has now spent nearly a month in this hostile and violent village of dolphin killers. He intends to stay. Sea Shepherd is working to recruit reinforcements to back him up in the field. It is our intention to carry this campaign throughout November to save as many dolphins and small whales as possible.


To learn more about what you can do, visit the Sea Shephard Conservation Society's website at
http://www.seashepherd.org/help.shtml

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Why DO babies turn so many brilliant women into slummy mummies?

By Helen Kirwan-taylor


slummy munmmy

The other week, an old friend arrived at our house for dinner.

She is a feisty Oxford graduate who was once beautiful, but she was wearing a skirt that was way too tight - because she had filled out - and she hadn't bothered to redo her highlights.

My heart sank when I saw her because I realised that here was yet another clever, pretty woman who had chosen to sacrifice herself and her marriage to motherhood.

Why is it that when so many women become mothers they turn into boring frumps with one-track conversational minds that rarely stray from the oh- so fascinating subjects of nurseries, nappies and (lactating) nipples.

These women infuriate me. They think they are doing what's best for their children when, really, they are committing the worst form of self-neglect, and insulting their marriage into the bargain.

Most of the women who think having a child entitles them to become unattractive, undesirable and uninteresting are, inevitably, British.

Somehow, women in the rest of the Western world manage to maintain their weight and minds while raising happy children.

And they are also more likely to keep their husbands.

When I had the first of my two sons 15 years ago, I could have abandoned the gym and hairdresser, opted for baggy clothes and ceased to have adult conversations, boring my husband rigid with baby talk.

But I was sensible enough to know this would be the road to disaster.

I instinctively knew it would be better to wait for him to come home for dinner than to succumb to the temptation to eat with the children at 6pm.

Yes, it is hard work to maintain your looks and interests when you have small children, but it is something women just have to do.

It might sound brutal, but this is a short, but crucial juncture in any relationship. Women have to see that their marriage matters as much as their children.

At a time when divorce is on the rise and families are breaking up, it seems even more important for women to --consider their other halves.

Men have a profound interest in their own children, but they also have adult sexual human urges - women ignore them at their peril. When a woman puts her child first, she is making a choice.

For every mother with greasy hair and a flabby bum (even though she can afford gym membership) who has lost interest in herself and the world, there is a husband ready to go on the prowl.

WHY DO men sleep with their secretaries? Because they really do want to talk about work.

Children are part of a family. But they are not the family. They are not an excuse to drop standards. Women who prefer the company of children need to ask : 'What am I avoiding?'

They are avoiding life and opting out of adulthood.

Yes, children need stimulating, but they are not entertainment. Nor are they an excuse to let yourself go.

Happy mothers groom! Show me a slob and I'll show you a depressed mother. Recently, a male writer suggested that something resembling a lobotomy happens to even the smartest of women when they reproduce.

He complained that his wife, who once performed in a competitive arena, dressed to kill and kept in shape - who even liked sex now and then - morphed into a frumpy, middle-aged, asexual, insanely dull woman after having their first baby.

These complaints were met with an avalanche of vitriol.

Criticise a mother and you might as well thwack a defenceless, sick animal with a baseball bat for the reaction you can expect.

Trouble is, you might just have a point.

I have many girlfriends who started life in the fast lane, got degrees, landed big jobs and great men, got pregnant - and then it all went pear-shaped.

Many never lost the baby fat (they didn't try). The slinky underwear and heels never came out of the wardrobe again.

And husbands who had to work twice as hard so their wives could pursue a full-time career in babies could not even look forward to having dinner with their wives.

The women had started eating with the children and then (to make the babies sleep), some even got into bed with them.

It came as a huge shock when their husbands started to stay away or, in some cases, found someone who would stay up past 8.30pm.

I remember the point ten years ago at which children became a cult.

Women started going to pre-natal, toddler, organic baking, yoga and parenting classes.

If you were in the sect, you had no shortage of friends, but anyone who suggested there might be a whole (normal) world outside (including me) got shot down.

Men just cowered and complained (to each other).

But when women give everything to their children, they lose part of themselves. The truth is - and no one will admit this - that men dread talking to these sorts of women, let alone be married to one. My husband is one of them.

Adults gather together in the evenings to discuss grown-up things.

Though our children are a huge part of our lives, they are an intimate and private part - and should remain that way. In my parents' day, women were expected to join in conversations about politics and literature (they could talk babies afterwards with the other women).

Mothers today consider children a topic that must be discussed at all times and in all places.

I call it narcissism. When a mother talks to me about her children beyond the polite five minutes - unless it is for important reasons - I consider it insulting.

Women bond through intimacy. The new school of sloppy mothers aren't sharing: they're bragging.

They're saying we have no time to brush our teeth or comb our hair because we have such an important job. We're better than you. Sorry, but how is it that European women manage to raise non-violent, happy, confident children and still look fantastic?

I recently went to a retreat called the Hoffman Process where no one was allowed to discuss their real identity. For seven days we didn't utter a word about our children.

We had to start conversations based on our life experiences, ideas and feelings. I left knowing these people better than some female acquaintances of 20 years.

Many women use children as a shield to keep other people from getting too close. It looks benign because the subject (babies) is cuddly, but it's almost a hostile act.

I also know women who only discuss children with their husbands to avoid dealing with the real relationship they have.

Children are not oblivious to being used as an excuse for not getting on with other things.

We live in a society where children are pushed to the brink in a host of ways.

Meanwhile, their mothers check out of normal adult society altogether.

Living through someone else is a psychological illness, not a badge of honour.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

It takes guts to say: 'I don't want children'

Cameron Diaz always struck me as sensible. Maybe because she never joined Scientology, or married anyone patently ridiculous, despite toiling for a decade and a half at the coalface of Hollywood A-listiness. Maybe because she gives a damn fine impression of not taking herself too seriously.

Last week, Diaz proved herself especially sensible. I'll go further. She was wise, insightful, right.

The actress told Cosmopolitan magazine that being a woman and admitting you didn't want children is taboo. "I think women are afraid to say that they don't want children because they're going to get shunned ... I have more girlfriends who don't have kids than those that do. And honestly? We don't need any more kids. We have plenty of people on this planet."

Diaz, who is 36, didn't go as far as to say that she definitely does not want children. But to be openly, loudly undecided on the issue - at the point when her biological clock should be ticking so loudly that she can hardly sleep, eat or think about anything else - is to be brave enough, frankly. It's an admission that invites suspicion and pity. To be a thirtysomething woman in 2009 and not want a child so desperately that you think you might die is simply not allowed.

In February, I wrote a column for Observer Woman about not wanting children. I am 37, nearly a year to the day older than Diaz and I just don't. I never have.

Unlike Diaz, I did not know that voluntary childlessness is an unacceptable crime to cop to. I thought I was merely expressing an opinion. I thought that people who want - or have - children, would accept that I do not, just as I accept their choice. After all, it's my (notional) babies I am rejecting, not theirs.

I was wrong.

I stated my case. I listed my reasons, even though it annoys me that the child-free have to justify their status. No one ever asks a parent why they have kids. But I explained that I like my life as it is, my lifestyle, my career. I explained that I had felt this way for 30 years - and that even though all the things that were supposed to change my mind (love, a long-term relationship, pressure from breeding contemporaries) had happened to me, I remain resolutely childless.

I explained that I like the potential of my childless existence: to travel, sleep, read, drink, watch HBO box sets, have feckless fun.

I talked about how difficult it is to be child-free, when popular culture fetishises parenthood in general and motherhood in particular. When the dramatic arc of all TV dramas, of all rom-coms, is dependent on someone becoming pregnant and finding true happiness as a consequence. Babies are the newest archetype on the happy ending, therefore not wanting them is tantamount to not wanting to be happy.

I talked about how weird it is to be disconnected from this baby-crazy culture. Like being sober while everyone else is drunk. I talked about how strange it is to not even care whether or not I'm infertile, when apparently it's all anyone else thinks about.

Was I antagonistic? Possibly. I tried not to be, but I am passionate about this. I was certainly a bit sensational, a bit flippant. The headline referred to the rise of the "dummy mummy" generation - an inflammatory turn of phrase.

The reaction to the piece was terrifying. Emails and letters arrived, condemning me, expressing disgust. I was denounced as bitter, selfish, un-sisterly, unnatural, evil. I'm now routinely referred to as "baby-hating journalist Polly Vernon".

So yes, Cameron Diaz, I can tell you from experience that you are right. Admit that you don't ache for children with every fibre of your being and you will be shunned. Shunning's the tip of the iceberg. I wish I'd been shunned. Shunning would have been blissful, relatively.

The furore's blown over; my childlessness endures. I've registered a gender split in the way people respond to it, if it comes up socially.

Women might think I'm in denial, but they let me get on with it now. Men, meanwhile, are astounded. Flummoxed. They become aggressive, sneering. They psychoanalyse me, they try to work out what's wrong with me. Who knows why? Perhaps they feel rejected. Perhaps the idea that there are women at large who are not actively pursuing their sperm is an out-and-out affront to a certain kind of man. The same men who have spent years believing that all women secretly want to trap them into commitment and fatherhood, probably.

For whatever reason, I've been pulled up on my wanton childless status, loudly and at length, by three different men, in three different pubs, over the course of the last fortnight alone.

Here's the thing: we need to stop pretending that childlessness isn't happening to us. It is. The birth rate in Europe is in steep decline. We know this. We know that, currently, 40% of UK university graduates aged 35 are childless and that at least 30% will stay that way permanently. We know that much of this childlessness is involuntary or, at least, unconsidered, the consequence of infertility, a lack of opportunity or leaving it too late.

But some of it will be like mine - cherished, rigorously maintained, valued. For everyone's sake, it's good to have that sort of a blueprint on a life without children. Childlessness is going to be a feature in many of our lives; we need to start seeing it as a choice, a valid option, rather than a failing. We certainly need it not to be taboo.

We need to stop making the voluntarily childless feel like they have a guilty secret. We need to stop shunning or vilifying the likes of me (in this instance, at least), and, much more importantly, Cameron Diaz and her mates.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

The Trouble with Single Childfree Women

Found this post here: http://unmarriedestate.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/the-trouble-with-single-childfree-women/

Great blog!

========================

They must be stopped. They are dangerous. American society has a fear of single childfree women. Can you really blame them?

Most people are under the impression that once a woman reaches a certain age (usually before 30), she is supposed to “settle down.” That is, she is to get married and get on with the baby-making. However, those who follow the settle-down advice often find themselves in a quandary. They wonder why adjusting to this supposedly perfect family life is so difficult. They wonder why the marital bliss that everyone promised would naturally flow their way has been so elusive. So what is the reason for all of this? According to this author, when a woman gets married and has children her life as she knows it is over. This is a life she has spent 5, 10, sometimes 20 years building. She loves her family, of course, but she begins to resent her husband and children for the unhappy state of her life. Because traditional family life is so over hyped, women are led to believe that NOTHING, not friends, volunteer work or a great career, can make them happier than marriage and children. The part they never mention is that some women are already happy. They have wonderful lives, they are financially independent and socially active and perfectly content. Some women are beginning to realize that they do not want marriage or children. They like their lives as they are.

It is these women that are dangerous. Because unlike other women, they cannot be shamed, blamed or tamed.

The culture demands that we tame independent women, but since we can’t brand them as witches and drown them anymore, we must find some other way to diminish their power. So we shame women by calling them sluts for having the audacity to take control of their own sex lives, to ask for sex when they want it and tell their partner how they want it. We shame women for using contraceptives and abortion, which allows them to enjoy sex without the consequence of motherhood. We scare them with the image of the old hag that grows old alone and tell them that they will never attract a good man if they keep having all that enjoyable sex and working at that fulfilling job that will never love them back. After the shame comes the blame. “Unhappy, little girl? It’s your fault. If you would just do what we say, get married, have the kids, and go broke buying clothing, beauty and diet products, you would be happy!!!” Single mothers get the brunt of this. Single motherhood is blamed for every social ill you can possibly imagine: crime, drug abuse, high school drop out rates, and low college attendance among certain populations (black people and poor people – which many believe are the same thing). The solution for the federal government is to coerce poor mothers into get married, while the Wedding Industrial Complex sells happily every after to the middle and upper class women.

Once women are shamed and blamed, they can more easily be tamed. The shame leads them to stop having free and active sex lives and focusing on those great careers. The blame leads women to look for husbands and mortgage their house to pay for the perfect wedding. And once women have been shamed and blamed into submission, they are tamed and are no longer a threat.

The single childfree woman is immune to this. She has no interest in marriage, so she is not shamed into thinking she will never find a husband if she has sex before marriage. She has no desire to mother so she cannot be blamed for society’s ills and will never be guilt tripped into marrying her child’s father simply because the government believes marriage is better. She will not quit the job she loves because she is made to feel guilty for working and paying another to care for her children during the day. She is truly free. She cannot be tamed. And she is not alone. As of the 2000 census, there are about 5.3 million of her.

Friday, June 05, 2009

Terminator Salvation review

T4 started badly when they didn't use the original theme tune, which is sacrilige....Superman Returns managed it, why not T4?

They seriously need to get Cameron or Ridley on board with this franchise. I found the plot to be thin, two pointless characters in the Moon Bloodgood girl and the mute little kid. WTF was the point of those two? No real character plot around them at all, apart from her seemingly letting a Terminator go free because she fancied him. He was a Terminator yet she immediately trusted him. They are killers and they will decieve and do anything to achieve their ultimate goal. Yet she "listens to his strong heartbeat" and decides he's OK.

The swimming Terminator worm things were such a ripoff from Transformers it was unbelievable. All I could think of was the little evil Transformer when I saw them, they even made a similar noise. Bale's John Connor seemed to lack any sort of Gravitas or authority, which he commanded in Reign of Fire as the leader of the last dregs of humanity against the Dragons. And he randomly jumps out of a troop transporter into the sea (carrying his gun and with earpiece intact) at the EXACT location of a submerged submarine, to go chat to his superiors? Gimmie a break, why not just radio them?

Considering that humanity is supposed to be blown to shit, they had a surprisingly efficient little resistance going on. A fully manned airbase with power and seemingly unlimited aviation fuel to power all their jets and helicopters? And nothing was attacking this base that was lit up like a Christmas tree? That would have been wiped out by HKs long ago. They even had top of the range flat screens and technology too. Everyone seemed well fed, fit and healthy. Where was the starvation and desperation seen in T1 when you see Kyle coming back from duty into his underground bunker, and observing the misery and hoplessness of people on the brink?

Too much stuff was stolen from the first 2 films aswell. The scene where Connor comes back to his base and everyone stands up out of respect as he walks by - from T2. The crawling Terminator torso chasing Connor just like in T1 chasing Sarah. The frozen Terminator covered in molten steel, would have been totally melted - like when Arnie was lowered into the steel in T2....but no, this one survived and did a copycat routine of Robert Patrick trying to walk while frozen, only this time it was molten steel not ice. Connor backing up and trying to fire at an oncoming Terminator, just liek Sarah in T2. And I'll forgive the old line of "I'll be back" as that *has* to be thrown in ;)

As for the CGI Arnie - utterly gratuitous and pointless, although very cleverly done.

The only thing that impressed me was Anton Yelchin/Kyle Reese. I remember he was in Spielberg's "Taken" as the young Jacob Clarke, and he pulls off Reese perfectly in this film. He has the hunted look in his eyes, the wiry strength and the solid determination to survive. Shame he had to drag around the mute pointless kid in every action scene.

Lots of explosions, lots of noise, all helps mask a paper thin storyline. If they are going to do another instalment I hope to hell they get a better team on board. Bale usually impresses me but this time he faded into the background, eclipsed by Yelchin, who seemed more of a leader than John Connor ever would be.

Also, the radio controlled Terminator motorbikes rocked....

Sunday, May 03, 2009

My entire BH weekend RUINED by kids/bad parenting

I really think there should be designated "Child-free" days at a lot of attractions, paraticularly ones that aren't always "kid-friendly", ie stately homes and gardens. There was talk of CF days a London museums but I'm not sure if this has happened. I had a day out at Blenheim Palace yesterday - a place I've always wanted to see - and it was ruined by kiddies/bad parenting.

Admittedly I knew what I was in for - it was a special day of jousting and falconry which I wanted to see, as well as to finally tour the house and grounds. So I knew it would be full of kids. But OMG I seem to be growing more and more intolerant of their presence. The Jousting was sub-standard which was a shame as I LOVE watching it, and was more theatrical "for the kiddies" than any serious jousting. Before it even started we were subjected to 10 minutes of kids being invited into the arena, given pretend swords, then paraded around for a couple of laps while screaming "we are soldiers of the King!" while proud parents videotaped them to death. Anyway I'll not whinge about that cos that was totally expected to be kid-dominated TBH.

My beef was whn I was touring the actual house. The first hurdle wasn't even kiddie orientated! I drove thru the gates and paid for entry with my card, they gave me a receipt and a guide leaflet. I get to the entrance of the house and the woman asks for my ticket, I produced the card receipt, the leaflet and said I wasn't given a ticket. She looked at me like I was a bad smell, examined the receipt, and said snottily "well I shouldnt' really let you in". :shock: :shock: :evil: :evil: WTF?? "Er, but there is a debit card receipt dated 10 minutes ago to prove [b]I HAVE PAID!!!![/b]". She finally allowed me to go in and sternly told me to take my backpack off my shoulders when walking around. Nice. Welcome to Blenheim!

So I go into the first State room which has letters written by Churchill all over the walls. Having read his early autobiography I was keen to browse these. But oh, the room was full, and the first thing you hear is a grizzling bored child making that horrible crying/whiney noise that they do. After shuffling around in the crowd, trying to get to the letters to read them, and finally being unable to shut out the grizzling child so I could concentrate on the letters, I gave up and went to the next room.

The next room had kiddies in it, talking loudly, asking stupid questions (loudly), and one of them had covered the information panel with his colouring book so I couldn't read it. Daddy saw me leaning over the kid and peering at the panel but did he tell little Timmy to move? No. Onto the next room. Crying child. Parents looking at tapestries and half heartedly shusshing quiet child. Tranquility ruined by screeching. Onto the next room. More kids, more kiddie babble. Pleas for ice cream - REPEATEDLY. Parents ignoring the incessant noise disturbing the peace.

And so it went on. I was incapable of lingering for long in each room to drink in the history of the place, I simply coudln't STAND the kiddie babble. So I went upstairs where they have a new feature which is a remote control audio tour of 6 other rooms where the doors open and close themselves and voices, anamatronics and video talk you thru some Blenheim stories. It was excellently done but RUINED. Initially I was the only one waiting for the next tour to begin, but just as I stepped into the first room, along came mummy daddy and little Tabitha. :evil: :evil: :evil:

Sure enough, after a few minutes litening to the narrative in the first room, the kiddie-babble began. Loudly. Parents feeble efforts to shush her didn't work. The next room, kiddie was quiet. The third room, kiddie was bored and started crying - like the really LOUD clarion foghorn crying. By now I was past giving a *bleep* and I turned and glared fully at them. They then tried to shush little Tabitha to no avail, buy now her nose was running and she gurgled as if she was drowning in snot. The door to the next room wasn't due to open for another 2 minutes, and here I was trapped in a room with such noise as to make me want to remove my ovaries with a rusty spoon. After tolerating it for a little longer I cursed loudly under my breath and pushed the door thru onto the next room, thus missing part of the tour. After a few minues the door opened automatically and the screaming came thru so I had to push thru to the NEXT room, again missing that section of the tour.

In short, I ended up just walking thru the whole tour and pretty much missing it, because those selfish parents did NOT remove their child from the tour. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Down to the gardens and the river walk, and kiddies were rolling down the slopes and screaming as loudly as possible, while parents yelled at them or took video. Further down near the river where there was nothing to amuse kiddies, it was BLISS. I finally found a tranquil pocket after 2.5 hours of constant noise.

[URL=http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2229723930041191282aDKUFg][IMG]http://inlinethumb39.webshots.com/422/2229723930041191282S425x425Q85.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

I walked along the river walk and noticed how most people just blandly followed the path, talking with eachother, never stopping to really LOOK and SEE the surroundings. Parents with kids rushed along, not seeing ANYTHING but what the kids were doing...."stay on the path, don't go near the water, don't throw sticks, wait for your sister, look at the ducks, put that down it's dirty". Meanwhile I ambled along and took in every detail.

I frequently strayed off the path and saw much more - different views, more flowers, and most of all - PEACE and quiet. It was almost a metaphor for how people live their life today. They blindly stick to the path and follow everyone else, while if they strayed from the path they could see some lovely things.

When I came to this Bluebell-coated ditch I had to stand there while daddy and mummy took photos of little Timmy and his brothers playing sword fights and shredding bluebells with their plastic swords. They saw me standing there, pointedly, with my camera, clearly waiting to take a photo but they didn't hurry along. No, they probably enjoyed the fact that someone was watching their precious unique stunning fascinating little brats destroy Bluebells.

Maybe it would have been better to get them to stand and look at the flowers and watch for insects and appreciate their surroundings, instead of encouraging them to run rampage and destroy it all. I still wince when I see kiddies charging at flocks of pigeons and scattering them all over whil mummy simpers and laughs. My parents made us stand still and watch while the pigeons came right up to us so we could see them close. You tell me which is the better behaviour to encourage?

I moved onto the Butterfly house, which was a new feature. Walked into the 80% humidity greenhouse and started hunting for butterflies. Cue mum, dad and pushchair. Loud voices MUM I CAN'T SEE ANY BUTTERFLIES....OOOH THERE'S ONE....WHY ARE ITS WINGS CRUMPLED.....CAN WE PICK THEM UP.

Now I'm not gonna moan about them being all loud and obnixous cos they are kids and that's just what kids are like but I *am* going to moan about how the PARENTS never told them to hush it down a bit and be mindful of other people in the area. Not everyone wants to listen to their kiddies opinions but parents don't seem to care. By all means encourage your kids to talk about butterflies but MUST THEY ALWAYS SHOUT and be stupidly LOUD!!!!!!!!!!!!! Same goes for when I was in the house itself......parents simply could not or did not instil in their children that this is a public place, an old stately home, and that they should have some respect for the surroundings and for the other people present who want to see and browse. And they should be a QUIET as possible, and not to shout.

Kids will always be boisterous and energetic but if they are never taught to have respect for others around them and taught the correct behaviour in public, then they will perpetuate this behaviour to THEIR kids.

I would have liked to spend more time butterfly hunting but trapped in a greenhouse with 80% humidity and noisy kids as akin to Guantanamo torture in my book, so I left. Went to the cafe for some food. £2.50 for a hot chocolate and £2.20 for a slice of cake, I don't think so!! Also as I walked in there were piercing screams coming from one corner, as another kid had a tantrum. I did an about face and all but fled the cafe. By now my nerves were in SHREDS.

All in all, my day at Blenheim was not 100% enjoyable. But would I be allowed to complain and get a refund? Probably not. I just wonder what parents would have said if I'd turned up with a group of girls, and proceeded to be all "loud, girly and hen night"-ish. I reckon parents would have tutted and moaned for England.

The only way I can enjoy these sort of venues is to go on a weekday during school term times. But my Thursdays are reserved for sewing stuff for Fuzzbutt so it's valuable time that I can't always give up for days out. Should places like these have kid-free days? Definitely - I just can't see it happening because as for so many of these places, they need as much money as they can get....and you can bet that attendance would plummet on non-kid days. Or would it??? Maybe they could have a non-kid-day that also welcomes more OAPS, or something.

I remember my parents taking us to some stately homes when we were kids but we were always told to be quiet, and if we weren't we got a sharp smack. I can't remember what sort of kid I was and whether I was a tearaway or not, but as youngsters we were never taken to places that mum thought would bore us, ie art galleries or "grown-up" attractions. We mostly went to steam engine rallies and beaches and coastlines as kids. Looking thru the family albums there are very few photos of us as grown-up venues. We loved beaches and exploring rock pools :mrgreen:

Would any venues in the future even dare to suggest child-free days, I wonder. For UK museums there'd not be an issue as they are state funded so don't rely on visitors to pay their bills. But other attractions need bodies thru the gates and would be afraid of isolating parents by pretty much saying "don't bring your brats". I also reckon that any designated CF day would be a weekday, so I'd still have to take time off work.

And [b]TODAY[/b] - well I'm just about to go downstairs and cook a whole stack of syrupy pancakes to try to de-stress me. Our local independent cinema was showing one of my fave musicals of all time "Singin in the Rain" so I went along. At a cost of over £13 including ticket and parking $19) Came in, sat down, then SEVEN KIDS and two adults trooped in and sat at the front. I nearly walked out then and there. Average age of the kids was probably about 5. I'm sorry but WHAT FIVE YEAR OLD wants to see a 1950s musical? Well quite simply, they didn't - the ADULTS did though. And the adults either a) refused to pay for a babysitter b) hubby was too busy c) hubby wasn't around. So they brought the kids with them, along with armfuls of bags of sweets to no doubt placate them, not realising a) the wrappers would make a noise and b) the sugar would make the kids restless.

Film begins - kids are curious and therefore quiet. Give them their dues, the majority of them were quiet and well behaved. But two of them (the youngest) were certainly not. 15 minutes and the little girl was standing up and talking to mummy. Mummy sits little girl on lap. sweet packages crunching. Little boy starts yawning loudly. Old woman next to me simpers and laughs. I nearly asked her WTF was so funny about a bored kid disrupting the film?????

25 minutes in - girl starts with the whiny voice, mum shushes her, girl keeps whing and mummy sits her on lap along with yawning boy. 1 hour in - girl is walking up and down the cinema aisle while mum ignores her. I go out and speak to the usher, tell him that two very young kids who are clearly bored, are disrupting the movie for me. Usher comes in and speaks to mum.

1 hr 15 mins and little girl is still wandering up and down the aisle. Little boy is still yawning loudly and thinking he's funny. Little girl comes back to mummy but stand ups, wanders around, sits on mummy's knee, wanders around again, kiddie-babble begins. By now I want to scream out loud and hit them all with my bag. I decide it's pointless to tell the usher again. Mummy simply didn't CARE that her kids were bored because *she* wanted to see the film. And yet *WE* get called the "selfish" ones for NOT having kids???

I'm sorry but when your kids are that young, if you want to see a movie like that, GET A DVD and watch it at home. Then your precious angels can scream and run around as much as they want.

I'm so angry at the [b]sheer selfishness [/b]of it all. She eventually took them out on the very last scene, and she slammed the autitorium door nicely after her too. Then as we all filed out, one of the kiddies could be heard in the courtyard screaming like hell itself.

So my BH so far has been ruined. Tomorrow I'm at home all day sewing for Fuzzbutt, no doubt if I open my windows I'll hear the screaming neighbours kids all day. I *so* need to move out to the middle of nowhere :(

Right, time fo pancakes :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

The family who are "too fat to work"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1162503/The-real-telly-tubbies-X-Factor-failures-83-stone-family-claim-simply-fat-work.html

"They haven’t worked in 11 years, claiming their weight is due to a hereditary condition. Instead, the family spend their days in front of a television borrowed from a friend. Mr Chawner said: ‘We love TV. It’s on from the moment we get up. Often I’m so tired from watching TV I have to have a nap.’ "

Asked why they don’t simply go on a diet, the jobless Chawner family who are so obese their neighbours call them ‘the telly tubbies’ insist: ‘We don’t have the time.’

==============================

OH MY FUCKING GOD

Their daily diet consists of nothing but fattening food with no proper nutrition. They lead sedentary lives, spend their days watching telly yet are "TOO BUSY TO DIET"??

And our Nanny State says "That's fine, we'll just pay you benefits". Why the fuck aren't they assigning this family a nutritionist and giving them food preparation and nutrition classes, under the threat of "if you don't attend we stop your benefits".

All their ailments are caused by their obesity, which will get worse if they are allowed to continue eating such an unhealthy diet. Then the NHS will foot the bill of all their problems in later life.

It seems to be easier to chuck benefits at them and forget about them, than to actually take some fucking action. With the amount of tubby kids up and coming in the new generations, how many more fatty families are we going to end up paying for, on top of the Chav Generation and the "I want a council house" teen parent generation?

It seems in the Government's drive to "halt the obesity epedemic", there is NOT ENOUGH preventative action being taken at all. Supermarkets need to halve the amount of rubbish food they stock, they need to remove the sweets from the checkout racks where they tempt kiddies to pester their parents. They need to put taxes on junk food and takeaways, and start a better campaign to promote fruit and vegetables.

Forget the "5 a day" bollocks, it's simply too confusing to most people. "2 pieces of brocolli is one portion of your 5-a-day!!" Sod off, the average witless chav won't understand a word of that, it's easier for them to dial Domino's.

Why aren't more celebrities coming on board to promote fruit and veg as "cool" and to make today's easily-led kids and gullible adults a bit more malleable to try fresher foods and to stop using the microwave? DUring the AIDS epedemic there were Govt sponsored ads about condoms, and also during the peak of the Heroin crisis. So if we really ARE in an "Obesity epedemic" then where the fuck are the "Eat fruit and veg" Govt sponsored adverts????????

They used shock tactics for the Heroin adverts, showing emaciated junkies looking half dead. So why don't we line up a group of severely obese kids, in front of a table full of their weeks' worth of crap food, then cut to their parents and a voice saying "why are you killing your children?" Cut then to a shot of the family from the Mail article above, sitting in front of their tellies wheezing and rasping and moaning they are "too fat to work but too busy to diet".

The PC Brigade would howl that we are hurting the kids' feelings by showing them as an example of fat kids. ER WELL THEY ARE FAT, perhaps shock tactics are what is needed here!!! And if we don't want to upset the kids then IMO there is NOTHING wrong with upsetting and shaming the parents who sit by and happily watch their kids eat McDonalds, Pizza, fizzy drinks, and anything BUT food that is good for them. "I don't know how to cook" is not an excuse. Buy a book, look on the web, go to classes, ask your friends. "We don't have time to prepare meals". Well try quitting watching endless soaps and Strictly Come Dancing, and spend some more time in your goddam kitchen.

And if you still simpkly can't be arsed to make the effort, then don't come crying to us when your 30 stone teen needs his stomach stapled and you want the NHS toi pay for it. Fuckwits.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Where the fuck have manners gone?

Just got back from the cinema from seeing Young Victoria....I assumed I would have an undisturbed performance as it wasn't the sort of film that young kids or Chavs would go to see. But I didn't figure for the bunch of fat housewives who had also come along and were sitting on the back row.

I guess I should have seen the warning signs when they didn't shut the fuck up during the trailers....or during the opening credits of the film.....or during the first scene. Despite turning round and glaring at them, did they shut up? No. Every scene they were talkinga bout, when Vic and Albert finally kissed they clapped and cheered, and their murmurings continued throughout the entire film. had there been any staff in the building who were over 16 and qualified to deal with disrutive clients, I would have gone and reported them. But the army of teens staffing the cinema clearly had no customer service training so it was pointless.

I don't fucking pay over £7 to watch a film that has incessant commentary by a bunch of overweight saggy fucking housewive witches.

If I wanted to know your opinion on the costumes and hairstyles in the film I'd FUCKING AS FOR IT. NOW FUCK OFF BACK HOME TO YOUR SHITTY FAMILY, UNGRATEFUL BRATS, DEADBEAT HUSBAND AND DEAD LIFE AND LEARN SOME FUCKING RESPECT FOR OTHER PEOPLE AROUND YOU WHEN YOU ARE IN A PUBLIC PLACE. Or next time I'll have some words for you that will be so fucking vicious you'll shit down the legs of your M&S fucking trousers. BITCHES.

Thursday, March 05, 2009

Close Encounters - soooo retro!

So I finally bought the Collectors Edition DVD of Close Encounters (not the version with the "inside the spaceship" rubbish bit). I've not watched it for at least 7 years and last night while sewing a pile of Fuzzbutt gear, I totally enjoyed every minute of it. It's soooo utterly Retro now that it's almost in fashion again. How fab was it to watch a UFO film that didn't involve cellphones, internet, virtual-reality "minority report" sort of computer wizardry, and tons of OTT CGI effects. How cool was it to see all those chunky clunky computers using tapes and making clicking noises!!

The houses were blissfully Playstation-free and internet-free , the kids played with toys not XBoxes, kids ACTED like kids - not mini adults with bad attitudes who were spoiled and demanding, the telephones had dials on them, the music was played on record players not MP3s players or CD players. I felt totally old when I realised this was the childhood I grew up with. We read books and didn't spend hours staring at a computer screen, we weren't bombarded with constant TV images of raunchy pop stars, Z-list celebs, and sex sex sex. We were ALLOWED to be kids back then. Part of me yearns for the good old days of childhood innocence. But I digress!

What I found most remarkable though, in comparison with all other subsequent UFO films, is Spielberg's vision of another race coming to our planet, and we The Humans, receiving them in absolute peace, trust, and a dangerous sense of innocence. When the big Mother Ship finally appears over Devils Tower, there isn't a tank, gun, Army Major or camo-clad soldier in site. Just a bunch of scientists in white coats and Ray-Bans. Nobody is there to shoot or capture the aliens, nobody feels threatened or scared. Back then, America wasn't nearly as publicly paranoid and "Terrorist-fearing" as it is now, and I think this film reflects that. This film was before the PNAC was written, before the Reagans, Clintons and Bush's realised that by terrifying their people with fear propaganda, they could control them. Nowadays EVERYTHING is a threat to America, and just like the remake of Day the Earth Stood Still, you can bet that if these aliens came back to earth today they'd be met with suspicion, aggression, fear, and a fuck-off HUGE arsenal.

What I found amusing is they way the scientists in the film happily offered up a dozen red-silk clad people as Alien Donations.....not knowing what would happen to them if they were taken. It could be a fantastic step for human-alien relations, or these people could have the skin peeled off their flesh while still alive, and their reproductive organs melted or something. And why offer them more humans when the first thing the ship does, is release all the military personnel it abducted back in WW2?

I laughed out loud when I saw the preacher doing a final blessing on the "volunteers". Laughed because he was blathering on about how "God's Angels have come for you and will protect you". For even in the face of a REAL LIVE ALIEN SPACESHIP, these brainwashed bloody preachers STILL insist that they are "the work of God". Er I don't think so.

Then finally we see Richard Dreyfuss' character going into the spaceship. And apparently not giving two shits that he's leaving behind a wife and three brattish kids. To be honest that's probably why he went with the aliens, to get away from his screeching brood :D But in today's PC climate, woudl a father willingly go off with aliens for a potentially fantastic adventure? Or would he shed a tear, straighten his back and sob "I can't leave my children, they need their farther", before going back to living a humdrum life getting fat, worrying about money, screeching at his kids who grow more ungrateful with each passing year, and finally dying in an alcohol-induced stupor brought on by the tormented thoughts of "what id I'd gone with them"?

There's an alternative ending for you Spielberg!!! :D

PS was also nice to see lots of "minor parts" in the cast that were played by actors who later became big - Josef Sommer for one, and OMG LANCE HENRIKSEN how young does he look!!!!!

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Ballet and kids DO NOT MIX

I should have learned my lesson when I went to a teatime showing of WALL-E last year. The cinema was like a fucking nursery. Kids wriggling around, kids running up and down the stairs, kids babbling, kids crying. And their parents doing nothing to stop them. And the cinema staff doing nothing to stop them (they were all teenagers and I'm betting, utterly untrained in how to deal with such situations).

So today I went to see Swan Lake. And I mistakenly bought a 2.30pm matinee ticket (all the best seats were gone for the PM performance). There were kids aplenty in the autitorium as it filled up. Uhoh, I thought.....a 3 hour ballet.....kids sitting still and being quiet for 3 hours inc intervals? Hmmmmm

Amazingly, every single child was quiet and well behaved. Except one. The minute the music started, kiddie-babble started. LOUD kiddie-babble. It was right across the theatre from my seat and I could hear it every time the music died or went to a quiet part, so Lord knows what the people sitting near said Kiddie thought. Luckily the music did drown it out a lot, but each time there was a dramatic pause, or the end of the music, there is was. Fucking inane kiddie babble. I thought to myself "OK, the parent will take it outside soon", but nothing happened. Nobody "shusshed", nobody did anything. End of Act 1 and it's interval time. Right, hopefully kiddie will be told to behave in Act 2.

Bullshit! Same thing all thru Act 2. Sadly I was stuck in the middle of a row so I couldn't get up and complain to the ushers. The ushers who were present during the performance but were doing NOTHING to silence this disruption. Isn't that meant to be their job?

Anyways, I was thoroughly enjoying the ballet. The lead dancer with his fabulous head of hair, even more fabulous thighs, and a rather dubious outline on his codpiece ;o) The lead ballerina was stunning in her grace and poise, my God these people have some muscles! And a chorus dancer guy who had legs longer and more slender almost than the lead ballerina :O

The "bad guy", Von Rothbart, was awesome in his head to toe skintight black ensemble, and feathery headdress - bloody hell that guy could leap across the stage! And I couldn't help but snigger to myself during the famous and much-ripped off Cygnet dance :D The costumes and sets were a marvel - sparkling headdresses and sequined bodices, and stunning scenery that was masterfully lit and accentuated with smoke machines.

All this was tinged with the background constant of Kiddie Babble. When the interval came for Act 2 I actually went and spoke to the Usher, pointing out that there IS, in fact, a child in the autitorium who is totally disrupting the show. Apparently I was the only person who complained, and I think the Usher just thought I was being a whinger (yea yeah Ok you lot, shut up :D ) She said they would try to find the child when the performance started again. Did she fuck. Act 3 and the kid must have been either bored or tired, so yep - the crying started. AND STILL THE FUCKING PARENT DIDN'T TAKE THE CHILD OUTSIDE. I watched as the usher just stood there, doing nothing. Then I just tried to block the noise out as the crying turned back into kiddie babble. Thankfully Act 3 had lots of loud music, and was a fab finale to the show.

I was aghast at the ignorance of the parent in not taking this babbling monster out of the show. I was even more amazed at the typical Polite Response of the British Audience - ie, not saying or doing fuck all, just sitting there probably muttering under their breaths. A few people were turning their heads and tutting, but it was only me who vocally complained. Maybe if more of them had said something to the Usher, then something would have been done. ie, a bitch-slap to the selfish parent who clearly loved her child being the centre of attention and didn't give a shit that it was ruining the performance.

Matinees - never again!