![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Sep. 26th, 2001 06:18 pmSome beleaguered fellow on the childfree board wrote a rant about how women bitch at him and call him immature even though he's almost 40- because he hasn't fathered any children. He griped about how women allow their hormones to drive them to have babies, then turn on men for not following suit. Here is my (slightly edited) response:
First and foremost, hang in there, [dude].
I feel the need to state, however, that women's urge to have babies has nothing to do with hormones. I could be mistaken (medically knowledgeable folks feel free to correct me) but women are driven to have sex. All those nerve endings guarantee that we will want to boff, since it feels nice. The dirty trick nature plays on us is that having sex can make women pregnant. Once that happens, THEN the hormones go nuts. But back in the day, women didn't even know sex caused babies. Like I said, a dirty trick.
Women tend to have an urge to nurture. But while it helps continue the species (we're not really in any threat of dying out, are we?) it's obviously not mandatory to have your own infant in order to get that particular jones satisfied. Someone else's infant, a pet, a freaking fern- you get the idea.
I resent the hell out of the fact that anyone (not you, [dude]) might think that I'm 'unnatural' somehow because I don't breed. I have quite a healthy sex drive, and I nurture plenty. Because these activities aren't channeled to this one narrow purpose means nothing more than I know I have other options. I use my thumbs to tie knots and type and stuff, and also other 'unnatural' devices like toothbrushes and motorcycles. Look at the unnatural freak! (roll eyes)
The connection between sex and babies was made at some point, and it became a cultural thing to not just let couples have them, but to expect it. This is what you're running up against. Any deviance from the standard acceptable life script is viewed with suspicion because it is seen as threatening. The reason for that, I believe, is because it makes it blatantly obvious that following the script is optional.
What a pisser that is, to not be able to lie back, turn off the brain, and say 'I'm just doing what nature makes me do.' Now they have to realize that they can engage in some thinking and planning and having options. Man, what a pain in the ass! It's so much easier to shuffle along, not think, and label anyone who deviates from the script as unnatural, immature, or what have you.
I've noticed that women seem to be the driving force for maintaining the status quo. I don't know why that is, though I can speculate about primeval gender roles, Mars and Venus stuff, and so forth. Who is getting their skivvies in a bunch if you wear white after Labor Day? It ain't men. So, these self-appointed Keepers of Tradition have labeled you immature. Um, whatever. Don't let it get you down. I would tend to see it as a badge of honor.
******
Now, I hasten to add, I am not aiming this at all women who have children; just the ones that assume that not having them automatically means you are immature.
Having said all that, I must also add that I want to lean away from the idea that going against the grain equals evolution. I've noticed among some of the circles I frequent that there is a love of rebellion for the sake of rebellion. In other words, lookit me! I hate what everyone else loves! That makes me smarter than all you sheep out there!
No. No. You miss my point.
It's not that being different makes you better than sheep; thinking makes you better than sheep. If you think and think and think and still decide to do something that's popular or expected, well, you're not a sheep. What works for you? What causes the least harm to you and everyone else and the planet? Go for it. Rebelling just to rebel is being just as dependent on other people as being a sheep.
First and foremost, hang in there, [dude].
I feel the need to state, however, that women's urge to have babies has nothing to do with hormones. I could be mistaken (medically knowledgeable folks feel free to correct me) but women are driven to have sex. All those nerve endings guarantee that we will want to boff, since it feels nice. The dirty trick nature plays on us is that having sex can make women pregnant. Once that happens, THEN the hormones go nuts. But back in the day, women didn't even know sex caused babies. Like I said, a dirty trick.
Women tend to have an urge to nurture. But while it helps continue the species (we're not really in any threat of dying out, are we?) it's obviously not mandatory to have your own infant in order to get that particular jones satisfied. Someone else's infant, a pet, a freaking fern- you get the idea.
I resent the hell out of the fact that anyone (not you, [dude]) might think that I'm 'unnatural' somehow because I don't breed. I have quite a healthy sex drive, and I nurture plenty. Because these activities aren't channeled to this one narrow purpose means nothing more than I know I have other options. I use my thumbs to tie knots and type and stuff, and also other 'unnatural' devices like toothbrushes and motorcycles. Look at the unnatural freak! (roll eyes)
The connection between sex and babies was made at some point, and it became a cultural thing to not just let couples have them, but to expect it. This is what you're running up against. Any deviance from the standard acceptable life script is viewed with suspicion because it is seen as threatening. The reason for that, I believe, is because it makes it blatantly obvious that following the script is optional.
What a pisser that is, to not be able to lie back, turn off the brain, and say 'I'm just doing what nature makes me do.' Now they have to realize that they can engage in some thinking and planning and having options. Man, what a pain in the ass! It's so much easier to shuffle along, not think, and label anyone who deviates from the script as unnatural, immature, or what have you.
I've noticed that women seem to be the driving force for maintaining the status quo. I don't know why that is, though I can speculate about primeval gender roles, Mars and Venus stuff, and so forth. Who is getting their skivvies in a bunch if you wear white after Labor Day? It ain't men. So, these self-appointed Keepers of Tradition have labeled you immature. Um, whatever. Don't let it get you down. I would tend to see it as a badge of honor.
******
Now, I hasten to add, I am not aiming this at all women who have children; just the ones that assume that not having them automatically means you are immature.
Having said all that, I must also add that I want to lean away from the idea that going against the grain equals evolution. I've noticed among some of the circles I frequent that there is a love of rebellion for the sake of rebellion. In other words, lookit me! I hate what everyone else loves! That makes me smarter than all you sheep out there!
No. No. You miss my point.
It's not that being different makes you better than sheep; thinking makes you better than sheep. If you think and think and think and still decide to do something that's popular or expected, well, you're not a sheep. What works for you? What causes the least harm to you and everyone else and the planet? Go for it. Rebelling just to rebel is being just as dependent on other people as being a sheep.
