Hate Speech from a Georgetown (Self-Professed) Bitch

March 24, 2011

Let me start this post with a disclaimer:

I have no opinions about whether people should have children or not. It’s a personal choice, one that no one has the right to second guess. Truth be told, most of us who do have them do it for egoic reasons, so I won’t claim any sort of nobility, and neither should you. They’re wonderful, and they’re a pain in the ass, even in their 20s, and I hope my own kids will have some.

Regardless of any individual’s choice, there’s no question that babies (as well as other animal newborns) hold an innocence and purity that Eckhart Tolle describes as “being not yet of this world.” Who can resist a baby like the one in this video, as he responds to the sound of his mother blowing her nose?

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9oxmRT2YWw&feature=player_embedded

 

By the way, do you think that kid has enough visual stimuli within reach? Who could find that baby anything but adorable?

Julie Patterson, that’s who.

Julie Patterson is a columnist for the weekly Georgetown Voice, and she proudly hates children. Surprisingly, she works summers at Disneyland’s California Adventure; it’s unclear whether her aversion originated there, or she just has a sadistic desire to inflict her vitriol on the little rug rats at every opportunity.

In her most recent editorial The Kids Aren’t Allright, Patterson begins:

I’ll come right out and say it: Children repulse me. They frighten me. They make me anxious. Babies all look the same, and they are all ugly. Toddlers are praised for doing ordinary things like speaking and waving. Children have a comment and a question about everything…Each stage of development brings with it new things to annoy me.

…It’s not okay for a strange man to stand next to me and hold my hand. Adults don’t stare at me with fascination on public transportation. And I am certainly not impressed when a fully grown woman colors inside the lines. Why should these things be permitted, even praised, when done by children?

…Georgetown is, unfortunately for me, a great place to raise children…Nowhere is free from the echoes of their jovial screeching…The greatest threat to my sanity is not one of the many high schools nearby; it’s elementary school Holy Trinity on 36th Street. Their 10 a.m. recess always wakes me up in the morning. Their gym class in Yates totally disrupts my workout routine. The way they hang around the neighborhood after school makes me afraid to go outside.

…I could muse on how the source of my discomfort lies in how the promise of youth that shines in their carefree eyes makes me lament my own loss of innocence, but it’s probably more accurate to say that these kids just suck…I have no time for that in my life.

…My hatred for children is not crippling. I can make it through life coexisting with these little people under a ceasefire. I assume that they, like many predators, can sense fear, and will therefore leave me in peace. But there are no guarantees in life—not even the success of birth control. Here’s to hoping no little accident ever “blesses” my life.”

 

We’re right there with you Julie! From your lips to God’s ears! Incidentally, Julie’s Facebook page lists her only two Interests and Activities as “Being a Bitch” and “Being a Hypocrite.”

Word.

What’s my point? Oh, just that maybe, First Amendment rights notwithstanding, railing against innocent children from a Jesuit university newspaper is in poor taste. And also to provide one more data point confirming the raging epidemic of female narcissism.

Though the feedback was pretty negative, one woman offered this memorable quote:

Infants are tiny terrorists who can’t speak.

I’d like to lock Julie Patterson in a room with nothing but cute infant videos.

To my female readers: Don’t be this woman.

To my male readers: Don’t date this woman.

3 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • Anonymous

    :D

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Le_Pen dream puppy

    What a stupid bitch.

    What’s strange, is she thinks she’s so clever when she’s just making observations that any teenager has made. Yes, babies are stupid. Yes, kids are annoying. Especially other people’s kids. And the rules are different for them because they are stupid and annoying. How incredibly profound. This further cements my belief that journalism is a bit clusterf*ck of nepotism. What a dope. She can’t even be a c*nt in an original manner.

    I’m glad she won’t breed. I don’t need more uppity unoriginal obnoxious hostile elites shoving anti-culture down our throats.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Le_Pen dream puppy

    Only a Sith thinks in absolutes.

    She thinks she’s being so clever, when actually she is failing at nuanced thought. Which is pretty much the opposite of clever. Children are praised for mundane tasks in the same way retarded people are praised for mundane tasks- the difficulty level is much higher- it is not the task itself, but the difficult journey leading to the completion of the task. Is it also improper to praise car crash victims for taking their first steps after 6 months of therapy? Or because she is able to do these things do they cease to have all meaning for anyone else?
    How about this- when this bitch is capable of a coherent, insightful and original thought we won’t praise her. Because even though it was super duper hard for her, it is common place for the rest of us.
    Sorry. People thinking they are clever when they are just being salacious boors is very irritating.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Reader Natalie sent this along, pretty funny:
      Drawing Board

  • http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/ The Private Man

    Years ago I was involved in the childfree by choice community. I was sometimes quoted in newspapers and was interviewed on the radio a few times, as well. Within that community there were some very strident anti-child and anti-parent voices. Julie Patterson is one of those nasty, unpleasant, and strident voices and will get some attention for being so negative. That column appearing in a Jesuit school news outlet is in particularly poor taste, I do agree with that.

    Fundamentally, having children is a lifestyle choice and warrants a discussion elsewhere on the Interwebs.

    As for Julie Patterson, I wouldn’t date her, even if she doesn’t want kids. She’s just a bitch and a hypocrite. When her baby rabies kicks in she’ll be writing columns of contrition and waxing poetic on the joys of being a mom and how her son or daughter is the most magical creature on earth.

  • http://thegatewayboyfriend.blogspot.com dan_brodribb

    Huh. I thought she was trying to be funny. Or trying to be controversial and edgy.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @dan

      Huh. I thought she was trying to be funny. Or trying to be controversial and edgy.

      You are a good and kind man, you look for the best in people. No doubt she was trying for the latter, but she speaks of her dislike of children in another article as well. And none of her other articles are satire – she mostly complains. In any case, the problem with trying to be something you’re not is that you risk being taken at face value. Indeed, that’s how I try to always evaluate people.

  • http://www.alifeofthemind.com Walenty Lisek

    I am extraordinarily happy this woman hates children. It makes me happy because it means in all likelihood she won’t be having any. This corresponds well to the general pattern of liberals having fewer children.
    .
    The liberal demographer Phillip Longman however laments this trend,
    .

    This dynamic helps explain, for example, the gradual drift of American culture away from secular individualism and toward religious fundamentalism. Among states that voted for President George W. Bush in 2004, fertility rates are 12 percent higher than in states that voted for Sen. John Kerry. It may also help to explain the increasing popular resistance among rank-and-file Europeans to such crown jewels of secular liberalism as the European Union. It turns out that Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as “world citizens” are also those least likely to have children.
    .
    The great difference in fertility rates between secular individualists and religious or cultural conservatives augurs a vast, demographically driven change in modern societies. Consider the demographics of France, for example. Among French women born in the early 1960s, less than a third have three or more children. But this distinct minority of French women (most of them presumably practicing Catholics and Muslims) produced more than 50 percent of all children born to their generation, in large measure because so many of their contemporaries had one child or none at all.
    .
    Tomorrow’s children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents’ values, as always happens. But when they look around for fellow secularists and counterculturalists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their wouldbe fellow travelers were quite literally never born.

    .
    The Return of Patriarchy

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Le_Pen dream puppy

    I’m going to have at least three children- needs to be above replacement. I’ve also encouraged my husband to sperm donate (his genes are really too good not to pass on to millions), but he won’t do it as there have been instances of sperm donors being sued for child support. We can’t have only idiots populating the planet.

    Susan how many kids did you have? Is it more hard than people let on? I am somewhat apprehensive- even though I want them as, my relationship with my husband is pretty much ideal. I don’t know how we’ll handle little intruders into our bubble.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @dream puppy
      I had a son when I was 30 and a daughter two years later. It’s really hard and really gratifying. Most definitely a way of life, as you sacrifice a great deal, especially in the early years.

      My husband and I sometimes reminisce about our weekends in NYC before they were born. It was just wall to wall fun and relaxation. If you’re going to have them, make the most of your time alone now. Now that they’re grown, our weekends are like that again. It’s nice to come full circle.

  • Dudemanbro

    Hahaha, why even waste a post calling her out? Nobody who’s getting laid is this angry at other people (especially little people). Besides, one day she’ll be feeling the urge to have her own “Little Accident” like the other 8 of 10 women.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Dudemanbro

      Nobody who’s getting laid is this angry at other people (especially little people)

      I had to laugh – this is often code red shaming language when women tell really angry guys online “You are just bitter because you can’t get laid!”

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com/ Joe

    At the age of 30, children were rather low on my list of priorities. In fact, I have trouble thinking of anything that was lower.
    .
    Now at (nearly) 60, not having children is easily the biggest think I’ve lacked in my life. My (adult) step child has given me a granddaughter, and it took that much to make me realize what I’ve missed, if only partially.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Joe
      That’s sad! I’m sorry you feel that way, but it’s so nice that you have a granddaughter to love. I look forward to one of those.

  • Hope

    I think many young women don’t want to have kids because on some level they know it’s a huge hit to their SMV. There’s the risk of stretch marks, permanent scarring from c-sections, and even possible death. And no guy really wants to raise another man’s child given the alternative of raising his own child. A lot of the most stridently child-free women are those who are young, pretty and dream of being among the big-shots (landing a super rich alpha or whatever).

    Another simple reason is that those women have never truly been in love with a man. I knew I wanted to have kids with my husband early on, and vice versa. We had a few pregnancy maybes, and our last pregnancy was unplanned, but we welcomed each one. Though our son isn’t with us anymore, we still cherished him. So the same is true of men; when a man falls deeply in love with a woman, he thinks about having her be the mother of his children.

  • http://www.alifeofthemind.com Walenty Lisek

    Elizabeth Taylor has died. Paglia has an interesting piece about her and her sexual power over at Salon.
    .

    But Elizabeth Taylor’s maternal quality is central to her heterosexual power. Elizabeth Taylor could control men. She liked men. And men liked her. There was a chemistry between her and men, coming from her own maternal instincts. I’ve been writing about this for years, and it was partly inspired by watching Taylor operate on-screen and off. The happy and successful heterosexual woman feels tender and maternal toward men — but this has been completely lost in our feminist era. Now women tell men, you have to be my companion and be just like a woman; be my best friend, and listen to me chatter. In other words, women don’t really like men anymore — they want men to be like women. But Elizabeth Taylor liked men, and men loved to be around her because they sensed that.
    .
    But she was no pushover! She gave as good as she got. There were those famous knock-down, drag-out fights with Burton, and she loved it. No man ever ruled her. Not for a second. But at the same time her men weren’t henpecked. She liked strong men. That was one reason she dropped Eddie Fisher. Evidently, according to Carrie Fisher in her one-woman show, he was quite renowned in the sack, and Taylor went for that. But then she realized he was no Mike Todd or Richard Burton, and he got the boot.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Walenty
      Thanks for the link, that was a good piece. Amazing that Paglia could be that articulate caught unawares by phone. She is one heck of a speaker/writer.

  • Workshy Joe

    Sorry Susan, but when I was single, I wished more women were like Julie Patterson!

    I’ve never wanted kids and I’m only too aware of the statistics. Globally, something like 9/10 women will have at least one child in their lifetime.

    I’ve always dated older women specifically so that kids were not so much of an issue. Workshy Jane has a grown-up son doing his own thing and that is no problem, of course.

    Strangely though, I’m very paternal with animals. But human kids?

    No thanks!

  • LS

    Sometimes, when people like Julie Patterson tell us what they think (while using their real names), they don’t seem to realize they are doing the rest of us a huge favor.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @LS
      How so?

  • OffTheCuff

    Is it more hard than people let on? I am somewhat apprehensive- even though I want them as, my relationship with my husband is pretty much ideal. I don’t know how we’ll handle little intruders into our bubble.

    It’s about a billion times harder psychologically than anyone ever lets on. If you think you want three, I suggest start with one and don’t have another until the first one is old enough to defy you.
    .
    If you think I’m goofing, find your nearest relative and offer to take care of their kids for an entire weekend, so they can take a trip somewhere. See if you can keep the house in the same order as it was when you got first arrived. Don’t do anything you couldn’t afford to do every day for an entire year — that means, cooking dinner instead of eating out, and entertaining them instead of taking them to an amusement park.
    .
    Have fun reproducing!

  • filrabat

    Childfree I may be, but I part company with Julie. Outright hatred of children is just plain irrational. My desire not to have children simply stems from a combination of personal philosophical reasons plus lifestyle choices. BTW, I’m not surprised that those controling a movement’s institutions tend to be the most fervent, even fanatical, members of the movement. Big difference between the run-of-the-mill childfree and the ones controlling the movement’s institutions.

  • http://www.decoybetty.com Deidre

    I personally don’t want to have kids either. But I do adore having them around, sometimes. I mean how often do you get to shamelessly flirt with someone on a train? Unless they’re under 2, not that often.

    And, besides puppies, there is nothing more adorable than a laughing baby.

    To quote Robin Scherbatsky “Just because I like sports cars doesn’t mean I want to push one out of my vagina.”

  • irony

    90D, y u r so00oOoo stupiid? T4lk ab0uT f3mAle n412ciissisM…

    th3 w0rld has 3NOUGH m0mmiie bl099ers liike3 4 R43L.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @irony
      .
      J00 4/23 4 7074| 700|
      .
      J0(_)/2 455 1z 84/\//\/3|)

  • GudEnuf

    I’m going to hell for this one:

    [img]http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lh4bp0Ucn91qzm634o1_500.png[/img]

  • http://thegatewayboyfriend.blogspot.com dan_brodribb

    You are a good and kind man, you look for the best in people

    Usually, I find it too. That said, sometimes I have to look pretty hard…:)

  • LS

    @LS
    How so?

    They are walking red flags notifying us of People to Avoid.

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    I hate 733T speak.

    She’s not having kids? Great.

    One maxim I’ve read says, “the future belongs to those who turn up for it.”

    A world without liberals? It sounds great to me.

  • Rum

    IMHO, if an adult human being does not feel simple joy in the presence of a healthy, thriving, entirely innocent member of her/his OWN SPECIES – then that persons basic instincts have gotten hopelessly cross-wired.
    Healthy human adults love sex even though it is always messy, often complicated, and sometimes dangerous. These are obvious facts. Yet, all of that could be said about having kids. But is it too much to suggest that the instinctual drives to love sex and love babies cannot be all that different?
    I know that people rarely fuck in order to deliberately make babies. But why is fucking so important and cherished? Try to explain that by appeals to cold rationality. It is pointless to even try. You get it or you do not.
    Why are healthy happy babies a source of joy? I mean, they certainly are of no practical use for 20 years or so (if ever). But they are. Unless your instincts got scrambled beyond any hope of redemption in grad school.

  • Benjamin Fox

    “Their 10 a.m. recess always wakes me up in the morning.”

    WTF? Half the day is gone and she’s still in bed?!

    To those that wish her an “accident,” after-the-fact birth-control is “alive and well.” She can pick-up groceries and a DVD on the way home…

    I used to be nonchalant about having kids. I’d like to share an anecdote from my travels to explain how that changed.

    About two months ago I was at a friend’s house doing SCA stuff. That evening a couple with infant-in-tow, who were long-time friends with the host, came over and visitated. The important thing to note is that my friends are a lot older than me. In fact, they’re barely younger than my parents. The couple in question comprised of a fourty-something woman and fifty-year-old man…

    I lack the wordage necessary to describe the beauty of a man, truly in love, playing with his infant son. I have never seen happy-content as was written on his face. To this point, I may have envied what someone else had, but I have never truly found myself desperately wanting to be someone else. I wanted to be that man. If it takes me until I’m fifty to have that, I will go the distance. So help me God.

    What’s really fucked up? I have to keep this corked to not scare anyone off. I have a hard enough time trying to communicate at an average level. Being intelligent and impassioned will earn me social-pariah status for certain.

  • http://collegeslacker.wordpress.com collegeslacker

    Such a weird little woman.

    I don’t want kids, but to hate them? Geezeo. I think she is one unloved person the way she has so bitchily tried to put down children. I’ve been working at a summer camp-type deal for years and yeah, they can be pains in the ass, but I love the heck out of them.

  • filrabat

    To reiterate, and build on my earlier post — I’l’ll issue this NAWALT-like comment.

    PLEASE realize that most childfree-by-choice people are as vitriolic as Julie Patterson; just like Italian-Americans are mostly not like you see on Jersey Shore; or White Southerners in “Deliverance”, “Dukes of Hazzard”, etc. To repeat, in any small movement making headway, it’s the militants who have the most drive and motivation to make a big-to-do out of their pet cause.

  • filrabat

    oh, Most are NOT as vitriolic as Julie Patterson — sorry for the typo

  • SayWhaat

    @ Benjamin Fox:
    .
    That was a really sweet story. I feel the same way every time I see a Daddy walking down the street with his little girl. I always think, “well, at least there’s one girl in the world whose heart he’ll never crush.”
    .
    (Hiii! I’m bitter. :D)

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    @-}– for SayWhaat.

  • SayWhaat

    8===>

  • http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/ The Private Man

    8===>

    Thanks, SayWhaat, beer through my nose and onto the keyboard.

  • CarolineW

    As a former student at that illustrious institution, I’d like to say that as a Jesuit school, it did much to encourage the growth and the development of the whole person. Sadly, that particular Jane Hoya does seem possessed by an alarming degree of narcissism, if not misanthropy. Whether or not she decides that children are not the enemy, I hope that she stops viewing the world in such combative terms. What an insidious perspective.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @CarolineW
      Thanks so much for your comment. I have the highest respect for Georgetown as well as the Jesuit philosophy. (It helps that the Jesuits were only very minimally implicated in any sexual abuse.) I can only imagine that the university finds a piece like Patterson’s unfortunate to say the least. Something tells me that she’ll regret writing it at some point. Student columnists (especially sex columnists) should fully consider that their words will literally never pass from the internet brain. Google never forgets.

  • holly

    @dreampuppy
    your blog name is DREAM PUPPY.

    i cant take you seriously.

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    I chuckled.

  • http://www.counter-currents.com/2011/03/feminism-and-the-destruction-of-the-west/ dream puppy

    @holly

    Don’t hate the name holly. Just accept the truth bombs.

    @OffTheCuff

    I have a giant family of Mediterraneans, I have taken care of a few kids. The house stays nice because I am bossy, affectionate and we spend most of our life outdoors. How is it hard psychologically? I am sure the worry I have for my husband, mother, sisters, brothers, cousins etc will only be exponentially worse with children, which is really saying something. Hitches said something along the lines of “Imagine someone walking around with your heart all day.”

  • Evangeline G. Vandergeld

    I don’t like being around children and I certainly don’t want any. I was happy to find a man that didn’t want them either. Childfree and proud! Hey Rum: piss up a rope.

  • DF

    Mrs. Walsh I think this women is being satirical. She has at least internalized the reasons people love children. Cuteness, Innocence, dynasty etc. she just doesn’t identify with it. Which suggest to me a parody. Its in a Jesuit newspaper – large catholic families, baby Jesus – think about it, why would a paper like that publish something culturally contradictory. Unless they want people to re-understand why children are the ‘good’, by being shocked by evil hum buggery.

    Here is something I found along time ago that’s worth thinking deeply about:-
    .
    What Children Think Love Is?
    Sunday, February 17, 2002
    print this article

    A group of professional people posed this question to a group of 4 to 8 year-olds from the general population, “What does love mean?” The answers they got were broader and deeper than anyone could have imagined. Feel the vibrations for yourself:

    “When my grandmother got arthritis, she couldn’t bend over and paint her toenails anymore. So my grandfather does it for her all the time, even when his hands got arthritis too. That’s love.”
    – Rebecca, age 8

    “When someone loves you, the way they say your name is different. You know that your name is safe in their mouth.”
    – Billy, age 4

    “Love is when a girl puts on perfume and a boy puts on shaving cologne and they go out and smell each other.”
    – Karl, age 5

    “Love is when you go out to eat and give somebody most of your French fries without making them give you any of theirs.”
    -Chrissy, age 6

    “Love is what makes you smile when you’re tired.”
    – Terri – age 4

    “Love is when my mommy makes coffee for my daddy and she takes a sip before giving it to him, to make sure the taste is K.”
    – Danny, age 7

    “Love is when you kiss all the time. Then when you get tired of kissing, you still want to be together and you talk more. My mommy and Daddy are like that. They look gross when they kiss.”
    – Emily, age 8

    “Love is what’s in the room with you at Christmas if you stop opening presents and listen.”
    – Bobby, age 5

    “If you want to learn to love better, you should start with a friend who you hate.”
    – Nikka, age 6

    “There are two kinds of love: Our love, God’s love. But God makes both kinds of them.”
    – Jenny, age 4

    “Love is when you tell a guy you like his shirt, then he wears it everyday.”
    – Noelle, age 7

    “Love is like a little old woman and a little old man who are still friends even after they know each other so well.”
    – Tommy, age 6

    “During my piano recital, I was on a stage and scared. I looked at all the people watching me and saw my daddy waving and smiling. He was the only one doing that. I wasn’t scared anymore.”
    – Cindy – age8

    “My mommy loves me more than anybody. You don’t see anyone else kissing me to sleep at night.”
    – Claire, Age 5

    “Love is when mommy gives daddy the best piece of chicken.”
    – Elaine, age 5

    “Love is when mommy sees daddy smelly and sweaty and still says he is handsomer than Robert Redford.”
    -Chris, age 8

    “Love is when your puppy licks your face even after you left him alone all day.”
    – Mary Ann, age 4

    “I know my older sister loves me because she gives me all her old clothes and has to go out and buy new ones.”
    – Lauren, age 4

    “I let my big sister pick on me because my Mom says she only picks on me because she loves me. So I pick on my baby sister because I love her.”
    – Bethany, age 4

    “When you love somebody, your eyelashes go up and down and little stars come out of you.”
    – Karen, age 7

    “Love is when mommy sees daddy on the toilet and she doesn’t think it’s gross.”
    – Mark, age 6

    “You really shouldn’t say ‘I love you’ unless you mean it. But if you mean it, you should say it a lot. People forget.”
    – Jessica – age 8

    http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_2_2002.asp
    .
    These children have made simple observations. However to adult ears are profound. It’s doubtful that children are deliberately consciously profound about love. The children have instead grasped for what we would call the simple-obvious. Where as adults have too many abstract notions, prejudices, agendas, and importantly, relevant to this blog, grand ideas about love, that obscure real love. My favourite Doctor Theodore dalrymple:-

    In simplicity is feeling…

    …It is as if we, or at least some of us, are in the process of becoming people without inwardness, who measure their own feelings by outward manifestations only.

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6684863/part_2/the-disneyfication-of-death.thtml

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @DF
      That’s a great series of quotes. I especially liked this one:

      “Love is when you tell a guy you like his shirt, then he wears it everyday.”
      – Noelle, age 7

      Shit testing obviously begins after age 7.

      Re the piece being satirical, I don’t think so. Here’s what commenter Tim said about her piece:

      I’m glad that my opinion of Julie — which is that she’s a raging bitch who needs a to find a hobby, or make a friend, or maybe get laid — seems more accurate every time I read something she writes.

      Apparently, her specialty is rants.

  • Athlone McGinnis

    Yikes.

    On the other hand, with a thought process like that it is probably best that her genes die with her. No need for people to produce offspring they will only hate.

  • ClaudiaM.

    Of course She doesn’t have time for kids, She’s still asleep at 10:00 am!!
    If she actually means what she’s saying, I hope she never ever ever comes across a broken condom or missed pill, because that kid would be the most miserable human being in the world and would probably grow up to be Norman Bates.

    I have to admit that, even though I like them, I didn’t use to feel comfortable around kids. But in the past few years, I’ve been around them a lot, I’m a dentistry student so I see them at their best (brings you flowers and candy) and worst (pinches you, screams and throws up) and now I’m sure that I want a couple of monsters of my own.
    P.S. Babies and toddlers are hilarious and cute. If your heart doesn’t melt when you’re around them, then you’re dead inside…

  • filrabat

    DF,

    Perhaps you are right. OTOH, the childfree meme is so widespread now (especially in the NE U.S., Georgetown’s location) that a surprising number of people will take the article at face value even if they do see its intent as satirical. One thing I learned in life is that a lot of jokes about this-and-that are eventually taken seriously by large numbers of people.

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    DF, that’s really nice.

  • tito

    She should sterilize herself. I don’t want her to say 20 years from now that she wants a child. Women like this should not be raising anything. She should be avoided by men so that others she her as an example of what such people are treated like. Unfortunately she will get men by simply opening her legs and without slut-shaming to keep her in line, she will upset the applecart just because.

    then again she is a product (victim) of her time. her views are ‘avant-garde” and ‘cool’ these days. otherwise she would say shit.

  • Pingback: Where We Went Wrong | Raise Your Glass()

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    I don’t understand why editors think this is good copy. Sure it brings readers, but it brings down the level of discourse at the publication. It’s basically yellow journalism without a particular target.

  • http://bloggerblaster.blogspot.com Nate

    I will go ahead and decent.

    Having children is not a lifestyle choice. The refusal to reproduce is a selfish abdication of basic social responsibility. It is the spoiled choice to favor your own life over the future lives of everyone else.

    I am second guessing everyone decision to not reproduce. In fact… I will second guess everyone’s decision to only have 1 child instead of many.

    Western Civilization is dieing because Western Civilization produces selfish brats that never bother maturing. Demographics is everything.

  • tito

    @Nate

    uh-oh, you shouldn’t have said that! tsk, tsk. how dare you violate the sensibilities of the members of the church-of-what’s-in-style like that! my, my what oppression!

  • Julie Patterson

    Hello all. Julie Patterson here. I’m commenting here not to defend myself against some of the disgusting things you’ve all been saying. I’m merely letting you know that I’ve read them all, hoping it will bring you some sense of shame. How are the things any of you have said any better than my original article? The only difference seems to be that I didn’t mean every word I said, whereas you lot seem to. Perhaps we wouldn’t make such liberal use of internet anonymity if we knew we’d have to face the person we are so mercilessly slandering.

    I take issue with a lot of what has been said, in the original post as well as the comments, but I am most perturbed by the title of this post, where my article is referred to as hate speech. What I have said in no way qualifies as hate speech. The words of these commenters, however, come far closer to matching its definition.

    Let’s take a step back and think before we go on talking about what a terrible person I am for openly admitting that I lack a mommy gene. I hate to pull that “you don’t know me!” card, but it’s honestly true. I’m a perfectly happy person, and I can be so without doting on children. My friends, peers, and colleagues have read my article and because they know who I am, they know to find humor in it, they know that I am not a miserable human being, and they know that I have a flair for the sensational. They read, they laughed, and they moved on.

    Don’t talk about how I shouldn’t contribute to the gene pool. Don’t tell me I should get myself sterilized. Don’t laugh at how unloved I must be. Your words are terrible, they’re disgusting. I own what I wrote, I stand by it, I USED MY REAL NAME, ahem, and I do so knowing that once online it can never be removed. Can you say the same about what you’ve commented here?

    It’s fine if you disagree with me. I just hope you’d understand that not everyone loves children, and I wish you’d stop crucifying me for it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Julie Patterson
      There is not a comment on this thread so far that even remotely approaches your disturbing, and yes, disgusting, rant. I am not anonymous – I blog with my real name, and I’ll be happy to face you anytime. I won’t speak for others, but there is nothing in my post that is slander, which requires statements to be false as well as damaging.
      .
      Claiming that you didn’t mean every word you said is (or should be) beneath the debating skills of someone admitted to Georgetown. If you didn’t mean it, then why did you write it? There were plenty of comments on your post asking if you were serious, wondering how you felt about having been one of those vile creatures, etc. You did not respond to any of them. I didn’t see any evidence that anyone had laughed, by the way – even your roommate called you out.
      .
      Hate speech is defined as:
      “Speech seeking to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them.”
      How can you make an argument that you are not guilty of this? The only expression you missed was violence, thankfully.
      .
      No one cares whether you lack a mommy gene, probably not even your friends, peers and colleagues. In truth, The Voice is read by a considerably wider audience than that, including the Jesuits who value the sanctity of all life. However, you’re entitled to your view, and I that is the first thing I state in the post. You’re even entitled to write a self-serving, narcissistic rant about how infants are repulsive. And we’re entitled to bump back hard and call bullshit.
      .
      No one is crucifying you for not loving children. They’re responding to an entitled, nasty piece of fluff that deserves harsh criticism for its lack of humanity. You’re right that your piece can never be removed – Google never forgets. That could be problematic, because frankly, this is just the sort of egotistical, mean-spirited content that makes potential employers recoil. Not to mention potential future life partners.

  • Maura

    The real crime is how boring it is. Seems like she is trying to be shocking. *Yawn*

  • http://bloggerblaster.blogspot.com Nate

    Julie… My name is Nathan Cherolis. And you’re an idiot… and your words are not just hateful, but stupid. They expose you a self-centered self-hating child.

    I have no shame in saying this.

    I would be ashamed if I didn’t say it.

    You’re breathing air that could be better used sustaining cockroaches.

  • Bob

    @Julie Patterson

    It’s the tone of the article.

    If we have to know you to understand that you are going for over-the-top humor, perhaps you need to refine your technique.

  • Half Canadian

    Rather narcissistic to rail against the folks that will be paying for your retirement.

    And I have little sympathy for someone who is ‘woken up’ at 10:00. You should be awake for each of them.

  • Höllenhund

    “Having children is not a lifestyle choice. The refusal to reproduce is a selfish abdication of basic social responsibility.”

    Which reminds me of…

    Any Jewish woman who, as far as it depends on her, does not bring into the world at least four healthy children is shirking her duty to the nation, like a soldier who evades military service.

    David Ben-Gurion, 1971. Israel: A Personal History. New York: Funk & Wagnalls. p. 838.

    The fetus is the property of the entire society. Anyone who avoids having children is a deserter who abandons the laws of national continuity.

    Nicolae Ceausescu, 1966

  • Aldonza

    It’s called hyperbole. It’s a literary device very well known and used even here to get a point across. And even if it isn’t completely exaggerated on her part, I can relate to some of her comments, and I’m a mother of two. Other peoples’ babies do not really fascinate me. They never have, even though my many siblings were all old enough to be having kids and I was generally surrounded by them.
    .
    Kids in general are annoying. They are narcissistic and irrational. They disturb sleep, mess-up houses, stress marriages, and try you in ways only a parent can truly understand. They’re expensive and time-consuming. I didn’t believe in hitting children until I had children. (OK, I still don’t believe in it…but I understand it a lot better.) There are plenty of times I question whether sending my genetic material into the future is worth it.
    .
    Lest you toss me in the misfit mother pile, I’m actually quite maternal. I cut off crusts and put band-aids and kisses on boo-boos. My own children started a cascade of hormonal bonding and altered brain chemistry that I, a rational pacifist would think nothing of pulling a trigger on anyone who would hurt them. They are mirrors of myself and their father in good and bad ways. I strive to be a better person for them.
    .
    But that doesn’t mean I don’t think fondly of the days when I was responsible only for myself and “sleeping in” meant 12pm instead of 8am.
    .
    Julie’s only real crime is that she’s young, opinionated, and has a venue for expressing to the world some of the transient thoughts and impulses that most young people have. Maybe she’ll change her mind, maybe she won’t. She certainly wouldn’t be the first to decide to have kids after a period of not wanting them. Personally I think that’s preferable to wanting them and deciding after the fact that they aren’t as much fun as they seem on TV.

  • http://forgetfulmuse.blogspot.com/ Thag Jones

    DF says:
    March 24, 2011 at 11:23 pm

    That was a great bunch of quotes, and I’m also a big fan of Theodore Dalrymple. I would like to believe you’re right about the piece being satire, but I’ve heard this sort of thing before and there are people who genuinely feel this way. Of course kids can be pains, but for all that there’s really nothing like having a totally shitty day where you felt like you couldn’t do anything right, only to end up with your kids yelling from behind the bedroom door as you’re leaving after tucking them in for the night, “You’re the best mom ever!” And that is something a miserable wet rag like this woman won’t ever get to experience, and it’s her loss.

  • Workshy Joe

    @Aldonza: That was my reading of Ms Patterson’s piece too. She’s expressing a personal preference, not advocating a political position.

  • Hope

    @DF, you should have put some kind of a warning up with your post! Someone must be cutting onions in this office…

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    Just to be clear, I do not view Ms. Patterson’s piece as political either. It’s clearly about her personal opinion – nowhere does she advocate for an end to procreation. Rather, I featured it because it is representative of the worst that young women have to offer. It’s ignorant, intolerant and mean-spirited. It is not civilized. It’s spoiled brat journalism. No more, no less.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    P.S. Aldonza, I do not for a nanosecond believe that you could ever write this piece. Your experiences as a mother naturally reflect the ups and downs of raising kids. At 20 did the local elementary school kids piss you off with their merrymaking in the playground? Did you resent seeing fathers with their youngsters playing outdoors on a lovely spring day? Do you feel personally fearful when a baby sustains eye contact with you on public transportation? We’re talking apples and oranges here. This is a woman who hates having children in her world.

  • filrabat

    Nate,

    Let’s admit that we’re ALL selfish in regards to have children or not, “accidents” aside. In fact, most, if not the vast majority, are NOT “accidents”. Aspiring parents have their reasons for having children, the committed child-free have their reasons NOT to have them. Either way, the “pre-born person” (to the extent that he/she can be said to exist) has no say so in the matter.

  • Aldonza

    At 20 did the local elementary school kids piss you off with their merrymaking in the playground? Did you resent seeing fathers with their youngsters playing outdoors on a lovely spring day? Do you feel personally fearful when a baby sustains eye contact with you on public transportation?

    .
    At 20 I avoided kids. My school was pretty well insulated from the “breeders and spawn” in the surrounding neighborhoods. I didn’t babysit for extra money because slinging burgers to drunks late at night seemed preferable. I was pretty annoyed when the parents descended on campus during their weekends, I can’t see how I’d have been more welcoming of families playing on the quad, particularly if was underneath my window on a sunny Saturday morning…when I only went to sleep a few hours before. And the eye-contact thing? I have trouble with that with anybody. Children doing it don’t bother me as much now, but there was a time when I’d feel the same basic apprehension whether it was a curious child, mentally disabled adult, or Republican who held my gaze a little too long. (And to tie that back into dating, it clearly hindered me there as I was patently incapable of giving out a basic IOI even when I was *very* interested.)
    .
    My point is…I felt a lot of those same things. I didn’t write about them for the campus paper or in a time when even that medium has no boundaries. Further, my opinions on a lot of things, including kids, changed as I got older. The part about Julie (or anyone, really) is the assumption that what they feel now will never change. Feelings change all the time. In fact, it’s the defining characteristic of a feeling that it be ephemeral.

  • Nerdy Bachelor

    I have to agree that my perception of the piece changed considerably once I realized that Ms. Patterson is an undergrad.

  • Evangeline G. Vandergeld

    Who among us has not gazed through tear-stained eyes at the blathering nattering of a natalist moron with a brood of snatchdragons and wished you were instead tumbling around his deathbed in a burn unit while a mariachi band played Will Young’s “Leave Right Now”? Revolting Quiverfull mouthbreathers are repellant flaming nosecrusties whose protoplasm would be better served contributing to the body mass of dung beetles to biodegrade lost orangutan spoor than quaffing oxygen that could be used by me.

    One reads their bilge not expecting anything, but in living down to these expectations, they prove themselves anyone’s equal. They must be pretty nimble to have dodged bent coathangers before blinking at the world. As far as I’m concerned, they can chug seawater and then pee on an electric eel.

    Have a good weekend!

  • http://www.alifeofthemind.com Walenty Lisek

    J0(_)/2 455 1z 84/\//\/3|)

    Ha ha ha ha ha, you banned him!

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Walenty
      Haha, yeah, I had to call up a cheat sheet. Took me about 10 minutes to write it out, it was fun.

  • DF

    @Aldonza, life isn’t about changing feelings, thats the problem, it’s about principles.
    Julie Patterson despises children on principle not as a matter of feeling.
    @People, That is why she published an article about children as a problem, instead of going her daily life in contentious feeling of children. The publishing of the article betrays her true reasons.

  • Benjamin Fox

    @ Evangeline

    That’s some funny shit right there. You made my day. All we need now is another ASCII penis to round it off.

  • http://www.alifeofthemind.com Walenty Lisek

    Hooking up dumb: Irish woman carrying her father’s child claims they’re in love
    .

    Last year Penny Lawrence (28) tracked down her long-lost father Garry Ryan (46). Lawrence is now pregnant with his child and claims to be in love with her father.
    .
    Ryan said that the pair felt an instant physical attraction and they soon began a relationship. Lawrence is now pregnant with his child.
    .
    Speaking to the Irish Sun Newspaper Lawrence said “We are not committing incest, but are victims of GSA. We’ve never experienced a father-daughter relationship, so we’re just like any other strangers who meet in adulthood.”
    .
    Lawrence revealed that her three month scan showed no defects. The couple now plan to proceed with the pregnancy and set up a home together.

    .
    http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-woman-carrying-her-fathers-child-claims-theyre-in-love-118566849.html
    .
    Um… who’s your daddy? Oh I think we know…

  • David Jones

    What Miss Patterson said is both disturbing and unfortunate. It’s a natural consequence of feminism even if Miss Patterson does not think of herself as a feminist. The elite created feminism to depopulate the planet. With women thinking like Miss Patterson, it’s working too well. The elite hate children as much as Miss Patterson does. The elite do not hate their children but our children because they think of us all as serfs. The last thing the elite wants is to have us reproducing at above replacement levels. It weakens their power.

  • http://www.thoughtsfromtheboonies.blogspot.com Jason

    8======>

    Will that do Benjamin?

  • tito

    this patterson chick just simply being cool. if this point of view was opposed by the status quo she wouldn’t think it. it is simply slightly more extreme so she can differentiate herself a little. that’s what all this amounts to with ‘inidvidualism’. oh you say s@#$? well i say f#@%*! so there! that’s really what’s going on here. congrats patterson, you are cool. if you’re serious, get voluntarily sterilized, put up or shut up.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    There have always been some people who, for whatever reason, and a (probably much smaller) set of people who actually *couldn’t stand* children. But when the proportion of people in these categories greatly exceeds historical thresholds–and I’m not saying it *does*, rather *if*—then it’s probably a pretty clear sign of social dysfunction.

    (my most recent post: worthwhile reading & viewing)

  • Benjamin Fox

    @Jason
    Totally. Nice blog, BTW.

  • http://thegatewayboyfriend.blogspot.com dan_brodribb

    My reaction was similar to Aldonza’s.
    Also, as a writer myself, I have a lot of empathy for Julie (and Susan and Marcotte or—well, anyone else who puts their views out on a pubic forum) I also know what it feels like to write something and be surprised by the backlash especially when people start judging me as a person based on a 750 word article or a joke I told onstage. It’s a very strange feeling and it’s easy to go away from that feeling misunderstood.
    When you put yourself in the public eye, there are times the public isn’t going to like it and they’re going to let us know they don’t like it. We all handle it in different ways, but for me learning to handle it really helped me grow and mature as a person.
    Oddly enough, bombing onstage or writing an unpopular article helped me in my dating life. It helped me learn to let go of things easier and not to take things personally when I wasn’t able to please everybody all the time.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    Maybe it’s unfair to condemn her as selfish or wrong for not wanting children (I personally don’t care either way about her choice In that), she’s just getting a bit of what men feel when they are lambasted with Hymowism (where maturity = marriage+kids). Becoming a father is a life goal of mine but at the same time I’m not really crazy about other people’s kids.
    .
    However, I DO think it’s OK to condemn her for the snotty, narcissistic, self-indulgent tone of her screed. Blaming your bad day on the kids down the street is a Class A projection. Then she drives by to tell us that we’re the ones saying disgusting things and that she’s not full of irrational rage but actually happy and quite well-adjusted.
    .
    But Maura was right – it’s more boring than anything else. Many of us in manosphere got into it because we’d had way too much experience with petulant rage on the part of women, so we’re not going to be shocked.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Julie Patterson

    Wow. So you wrote a hateful piece that only people that know you will understand its all secret humor and you are butt-hurt for all the people that don’t know you that didn’t understood? And you are a professional somehow right?
    Do you also get this mad when you write in English and people that speak French don’t read you? I think you missed a couple of classes on kindergarten, honey.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Okay to all of you that thing that hating kids is some sort of fair lifestyle choice I must remind you that if a person says that he/she hates sex we consider it a problem (I mean asexuals don’t hate sex they just don’t want it, not wanting kids is different than hating then)
    If a person hates eating we call it anorexic and consider it a problem.
    Now how come from here to Hawai that hating kids is somehow okay and sane?!
    Really I don’t see how hating the way life works and the most small and fragile expression of your own species is not considered a sure sign of deeper issues, when pretty much everything else is.

    Really if this woman really hates kids this much she should be seeking help, something on her brain is not working right. I’m I tell you this as someone who has a deep phobia to dogs if you change the words kid or baby I will probably be saying the same, the difference is that I know something is freaking wrong with my head and I’m working on correcting it, I don’t feel proud neither I try to justify my hate by some sort of enlightenment about the true nature of dogs that all dog lovers are missing, but I actually feel ashamed of this and make sure that poor dogs don’t suffer over my condition. Why this woman thinks that she deserves a special treatment for having a phobia and not doing anything about it, is beyond me, and funny thing is I’m sure if she has had written this piece about dogs or cats she would had gotten a lot more bash than she is getting now, sad state of affairs the world is indeed when certain phobias are cool and trendy and liberal.

  • Pingback: Marriage Is Part Of Parenting | The Badger Hut()

  • Anonymous

    “Truth be told, most of us who do have them do it for egoic reasons, so I won’t claim any sort of nobility, and neither should you.”

    I am not too sure of I agree with this statement completely. As an animal specie, one of our biological instincts is to reproduce and to ensure we don’t become extinct. Thus I see kids as “the future”. I do not consider my desire to have my owns biological children as something that is necessarily bad or egoic, but a rather normal biologically driven desire that is shared by all animal species. Of course, we have the capacity to realize that our reproductive actions have serious consequences such as causing the extinction of other animal species. We have the capacity to exercise judgment beyond our biological desires and since we can do so (use our judgment as to) we should.

    PS: As for this Georgetown woman, she seems selfish, controlling, and mean.

    -Florence

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    If it had been the father blowing his nose in that video, you can bet your bottom dollar he got laid by mommy that night.

  • VD

    Julie’s only real crime is that she’s young, opinionated, and has a venue for expressing to the world some of the transient thoughts and impulses that most young people have.

    You left out “stupid”. A truly reprehensible omission there. Anyhow, as I’ve written on several previous occasions, there is little question that Miss Patterson will be singing a very different tune in less than 10 years. There are relatively few women at the better universities who don’t claim to not want children and they almost uniformly change their minds before they hit 30.

    This is only of the many reasons men should never take the declarations of young women at face value.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Anyhow, as I’ve written on several previous occasions, there is little question that Miss Patterson will be singing a very different tune in less than 10 years. There are relatively few women at the better universities who don’t claim to not want children and they almost uniformly change their minds before they hit 30.

      I’m guilty as charged myself. I grew up wanting to marry and have children, but then got to 25 without any prospects for a life partner and my hamster went into hyperdrive. I went off to b-school declaring I had no intention of ever marrying or having children. On our third date, my husband told me the girl’s name he had in mind for a daughter some day. It took me about 15 minutes to change my mind. We named her that, btw.

  • Chuck Pelto

    TO: Susan Walsh
    RE: Speak for Yourself

    Truth be told, most of us who do have them do it for egoic reasons, so I won’t claim any sort of nobility, and neither should you. — Susan Walsh

    We had them by fortunate accident, silly woman. One by the pill. Another by ‘cyclical’ missteps. So please pardon me if I call you out as being pejorative in your ‘opinion’.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [If your parents didn’t have children, odds are you won’t either.]

  • SayWhaat

    There are relatively few women at the better universities who don’t claim to not want children and they almost uniformly change their minds before they hit 30.

    .
    I actually remember the particular moment when I realized that I’d want to be a mother. Up until that point, I had been fairly indifferent towards the idea of children. I thought they were cute, but I never really felt the desire or thought of having them in the future. A couple years ago, I was in a store waiting in the check-out line behind a mother and her baby. I smiled at the baby in its stroller, because that is what you are supposed to do when there are babies in the vicinity. The baby stared dumbly back at me, and then gave me the biggest grin I’d ever seen on a face that small.
    .
    That was all it took. It was like a thunderbolt. All of a sudden, I really wanted to take that baby home with me. It was so strange. I’d never felt that way towards babies before. I don’t know if my experience is typical, or if girls just start to grow more inclined to wanting families over a period of time. But it can and will happen to most young women.

  • Chuck Pelto

    TO: All
    RE: Heh

    That was all it took. — SayWhaat

    I recall a youngish female co-manager at a Fortune 500 company who SWORE she’d never have children.

    Two years later….guess what. I suspect she gave up on her cockatoo as being the ultimate in ‘satisfaction’.

    Too bad Susan Walsh hasn’t experienced that ‘moment of truth’….just yet.

    Give it time….

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. — Matt 18:4-5]

    P.S. There’s a double meaning here, if you care to consider it. Something to do with refusing a ‘little child’ in your life….from whatever method.

    Fortunately, in my case, He saw to it that my stupidity should not get in the way of the joys I’ve had….from my selfishness…..

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Chuck
      I’m not sure what you’re getting at – perhaps you misunderstood me. When I said that people usually have children for egoic reasons, I meant that we have them for reasons of personal fulfillment. We want to be parents, we want to reproduce our genes, we want to mix our DNA with someone we love and experience the joy of that combination in human form. We want to make a family, and ultimately to be grandparents. All of these drives are natural and healthy – but they are also about our personal contentment and happiness. They are part of our identity. Examples of other reasons to have children, not egoic in nature, might be a sense of obligation to replace the population, produce the next generation for “the fatherland,” or because you feel that they’re a gift from God and should be welcomed and never prevented.

  • testify222

    The idea behind freedom is that its better for people’s true opinions to be expressed. Feminism allows women to express their true feelings no matter how repulsive. and Game and MRA allows men to do the same. It’s better this way, rather than the false civility of traditional/conservative/patriarchal society.
    .
    In the past a woman like this who hates kids would be the type who would follow the normal path of husband and babies, then be consumed with anger and resentment, which would result in secretive abuse against her family. Women have done great evil throughout history, such as killing their kids, poisoning their husbands, etc – but have usually gotten away with it due to their greater emotional/sexual/social intelligence, as well as traditional society’s image of women as the “fairer sex”. Now that we are becoming more aware of how women truly think, due to feminism and it’s counter reactions (Game, MRA), in the future I believe women will be held accountable for their behavior – socially, sexually, legally, politically and otherwise. That is why at the end of the day – despite my anger and frustrations with women – I actually welcome female liberation and modern society in general.
    .
    Also – I much prefer a society of sexy/slutty/exciting/cool/fun bitches – and don’t want to be forced to support some boring/ugly “beta” woman anymore than feminists want to be forced to marry a beta male. A free modern society where women can pursue their hypergamous fantasies means they will compete against each other – and competition always results in a better “product” – i.e. sexier, more sociable, cooler, smarter, etc. Western women are the most desirable women in the world by far for this reason – this is what many MRA’s won’t admit but I will. Same for a society of free men – who then will become a better “product” by learning Game and competing for desirable women.

  • Chuck Pelto

    TO: Susan Walsh
    RE: Not ‘Sure’?

    When I said that people usually have children for egoic reasons, I meant that we have them for reasons of personal fulfillment.. — Susan Walsh

    I’m confident you are very much aware of what I’m getting at.

    Egotism is not particularly ‘good’. And I’m not the only one in this thread to point out your comment as being adverse to normal healthy conduct.

    I recommend you choose your words more carefully in the future.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don’t just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary! — James D. Nicoll]

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Chuck

      Egotism is not particularly ‘good’. And I’m not the only one in this thread to point out your comment as being adverse to normal healthy conduct.

      That’s why I said it wasn’t noble. I’m endlessly amused by comments that take my words at face value and throw them back at me as an accusation. Is that what is known as “reflective listening?” :)

  • tito

    @testify

    this competition has not yielded a better product. it ruined what was, but that is about it.

  • Grindl

    I think Julie’s article is just taking the curmudgeonly angle and tweaking the noses of the rigid traditionalists in the audience. Not shocking to me in the least, but let a woman declare she does not want children or does not even like them and watch the mob dogpile on her. A man making the same declarations does not get the same reactions. Not even close. A woman’s womb is some kind of public domain apparently and the thought of it never being used in her lifetime seems to irritate the hell out of some people. There must be something dysfunctional about her, she doesn’t really love her husband, she’s not a “real” woman.

    Long time married woman myself and we are childfree. I enjoy children, they are cute little buggers, but as a middle child in a huge family (12 kids!), I had my fill of motherly duties. My husband also came from a huge family and we agreed that parenthood was not for us.

    Over the years, I’ve heard over and over, all the invasive questions, all the sad predictions of a lonely life in the nursing home, all the rude condemnations from the nosy and insensitive. There’s been a few times when I’ve reached the snapping point and was sorely tempted to say, “I hate kids, okay, shut the fuck up!” But of course, I never did. Please don’t harass us unchilded women and you won’t hear us say ugly things we don’t really mean.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Grindl

      A man making the same declarations does not get the same reactions. Not even close.

      I totally disagree. My reaction to a man writing this piece would be even harsher. Since women push ‘em out, it makes sense that some would recoil at the thought of childbirth. I know several women who opted not to have children specifically for this reason. A man, on the other hand, would simply be expressing his hatred for the young of his own species.

      Please don’t harass us unchilded women and you won’t hear us say ugly things we don’t really mean.

      I started the post by saying that it’s a personal decision that should not be second guessed. In fact, Julie Patterson is the aggressor here – unprompted, she declares her hatred of children, and her resentment of them as members of the community in which she lives.

      Finally, people are responsible for what they say. If you don’t mean it, exercise some self-control and don’t say it. JP’s screed is self-indulgent, and so is your defense of it.

  • GudEnuf

    Meanwhile, the worst type of man to date complains about how stupid women are. This comes seven days after he swore off dating educated women. Yeah, misogyny rationalizes too.

  • Chuck Pelto

    TO: Susan Walsh
    RE: Well….

    That’s why I said it wasn’t noble. I’m endlessly amused by comments that take my words at face value and throw them back at me as an accusation. — Susan Walsh

    ….it’s gotta be one of two thinks:

    [1] As I said earlier, you should be more careful in your expression of ‘sarcasm’, which doesn’t come across well in text form.
    [2] People who tend to take people at their word need more indication that you’re not speaking your honestly held opinions.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [Words have meaning.
    When you speak you set them free.
    So you watch out about;
    What you say to me. — Newsboys]

  • Chuck Pelto

    TO: Grindl
    RE: Hardly

    A woman’s womb is some kind of public domain apparently and the thought of it never being used in her lifetime seems to irritate the hell out of some people. — Grindl

    If some silly woman doesn’t care to propagate her blatant ‘stupidity’, e.g., selfishness, in the gene pool, I’ve got no problem with it whatsoever. I see it as an improvement to the overall gene pool and success of the species. Let other women, better prepared, mentally and emotionally, for the benefit of the human species step into her place and let the selfish little being pass into the annals of history of a ‘bad example’.

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [The gene pool could use a little chlorine.]

  • Chuck Pelto

    P.S. And if the ‘chlorine’ is ‘self-inflicted’….so much the better….

  • Grindl

    Chuck Pelto: [The gene pool could use a little chlorine.]

    Boy, could it ever! Let’s all agree to mind our own business and stop shaming those women (and men) who have no interest in procreating. Personally, once I’m dead and gone, it won’t matter one whit that my “genetic legacy” is not marching on.

  • Mike C

    this competition has not yielded a better product. it ruined what was, but that is about it.
    .
    Completely unrestrained and/or unregulated competition can be destructive (google market externalities). This isn’t the place nor do I have the time presently but essentially when you boil it down to the core driver the entire economic/financial collapse of 2008/2009 was due to a totally unrestrained/unregulated free market particularly in credit products.
    .
    One could and some do build the case the SMP is headed for some type of similar collapse or crisis (perhaps plummeting marriage and fertility rates?) due to the fact that the “regulations” of cultural norms, and shaming of behaviors have completely disappeared.
    .
    Anyways, it is naive to think that a “free market” of competition always results in better overall conditions.

  • SayWhaat

    essentially when you boil it down to the core driver the entire economic/financial collapse of 2008/2009 was due to a totally unrestrained/unregulated free market particularly in credit products.

    .
    OT but did you see “Inside Job”? Won the Oscar for best documentary this year. Great film.

  • Chuck Pelto

    TO: Grindl
    RE: Heh

    Boy, could it ever! Let’s all agree to mind our own business and stop shaming those women (and men) who have no interest in procreating. — Grindl

    Is that anything like NOT telling an obvious drunkard, fumbling with his car keys as he staggers towards the door that he shouldn’t be driving a car?

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [A friend is someone who loves you to the point he’ll try to save your life as you’re about to commit suicide.]

  • Chuck Pelto

    P.S. That….

    ….it won’t matter one whit that my “genetic legacy” is not marching on. — Grindl

    ….all depends on whether or not eternity is properly understood in that Old Book. But if you insist on withdrawing your part in all of this….

    …..go ahead. You won’t be missed.

  • Chuck Pelto

    P.P.S. And, if you REALLY believe in what you say about not ‘contributing’….

    ….why are you posting your opinions on the web in the first place?

    Or are you something of a hypocrite?

  • testify222

    A man making the same declarations does not get the same reactions. Not even close. A woman’s womb is some kind of public domain apparently and the thought of it never being used in her lifetime seems to irritate the hell out of some people.

    .
    The reason for this is simple: men do not bear children – women do. Eggs/female reproduction is a scarce resource to any given society – whereas sperm is not. If a man decides not to have kids, there are countless others who can step in to “do the job”. Whereas if a woman decides not to have kids – that reproductive output is lost forever.
    .
    Anyway, this is why biotech is the solution to all of these problems. Once artificial wombs are invented women won’t be needed anymore for reproduction. The feminists at that point will probably do a 180 and claim that artificial wombs are a sexist attempt to replace women (since feminism in its current form is about control and revenge more than anythinge else).

  • testify222

    “it is naive to think that a “free market” of competition always results in better overall conditions.”

    .
    Yes, but socialism always results in horrible conditions. Patriarchal monogamy (via shaming, religion, traditional mores, etc) is de facto sexual socialism where each man is virtually guaranteed a woman/sex/reproduction no matter how unattractive, low status/beta/low-SMV, abusive, whatever he may be. The female has little ability to impose sexual selection upon the men within such a system, and thus little ability to shape male behavior.
    .
    Sadly most men are as solipsistic as most women, and for the most part don’t realize that women have zero motivation to be sexy, pretty, feminine etc if there is very little reward for it. Attractive women don’t simply materialize out of thin air. The beautiful image we men perceive and desire is largely a creation/output of hypergamous female competition, one that results in women that are *much* more sexually attractive than in a traditional monogamous system.
    .
    Remember we are still just experimenting and finding our way in this “brave new world” of female liberation, which has precipitated SMP chaos and anarchy, which we all (especially men ) are struggling to make sense of. Ideally what is needed is sensible “regulation” so that both genders are happy with the situation. I think Game and MRA as a counterbalance to feminism will eventually bring this about.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @testify222
    I will add that currently men had not a big choice on reproduction. If they want to have a kid and the woman doesn’t she can just take pills on private and he will never know or she can just get an abortion.
    If the man doesn’t want to have a kid he will have to stop having sex to be 100% sure. A woman has more choice in this that a man has so men are not that scrutinize over it, no to mention few men will declare it to the rooftops, most modern childfree women want a medal or something for being so “rational”, the only woman I know that doesn’t want kids spent most of her free time criticizing any poor family she encounters as irresponsible and irrational bringing kids to the world to suffer. Of course this woman also threw a huge tantrum over her husband not buying her a designer bag for her birthday (in spite the fact that she refuses to get a minor job because is beneath her and so her household only has one income) so maybe suffering means not having the new designer shoes for babies or something like it.

  • Grindl

    “that reproductive output is lost forever.” The way I see it, the decision is up to me AND my husband. Not all men want to be daddies; not all women want to be mommies – we find each other and ain’t none of yer bidness! I didn’t want some other guy to “do the job.”

    Artificial wombs: Not a whole lot of demand for this; what company wants to invest huge amounts of money in a novelty product that most likely will never return the investment? We’re closing in on 7 billion people and running out of natural resources and degrading the environment beyond recovery in some cases; let’s at least stop pushing the reluctant/unwilling to reproduce and leave it to those who truly want and can do the job.

    Over and out on this topic…

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Anyway, this is why biotech is the solution to all of these problems. Once artificial wombs are invented women won’t be needed anymore for reproduction. The feminists at that point will probably do a 180 and claim that artificial wombs are a sexist attempt to replace women (since feminism in its current form is about control and revenge more than anythinge else).

    I believe sexbots would be a bigger issue for feminism,than artificial wombs and probably will get here first (we already have artificial vaginas and Real Dolls all they need is to make the robot technology to fuse them together) once you got soft to the touch, sexually function able and able to pass as humans female sex bots feminists will lost their most powerful weapon and then they will have to talk or find a way to accuse men of abuse of their unsentient sex slaves or something like it. Of course the “man up! date a human woman!” (a 300 pounds mean and unfeminine slut by feminist ideals) dries will also be rampant but by that point they won’t be as effective on men shaming is the manosphere continues to grow.

  • SayWhaat

    Once artificial wombs are invented women won’t be needed anymore for reproduction.

    .
    Did no one else lol at this? Even if you managed to reproduce on your own without a woman, you’re gonna have a hell of a time trying to find a man who doesn’t want to have sex with a real body. The anger and resentment will continue.
    .
    I mean, come on. Even artificial pets can’t substitute for the real thing.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @SayWhaat
    Well men of course will prefer the real thing, but the real thing is becoming harder to get and maintain no to mention if you give a men to choose between sex right now no prerequisites and maybe sex in five years after a huge change on his behavior, appearance, habits…what do you think they will choose? Humans are lazy remember and many men are not getting laid either way, offering them steady companionship even if not real can be very tempting.
    And some people prefer artificial relationships even as of now (porn addicts for example…) Its really no that funny, IMO.

  • testify222

    @Stephenie,
    Porn is already a big problem for feminism – not because they’re really concerned about any so-called “abuse” – but because it threatens the pussy cartel’s power. Alot of men would rather masturbate to a limitless array of 10’s than have a relationship with a 5. “Real dolls” and such are mocked and are probably not practical or affordable. However virtual/3-D porn -where the viewer is immersed in fantasy world from the comfort of his own home – is not that far off. Legalized prostitution is also not that far off, now that society has grown so accustomed to other sex work.
    .
    @SayWhaat
    Artificial wombs have nothing to do with replacing the need for sex with a real – or at least a virtual (see above) woman.
    .
    Even men and women in relationships, or women alone, or men alone – anyone who wants children – will opt for the more easy/efficient choice of an artificial womb once it is perfected. Then women will no longer have the burden of reproduction, but also no longer have the sociosexual power that comes with it. They’ll simply be providers of a small amount of genetic material (eggs) the way men are with sperm.

  • Anonymous

    Even men and women in relationships, or women alone, or men alone – anyone who wants children – will opt for the more easy/efficient choice of an artificial womb once it is perfected. Then women will no longer have the burden of reproduction, but also no longer have the sociosexual power that comes with it. They’ll simply be providers of a small amount of genetic material (eggs) the way men are with sperm.

    Disagree. I would never have given up opportunity to carry my own children. Feeling them move for the first time was an amazing experience. Yes my body is scarred. Section scar, and scars from vaginal birth.

    As for people being genetic donors, there are plenty of those already. Sperm banks, Egg banks.

    Would some people choose an artificial womb? Sure. But I don’t foresee woman giving up the pregnancy/childbirth experience anytime soon.

    ECT

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    I’ll agree with ECT here. A dystopia where women prefer to use an artificial womb is never going to happen, aside from freak show celebrities like Heidi Montag. This reminds me of an excellent novel – The Handmaid’s Tale, by Margaret Atwood.

  • Ivan Dmitriev

    Well, if you want to bring light to how many extremists from “pro-life/Good old days” and “childfree and PROUD” are reading this blog, then your article certainly did its job.

    Otherwise – your article, as well as hers, are morally equivalent – there’s no moral or practical value in any of them, because they are just personal opinions. She hates children – fine; you hate her for hating children – fine too, but please write something interesting, instead of ranting.

    People subscribe to this blog to get advice, interesting facts and juicy factoids, not to get involved into some kind of pointless “holy war” – there are already too many places on Internet with “holy wars” going on.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      you hate her for hating children – fine too, but please write something interesting, instead of ranting.

      I specifically declined to offer a personal opinion on whether people should have children. Nor did I express hatred of Ms. Patterson. I believe that hate speech should be exposed and retaliated whenever one comes across it. That is in fact a moral responsibility.

      People subscribe to this blog to get advice, interesting facts and juicy factoids, not to get involved into some kind of pointless “holy war

      This cracks me up. Would you like me to issue you a refund? Has your investment not produced the desired return? Or do you just get to pass judgment? I don’t believe you’ve ever commented here before – please feel free to unsubscribe and go home. I take many suggestions from readers, and welcome constructive criticism. You’ve offered neither.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @testify222
    There is already a couple of men “dating” their Real Dolls. Is true they are considered unhealthy and all that jazz. But still some men don’t care about the social ridicule and keep going at it. If men can get addicted to porn that is just a screen with hot looking women I can totally see the Real Doll thing growing, add all the Japanese technology that is working on human looking androids and they probably will be the first ones that marry one of this Dolls when they can also interact with other people and after the first man does so, others will follow, here an article. http://www.mancouch.com/737296690/guys–dolls-because-dolls-are-better-than-real-women/

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @ECT @Susan
    Had any of you going to Jezebel? I will say at least 40% of them are completely terrified of the idea of a “parasite” growing into their bodies, no to mention that they hate the idea of their bodies changing, they considered pregnancy an unfair burden and all that.
    Women, as proven on the last 40 years, can be easily brainwashed into hating their female condition and consider all that ties to it unfair and a disadvantage, heck see the female circunsition practice on other parts of the world, where many of this women actually participate on it and shame many women that flee not to go through it and that is self mutilation! With enough Women Studies women can decide that the fair thing to do is having an artificial womb to bear kids because pregnancy is too horrible and traumatic for them and men don’t even have to consider it and you know how unequal is that, YMMV.

  • Aldonza

    Had any of you going to Jezebel? I will say at least 40% of them are completely terrified of the idea of a “parasite” growing into their bodies, no to mention that they hate the idea of their bodies changing, they considered pregnancy an unfair burden and all that.

    .
    Most of the women I know who haven’t had kids are terrified (secretly or not) at the idea of a person inside them…and the sometimes horrific process of getting that person out. I know I was. And while there is a movement of calling stretchmarks, section scars and episiotomy scars “battle scars”, I’ve yet to see women lining up to compare after a few beers like former soldiers are prone to do.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Aldonza
    Mmm I’m curious about something IME many people that is afraid of a person growing inside of you, are usually afraid of people in general or are not people’s person. Do you think that applies to you? Are you the type of person that will call itself humanist? Or you consider people rotten till proven otherwise? Just curious.

  • Aldonza

    @Stephenie Rowling

    Mmm I’m curious about something IME many people that is afraid of a person growing inside of you, are usually afraid of people in general or are not people’s person. Do you think that applies to you? Are you the type of person that will call itself humanist? Or you consider people rotten till proven otherwise? Just curious.

    .
    Quite the contrary. I like people. I find them endlessly fascinating and enjoy learning more about what makes us tick.
    .
    I had to google “humanism” before answering the second question and I don’t think I’d classify as a humanist. I’m not one of those people who worships the rational. I think the emotional, sub-conscious and spiritual is what makes us human. However, the ability to over-ride all of those is what makes us civilized.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Quite the contrary. I like people. I find them endlessly fascinating and enjoy learning more about what makes us tick.

    Why babies are not fascinating to you then? I mean technically speaking they are little people too and you will get to know a new person from the very beginning.

    I had to google “humanism” before answering the second question and I don’t think I’d classify as a humanist. I’m not one of those people who worships the rational. I think the emotional, sub-conscious and spiritual is what makes us human. However, the ability to over-ride all of those is what makes us civilized.

    I meant the more ancient definition. Someone that loves humanity, I guess I should had used the word humanitarian or philanthropist. The secular humanism movement has taken over the word nowadays.

  • Aldonza

    @Stephenie Rowling

    Why babies are not fascinating to you then? I mean technically speaking they are little people too and you will get to know a new person from the very beginning.

    .
    Babies in general are not terribly fascinating to me. I mean, it’s interesting to learn about how their brains are growing and it’s something to see a six-month-old child using sign language. But for the most part, they don’t *do* much except eat, poop, and cry.
    .
    However, I found my own babies to be particularly appealing. I immersed myself in the whole bonding experience, including attachment parenting, co-sleeping, extended nursing, etc. Now, I’ll hold a baby just to remember what it felt like to hold my own babies…but then I sniff the fuzzy little head and I remember that this isn’t my child and hand it back.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Stephenie, @Aldonza
      I confess I have never been particularly taken with babies that were not my own, or friends and family. I often see women out and about with their toddlers, having some baby talk conversation, and they make eye contact with me, expecting me to gush about their kid. I never do it. Never. I think I’m rebelling against the narcissism of the mother, using the child as an extension of herself. I’m much more likely to engage with a baby whose mother doesn’t even know he’s interacting with a stranger over her shoulder.

  • Aldonza

    @Susan Walsh
    Apparently we were both born missing that “gushing over babies” gene. I remember when I had my baby shower, the guys vacated the premises to go eat BBQ and shoot pool while I was stuck with a big bunch of women cooing over tiny clothes, sharing birth stories and giving parenting advice. If I’d had a choice, you *know* I’d have picked pool and BBQ.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      If I’d had a choice, you *know* I’d have picked pool and BBQ.

      Ha, who wouldn’t? No sane woman wants to sit around playing word games and eating Jordan almonds. Not to mention the punch is usually non-alcoholic. Blech.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Different takes I guess. I adore babies. I always did I think is a family trait everyone I know loves babies and can’t wait to hold them and take care of them poop and all that, in fact I’m totally disappointed that every mother here takes the baby from me as soon as they know they need a change, they should ask I wouldn’t mind! I smile at them as soon as I know there is one around and actually they adore me. I also find them completely fascinating the way everything in the world is interesting to them and how they can make a toy out of everything including food! So adorable! And they are so full of hope and energy. I always feel better after being around small kids. My husband doesn’t like kids and he thinks I’m completely insane. Wait till he sees me pregnant if I’m anything like my mother I’m going to chase him out of the house out of pure 24/7 joy. I think is there is such a thing as post partum euphoria we probably have it. My mother was always the happiest when she was pregnant or nursing, like my aunts.

  • tito

    it still comes down to fashion people. at the end of the day, tv said babies aren’t coooool maaaaan!

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Oh I found and interesting study about parenting/non-parenting and regret. Though on sharing it here: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/02/parents_and_buy.html

  • Pingback: Women on the secular left are repulsed by the needs of men and children « Wintery Knight()

  • http://brightstormyday.wordpress.com Stormy

    I wish I could find it now. Back in the 10th grade, when I was taking AP Euro, for one of our practice exams, we had to read several essays/letters/written documents from dead nobility and etc. about how they felt about their children.

    It was interesting. One had stated that children were praised for doing tasks which other people could easily do every day, and that they needn’t be praised for such things.

    It reminds me of this woman. It’s funny, these same opinions were held 300 years ago. By European nobility. She’s not original at all. And, instead of sounding stern and high and mighty, she just sounds like a stupid fucking bitch.

    Lovely.

  • Clarence

    GOOO!!

    I am baby, hear me roar!

  • http://www.tmz.com/2010/01/18/security-to-ed-lauter-youre-too-drunk-to-drive/#.Tlpf2ah8t8E hotshot bald cop

    Right on my man!