Worst comment you've had as a child free woman

[derekdied]

I'll start. Someone I had literally met about fifteen minutes previously. One of her first questions "do you have kids?" Me "no.." her "oh could you just not be bothered with the responsibility?" 😮

I was lucky that I wasn't alone and that DH and I have outdoor space but I was very aware of how hard it must have been for those living alone. I'm aware that things were also difficult for parents and cannot imagine the stress of homeschooling and dealing with general cabin fever of kids over such a prolongued period. I was also unable to be furloughed and work was busier than ever. Parents in our organisation were asked to do what they could but to put their responsibilities for childcare and homeschooling first and while that was the right thing to do, it meant that people like me ended up working 18 hour days, covering the work of 5-6 other people and not getting any thanks for it, either from management or from those whose work I was picking up. DH was delivering lunch and dinner to me at my desk and it just felt like I was some sort of drone in a futuristic movie where I was programmed to work and sleep and nothing else. I couldn't take annual leave as there was nobody else to do the work so I was just churning out work for months on end while watching others post about meaking precious family memories. I came close to a complete breakdown and was told by management that I had no reason to complain as it wasn't as if there were other things going on in life that I was mising. I posted on MN and was met by a chorus of people telling me I just had to suck it up and it was even harder for those with kids.

I'm massively aware of the struggles faced by different groups of people at that time and all I wanted was an acknowledgment that my position was also shit, and some graditude for the way I covered for others, even if the situation couldn't be changed or resolved. Basically I found that whole period dehumanising and I wanted to feel like a person.

@Girlfrom15YearsAgo it's wrong that you were asked to cover so much work especially just because you're not a DP. People say lock down was awful for DPs but it still gave a lot of them a massive taste for working from home, no paying for travel, lower childcare costs, being able to do the school runs whilst still earning. I find non parents were usually a lot happier to go back to the office

@Girlfrom15YearsAgo This this this x 1000. I got told on MN that I should be profusely thanking my parent colleagues for looking after their kids at home and not spreading the virus, and that I should be proud to be doing my bit by working 12-14 hour days.

MN was awful during the pandemic, especially for childfree/less folks.

I'm so pleased to have found this thread.
I remember when I was waiting to go down to the operating theatre when I was having my gallbladder out. I'd mentioned to the nurse that I was really, really scared of the anaesthetic and of not coming round again - she was lovely and chatty, trying to take my mind off it. Then she asked if I had kids; when I said no she said "oh well, least there's no-one at home to miss you". Er, thanks I guess?

Good lord.

How heteronormative.

I'm going to go against the grain and say that, for men who shag women, that poster is correct. Men should be willing to at least financially support any children they father. Heterosex has children as a predictable consequence and men's ability to prevent children is, by the nature of their biology, limited to condoms, vasectomy, and abstinence.

It goes without saying that women who have sex should be willing to abort any pregnancy if they don't want kids. But a man cannot rely on a woman's assertion that she will abort and so he should look to his own contraception or else keep his trousers zipped.

That was in part the theory behind the thread, I think, but not the OP's proposition.

@VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia I don't disagree with that (and I'm sure most wouldn't). The AIBU was specifically about telling daughters and sons not to have sex unless it's part of a stable relationship, which I do disagree with.

Had the OP suggested that daughters and sons be told that recreational sex should only be engaged in with protection, and that this shouldn't be left up to women, then I'd have heartily agreed with her.

The former position is too close to the "marriage and sex are for producing babies" line that occasionally gets trotted out on here, in response to childfree weddings (usually).

tldr the issue should be protection against pregnancy, not the type of sex a person is having.

I do think that straight women should make sure they’re comfortable that, if they get pregnant, they’re happy to either have an abortion or be a single mother, rather than relying on being able to force a man to support a child they don’t want. That may not be fair or equal, but biology isn’t, and the reality is that men can walk away, we can’t. It doesn’t do anyone any favours to pretend that that’s not the case.

I disagree - men shouldn't be let off the hook for supporting children they create. If they don't want children then they need to insist on protection. Failure to protect themselves against pregnancy and then saying "oh I didn't want a child" isn't good enough.

It should be much easier, if anything, to access proper child support from the other parent.

I don’t disagree with the theory- that’s the way it should work, and we should continue to try and make that the case. But the most important facet to being an independent adult, imo, is being confident that your life can’t be spun out of control by someone else.

Someone on another thread the other day said something along the lines of “feminism should champion a young woman’s right to walk around half naked at midnight and be safe, but given that the world doesn’t work like that, it’s not anti feminist to arm young women with that information, and talk to them about what they can do to keep themselves safe”. I’m probably misquoting, but I think this is similar.

I work in the public sector and had a very similar experience. I will always be grateful for no furlough and the fact we could work from home right away. But the way those without children were expected to pick up the work of parents was unforgivable. At my organisation parents could choose how many hours/ week they could work, whilst those without kids didn’t get any sort allowances or measures to help them cope. I remember feeling jealous of the parents I work with - I recognise that the homeschooling was difficult and lockdown was hard for parents and kids- but I was jealous of the interactions they had. they had a house full of family to spend lock down with - to hug, spend time with and to bring some variety to the day. Whereas those living alone had none of that and were expected to keep working more hours.

being confident that your life can’t be spun out of control by someone else.

Unless someone is holding a gun to a man's head and forcing him to fuck women, his life isn't being "spun out of control by someone else", it's being spun out of control by himself when he makes the decision to fuck women.

Children have the right to support from their fathers. Children are human beings, not pets, and the mother has no right to sign her child's rights away.

it’s not anti feminist to arm young women with that information, and talk to them about what they can do to keep themselves safe

It becomes anti-woman when that personal safety advice is used as an excuse to blame rape victims. The men who repeatedly raped Gisele Pelicot demonstrated that even the most "virtuous" faithful wife is not safe from sexual predators. Let's put the blame on rapists where it belongs.

a young woman’s right to walk around half naked at midnight and be safe

No outfit short of a tollyboy chastity belt will protect a woman from rape because no outfit ever made has fooled rapists into thinking that we've taken our vaginas off and left them at home. The "Rolex on display" argument doesn't apply to women's bodies because our vaginas aren't detachable, so let's stop pretending that what we wear has any impact on men's decisions to rape.

This with bells on - exactly my experience too (public sector).

Unless someone is holding a gun to a man's head and forcing him to fuck women, his life isn't being "spun out of control by someone else", it's being spun out of control by himself when he makes the decision to fuck women.

I’m not talking about the impact on men, I’m talking about women who are left holding the baby with no means to support themselves because the father has done a runner.

It becomes anti-woman when that personal safety advice is used as an excuse to blame rape victims. The men who repeatedly raped Gisele Pelicot demonstrated that even the most "virtuous" faithful wife is not safe from sexual predators. Let's put the blame on rapists where it belongs.

I agree, and there was no hint of any of this in what I posted.

No outfit short of a tollyboy chastity belt will protect a woman from rape because no outfit ever made has fooled rapists into thinking that we've taken our vaginas off and left them at home. The "Rolex on display" argument doesn't apply to women's bodies because our vaginas aren't detachable, so let's stop pretending that what we wear has any impact on men's decisions to rape.

But wearing shoes you can walk and run in is a reasonable and sensible move. Not listening to music, so you can hear what’s going on around you.

You’ve taken what I actually said, and added a lot I didn’t say and do not agree with, which is quite irritating. There are plenty of people who do believe that kind of shit, go and pick a fight with one of them if you feel it will achieve anything.

As fitz said, it should be easier to hold these men to account. We shouldn't be saying "men will be men <shrug>".

"Half-naked at midnight" is a statement about sartorial modesty, not about practical footwear. You're now claiming that it's about practical footwear and situational awareness when those weren't mentioned in your quote at all.

Write what you mean and then people won't misunderstand you.

Nowt wrong with bread and butter! 😋

Isn't it typical that someone throws the "think you know about life" line in as if the infinite variety of human experience, achievement, knowledge and emotion are only accessible to those who've reproduced, and nothing else counts? Did Florence Nightingale or Elizabeth I or Jane Austen or Nancy Wake or Rosa Parkes or Katharine Hepburn know nothing of life?

Another so called friend, when I confided about my infertility struggles - “we’ve just had to buy a people carrier”.

Isn’t it just.

A what? Is that a strange name for a pram or a revolting way to refer to using a woman as a surrogate?

It’s what they used to call SUVs.

So true. The idea that if you haven't pushed a small human being out of your vagina you can't possibly know what life's about. Such a narrow perspective.