Saturday, April 7, 2012

Too "Unfinished" to Have a Baby

Where on earth does one start with this piece? The author, Kate Fridkis, frets about how she is too young to have babies in her 20s.

For starters, here is an example of modern female thinking:
"I want to have a baby, but I don't want to want to have a baby. Instead, I want to not want to have a baby while I want to have a fabulous career. And then, after I have this fabulous career that I am hoping to have and am possibly beginning to have, I can want to have a baby. That would be better."
Confused yet? Dizzy?
"I can't have a baby because I'm way too scared. I'm way too unfinished. I am just starting out."
Unfinished? Wow. I never heard it put that way before.
"But I do know that here, in this city, at this age, having a baby is not the thing to do. It is probably the last thing to do."

"It is a problem because my generation is bursting with young women who are taking over cities, out-earning their male counterparts, flinging themselves at their highest goals. It is a problem because I never imagined being a mom. That was never one of my fantasies. So my daydreams are confused."
"It is a problem because I am the modern woman, but I am afraid of letting her down."
Why did she never imagine being a mom? Because the culture never presented it as a valid option. Women of this generation were not prepared to be moms or warned that when they did get to their 20s nature would come banging on their door. She was encouraged to follow one path her entire life and now from deep within another path is calling; one that is so foreign to the modern woman that she is too embarrassed and afraid to even admit she wants to have babies in her twenties. And ultimately, she is afraid of not living up to the image of a "modern woman". A woman who has this much fear and confliction doesn't sound very liberated. She is a slave to our culture.

As crazy as the article is, it is a really good example of how feminism has conflicted woman and pitted them against their own instinctual, God given urges.

Surprisingly, a feminist commenter on the original article, Sharon Boling, had some of the best advice: 
"First let me say that I am a feminist. I did everything just like you did.
However, the dirty little secret is that our eggs quality falls after age 30, then after 40 forget it.
I have gone through 8 surgeries, 3 IUI's, 4 in vitro fertilization attempts, 20 years of trying to have a child.
I say screw it. If your heart is saying it is time to start trying - then go for it. There will never be a perfect time.
You are young, you are healthy I presume. Career will always be there. It is a dirty little secret that putting off having children is possible. It IS NOT. Unless of course you are willing to risk going on the fertility treadmill.
I wish to G-d, that I had gotten pregnant in my 20's. Even my teens. Compared with none, I would have chosen being an unwed mother instead of the grief of never having a child."

83 comments:

heresolong said...

this goes right along with the left's assertion that contraception is "preventative health care". Having a baby is like getting sick, according to this worldview.

Samuel said...

I can appreciate the woman at least having enough clarity to identify how ill-prepared she is to be a parent. So much so, probably, that her apprehension about it is likely well-founded.

I know a girl who is childless at 35, and aborted a pregnancy when she was 20. She stands by that decision, but grief follows her always. She wanted nothing more than to have babies, and none are in her future. She also chose crappy men that she wouldn't want to have kids with.

I had kids young, and while it was hard, I am so glad for it now.

I think that a big part of the woman's conflict above has to do with the fact that she has likely assigned a lot of value to her sex appeal (since everyone else does that to her) and is highly reluctant to trade it off, and rightly scared that it will make her situation terribly precarious.

She just doesn't know how to say it or is not willing to come to terms with it, so ambiguity is less sharp and painful. She has been lied to heavily, and now the heartbreak of deceit is upon her. The worst pains are when you realize it was you, telling most of the lies...

Ecclesiastes said...

I told, and tell, my children, now all over 21, that my job as a father is to bring the consequences of the world to them in such a way that does not kill them. Ideally, that would be by simple instruction.

Mommy's job is to comfort and nurture them. Daddy's job is to put their butts to work. Being loved was not a part of my job description, but because I loved them I was going to do my job.

Sharon Boling's advice is not especially sage. It is merely what any father would tell his daughter. It is, however, sad that Sharon Boling is doing a father's job, that, because of Feminism, her father was prevented from doing his job for her.

Johnycomelately said...

Despite the manosphere's assertion that women are deliberately following a personally hedonistc script, it is evident modern women are simply falling into a societally imposed script.

My cousin is a 37 year old spinster and I can honestly say she didn't deliberately choose that lifestyle, she simply followed the script that was expected of her. She isn't an evil person, it is clear that women's attraction cues are subconscious and having a career simply limits her choice of mates.

Society is the soil and people are the fruits of that soil, it pains me that she will never know the love of having her own child or a committed husband.

Anonymous said...

I adopted my children when I was about 40. I was able to enjoy the best of both worlds--career and then kids!

Kath said...

"Society is the soil and people are the fruits of that soil, it pains me that she will never know the love of having her own child or a committed husband."

Lots of people marry and have kids at 37. I know of several women who have done so.

Plus, as anon says above, there is always the wonderful option of adoption. That is available to married couples and singles.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like this lady doesn't feel ready to have kids.

If she's only in her twenties, waiting a few years won't be a big deal.

Women who aren't ready to have kids certainly shouldn't have them.

7man said...

Just because something MIGHT be possible does not mean it WILL work out that way for MOST women.

But who knows, Career => HWP (Hope,Wish,Pray) might work for any individual woman (unless it leads to despair, her dying alone, and regretting that she wasted her life on chasing worldly pursuits).

I suppose those deathbed stories of men wishing they had spent more time with their children instead of slavishly working a job (womanspeak=Career), do not apply to women. After all female rationalization hamsters are stronger than male rationalization hamsters.

Jennifer said...

Sure they are.

Working on a job for several years and putting off motherhood, or even looking for a husband, for decades are not the same. It's actually possible for a woman to have her own mission in life and be fruitful in motherhood and marriage.

CL said...

@ Jennifer

You seem to be subscribing to the feminist myth that a woman can 'have it all'. No one - man or woman - can 'have it all'. It's just not possible. Whatever you do, there will be something else you didn't do. Trying to do everything will leave you depleted and your energy scattered. Seems almost Satanic, doesn't it?

Jennifer said...

No, more like you can't have everything you aspire to at once. But a woman with one child is more likely to have a good career, while a woman with more children may prefer a home job or no job. A woman who wants to focus on a job exclusively, sans children, can marry in her 20's and start having children in her 30's.

joe said...

Some women actually can have it all. Some can even be quite successful and happy in all aspects of their lives while doing so without neglecting any one particular aspect. Unfortunately those women are very very few and very very far between. But given that women are the most envious creatures on earth, all other women will tear down heaven and earth to achieve that which have been ordained for only a scant few. All other women still can have it all, but only by forcing others (men, children, employers) to have less. I some cases much less. Anon who adopted children at 40 did indeed allow them to have a mother, but they have mother with much less energy and exuberance than a mother in her 20s. The same is true for Kathy's friends who had kids at 37. But since the quality of women's eggs decrease after 30, the genetic material that those children recieved from their mothers have much less quality than if those women had children in their 20s. Jennifer pointed out that a woman can chose to have one child and is more likely to have good career, but means that the child will have not just less but in fact no sibling with whom to bond as they grow up together. The question has never been whether or not awoman can selfishly have it all, but rather how much less are we all willing to accept so that she can have everything.

Anonymous said...

"All other women still can have it all, but only by forcing others (men, children, employers) to have less. I some cases much less. Anon who adopted children at 40 did indeed allow them to have a mother, but they have mother with much less energy and exuberance than a mother in her 20s."

Actually, there were no women in their twenties lining up to adopt my kids. It was me, or an orphanage. So I don't think they came out with much less, not at all.

And for that matter, I am in much better shape in my 40's than I ever was in my 20's.

Anonymous said...

Sorry for off-topic in this posting. In the US after 45 years of bad dietary advice, we accept as normal a much faster loss of strength and vigor with age than is necessary.

We are told to eat a low fat; high carb diet, which is just about trying to kill us before our time.

If you want to know the truth, read GOOD CALORIES BAD CALORIES by Gary Taubes. I, and many others, have learned when we go to low carb, and our weight comes off, we feel much, much stronger. As we approach our weight of age 20, strength goes way up. I was 220 and now I am 177.

I just had my 70th birthday. I can still carry in 110 pound bags (50 kilos) of concrete when we are doing construction. My b.p. is around 110/66, normal for 15 year olds. If I had not learned low carb, I'd be either dead or in a wheel chair already. I have gone for five hour walks over the mountains here in Mexico.

Yes, a mom of 40 on a low carb diet can keep up with her kids. Good for you!!!!

Anonymous age 70

joe said...

"Actually, there were no women in their twenties lining up to adopt my kids. It was me, or an orphanage. So I don't think they came out with much less, not at all."

Then they should be very grateful to you for taking pity on them and I hope you never let them forget it.

"And for that matter, I am in much better shape in my 40's than I ever was in my 20's"

By "energy and exuberance" I was not refering to your 10k marathon time, as I doubt many young mothers are in great athletic shape. What they have instead is the ability (and some willingness) to persitently sacrifice every moment of their lives for the benefit of someone else. Someone who is so incapable that their needs are as wide and deep as the ocean. The task of having to be constantly engaged for someone esle is stressful, draining, and many times thankless. But the good ones seem to do it with pride and joy. This is not to say that you are not one of the good ones, but most women your age would have a harder time keeping up with a 20 something.

Which brings me to the point of my original post which you missed. The ideal time (for various reasons eg. fertilty) for a woman to have chidlren is in her 20s (if you disagree, then please pardon me for not wanting to debate the obvious). She can certainly choose to have children at other stages of her life, but those stages will be less than ideal. Not necessarily for her, but for everyone esle involved. Her choice does not make her a bad person, but she is no selfless saint either. It has been the norm in our society to honor and value selflessnes over selfishness for a long time. That value system doesn't change simply because you have a vagina. You are free to choose to be selfish, but you will be judged by your choices accordingly, and rightfully so.

Getting back to your specific circumstance, at the age of 40 most people have lost a step or two or three. That is not an attack direct towards you, thats nature (Although feminist seem to view nature as an adversary). Even world class nfl athletes are considered over the hill by 35. But again, mothering is not a athletic competition. But even the drive to sustain excellence at any endeavor diminishes with age. As we get closer to end than the begining its natural to want to stop and smell the flowers some more. Futhermore most people at the age of 40 have other priorites and commitments that would make demands on their time. So unless you are independently wealthy (which most women your age are not), then either your boss, or your children or your husband(assuming you have one) or whatever other master you serve (we all serve someone or something) is getting less of you than they probably deserve. But. Maybe you are the exception that proves the rule. Maybe your are one of the scant few.

papabear said...

Anon Age 70 - Are you Anon Age 69? If you are, Happy Birthday! And Happy Pascha to the blog mistress nad everyone.

Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennifer said...

Joe, having one child is not a sign of selfishness in a woman. Women in fact cannot have it all at ONCE. They need to space things out, and choose which things come top priority when.

Anonymous said...

I guess this chart says it all.

http://www.babycenter.com/0_chart-the-effect-of-age-on-fertility_6155.bc

It seems most women over 35 require medical intervention to get pregnant. I am no doctor but aren't pregnancies over 35 considered high risk and are known as geriatric pregnancies?

CL said...

It seems most women over 35 require medical intervention to get pregnant. I am no doctor but aren't pregnancies over 35 considered high risk and are known as geriatric pregnancies?

Yes, they are. A lot of women have trouble conceiving after 30.

joe said...

@ Jennifer

1. Having only one child because tha'ts just how life unfolded in not at all selfish, that's just life. But a woman choosing to have only one child so that she can "have a good career" like you suggested, is the height of selfishness and even worse than not having children at all. Such a woman is trying to scratch two itches a once using only one finger.

2. Some women (very few) can have it all and all at once. Take for instance a movie actress who is very selective about when and how often she chooses to take on a role. Same for a writer or singer who is also very selective. For most other women to have it all, they need re-invent the wheel (and tear down society while doing so) in order to approximate what only a very few were meant to have. Hence your time table theory. If you are a christian however, your piorities are already established: Jesus first, oneself last, and others (children,husband, community) in between. Deviate at your own eternal peril

Jennifer said...

I don't think it's difficult for most 30 and over to get pregnant. Joe, that should depend on the job; a woman who has a career that involves teaching, healing, counseling, or missionary work should not be considered selfish.

joe said...

"Joe, that should depend on the job; a woman who has a career that involves teaching, healing, counseling, or missionary work should not be considered selfish."

Whatever helps you sleep a night

Jennifer said...

Sure, what you'd probably consider good for a man would be selfish for a woman. Not having children is selfish *rolls eyes*

joe said...

@ Jennifer
excuse me for not communicating that point correctly. There is nothing wrong with choosing not to have children. I should have written

...... is the height of selfishness and it would be better to not have children at all.

Jennifer said...

WHAT is the height of selfishness?

CL said...

Jennifer, deliberately planning on having only one child because you pissed away your most fertile years on a 'career' is the height of selfishness.

Jennifer said...

You think all careers are "pissing" away, CL? Or self-serving? A woman has more to contribute than her uterus. If she waits until her late 20's or early 30's, she'll quite likely have MORE than one child.

Anonymous said...

OMG, Jennifer is an extremely horny and lusty woman. Just check out this rapture she had with GasButtox.

Jennifer really revealed a lot about her urges there.

Or should we call you 'JenniferButtox'?

Jennifer said...

It's amazing the number of vacous morons that can sprout up even on a Christian blog. You show revulsion and many fools take that as lust; too bad more lowlifes don't get severly injured that way.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

It is not just here, but on many other blogs. You just don't realize how transparent you are.

Your lust from that exchange with GasButtox was pretty extreme.

I think we'll call you 'JenniferButtox' from now on, since your specialization is now known.

Anonymous said...

Women are being very silly about this. Reproduction doesn't stop with being able to carry an infant to term. There's another two decades (roughly) of raising that kid. Starting the process at 35 or 40 or 45 just means you are going to be going toe to toe with a teenager in your 50s or 60s. Good luck with that, it pretty much guarantees no grandkids and a dead line.

As for the 'I'm in better shape in my 30s/40s' spiel, of course you are-- you screwed up and made poor health choices in your 20s, so it's easy to go up from there. Your body still carries the consequences, though, even if you can deadlift 200lbs or whatever. You won't be able to handle lack of sleep as well, you won't be able to keep up with your kid sprinting a half mile as well, you are not magically immune from aging just because you now work out instead of drink in wine bars.

It is fantasy addiction, this idea that you are fabbolous and can shape your own reality with happy thoughts (thank you freaking new age) and actual biological and physical facts and reality just don't matter if you don't want them to.

Jennifer said...

Uh huh. Thanks for proving your gaseous form of brain yet again, anon moron.

Jennifer said...

"Starting the process at 35 or 40 or 45 just means you are going to be going toe to toe with a teenager in your 50s or 60s"

Which may well be better than a very young person trying to raise a teen.

7man said...

The ticking gets louder as the crocodile swims ever closer to Captain Hook. The biological clock ticks louder as a woman approaches the 30yo wall of reduced fertility.

Rather than worry about this, the rationalization hamster spins to the rescue! Facts do not matter as the hamster emphatically declares, “I don't think it's difficult for most [women] 30 and over to get pregnant.”

Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennifer said...

While the male weasel smirks as he pronounces practical female doom at the age of 30! Most Christians I know, who speak more of God than you do, 7man, have no problem having more than five babies after 30, even if they've ALREADY had five before that age. If I had my way, I'd have been married at age 19, but I didn't and I'm now closer to 30 than 20. I can be very impatient already, but I'm not going to make it worse by accepting your mocking as further incentive to doubt God's plan for me and how it works. He owns my womb, and it will be His voice and not the MRAs' on the Internet, guilt-tripping me for not shoving out children already, that I heed. Worry worry worry, modern Christian woman, if you're not married WORRY! LOL

CL said...

@ Jennifer

Most Christians I know, who speak more of God than you do, 7man,

So that’s all it takes to be a Christian – speaking of God. And here I thought I actually had to work!

have no problem having more than five babies after 30, even if they've ALREADY had five before that age.

You don’t know much about how fertility works do you. If they had 5 before age 30, they are more likely to be able to have 5 after age 30. If you keep it going, it keeps going (look at the Duggars!) If you wait until 30+ for your first child, you’re playing a lottery more or less and with each year that passes after 30 the odds in favour of you conceiving go down.

If I had my way, I'd have been married at age 19, but I didn't and I'm now closer to 30 than 20.

We already knew it was your rationalisation hamster talking. Perfectly understandable but no need to spread misinformation and drag others down with you.

Jennifer said...

Yes sweetie, my rationalization hamster caused me to not get married at 19; it's quite amusing how little you know of me and yet how much you preach of me. I already said I'd prefer to have been married at 19, yet it's still "Oh, Jennifer's rationalizing not having kids yet and trying to bring down others by saying it might not be God's will". I speak from what I know; my mother was over 30 when she had all three of us and while I never said it wasn't harder to conceive, it's downright ludicrous to try and scare women into thinking it's an age of imminent threat to childbearing. My point is simply this: many women don't get married before 30, and sometimes God actually has more to do with it than feminist selfishness. As for the other Christians I mentioned, they work their asses off for God and speak more of Him and His Word then sexual fantasies, suppressed urges, how women who don't start having kids when they think it's right are stupid, and who can rule whom. My minister's daughter got married at age 28 and still doesn't have children a year or so later. She didn't put off marriage anymore than I did; it simply wasn't in the cards for her yet, and she preferred to do what she could in missionary and youth work rather than chase sperm. O, height of selfishness!!

Anonymous said...

Older parents are likely to be more permissive because they are old and tired. This is a real phenomenon.

Also I am pretty interested in this enclave of Christian women having 5+ children starting at age 30. Fertility specialists would love to get a demographic profile on them, too. It goes against all known fertility data going back as long as people have had written birth records. So it would be an impressive pool of people to study.

Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennifer said...

I didn't say they all started at 30. I don't know all of their starting ages, but any children born to them after 30 have turned out genetically fine.

CL said...

@ Jennifer

Yes sweetie

Are you flirting with me? I didn't know you walked on that side of the street.

Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I didn't say all, either. You referred to 'most Christians I know', implying that some portion of the Christian women you know have 5 or more children starting after age 30. If this is more than 1 or 2 people, it really would be something worth studying, because it would be outside all known statistics and practical outcomes of fertility.

Jennifer said...

I didn't say they all began after age 30, and the attitude that such a thing would be a miracle surprises me.

Anonymous said...

Again, you implied *some portion of those women* were just slamming out babies after age 30. This is...improbable as an average thing.

I don't know why you keep saying 'all'.

If a woman is trying to have babies from age 30-45, 3-4 completed pregnancies is possible and not unreasonable to plan for, but the whole 15 year period would have to be considered. If a woman started after age 35, 2-3 completed pregnancies is what her maximum expectations should be from 35-45.

Because breastfeeding promotes fertility, it's not likely formula feeding to get more baby-making time would be as effective in the 30s and 40s. Starting the fertility process in one's 30s seems to short circuit those kinds of things that sometimes work ok in one's 20s.

Women cannot expect to conceive to term readily just because they want to, and it is harder to start even at age 30 than starting just a few years earlier.

I know lots of women who started after 30 and got pregnant multiple times. Many just can't seem to stay pregnant long enough for a delivery more than once or twice. Some of them take this very hard, because they presumed easy conceptions=lots of babies even with a late start.

Jennifer said...

That's a shame. Only 2-3 pregnancies sounds rather extreme (but then, not STARTING until 35 is a big stretch too); I Googled the matter once and found different results and opinions spattered around the place. This is why I, again, never endorsed women planning on waiting ten years, but few times have I heard of women drastically struggling shortly after 30. My friend Kelly Crawford knows women who reversed sterilizations and had several successful pregnancies in their late 30s. She, like me, does NOT recommend women wait till such an age to begin, much less get sterilized first (she's very much against BC), but that God does own the womb and that the body can be quite surprising. She had babies before and after 30, and none of them following 30 have any genetic faults.

"Because breastfeeding promotes fertility"

I thought it stalled further pregnancies while taking place.

Anonymous said...

In the short term breastfeeding pauses fertility, but it makes you conceive more readily once your fertility does return and increases probability of multiples.

An individual woman certainly might have six kids in 15 years from ages 30-45, but it can't be counted on or expected. A lot of Christian women are waiting to start until 35 believing they can just will their way to 5-6 children in roughly as many years. It's absurd, idolatrous and damaging.

Ecclesiastes said...

I see Feminism as a philosophy to allow women to be juvenile. Ask a 10 year old girl what she thinks and there you have Feminism. It is no more starkly apparent than on this subject.

Feminist's see children as dolls: Fixed in form, without needs other than those assigned, without purpose save to enhance the life of the 'mother', and never as a person equal to themselves.

So we have a woman more fit at 40 than she was at 20. This is supposed to be an argument FOR her position?

But at 20, she could look forward to a life of increasing strength for 20 years. That would be important indeed to a infant who would take 15 years to become a rebellious teenager, needing a fit parent to save them from their excesses.

But beginning in one's 40s, when the ophthalmologist prescribes bifocals because the cornea no longer flexes, when one's metabolism begins its decline, when one takes twice and three times as long to heal from injury, what does this new mother think she is going to bring to bear on a rebellious teenager in her mid to late 50's?

Is she going to be a fountain of support for her grandchildren in her 70s, assuming that her children don't follow her example and have their children earlier? Of course, she'll be in the dirt if her children agree with her.

How much foresight can one expect of a 10 year old?

Jennifer said...

Interesting stuff about breastfeeding anon. But I wish people wouldn't presume every reason people wait is idolatrous. I can't imagine many people wanting to start having a lot of kids at age 35 in any case; at that age they may want one or two. But most people who want big families know to start early, and such women rarely want big jobs as well.

Anonymous said...

This blog swings between wanting women to have babies early and often

and

complaining bitterly about paying child support.

It swings again between wanting women to stay out of the workforce

and

being really mad they have to pay child support because their ex-wife has no career.

Anonymous said...

being really mad they have to pay child support because their ex-wife has no career.

If she has no career, she should not leave the marriage.

You seem to think the woman leaving unilaterally entitles her to payments from the man (which many women don't spend on the child at all, but rather on shopping).

The system in the old days was fair. Now, modern women merely use children as a ticket to get money for themselves.

Take The Red Pill said...

There's nothing like watching and hearing Darwin in action!

Anonymous said...

"You seem to think the woman leaving unilaterally entitles her to payments from the man (which many women don't spend on the child at all, but rather on shopping). "

I do indeed. Payments to care for the child he fathered.

I'm not a big believer in hungry kids.

Accountability if fine. Demand all the receipts you want. But children must be cared for--you can choose to step up to your responsibility, or not.

Anonymous said...

So, anon, why is the woman not obligated to feed the children she birthed, as if the only way the children will eat relies upon the father's earnings? Sounds like you are pro-patriarchy in a very unwitting fashion.

Anonymous said...

Certainly the woman is obligated to feed the child she bears. Both the father and the mother have this obligation.

Anonymous said...

Then it is unlikely the children would starve for lack of a check from daddy when mommy skips out of the marriage/relationship.

Anonymous said...

"Then it is unlikely the children would starve for lack of a check from daddy when mommy skips out of the marriage/relationship."

True. They probably won't starve. Is that all you want for your kids?

Anonymous said...

Sounds like these posters want to punish their kids.

Anonymous said...

So mommy's the one who is the proximate cause of the child's financial and emotional insecurity, but somehow this means a man not giving her money is 'punishing the kids'. Interesting how the actual punisher of the children escapes blame or notice.

Anonymous said...

Hard to know who is "wrong" in a divorce.

The important thing is, to do your part so the child doesn't suffer.

I'd do anything--even be "wrong"--whatever, so long as my child doesn't suffer.

Anonymous said...

Even if I'd been terribly wronged by my spouse, I would put that aside and do what is best for my child. In nearly every case, that means paying my share of the child's support.

I couldn't look my six-year old in the eye and do otherwise.

I'm sure there are some who withhold support to punish their ex. However, is that doing right by their child? Of course not.

Anonymous said...

How is giving money to the woman (remember, there is no way to give money directly for the care of one's children, it all goes through the mother) a win for the kids, who do not see much, if any of it? The children don't actually get the extra clothing/food/etc unless the father provides gifts in kind in all too many cases of divorce.

Giving mommy money doesn't make the child not suffer, it just makes mommy have lots of money for salon visits and boyfriends who will make the children suffer.

The mother is causing the suffering, not the father, whether he gives her money or not. Why is that so irrelevant?

Anonymous said...

Lots of judges require mothers to provide receipts with regard to child support.

That would solve your whole problem.

But then I'll bet you'd find another reason not to pay for your kid's support.

Anonymous said...

A list of such judges would be wonderful, so divorced fathers could seek to have them in court. Many divorced fathers would support judges who exercised even a scrap of due diligence over child support spending.

By the by, what percentage of all family court judges require receipts? 'Lots of' could mean anything. There isn't much in available data to suggest that mothers are routinely or even occasionally expected to provide receipts for child support spending. There is also nothing to suggest they suffer a penalty for failing to provide such records.

Anonymous said...

The point is, would you then be Ok with child support? I doubt it. You sound like a man who doesn't want to support his child.

P Ray said...

She's "unfinished and incomplete, not ready to have a baby" ...
is merely shorthand for "I'm not attracted to the guys around me so I'll make up a self-serving excuse so that I don't seem like a picky, unrealistic woman".
I am real sure she has had guys come up to her that she rejected.
The window's getting smaller, she can either crap or get off the pot.

Anonymous said...

From your post you believe that the default position should be to have kids, even if you are on the fence about it.
I know a woman in her seventies that firmly believed her mother never really wanted to have kids but she did so because that is the what she was supposed to do. It still causes alot of pain to my friend.
The default position should be do not have kids unless you are sure you want them. Kids know when their parents think they are a mistake and unwanted.

Jennifer said...

Such a nice and realistic description of womanhood, P.

Anonymous said...

A man can want to support his child and reject the current stealth alimony system in which the money never goes towards any of the child's needs. Funny how that reality keeps getting ignored by the other anons. The money isn't supporting the child, only and solely the mother (and maybe her boyfriend(s)). If there was a way for the child to actually benefit in all too many cases, many men would find being considered solely a checkbook with legs less traumatizing.

Take The Red Pill said...

It is very interesting that there are numerous local, state, and federal government agencies dedicated to ensure the forcible extraction of 'child support' from 'fathers' (in many cases, {interestingly enough, again]you don't even have to be the biological parent to be considered the 'father'), yet there are NONE to oversee/ensure that the money is spent on the needs of the child/ren, or that the mother is upholding her part of the divorce agreement -- such as providing visitation, with no interference.

As was said previously, "Funny how that reality keeps getting ignored by the other anons."

"If there was a way for the child to actually benefit in all too many cases, many men would find being considered solely a checkbook with legs less traumatizing", to say nothing about feeling better about paying 'child support'.

Anonymous said...

""If there was a way for the child to actually benefit in all too many cases, many men would find being considered solely a checkbook with legs less traumatizing", to say nothing about feeling better about paying 'child support'."

It's really not about how you feel. Not about your feelings at all. It's about the child. I think that is the flaw in your reasoning.

Take The Red Pill said...

"It's really not about how you feel. Not about your feelings at all. It's about the child. I think that is the flaw in your reasoning."

That's awfully odd -- it was my impression that "feeeeeelings" are sacrosanct and of ultimate importance today -- ultimately trumping facts, logic, and all other standards.

Or (in violation of "EQUALITY"), is the "feeeeeelings" card one that only women are allowed to play?

Anonymous said...

Yes, PapaBear, I was Anonymous age 69. I wanted an anonymous i.d. which would still identify me as one person.

>>Certainly the woman is obligated to feed the child she bears. Both the father and the mother have this obligation.

Oh, really? Then, why do they throw unemployed men in jail for not paying support while millions of women get checks from the government and are not thrown in jail for not supporting their kids? Clearly, women are not obligated to support their children.

>>Lots of judges require mothers to provide receipts with regard to child support.

I have been active as an FRA/MRA for 28 years, have been in contact with men all over the US, and have never before heard of a judge requiring receipts on use of child support. Furthermore, appellate courts have consistently ruled against such requirements. At most, you may know one judge in one case who required that. Otherwise you are making this up.

Anonymous age 70

Anonymous said...

Let me tell you about men and child support, but I am going to start at the beginning.

When feminism first became powerful, back in the Sixties, men were not allowed to enter the discussion, since feminism was "only women's business." Men who dared to speak out were attacked, hounded out of their jobs ala Larry Summers, and in extreme cases had false criminal charges filed against them to silence them. In the Seventies, Joyce Brothers was the expert on what men thought and felt. Not.

As time passed, other women were the experts on men and what they should think and feel. Also, not.

As a result, over the last 40 years, most women have lost totally lost contact on what men think and feel. Even on this blog, women react with horror when they discover what millions of men actually think of what they, the women, have become. Instead of learning, more of the same attack; attack; attack. Good job, Jennifer and others.

It has got so bad that Jean Auel in her last Stone Age fiction book pontificated that a Real Man do not care which man actually conceived his woman's children, they should not even think about it. Dumb!

I counseled divorced men in the 80's. It took me years to figure out why men inherently hate paying child support. Margaret Meade reported in the Fifties that only one society ever convinced men to support any children except those of his current lover; that one society taught them to support their sister's kids. Any time something is universal over all societies and all times, you can be sure it is on the list of universal truths.

I did not realize the real explanation until the late 80's, and the Rape Crisis folks had another of their national awareness programs. It came over me one day that, though the words were different, the meaning was the same for men who paid support as for women who had been raped.

Women view rape as a personal violation because of how they view their bodies. You could have a lot of men raped by women before you found a man who felt truly violated, because men simply don't look at their bodies as women do. The old joke is, so rape me, I'll help you.

What do men relate to? Their work, and all that comes from it. It is as outrageous to demand a man share his work-derived money with an ex-wife as to demand an ex-wife service her ex- with her vagina.

That is why no society in history ever convinced men to support their ex-wife's kids.

Men who don't want to pay support, which is awfully close to 100% of them, are told, "You just care about money!"

Imagine if we told a rape victim, "You just care about your vagina!"

It is women, the gender which kills over a million unborn babies a year, who do not care about children. If women truly cared about children, and if not supporting them is such a horrid thing, any man who can support those kids would get custody.

And don't tell me about men taking care of kids. Twenty years ago, my boy's babysitter said the local Day Care association had discussed this issue, and they agreed that at least half the fathers were better with the kids than the mothers were.

Anonymous age 70

Anonymous said...

How could I forget? While women emit large amounts of shaming language at men who don't want to support their children, check out the deadbeat lists. Women who owe support are much less likely to actually pay than men who are supposed to pay.

So what does the Child Support Industry do about it? Not much. Way back in the 80's former employees told us when a dearie who works in CSRU encountered a paper showing a woman owed support, she moved it back to the bottom of the stack again. In interviews, these slave chasers admitted they really felt empowered to GET MONEY FROM MEN FOR WOMEN. Note the word child is missing there. If they were actually thinking of children, they'd have said so.

On any given day, tens of thousands of unemployed men are in jail like criminals for being unemployed. So, when was the last time you heard of a woman in jail for not paying child support?

Anonymous age 70

I understand why some of you women try so hard to shut men up. The truth hurts.

Jennifer said...

I have never expressed horror at feminism for being exposed as what it is, Anon 70, just for people trying to put all women into one group or misrepresent some of their words, like you've foolishly done with mine. Good job.

"It is women, the gender which kills over a million unborn babies a year, who do not care about children"

You can't even put that all on women, as the majority of doctors performing those abortions and lying about what they are to their patients are male. Ann Coulter in fact, who is rabidly anti-feminist, said that men support abortion more than women. I suppose I should wait now for the "hating men" accusations..

Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennifer said...

"You could have a lot of men raped by women before you found a man who felt truly violated"

Really? I found several stories on the Internet in which men testified to discomfort at having female healthcare workers for private issues, and at least three of them were mistreated in very unprofessional ways by said females; one of them suffered genital harm from a cruel nurse. Not one found the experience erotic or anywhere close to acceptable.

Now this is a rant from me for men's sake, lol. But this, in fact, is one of my pet peeves as someone who RESPECTS men: the disregard of men's dignity through the treatment of their bodies. You see it in more than one way: it's considered funny if Mrs. Barone elbows her husband's crotch on "Raymond". Or if a nurse bosses a male patient around with no respect for him. Or in "Grey's Anatomy", there's the wounded paramedic who's guilt-tripped and sneered at by the black woman because he asked for a male doctor. (They finally got him a male doctor, after making him wait a good while, but then he had to refuse the doctor because the doc was black, and it turns out the paramedic was a formal Nazi with a swastika tattoed to his stomach near his crotch. A man with modesty? Naw, he MUST be a Nazi, and bitchy black lady got to moan in self-justified victimization).

Ecclesiastes said...

Jennifer, did you just cite fiction as evidence ... on purpose?

Don't do that anymore. It makes you stupid and ever more stupid as you continue.

Before you cry insult, look up 'stupid' and 'stupify'.

Jennifer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jennifer said...

Eccles, I hate to tell you, but the fictional entertainement of a given culture actually expresses that culture's values pretty well; the treatment of men in entertainement and mere fiction has been a topic of anti-feminists for some time. This was my point.