ChildFree Hardcore

Vegan Restaurant Defends Their Baby Show ing Diners His Butthole

bart_calendar — Fri, 07 Jul 2017 10:17:15 GMT

OMG. This story is fucking great.

Here's the deal - this couple owns a vegan restaurant in Memphis.

The other day a diner was eating and their one kid came up to their table completely naked and then showed them their butthole.

At the same time their other child started yodeling at them.

Not shockingly this was not the dinner experience the patron was expecting.

So they went onto a review site and said they didn't appreciate butthole plus yodeling. But, unlike what I would have done, said they'd go back and gave an overall positive review.

In other words they liked the place - but just would prefer not to see a kids butt.

Now most restaurant owners would have said "hey, sorry about my kid's ass."

Not these people who went ballistic about their kids right to put their butthole out to diners, told the person they would not be welcome back in their establishment and ranted and raved about the need of children to just "be who they are."

Now the local Internet has gone insane and is using the hashtag #buttholegate.

About half are IN FAVOR OF THE OWNERS ON THIS while the other half is like KEEP YOUR KIDS ASS AWAY FROM ME WHILE I'M EATING!

This is pure gold.

Of Course If Your Daugther Gets Knocked Up By A Millionaire Her Problems Will Go Away

bart_calendar — Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:31:03 GMT

America's National Icon Of Parenthood - Dina Lohan - has high hopes for her perpetually drug and alcohol soaked daughter Lindsay.

She thinks LiLo should let her millionaire much younger boyfriend knock her up.

Because, clearly, the way to solve your 29 year old daughter's problems with substance abuse and obvious mental health issues is simply for her to have tons of unprotected sex with a 22 year old fuck boy.

But, obviously, Dina simply has Lohan's best interests at heart.

Hasn't she always?

This couldn't possibly be a money grab or anything.

I. Have. No. Words.

Well, that's not all bad...

datista — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 03:15:24 GMT

Kansas Court of Appeals splits evenly on a 2015 law that would effectively ban 2nd trimester abortions by D&E. By splitting evenly, the law does not go into effect. Not bets, it'll go on to the Kansas Supreme Court as the forced-birthers push things, but it's at least 7 Kansas judges who think a 159 year old document written by old men might not apply to modern women's medical options.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/22/463989675/evenly-divided-kansas-appeals-court-blocks-2015-abortion-law

Bang!

bart_calendar — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 02:30:35 GMT

Woman writes that having a baby made her want to beat her husband to death with a frying pan.

People in the comments section then tell her this is "normal" and not a bad thing.

"So true. Preach"

"I still feel a great deal of contempt for my husband."

"Sill have a low level rage for my husband."

It goes on and on and on!

Woman has medical abortion and gets charged with murder...then drug possession

silverwing84 — Wed, 01 Jul 2015 02:47:00 GMT

I'm just so fucking enraged I can't even see straight on this. Putting the link here, there's more links inside it, but the main story is below the cut. While Ms. Jones managed to get the murder charge dropped, she was still charged with drug possession for trying to induce a miscarriage.

This is a charge that could totally screw her over in terms of getting employment, housing, or credit. I have many opinions about the War on Drugs doing this to people, but if you are a woman it clearly shows that your own agency and body doesn't matter if there's a holy FETUS involved.

http://www.alternet.org/gender/war-drugs-has-reached-womb-and-threatens-abortion-rights

What do you bet if this woman had the baby, the same people screaming about "fetal rights" would be the first to tell her to fuck off if she or her children needed aid? I'm not even talking welfare, I'm talking having some paid time off from work to tend to her own or her child's health. Or to have less money put in bombs and more to schools.

The War on Drugs Has Reached into the Womb - and Threatens Abortion Rights

What does the war on drugs have to do with the war on abortion? More than you’d think: the anti-choice movement has been successfully using drug laws to give fetuses legal personhood rights for years. Today, 18 states consider drug use while pregnant to be child abuse - a standard that not only punishes pregnant women who need help, but that has profound implications for reproductive rights.

Consider the case of Kenlissia Jones, a 23-year-old woman in Georgia who ordered Cytotec off the internet to end her pregnancy. We don’t know why she didn’t seek out an abortion legally (though it could be because 96% of counties in Georgia lack an abortion provider). What we do know is that, at 5 months, Jones’pregnancy ended in the back of her neighbor’s car en route to the hospital, and that she was arrested soon after for malice murder, a crime that carries the chance of life in prison or the death penalty.

The murder charge against Jones was eventually dropped; Georgia law doesn’t allow for the prosecution of women who end their own pregnancies. For most, the story ends there: reproductive rights activists were understandably relieved and the media moved on to the next story. But the one charge against her that remains – possession of a dangerous drug – underpins a dangerous anti-choice strategy that has gone ignored for too long.

As Lynn Paltrow, executive director of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women told me: “if you don’t address the war on drugs, you can’t address the war on abortion.” Paltrow, whose work, in part, involves cases in which women have been arrested for using drugs while pregnant, says “my head is exploding around this.”

We’ve been saying this for 15 years: if you set a precedent that a woman who tests positive for drugs is guilty of child abuse, then certainly a woman who induces abortion by drugs is guilty as well.

This isn’t the first time that anti-choice activists have created legislation supposedly unrelated to abortion to further their cause. They did the same thing with domestic violence policy: the Unborn Victims of Violence Act was ostensibly about creating separate punishments for people who harm a fetus while perpetrating violence against a pregnant woman, but what it really did was enshrine into law that fetuses at any stage of development are distinct from the women who carry them.

But because the mainstream pro-choice movement is so busy dealing with clinic restrictions and explicit attacks on abortion, they’re mostly absent around the connection between drug laws and efforts to attack reproductive rights. (Paltrow has been writing about the link for years; in 1999 she wrote a paper warning of the conservative effort to use drug laws to criminalize abortion and about the role of racism in these policies.)

“If you punish pregnant people for their drug use, it doesn’t matter what kind of drug it is - a woman smoking pot to reduce morning sickness or an abortion-inducing drug,” Paltrow told me, adding: “we have to recognize the common cause.” And as abortion restrictions increase and more women seek out illegal and home terminations, pregnancy-ending drugs will become increasingly common – so the need to act on these laws will become even more urgent.

Already, some medical professionals are taking action. Some 15 states require health care professionals to report suspected drug use by pregnant women, but the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have come out in opposition to doctors reporting patients, noting: “seeking obstetric–gynecologic care should not expose a woman to criminal or civil penalties.” And after Jones was arrested, a local doctor filed a complaint against the hospital that treated her, citing privacy concerns and saying: “the law is designed so that people do not fail to seek medical attention for fear of being prosecuted.”

But we need more than doctors protecting their patients: we need policy change, public awareness and pro-choice organizations that prioritize ending drug laws that target pregnant women. The war on drugs is racist, it criminalizes people who need help and it is attacking women’s bodily autonomy – fighting it is a core feminist issue. So let’s start acting like it.

Parents Now Want To Protect The Children From The Dangers Of Rainbows

bart_calendar — Wed, 17 Jun 2015 21:10:14 GMT

So, a woman decides to decorate her front garden to make it look like there is a rainbow.

The next day, she gets a note telling her to take it down in order to protect the children.

Because, clearly, children can be hurt by multi-colored jars filled with flowers.

The Bible Of The Childfree Community

bart_calendar — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 12:35:15 GMT

So, since the bookshop suggested it to me I spent a few days reading "We Need To Talk About Kevin" by Lionel Shriver, a book that could be considered the Bible of the childfree community. In fact, in the afterword she says that one of the reasons she wrote the book was to explain to her partner why she didn't want kids. Holy fuck is this a dark book.

I'm posting an LJ Cut to help people avoid spoilers and for people who are sensitive to just how big a piece of shit a boy raised by wolves can become.

The biggest challenge here is that none of the three main characters - mom, dad or Kevin is likeable in any real way. What the book succeeds at is somehow making the parents seem like worse humans than their son, who is a mass murderer. To do so she's had to make the parents into the most clueless entitled assholes possible. The theme seems to be "If you don't like kids, it's probably a good idea not to have them."

There are a lot of people on the Internet saying the book is about nature vs. nurture. But Kevin is such a victim of child neglect that I'm simply left to wonder if taking him to a doctor at some point would have solved most of the problems going on. Here are some events that happen that I think would lead most people to take their child to the fucking doctor. These parents don't do so in any of these situations.

1. When every single nanny hired for him when he's 2 quits in under a week.
2. When he's still in diapers at roughly age 7.
3. When his mom finds herself screaming at him when he's 2 that he makes her want to kill herself.
4. When he throws bricks off of highway overpasses toward oncoming cars.
5. When he starts whipping his dick out in front of is mom and masturbating while looking at her.
6. When he only engages his mother in conversation when she's talking about school shootings.
7. When he comments that if you want to be a school shooter you should do it before you are old enough to be tried as an adult.
8. When he blinds his sister with drain cleaner.
9. When, after talking tons about school shootings, his only interest becomes in getting better and better at hitting targets at long range with projectiles.
10. He falsely accuses a female teacher of molesting him.

Of course a parent smart enough to do that would probably also stop using words like "fags" and "faggots" when their son is clearly gay or bisexual. (They find him just about to butt fuck his best friend when he's about 12, he shows no interest in girls, and wears super tight clothes that are designed to show off his cock. Very cliche, but also clearly what the author is trying to telegraph.)

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the book is that it goes to the old trope that "it's all mommy's fault." Kevin is clearly mostly a kid yearning for attention. He quickly learns that to get attention from dad he has to pretend to be interested in thing's dad likes. To get mom's attention, however, he has to be an asshole, because that's the only time she pays attention to him at all. That he ends up being a school shooter should be no surprise since she talks about school shooters with awe about him all the time. Of course, she's insane. When her husband tells her that having a second child would be a bad idea since she clearly hates children, she then tricks him into getting her pregnant and is shocked when he's not thrilled. But I wish the book got across the idea that the dad is at fault too. He could have taken the kid to the doctor. He could have divorced the "ice queen" he married. He could have realized that having a child with a woman who just isn't into it was a really bad idea in the first place. So, no, this is not just mommy's fault.

The real fault is a society that works to convince people who are disinterested in having children that "it's different when they are your own." Some people simply shouldn't have kids.

Liletta, Actavis Hormonal Contraceptive Device, Wins FDA Approval

longtail — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 22:56:34 GMT

Good news for us that may ease doctor/CF relations!

http://www.medicaldaily.com/liletta-actavis-hormonal-contraceptive-device-wins-fda-approval-323770

(Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved a hormonal contraceptive device on Friday that gives American women another reversible contraceptive choice as effective as sterilization.

The intrauterine device (IUD) device, Liletta, releases the hormone levonorgestrel to inhibit thickening of the womb lining, preventing pregnancy for up to three years. Typically smaller than an iPod Shuffle, the IUD is a t-shaped piece of plastic that must be inserted into the uterus to prevent fertilization.

Dublin-based Actavis Plc holds the commercial license for the product, but the marketing application was submitted by non-profit pharmaceutical company Medicines360, which holds the U.S. public sector clinic rights. The companies expect the device, which also helps to check heavy menstrual bleeding, to be available in the United States by the second quarter of 2015.

It is already in use in Europe. Hormonal UIDs are marginally more effective than commonly used copper IUDs such as Teva

Pharmaceutical Industry Ltd's Paragard, which last longer but provide no control of blood flow.

Liletta will compete in the $1 billion global market for UIDs. Michael WaterHouse, an analyst at brokerage Morningstar, said he expected peak global sales of below $500 million.

The device will also compete with Bayer AG's hormonal IUDs Mirena and Skyla in the United States.

While existing devices offer between three and 12 years of protection, Liletta is approved for use for up to three years. The longer duration of protection is not imperative for women as most use an IUD for less than three years,Pamela Weir, Medicines360's Chief Operating officer, told Reuters.

Liletta is being tested in the largest-ever U.S. trial for IUDs, with a diverse patient population encompassing a range of weights, ages and races.

It also includes women who have given birth as well as those who have not.

The trial is evaluating Liletta's use for up to seven years. Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) have returned to popularity over the past decade as more potent devices hit the market. LARCs, including UIDs and implants, are more effective than other contraceptives such as pills and patches and are nearly as effective as sterilization, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Approval of Liletta was widely expected. Activis shares rose 0.8 percent to $292.01 in early trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

By Samantha Kareen Nair and Natalie Grover

(Editing by Maju Samuel and Ted Kerr)

Reddit is donating 10% of their advertising income to charity

pkbitchgirl — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 22:44:10 GMT

Which amounts to $800,000 donated between 10 charities

It's been put to the members of Reddit to vote which 10 charities receive the money

You already have to be a member of Reddit to vote (it's to cut down on troll voting and people signing up to Reddit just to vote for a charity)

Anyway if you are a member of Reddit here is the page to donate for Planned Parenthood America - http://www.reddit.com/donate?organization=131644147

Sadly the discussion page for Planned Parenthood has been flooded with forced birth trolls - https://www.reddit.com/r/redditdonate/comments/2wcadk/planned_parenthood_federation_of_america/?sort=confidence

People say it's different when it's your own...

ingriam — Mon, 02 Feb 2015 07:20:03 GMT

http://www.cracked.com/article_21538_5-things-i-learned-as-sex-slave-in-modern-america.html

It shouldn't be this different.

I thought you all would get a giggle...

ferrousoxide — Mon, 05 Jan 2015 01:09:50 GMT

Mind, not that fat shaming is acceptable. I'm a pretty average girl myself, but given the choice between gaining weight due to eathing too much chocolate and having too many martinis...

Really? REALLY!?

waters_of_lethe — Fri, 26 Dec 2014 15:28:09 GMT

In this season of joy and celebration I had the pleasure to be dragged down to earth again and be reminded of how much people suck.

If the cryptic facebook statuses (uuuugh!) and close friends posting single hearts in the comments is anything to go by, my dear childhood acquintance is expecting child number two!

Minor thing to be pissed about surely? WELL HERE'S THE STORY!

In October 2013 she approached me and pleaded me to take care of her two cats because she and her boyfriend had fucked their economy up and she and her daughter was moving back in with her mother and something about her stepfather not allowing her to bring her cats along. She told me she loved them very much and maybe she could take them back when she got her own place to live again and a steady income. But right now she had no other options and if I found someone who wanted them I should just send them away. (I find this soooo contradictionary, had it been me and my kitties, I'd very nicely ask someone if they could take them into their home and I'd pay all expenses while I sorted my life out, but I digress.)

I feared what would become of these two innocent lives if I didn't say yes, so I did. I have money and I am renting a big house so for me it wasn't really a problem other than I have two cats myself and they weren't too pleased with intruders. Luckily it settled down quick, apart from some hissing and growling when they pass each other a little too closely it was fine.

This being close to christmas I knew the local shelters had their hands full so I did not contact them. The next time I thought maybe it's time to get them into a shelter and their adoption program it was close to summer, so again I decided no it can wait. Besides they seemed happy here. I didn't have the heart to send them away anymore. :| So I have ended up keeping them here.

And here comes the kicker: She has now moved into a new apartment (with her dick ass shit boyfriend) and she's got a job that gives her an okay income. You'd think she'd be overjoyous and come get her cats back because I was so nice I kept them for her all this time? Oh no sir! She is fucking PREGNANT with a kid instead!

I am so pissed I don't know what to do with myself. On one hand I am angry she has just thrown away her cats, but on the other hand I wouldn't want them to go back there either. It comes with the story that they were really scared and anxious when they moved in with me and one of them hasn't laid of that attitude still over a year after. I actually suspect they haven't been treated so good. Not that I think she ever did mistreat them, but her boyfriend is surely a suspect of being a animal abuser. He's an abusive shit in general actually.

Thank for listening. :|

tl:dr: Childhood acquintance doesn't have the means to keep her two cats, but apparently have the means to have another baby.

Virginia Bans Childfree License Plate

bart_calendar — Wed, 17 Dec 2014 12:12:07 GMT

Song: Please May I Whip Your Kids [NSFW]

werewolfwithin — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 10:56:02 GMT

Went cybersafari on Youtube; discovered a fun one just for us.
[Singing] Please may I whip your kids?

If the imbedded video doesn't work, link is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUmJDVRDRTQ

tigertat2 — Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:22:40 GMT

No, Coworker...Dealing with children's clothing doesn't make me want to have a baby.

Theme park discriminates against lone adults

pkbitchgirl — Mon, 10 Nov 2014 22:05:20 GMT

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2828413/Theme-park-bans-single-adults-paedophile-fears-bird-enthusiast-grandfather

Theme park bans unaccompanied adults in case they are paedophiles as bird enthusiast grandfather is told he can't watch falconry display

*Puxton Park, Somerset, prohibits lone adults on child protection grounds
*Bizarre rule revealed after bird enthusiast was turned away from the centre
*Matthew Richards, 54, had visited just days earlier with three grandchildren
*Park's chief justified rule saying 'there's lots in headlines about paedophiles'
*He also alluded to former mayor jailed for child porn offences last month
*Award-winning park also features zip lines, crazy golf and animal enclosure

A theme park has banned adults unaccompanied by children from entry over fears that they could be paedophiles.

The bizarre rule at Puxton Park, in Somerset, came to light after a bird enthusiast was forbidden from watching a falconry display at the centre on his own.

Matthew Richards, 54, had visited with his three grandchildren just days earlier and wanted to return for another look at the birds of prey area - but was turned away.

The centre has appeared to contradict itself in justifying the rule - first claiming it has been in place for seven years - before then blaming it on last year's visit from jailed paedophile Phillip Judd - the former mayor of Weston-super-Mare.

Father-of-three Mr Richards was turned away at the theme park's gate on Thursday with staff telling him they did not admit single men and women on child protection grounds.

When he complained, bosses at the tourist attraction near Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, defended the bizarre rule and insisted it is 'in line with other parks' - before sanding him away.

The married father-of-three said: 'I almost feel discriminated against. I could understand it if it was for the attractions that young children only enjoy, but the falconry is of interest to all.

'I was frankly amazed. I was told the rule applies to single men, and women, for the protection of children.

'I couldn't see anything about the rule on the brochure which I picked up at another attraction.

'We have taken one of our grandchildren there before, and I saw that the falconry was there and thought it would be interesting to go back and see the displays.

'They are advertising adult memberships as gifts so I can't understand it.'

The park's managing director, Alistair Mead, has claimed the centre was 'forced to implement stringent child protection policies' because of 'the society in which we live in'.

He then alluded to the case of Phillip Judd, the former mayor of Weston-super-Mare who visited the theme park before being jailed for child pornography offences last month.

Speaking to the BBC, he said: 'If you cannot trust civic authority figures then, simply, who can you trust?

'Mr Judd had visited Puxton Park to undertake a civic duty and his sinister secrets were only recently exposed and he was jailed for his crimes.'

The reason appears to contradict the theme park's earlier claim that the rule had existed for seven years.

Mr Mead added: 'We would rather be over zealous when unaccompanied adults visit us armed with cameras than put children at any potential risk.'

The award-winning Puxton Park is a family-orientated leisure attraction which includes zip lines, a play barn, crazy golf and animal enclosures, as well as an owl zone and a falconry centre.

Mr Richards from High Littleton, near Bath, Somerset, had attended the park with his family, and returned on Thursday only intending to watch another falconry display.

But he was banned from entering by staff who claimed their rule was clearly explained on the website.

The 'prices' section online states: 'We are sorry but we are unable to let single men or women without children into the park.

'If you are here to meet someone let one of our reception staff know and they will happily do a tannoy announcement asking them to come and meet you.'

Alistair Mead earlier commented: 'There is a lot in the headlines about paedophiles and things that are going on with children.

'We have done our research and in line with all other parks we don't let single men or women in.

'We make it quite clear that if people want to go to the falconry they have to get a prior appointment, and we would take them down to the falconry centre.

'It is in the leaflet. I think if I did a survey of 100 of our customers they would agree that we are doing the right thing.'

A new statement on the leisure centre's website reads: 'Our members fully support our decisions and we have received nothing but praise for our policy including positive feedback from a Child Protection Specialist, who commended us for our child protection principals.

'Within seven years we have only had one complaint about this policy from the gentlemen last week.

'At the time of setting the policy the other parks within the area had a similar stance to us. I have spoken to two or three similar client based parks this morning and they still have the same policy as we do. I'm not going to name names as it's unprofessional of me to do so.

'In light of this coverage we will look at what other parks are doing with their admissions policy, speak to our customers and review.'

A spokesman for Visit Somerset said: 'It sounds as if Puxton Park needs to publicise this particular rule a bit more prominently.'

Here's their Facebook page, they had to close comments LOL - https://www.facebook.com/pages/Puxton-Park-tourist-attraction/190073204341742

First rant. Yay?

ingriam — Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:50:10 GMT

As a whole, the Space Battles forum has been a good place to hang out, discus fanfiction and other fandom related things, but every so often I give into the urge to venture into the Non Sci-fi Debates section. And then I run into people like this asshole:

"The vast majority of women love being mothers and taking care of their children. Just because they love doing it doesn't mean it isn't a job, however. Motherhood is in fact arguably the most important job there is, given the survival of our species utterly depends upon it."

Mr. Walper, do kindly go fuck yourself with a Khornite chainaxe.

I just had to rant to fellow CF folk about conversion-happy morons...

silverwing84 — Tue, 04 Nov 2014 15:44:58 GMT

Hey peeps. I just really gotta get this rant off my chest because people have really been pissing me off lately.

What is so fucking hard to understand that not everyone wants kids?! And especially some of the underlying reasons that I have-- I'll be honest, they're primarily economic. I've taken huge upswings and pitfalls with my income through no fault of my own. I am neither the first nor last person born in the Reagan years who had the economy hand their ass to them. Then I started a business out of my own volition-- my lifelong dream. I work two 1099 jobs plus whatever other random gigs I can get while I work on my company (video game studio) the latter of which will not have our first major product released until about February-March.

I love what I do and my bills are paid. I take the instability in stride because I'm happier and saner than I was as a tax advisor. Some months I make more than what I used to make at my old job. Other months I really struggle. Like I know I will this winter because both of my 1099 jobs will be dry until January.

This sanctimonious bitch got in my face about how I SHOULD want kids and not let the economy dictate that. Don't I know it's life's greatest joy and I'm just a cold-hearted sociopath and what will I do if I meet a man who doesn't want kids?

Aside from the fact that no one should have partner unilaterally dictating that decision (has this moron never heard of birth control sabotage?) I facepalmed the facepalm that could be heard three states away. I posted in the regular childfree group about an article on work-life balance in the gaming industry that really pissed me off; I pointed out how starting a games studio is seriously one of the most irresponsible things you can possibly do if you have/are expecting kids. Being childfree enables me to take that kind of risk. There is NO WAY I could've taken that plunge and left the 9-5 world if I had just one child, let alone more than one, to support. I'd have to work some godawful full-time job I fucking hate like the last one I worked to be able to afford adequate housing and basic necessities for that household. I can live in the smaller cheaper housing I have because it's just me!

But even if the economy was wonderful and I didn't have to worry about money, I just don't want to be a fucking parent. My choice is only compounded by the fact that there was a while when I could barely take care of myself, let alone a child. Since my business has been doing better and I work two other gigs, I travel a lot. Sometimes I'm just gone all day, other times I'm home all day, but when it's convention season I'm virtually never home. Then when I get tensed up working all the time, I hit shows and go out. I don't cook because I hate it and I'm also constantly on the go either for my teaching and consulting gigs, the social aspects of meeting new people and hanging out with existing friends this way, and I frequently have to entertain higher-ups and potential clients in the gaming industry. (Sharing good restaurant food is how I've fostered great business relationships!) And before I fell for my main squeeze and am now on pins and needles with THAT situation...I enjoyed having a sex life comparable to the average Senator's. I don't want to ever have a kid walk in on me fucking my man. (Who BTW, also doesn't want kids. Otherwise I wouldn't adore him the way I do.) And nothing kills my lady boner faster than screaming kids/crying babies.

Read: my lifestyle is horribly incongruent with having kids. And it's a life I love and busted my ass to get to. If you think I'm going to give up my dream career, interesting side jobs that pay, great social life, tasty restaurant food, and the hot sex I hope will be resuming soon all for the sake of a shitting crying meatloaf I don't want-- fuck you!

Why can't these morons accept that this is MY version of happiness? I get that for some people having kids was part of their dream...for me it's my worst nightmare. If my business winds up booming, I want to finally enjoy it after busting my ass and getting fucked over by employers and publishers the way I did. And I've made a lot of money and lost a lot of it in the past: even if I diligently save I know that things can come crashing down. All income is temporary.

In closing, I feel it more than ever with these fucking annoying kids outside and in my building who won't shut up! Gah. Fuck these even more annoying people who make it their life's mission to convince everyone they meet who doesn't want kids to have them.

Baby Related Work Rant

bart_calendar — Mon, 03 Nov 2014 10:11:01 GMT

My job today is to write ads for diapers that feature "cutting edge fashion options."

Because, you know, you don't want your baby to poop in last years diaper styles.

Also they want me to stress that there is no latex in the diapers - because I guess people who have a kid really don't like using latex for anything!

Well this is Entertaining--Redefining Hatred of Children?

ferrousoxide — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 22:12:35 GMT

Evidently, someone has penned an article about people who hate children...which is really just about people who have children and society's views of children as non-people.

http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/pedogyny-the-hatred-of-children/

The hatred of children is so normalized that we don’t even use a term for it. It’s so integrated within our social institutions that daring to question it means to question the very premises of our society. To reject misopedia means to reject the family system, to reject the education system, to reject organized religion, to reject national and racial prejudice, all of these things being way, way outside of the margins of discourse, anywhere (except on a blog or two ran by crazy whackjobs like me).

I have already commented on the strange life children lead. Children are not considered, or treated, as human beings, they are not considered to be endowed with rights, and their exploitation (whether as unpaid workers, targets of abuse, trafficked persons, or anything else) is considered benign unless it’s featured as a Youtube meme (Kony for president, y’all!).

This lack of rights is a natural result of parental ownership of children and government ownership of children, the two forces which are engaged in a perpetual struggle for control over the body and minds of children. But no matter who wins out at any given time, one does not grant rights to an owned object, for that contradicts the whole purpose of ownership. To own is to control, and to grant rights is to relinquish some area of direct control (indirect control, of course, is always available, but requires a great deal of resources or influence).

The culture, religion, habits, and other beliefs of the parents subjugate the children’s values and communicate to the children that their opinions are worthless. Children’s lives and well-being are considered secondary to the parents’ beliefs. This is why it is difficult to differentiate the state of being a child from the state of being an indentured servant, parenting from child-hatred.

I hope everyone understands that misopedia is not new, but is rather a historical phenomenon that has been the dominant worldview on child-raising from the last century to the previous millenia. Like misogyny, it has been a near-universal principle of social organization.

The fact that parents are often nice to their children is not any more a rebuttal of child-hatred than the fact that some black slaves were treated nicely, and that most were paid, proves that they were not slaves (and seeing how badly children are treated on the whole, both by parents and by the State, this objection holds little weight). But even when parents are trying to be kind to their children, they are still cruel and damaging to them (see for instance Arthur Silber’s series on how even seemingly innocent ways of indoctrinating children are cruel and lead to terrible consequences). It is not that all parents are deliberately trying to be cruel, but that the concept of parenting itself is cruel.

In order to justify any system of exploitation, one has to portray the exploited as being somehow deficient and deserving of being exploited. Bigotry and exploitation are always self-reinforcing and mutually necessary.

In the case of children, we have the myth of the gullible, unruly, selfish and violent child1, exemplified by the famous novel Lord of the Flies, published in 1954, where children marooned on a desert island and come to torture and kill each other. It is not a coincidence that the author is British, because that sounds pretty much like any British boarding school in the fifties.

I’m joking, but there is a deeper point here: very often we confuse effects of the environment with human nature.

Yes, there are children who are gullible, but there are some who are not (studies also show that even very young children, down to 16 months old, doubt testimonies that contradict empirical evidence). Yet children are called gullible as a class. Like many other forms of bigotry, it is justified by pseudo-evolution: children are gullible because it’s evolutionarily good for them to learn the essentials of survival from their parents.

The fact is that children are entrapped in a family and basically have no ideological alternative. Up to a certain age, children depend on their parents for their lives, and cannot afford to antagonize them. In fact, because of the constant demands parents put on children, they are often psychologically motivated by the desire to not hurt their parents’ feelings (even in cases such as when a child is raped by some other person); they have to walk on eggshells in the same way that any person is forced to accommodate the feelings of a superior.

If we look at the example of religion, for example, we find that children adopt the religion of their parents (or the former religion of their parents, in the case of the atheist perverts who send their children to Sunday School) because they really have no other choice but to believe as well. They have to believe the “right” religion or risk ostracism from the community they grew up in.

The simple fact is that children believe their parents because they have no other choice. It is also the case that they don’t know any better, especially in terms of alternatives, and that they are not taught critical thinking. But these other factors are dependent on the first. It is the parents who refuse to teach alternatives and who refuse to teach critical thinking, and by extension the schools chosen by the parents to “educate” their children.

Children can root out contradictions at a young age. The mind of the child is often able to cut through bullshit because it reduces artificially complex issues to their real simplicity. Of course I don’t expect every child of any age to master things that actually are complex. But children can often come to conclusions that adults cannot, because they are not prejudiced. Prejudice is pounded into them by their parenting and their schooling. As a study in Science found:

The large majority of 5th graders were strict egalitarians, and, remarkably, there were almost no meritocrats at this grade level. In contrast, meritocratism was the dominant position in late adolescence, and the share of strict egalitarians fell dramatically. The share of libertarians was stable across grade levels.

Children become increasingly integrated within competitive systems, especially at school, so it’s no surprise that they want to succeed and ignore the natural impulse for fairness. As we “mature,” we realize that “fairness is nice but unrealistic” (i.e. it doesn’t fit the rigid conformity imposed by competition). It is a constantly increasing pressure inflicted on children.

A lot of people want to help reform the institutions that oppress children, to make them more child-friendly. But no one asks whether these institutions need to exist. To ask whether the family structure or whether the schooling industry should exist is basically a one-way ticket to Cuckooland.

Like all other forms of bigotry, it is true that misopedia is not as bad as it has been historically. As someone else has pointed out, “[a]t least we no longer bury children alive in the foundations of our buildings for good luck.” But children, even in our privileged societies, are still lied to, mutilated, raped, beaten, physically threatened, psychologically abused and emotionally blackmailed every day (and most of these actions are not considered criminal, even though they would be if committed against an adult). And even the relatively better treatment of children cannot excuse their status as owned objects. The objectification of children even extends to the media and political issues.

Misopedia and natalism go hand-in-hand. This seems to be confusing for some people, who associate “child-hatred” with “people who complain about the Duggars” or “people who complain that children are crying at the grocery store” (here is one example of such muddled thinking). That’s not child-hating, it’s parent-hating. The Duggar children never asked to be born, and children don’t ask to be dragged to the grocery store; the parents did it, and we hate them for it, not the innocent children. Associating antinatalism with child-hatred is just another form of projection.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but from the antinatalist perspective the desire to have children implies hatred for those children. If you love someone, do you voluntarily decide to subject them to an almost infinite number of risks, some of them fatal? And after you decide to do this, do you then assume near-total ownership over them under the pretense that you will be a benevolent owner? Even if you can’t possibly understand the world in any other way but with the family structure in it, you still have to admit that’s a pretty bizarre claim prima facie. Furthermore, the fact that all justifications for having children entail using children as means to an end is a pretty good sign of parents’ bad intent; people who use others as means to an end are not, on the whole, well intentioned, and even when they are, they still perpetuate evil.

1 The myth of child-as-barbarian is sometimes taken quite literally in a racist manner: “Isn’t it cute how these foreign people are just like children?” Africans, workers and sometimes women are associated with prepubescence or adolescence (see The Culture of Conformism p135 for more on this).

A Different Kind Of Baby

bart_calendar — Wed, 08 Oct 2014 19:27:54 GMT

Tuesday Funny

bart_calendar — Tue, 02 Sep 2014 12:21:32 GMT

Guy on Craigslist plays an epic prank on a mom.

Picture won't post right but you can see it at this link.

Airport provides buggies for parents to use between plane and baggage hall, entitled parents steal

pkbitchgirl — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 21:39:44 GMT

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2726776/Airport-pram-raiders-Passengers-gratitude-free-baby-buggies-terminal-strolling-scores-them.html

Of course, entitled parents ended up stealing them

Corporate Peronhood/Hobby Lobby

savethegirl — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 23:25:31 GMT

I know this is political, but I wanted to make Child-free people aware of corporate person hood, and what that means and how it affects child free people as well as the vast majority of the world's population. Currently, corporations have more rights than flesh and blood human beings. We currently have a 128 years of law based on the Supreme Courts misinterpretation of the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, which never formally ruled on corporate person-hood. It's only in the headnote of the case. We literally have a headnote setting a precedent for a 128 years worth of law in the US. And that little mistake from a 128 years ago is costing the American people dearly. How does this relate to child-free people? Well, they used the Santa Clara precedent in the Hobby Lobby ruling. We just gave religious freedom to multi-billion/million dollar corporations over flesh and blood human beings. (If this inappropriate: I'll understand. I just hope it's not.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2-q-RBiWhk

Man buys ALL the pies!

darkfire007 — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 23:03:20 GMT

http://gawker.com/man-buys-every-pie-at-local-burger-king-to-spite-shitty-1617088150

Kids are annoying no matter how you slice it, but if they are crying their heads off and yelling "I want fucking pie!" when you're in line at a Burger King, the only natural recourse is to then buy every single pie in sight so that the kid just has to fucking deal. One man, a Gawker hero, claims on Reddit to have done just that.

In a Reddit thread labeled "offmychest," one user spins a compelling tale of buying 23 Burger King apple pies when he heard a young crybaby behind him yelling at his mother about wanting some fucking pie. What happens next will surprise and gratify you!!!!!!

From his Reddit confession:

It turns out it was so slow because they had 1 trainee on cash during the lunch hour rush. All I can think of is how the people behind me ruined my splurge and gave me this headache. I then decide to ruin their day. I order every pie they have left in addition to my burgers. Turned out to be 23 pies in total, I take my order and walk towards the exit. Moments later I hear the woman yelling, what do you mean you don't have any pies left, who bought them all? I turn around and see the cashier pointing me out with the woman shooting me a death glare. I stand there and pull out a pie and slowly start eating eat as I stare back at her. She starts running towards me but can't get to me because of other lineups in the food court. I turn and slowly walk away.
The man with the most pies and least crying kids in his face wins>