NPM creator: “Not having children is a form of privilege”(twitter.com)
twitter.com
NPM creator: “Not having children is a form of privilege”
https://twitter.com/izs/status/1276424491048947712
13 comments
The guy tried to express all the problems we - parents - have in the modern ("startup") ecosystem, and then he gets bashed because there are people who can't have kids. That's not the point. I'm the only parent in a 10 person startup and I'm constantly looked at like I'm the person slacking off, because I randomly have to go take care of my baby. Our 9am standup is a joke, with everyone groggy and still in their pajamas trying to wake up, while I was already up at 5 answering email, because I know the baby will get up at 6 and want to play. I respond to Slack and email at 11pm because that's the only time in the day I can sit and focus on what I need to write. And all of this doesn't matter, because nobody else has kids and they don't get it.
Hey Isaac.
[deleted]
I’ve always felt the opposite. Having children is a privilege. That’s not to say that just to get on a high horse about it, it’s something my SO and I have talked at length about (we have two, and because of medical complications cannot have more) and we’ve both come to the conclusion that children are a gift from God. Obviously our religion has a lot to do with the perspective that having them are a privilege.
It’s only within the last few years that the having children is considered a problem. I think there’s probably a direct causation there with the decline of the Judeo-Christian religions overall.
It’s only within the last few years that the having children is considered a problem. I think there’s probably a direct causation there with the decline of the Judeo-Christian religions overall.
I think it's important to point out that unlike other forms of social privilege which are usually discussed -- white privilege, male privilege, cis privilege, ... -- childless privilege is not usually an element of one's facticity, i.e. one does not choose to be black, female, or trans, but for many people, having children is a choice.
Of course, not all people are able to conceive children, and not everyone who bears children does so consensually. And of course, just because someone's choice imposes a burden on their lives and relationships with other people, it doesn't mean that others should not be compassionate towards that person. I do not have children but one of my colleagues does, and I am very happy to make concessions for that as needed, I just consider that an issue of being flexible and treating other people decently, not an issue of privilege per se.
Side note: almost everyone I talk to who want kids defaults to wanting to conceive their own children, instead of adopting. I would argue that adoption is a greater net positive that conceiving new children because it does not increase the population count (which has net negative effects ecologically) and it is providing parents to a child which would otherwise have none. I think I would also find adopting more personally rewarding as well, for those reasons. I wonder why other people do not seem to consider the option as well: is it not heavily promoted enough, or is the appeal of propagating one's genes just so appealing?
Of course, not all people are able to conceive children, and not everyone who bears children does so consensually. And of course, just because someone's choice imposes a burden on their lives and relationships with other people, it doesn't mean that others should not be compassionate towards that person. I do not have children but one of my colleagues does, and I am very happy to make concessions for that as needed, I just consider that an issue of being flexible and treating other people decently, not an issue of privilege per se.
Side note: almost everyone I talk to who want kids defaults to wanting to conceive their own children, instead of adopting. I would argue that adoption is a greater net positive that conceiving new children because it does not increase the population count (which has net negative effects ecologically) and it is providing parents to a child which would otherwise have none. I think I would also find adopting more personally rewarding as well, for those reasons. I wonder why other people do not seem to consider the option as well: is it not heavily promoted enough, or is the appeal of propagating one's genes just so appealing?
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/upshot/why-americans-resi...
“The country has been so traditional in the persistence of the idea that women did not belong in the work force,” Ms. Michel said, “but the idea that poor women, especially black women, should work has persisted.”
https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a27496656/3-wom...
“The country has been so traditional in the persistence of the idea that women did not belong in the work force,” Ms. Michel said, “but the idea that poor women, especially black women, should work has persisted.”
https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a27496656/3-wom...
Pets are closer to a slave than a child, they have no ability to ask or demand things of you and they get only what you choose to offer them. You can ignore every single need a pet has and just put them in a bag and carry them around like an inanimate object that can never protest your actions, and throw the bag in a river if you get tired of carrying it. You can have them killed or sell them or abandon them at your discretion. Children are only raised like this in the most unfortunate circumstances.
In some countries you can get huge fines and even jail for animal abuse.
You can, and animal rights and criminalizing abuse is slowly improving across the globe I think. But the cruelty that is illegal doesn't cover a lot of entrenched cruelty, like conflating their lives with our convenience and dropping your pet off at a shelter to be killed later, or taking your pet to a vet to be killed now, or do it yourself in many places, or leaving a baby animal alone all day, or chaining animals up permanently, or spending all day in a carry bag, etc etc.
"You can ignore every single need a pet has and just put them in a bag"
No, you actually can't.
You can only do this if you switch off massive sections of the common brain modules for "reasonable functioning human". For those who think these are optional modules, please lock them in working RAM now. You might then understand why they are NOT optional.
YMMV
No, you actually can't.
You can only do this if you switch off massive sections of the common brain modules for "reasonable functioning human". For those who think these are optional modules, please lock them in working RAM now. You might then understand why they are NOT optional.
YMMV
I'm not advocating treating any living thing that way, but society is absolutely okay with it. You can do this with children too but as they grow they will demand you stop and they won't sit complacently while you lunch or work or commute.
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=pet+dog+sling
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=cat+bag
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=pet+dog+sling
https://www.amazon.com/s?k=cat+bag
"...and the ongoing survival of civilization as we know it literally depends on them continuing to do that grueling job." Wow, there are so many things wrong with this line of thought and sentiment.
Time to switch to yarn!
Time to switch to yarn!