No Children=Selfish? » Teeny Manolo






No Children=Selfish?

By Glinda

Photobucket

Last week I read a very thought-provoking article by the Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, the title being “Disappearing Babies, All-Too-Visible Narcissists.”

Whoa, nothing like taking a stand, is there? Sir, consider the pot to be duly stirred.

In the article, Rabbi Boteach posits the theory that basically, modern society is just too concerned about having a good time to have a lot of children. Having kids requires too much sacrifice, and too much time away from selfish pursuits, such as updating our Facebook status.

With all due respect, Rabbi, you have obviously never met a mommyblogger, because not even children tugging at our arms, begging us to pay them some attention will keep us from saying what we need to say. Not that I am speaking from personal experience, mind you.

However, I will agree that there is beginning to be a certain culture of thinking that children are intrusive and bothersome that worries me. These are the same kind of people that label parents as “breeders.”

But, he even points a finger at someone like myself, who has only one child and who had the audacity to have him in my early thirties. Shame on me, apparently, for not starting when I was twenty and having as many children as I possibly could. He even goes on to keep alive the untruth that only children don’t share as well as those with siblings. Let me tell you something, the only reason children with siblings share most of the time is because their parents give them no other choice, not because of some altruistic motive. Then I think they just sort of eventually give up. I know I did.

Since choosing to have children is the most life-altering thing that could ever happen to you, I would like to think that people arrive at their decision based on more important reasons than losing their free time to update their Facebook status.

And if that is indeed a large factor in their decision making process, frankly I’d rather they not have children anyway.

Enter the Super Fantastic Stila Giveaway now!









9 Responses to “No Children=Selfish?”




  1. raincoaster Says:

    Are you QUITE sure that rabbi isn’t Catholic? My ancestors’ strategy for defeating the Protestants was basically to outnumber them.




  2. gemdiva Says:

    I wonder if the rabbi ever considered the fact that those folks who are not parents because they are selfish narcissists, would probably have been truly lousy parents. So, why subject helpless defenseless babies to their tender care? If some couples are not cut out for parenting, then thank heaven they are smart enough to make the choice to avoid it.

    Far more troubling to me is the number of couples these days who desperately want children, but are unable to conceive. Is it just me, or has this number really exploded in recent years. Maybe childlessness is just better publicized now, but it sure seems like an epidemic. I’d be interested to see comparative numbers from previous years/generations, if anyone has them.




  3. class-factotum Says:

    Gemdiva, I suspect (I have no data) that infertility is higher now just because women delay childbearing more than they did 100 years ago and because there is better birth control now.

    Before, you got married by 25 (there are stats re: avg marriage age, which I believe has been increasing), then started having kids if you were fertile. Now, women wait, either on purpose or through circumstance, until their 30s or 40s to start a family. At that age, fertility is much lower.

    Glinda, I am so with you on the sharing. I did not share a bedroom because I wanted to. I did not share my toys because I wanted to. I was forced at gunpoint — kind of like the Cubans and the N. Koreans — into a collectivist lifestyle by my parents. If I’d had any say in it, I would have been an only child.




  4. La Petite Acadienne Says:

    Um…I don’t exactly think it’s selfish to not have more kids than you can afford, either financially, physically or emotionally.

    What raised my hackles about the rabbi’s article was the large focus on how it is so tragic that European and North American cultures have such a low birthrate.

    The world’s population is still increasing, though. So why is the good rabbi so upset about declining birthrates in Europe and North America, if those losses are offset in other cultures/countries? That question is leading me down a road of inquiry that I prefer not to pursue, but I really do have to suspect his motives.




  5. class-factotum Says:

    Petite — because he fears the loss of Western civilization if N. America and Europe disappear? It’s not as if the Muslim immigrants to Europe are assimilating and absorbing Englightenment values. I’d rather live in London than in Riayadh (where my parents lived for five years — my mom was not allowed to drive, she had to be covered wrist to ankle when she went off the compound, non-Muslims are not allowed to practice their religion, and they still stone adultresses to death and cut off the hands of thieves) any day. Sharia law and strict Islamic culture is not for me.




  6. La BellaDonna Says:

    The rabbi would seem to be a Quiverfull proponent, at heart (except for the “Christian” part, of course).

    Having a child is the most important personal decision someone can make – for you, for the people who make up your family, but most especially, for that tiny person you have. How is it in any way “narcissistic” to decide that you are unable for whatever reason – financially, physically, emotionally – to have a child, and then to stick with that decision? That decision is most often made by people who care about children, who know that having children is a 24-hour-a-day responsibility, and who also know they don’t have the 24 hours to give. It’s a heck of a lot more caring than the people who have children because they’re being pressured to produce grandchildren, or because it’s what everyone does, or because some nutball Rabbi is worried that the world is getting a little browner than it was. You know, closer to the colour of the original Semites.

    Of course, even though he may strut and crow about HIS KIDS, he’s not the one who’s given birth nine times and been pregnant at least nine times, is he? She’s the one who’s done the work and taken the risks.

    Speaking of which: Gemdiva, the answer to your question is, as far as I can tell, “Yes,” for the same reasons Class Factotum brings up: simply, that more women are becoming mothers later, in their 30s and 40s. It’s harder for them to get pregnant, and they tend to get pregnant less often. The flip side is that these days fewer of them are dying as a result of pregnancy or birth-related complications. Most people seem to forget that the human body undergoes a tremendous strain even with successful pregnancies, and it can undergo a lot of damage even if no child results. Those women who are having children, or trying to get pregnant in their 30s and 40s nowadays? Take a look at tombstones in old cemetaries: in those glorious olden days when women were bred relentlessly, they were dying in their 30s and 40s. Henriette-Anne Stuart died just before her 26th birthday; her body was battered by numerous miscarriages and the births of several children who died shortly thereafter. She was a princess, so it made her death notable; but there were plenty of other ordinary women who had similar experiences. One of the women in my wedding party never knew her grandmother, who died at 16. No, the grandmother didn’t die when my friend was 16; the grandmother died at the age of 16. But she’d already left behind the child who was my friend’s mother.

    I think more credit needs to go to the people who’ve truly thought about parenthood, and decided it isn’t for them – or it is; but who’ve actually thought about whether or not they have the resources, financially and emotionally, to care for another person. And I think more appreciation needs to be shown for the human beings who are actually alive now, and a little less “in theory.” The Rabbi’s busy wringing his hands over children not born, and scolding the people who aren’t having them; how much is he contributing to making life better for people who are already here? I would love to see women being appreciated for more than their breeding capabilities. People like the Rabbi make me want to look for the “Tupperware” stamp on my backside. We’re not containers, we’re not broodmares, we’re not Xerox machines; we’re 50% of the human race. People like the Rabbi make it clear that we don’t matter, it’s all about the babies. The subtext, of course, is that there’s at least a chance that some of those babies will be male, and therefore important – as opposed to the mother, who is already here, but female, and therefore less.




  7. raincoaster Says:

    Well, perhaps someone needs to remind the rabbi that Judaism is no more and no less European than Islam.




  8. Sarah Says:

    At the risk of sounding flippant, let’s be honest. The whole “go forth and multiply (as much as you can)” attitude comes from a time, continuining up until just a couple hundred years ago or less, when infant mortality rates were so high across all levels of society that one practically *had* to have as many children as possible to ensure that just a couple lived to adulthood! At this point, with the world population due to approach 7 billion in the not too distant future, must we really encourage everyone to have as many kids as possible?

    If they want to, mind you, I’m not saying that they shouldn’t. But can we also consider that those who choose to have few or no children may also be doing something for society?




  9. Robyn Says:

    I love my child, but I don’t think I could handle another. I loved being pregnant, and this baby is a wonderful little person. But I’m not sure we have the personal energy reserves it takes to chase two or more and have the financial resources to raise them.

    Acknowledging and accepting this makes me selfish? Why is it wrong to stop while you are ahead, instead of pushing past your breaking point? Many of us grew up in families that might have been a little happier and more stable if there had been one or two less mouths to feed. Why repeat the cycle? Because they tell you to? You have to listen to your own heart and live your own life.












Disclaimer: Manolo the Shoeblogger is not Manolo Blahnik
Copyright © 2004-2009; Manolo the Shoeblogger, All Rights Reserved



  • Recent Comments:





  • Teeny Manolo is powered by WordPress

    Disclaimer: Manolo the Shoeblogger is not Mr. Manolo Blahnik. This website is not affiliated in any way with Mr. Manolo Blahnik, any products bearing the federally registered trademarks MANOlO®, BlAHNIK® or MANOlO BlAHNIK®, or any licensee of said federally registered trademarks. The views expressed on this website are solely those of the author.







    Follow Teeny Manolo on Twitter!Teeny Manolo on Facebook

    Editor

    Glinda

    Publisher

    Manolo the Shoeblogger






    Glam Ad

    Categories