Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No kids please, we're selfish
Guardian ^ | Sep 17, 2005 | Lionel Shriver

Posted on 09/20/2005 9:05:33 PM PDT by ExitPurgamentum

No kids please, we're selfish

The population is shrinking, but why should I care, says Lionel Shriver. My life is far too interesting to spoil it with children

Lionel Shriver Saturday September 17, 2005

Guardian

Meet the Anti-Mom. A story of motherhood gone dreadfully wrong, my seventh novel, We Need To Talk About Kevin, has drawn fire from Catholic websites for being hostile to "family", while grotesque distortions of the book's underlying theme ("It's all right to hate your own child, and if they turn out badly it's not your fault") have spored from article to article like potato blight. Devastated mothers send me confiding letters detailing horror stories of offspring just like the wicked boy in my book. Women who'd declined to have children flock to my readings, raising the novel as proof they were right. Yet even as "Kevin" won the Orange Prize in July, when my role as poster-girl for "maternal ambivalence" jacked up yet another power, something strange was starting to happen. I sometimes departed from script. When a Sunday Times reporter (who clearly thought me a chilly, arrogant creep) asked if I didn't think that declining to reproduce was essentially "nihilistic", I piped readily, "Of course." And when a reporter from Birmingham asked tentatively in a phone interview, "Wasn't refusing parenthood a little ... selfish?" I bellowed into the receiver, "Absolutely!"

The truth is, I had started to feel guilty.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: childfree; culturewar; darwinaward; family; lastgeneration; megeneration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last
This is an excerpt from here

A long but a worthy read.

1 posted on 09/20/2005 9:05:34 PM PDT by ExitPurgamentum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum

I would rather that folks like this not reproduce.


2 posted on 09/20/2005 9:15:58 PM PDT by AZ_Cowboy ("Be ever vigilant, for you know not when the master is coming")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum; eyespysomething
My life is far too interesting to spoil it with children

My life was far too interesting to spoil it with children, too. I now have three sons, ages 4, 5, and 9, and what I've come to know is that what I thought was interesting was really just me being drunk a lot with my friends.

Life is much more interesting now, sober and with my family.

3 posted on 09/20/2005 9:16:28 PM PDT by SittinYonder (Nemo me impune lacessit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder

If you've got three boys, then you have three good reasons to take up drinking again.

It sure helped me.


4 posted on 09/20/2005 9:28:49 PM PDT by Kiss Me Hardy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kiss Me Hardy
Oh, Good Lord! I didn't mean to imply I'm sober all the time! I'm just not drunk as often. LOL!
5 posted on 09/20/2005 9:31:16 PM PDT by SittinYonder (Nemo me impune lacessit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum
When Islamic fundamentalists accuse the west of being decadent, degenerate and debauched, you have to wonder if maybe they've got a point.

She's gotta squeeze that last little bit of liberal self-hate in at the end. Cow.

When Islamic fundamentalists accuse the west of being decadent, degenerate and debauched, I don't give a rat's ass. They can talk when they get themselves out of the DARK AGES.

Had to get that bit off first... Anyway, as for her main point, she didn't really talk much about the majority picture (it is a minority of women who do not want *any* children). Couples who do have kids are having fewer kids, like 1-3. Even some of the most selfish, hedonistic people I know want to eventually have kids, and I am sure that they will. But it will not be a huge family. And that goes for the more responsible, 'traditional' folks as well. The proportional costs of having children have gone waaaay up, in time and money.

I honestly cannot see my wife and I having more than 3. I'd prefer to raise 2-3 in relative comfort than 10 in poverty. But I have to respect (and envy) the folks who manage to have large, healthy, happy broods. They are truly blessed.

6 posted on 09/20/2005 9:57:11 PM PDT by M203M4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum

Since when is the population shrinking?


7 posted on 09/20/2005 11:11:17 PM PDT by fooblier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum
Duplicate:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1487557/posts
8 posted on 09/20/2005 11:18:40 PM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fooblier
Since when is the population shrinking?

Birth rates in most every Western country are below replacement level. Japan is way below also. Other Asian states are trending that way in accordance with increased affluence.

In the US the birthrate is buoyed by mass immigration. Therefore it is more accurate to say that only certain populations are shrinking. In my opinion it is the best populations that are shrinking. But if you "think globally" well, then, no, the human race isn't dying out. In fact it's "vibrant".

9 posted on 09/21/2005 12:48:26 AM PDT by XpandTheEkonomy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: AZ_Cowboy
I would rather that folks like this not reproduce.

Why do you feel that way. Did you read the entire article? She seem to come around in good fashion. I'll take a person who can admit mistakes any day over one that is too hard-headed to ever see that they've made one.

Seems to me, a lack of God (although see mentions Him) in their lives is one of the main culprits for their attitudes.

10 posted on 09/21/2005 4:27:42 AM PDT by HighFlier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fooblier

The first world population is shrinking-the third world types are breeding like bunnies.


11 posted on 09/21/2005 4:30:00 AM PDT by Farmer Dean (Every time a toilet flushes,another liberal gets his brains.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum
Interesting article from the UK...thanks!

I hope everyone here who points out how wonderful parenthood is, is also working hard to get rid of the cruelest of our unfair tax system here in America--the Infertility Tax.

How sick it is that with two couples making the same income, the infertile one is penalized further by paying higher taxes. God might be cruel to prevent children in those who would want them and would be good to them, but for the State to pile on is ridiculous.

(Although one might say that the couple who chooses to be childless should be taxed less, since they forego the benefits of parenthood, the truly fair solution is a flat tax, IMHO.)

12 posted on 09/21/2005 4:35:17 AM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum
A great article.

Stunning that the Guardian ran it.

13 posted on 09/21/2005 4:51:07 AM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum

It sounds like the issue is the inability to discipline and control the children.

Isn't it odd that people appeared more willing to have kids back when they were supposed to strictly control them, rather than now when everything is "sweetness-and-niceness-don't-do-that-Johnny" and the kids tell you to go suck eggs?

Not odd at all. Makes perfect sense to me.


14 posted on 09/21/2005 5:24:24 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Great point, let me add; in the 70's as we changed from single earner households to double earner households the costs of homes more than doubled, social security taxes went up from single digits to double digits, and although President Regan(80's) brought down tax rates he did so closing loop holes. The net result was after the 70's in order for a couple to live a middle class lifestyle in most cases both parents must work. The net result will be fewer children and more dependence on govt. programs to take care of them.
15 posted on 09/21/2005 6:00:00 AM PDT by wmfights (lead, follow, or get out of the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

I agree. Homes in which both parents are in the work force can handle fewer children.

Oddly, the relative value of one worker's income to provide for a family went DOWN with the massive influx of females into the workforce.

Makes sense economically.....increased supply of workers led to decrease in their value.


16 posted on 09/21/2005 6:26:20 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum

Thanks for posting this very interesting piece.


17 posted on 09/21/2005 7:08:46 AM PDT by Thorin ("I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExitPurgamentum
I keep seeing this thread receiving posts and wonder why it's getting traction.

Oh, I see why.

This is the second post of the exact same titled thread.

Already Posted

18 posted on 09/21/2005 7:26:09 AM PDT by GreenAccord (Is the WAR ON POVERTY a quagmire?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

The real shame of it is the entire society suffers. The children don't have a parent at home and don't have that inherent feeling of being valued and most important your original point a little old fashioned discipline. Women discover too late in life that the "career" track is nowhere near as satisfying as a family would have been.

It's amazing how the old tried and true values and traditions actually work if followed.


19 posted on 09/21/2005 11:19:20 AM PDT by wmfights (lead, follow, or get out of the way)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: M203M4
The proportional costs of having children have gone waaaay up, in time and money.

Not really, unless one subscribes to the point of view that each kid has to have twice more room than in 1950s, that (s)he cannot be happy without the latest CD, etc.; that is, if one subscribes to the materialistic culture.

I honestly cannot see my wife and I (sic) having more than 3. I'd prefer to raise 2-3 in relative comfort than 10 in poverty

Whose comfort do you worry about, theirs or yours?

20 posted on 09/21/2005 12:37:34 PM PDT by ExitPurgamentum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson