Where did the anti-family vibe come from?

[TheRealJuliane]

1st- Romanticism in the beginning of the XIX century. You must marry for love (meaning passion).
2nd- The 60ties.

But we could go back to Henry the VIII.

Poor old Henry. He catches the blame for the split that bastardized the Anglican Church, and now this???

 

[ahollars]

I love it when people try to justify themselves with contradictions.

 

[Cat]

It’s probably tempting to blame the media, especially Hollywood.

But if you look at a lot of the movie stars, many of them have several children and are adopting children, and will say enthusiastically in interviews that their children are the best thing that ever happened to them.

My favorite actor, Robert Patrick, says that his two children are his best production!

But of course, the movie stars are rich and can afford a large family.

I think that a lot of the anti-family vibe has developed as a result of various government policies that are “anti-family” or at best, “unfriendly to families.”

E.g., the more taxes that are required of a family, the less money they have to raise their children. Now yes, we all know that children don’t NEED piano lessons, soccer team, ballet classes, a pet dog, a vacation, swimming at the local pool during the summer, art supplies, roller skates, the Super Duper Deluxo Lego Set, ice skating lessons–actually, children DO need ice skating lessons!

But some of these things are sure nice to offer to our children! It’s no fun to give the kids a tin can and tell them to kick it around the yard while so many other children are joining local soccer teams, practicing an instrument, inviting grandparents to the dance recital, etc.

And it’s no fun never being able to afford to even go to a McDonald’s once in a while.

Also, a lot of the government’s policies have hurt the development of business and industry in the U.S., sending jobs overseas, and that makes it really really hard to support a family if the parents only have a high school diploma. My dad dropped out after 8th grade, and many of his friends were the same way, but they all managed to find excellent factory jobs and provide us with a very pleasant childhood free of want and including a few extras (piano lessons for me). But nowadays, all the stats say that without those without a college diploma or at least a trade school certificate are most likely to be jobless, and that makes it hard to have a family.

A lot of families compensate for lack of income by having both parents work. This is another thing that makes it hard for families. Although some women are Super Women and able to successfully and happily juggle their jobs and their families, most are not, and most women find themselves exhausted and resentful trying to do so much. This was not what they pictured. I think that for Catholic women who are trying to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, there’s an extra level of resentment against God as well, for making sex a minefield–if they don’t have sex, they alienate their husbands and hurt their marriage, but if they do have sex, they might get pregnant again, and they can’t afford another baby, who will increase the financial pressures and drain even more energy and time away from them.

Meanwhile the husband feels exhausted and resentful trying to be a dad and a mom, and a girlfriend to a wife who is at the end of her rope. And he also feels guilty that he doesn’t make enough money to enable his wife to stay home and take care of family, or at least work part time, or even hire a cleaning service.

And the kids are caught in the middle of all of this, and feel the time and energy crunch that constantly squishes their family. They may or may not comprehend that Mom and Dad are exhausted just trying to pay the bills, but children can’t just turn off their needs.

Our current overtaxation is just one example of a government policy that is anti-family. Another example is all the educational garbage that forces schools to teach as fact certain ideas that are actually anti-Christian (e.g., celebration of homosexuality), while at the same time denying any mention of religion. This means that parents are forced to either home-school their children or send them to private schools, which puts even MORE financial pressure on Dad and Mom, and often forces both of them to go to work at a job outside the home.

Even our driving laws make it difficult for families. E.g., the car seat requirement seems like a good idea, but it is very expensive–larger families must buy a large vehicle and many car seats to be compliant with the law. A small family can’t take a driving trip anymore and allow the children to lay down in the back seat and sleep while they keep driving through the night (to save money).

I’m not sure if we can go back at this point. I fear that so much of these policies have become the norm that those who are against come across as “extremists” or “nut jobs.”

 

[Maryann_C]

I’m with Aholars but I am going to get back to you Dale when I get the energy…no sleep last night …those darn teenagers …got to love them …and I wasn’t going to have kids until I could afford a nanny and boarding school…Oh what I would have missed …all that spiritual growth experience and my whole conversion story. They are TRULY a gift and I THANK GOD he didn’t listen to MY plans.

 

[Debora123]

I got married 5 years ago to my wonderful wife and now we have 2 beautiful children. We have a nice house with a big backyard in a neighborhood full of other kids and we have a great sense of community here. I’m not rich (enlisted military) but I make a decent amount and it’s stable so I can keep my family well taken care of. I love life. Seriously, this is the happiest I have ever been.

I wrote that not to brag, but to lay out the next part of my post. Why on earth would anyone be against this kind of life, or not want it, or make disparaging remarks and prefer to be single or at least married-with-no-kids? I just don’t get it, it totally boggles my mind. There is such a strong anti-family sentiment especially amongst younger people and intellectual types.

I have really no idea what you are talking about. The vast majority of people I know are or would love to be married with kids and have a stable career and nice house. If anything, it is the American Dream itself.

I have never heard any negative comments or hatefulness towards this type of life.

 

[AthenaC]

I have never heard any negative comments or hatefulness towards this type of life.

Oh yeah? Try getting pregnant at 20 and see how many people enthusiastically offer their negative comments and hatefulness.

It’s probably tempting to blame the media, especially Hollywood.

But if you look at a lot of the movie stars, many of them have several children and are adopting children, and will say enthusiastically in interviews that their children are the best thing that ever happened to them.

True, but look at the reaction to these statements. I rarely see any opinion pieces talking about how this is a good thing and sends a positive, kid-friendly message in our culture. When I see any sort of reaction, I see negativity - “Oh, look! Madonna wants an accessory in the form of an African child!” as if: 1) they know that; and 2) it matters. At the end of the day that’s one kid whose quality of life just increased by a near-infinite magnitude. Even if Madonna’s motivations were less-than-noble, celebrities are role models whether they like it or not, and so you are correct that the behavior sends a positive message.

Also contributing to some mixed messages from the conservative, “pro-family” crowd (I’m looking at you, Mike Huckabee), when a celebrity gets pregnant outside of marriage (I’m looking at you, Natalie Portman), and makes a public statement about how grateful she is for “this gift of life,” it might be a good idea to take the pro-life message and run with it rather than condemn the out-of-wedlock nature of the pregnancy. When we simultaneously condemn abortion and stigmatize out-of-wedlock pregnancy, all we do is create the environment where single pregnant women feel MORE pressure to have an abortion. Frankly, I think cultivating pro-life attitudes in our culture is the more important objective. This is a tangential issue, but it is part of the popular narrative with regard to family and children.

Why anyone would want to be a single mom, I have no clue. It’s one thing if your spouse dies or if you are in a divorce, but why would anyone want to raised a child completely on her own with no thought of getting married is beyond me.

Maybe I can help you there - when you are a single parent, you have the security of being able to raise your kids the way you want. Also, because all the logistics are already on you, you don’t have to worry about a spouse abandoning you and leaving you in the lurch. As men have increasingly abandoned their families, women have responded by making the rational decision not to even rely on a man in the first place. We women are surivors and we are practical, particularly when we have kids to feed.

 

[AthenaC]

To answer the OP’s question:

Many people have brought up birth control, and I think that has contributed, but it’s not the whole story. Everything that leads to the illusion of complete control over one’s life has contributed to this attitude. There is no longer any appreciation for rolling with whatever life throws. And what has it done to us? We are more stressed than ever before. The reality is, we cannot control everything (hence the stress when we try to), and it’s worth thinking about what it is a priority to control, and just let go of everything else.

Also, the failure rate of birth control is not really part of the public consciousness. Again, the illusion of perfect control over everything.

So, when people let go and are open to life, they are viewed as “stupid” because they didn’t control their lives. And then on the flip side, people who have been open to life turn around and view everyone with no kids as “selfish.” This doesn’t happen in 100% of cases, but it happens enough for the fingerprints of these attitudes to be all over this thread.

 

[opticks]

I can only offer anecdotal evidence, but this is what i see on Facebook. For some jobs, The glass ceiling has been broken and there are some very ambitious women out there who are pushing boundaries. Obviously being a SAHM is not a viable option for them. Kids will never be a part of their life.

Divorce is another common characteristic. Several people marry their colllege sweetheart and for whatever reason it didnt work out. No kids involved but the divorcees usually take on the “im the best auntie” role. They get their kid fix that way and still get to party with friends. The divorced guys tend to dissappear for awhile only to resurface with a sports car and a girlfriend a few years their junior.

Ive also seen alot of younger folks look at marriage and kids with complete apathy. The twenty somrthing cousins of my wife fall into thismcategory. In some sense they are stil living with their parents like teenagers.

I dont really see much in the way of anti-family from any of these people. In many cases the people without kids are involved with other peoples’ kids. They have just decided that doing it full time like me isnt for them.

So to sum it up, the lack of a traditional family isnt really anti family, but can bemconsidered a product of several things: ambition/opportunity, easy divorce, apathy, and low lease payments on luxury cars.

Sorry for bad typng. Doing this in bed on my ipad with two snoring kids.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

I am just recently married and while I don’t want children I don’t view myself as anti-family. I’ve always had a great relationship with my parents and with my younger brother and even now I work hard to help them out when I can. The same with DH, he loves his parents and his sister and her family, he has babysat for his niece before and thinks she is a very cute kid but doesn’t want any children of his own either.

The biggest part is I’m not ready to be a parent, and by that I mean not mature enough. I could give you the reasons I don’t want children, some of them well thought out, but I guess the bottom line everyone would conclude is that I’m selfish. I put DH before me, every day. I put my friends before me, and I put my family before me, which is why I’d argue I wasn’t selfish, however I have to realize that putting others before me isn’t a defense because I’d put others before a baby. I’d put DH before the baby, I’d put my friends before the baby, and I’d put my family before the baby. That is what makes me selfish.

I always wonder about people who are able to put their children before their spouse, how did you reach that point and what am I doing wrong to prevent from also getting to that point? I know as I am now I could never do that, I love DH to much to consider putting anything or anyone before him. If both DH and a baby needed me at the same time I’d go to DH first. If a friend called and said it was really important that I was there for them and my child said the same thing I’d be there for my friend first, after all we’d share a history and it would be selfish to abandoned them now because my choice of a having a child was getting in the way of being the best friend I could be. I guess this is my biggest concern, would the choice to have a child sabotouge all my relationships and prevent me from being there for all the people that need me? How could I let my choice to have a child harm so many other people? Isn’t that the most selfish I could be, to know I’m in the position to help and be there for many people and just toss it out the window to attend to a child that only exisit because I brought it into the world? So as I said, I’m still too immature to have a child so I feel I should wait until I’d be willing to make those sacrifices to have one.

No, having children does not “sabotage” your existing relationships. This is exactly the attitude the OP was referring to–that people feel children are an obstacle that will just get in the way of other things. I would argue that if you really feel too immature to have a child, you were too immature to get married, especially in the Catholic Church, where one of your wedding vows was openness to children.

 

[EasterJoy]

It’s pure hedonism and selfishness. The Pill started this. We’ve just continued it until having children seems unnatural and rather wasteful, and untidy. We can have so much more fun without them, yes?

No. I think that answer has some rash judgement in it. There are people who do not have children because they think the world is too bad to hand it over to another generation that will have to bear the brunt of whatever catastrophe is only 30 years away, because they are worried about the population getting too high, because they are worried they will be bad parents, because they waited a long time to get married and are afraid they are too old to be good parents, or too poor, and so on. I think those are misguided reasons, and too fearful and given over to anxiety, but they are not hedonistic. Rather, these people are foregoing childbearing because they think the primary thing in the “pro” column is that they personally would benefit from the child in their house and the adult child to take care of them. They are trying to be unselfish.

 

[Havard]

No. I think that answer has some rash judgement in it. There are people who do not have children because they think the world is too bad to hand it over to another generation that will have to bear the brunt of whatever catastrophe is only 30 years away, because they are worried about the population getting too high, because they are worried they will be bad parents, because they waited a long time to get married and are afraid they are too old to be good parents, or too poor, and so on. I think those are misguided reasons, and too fearful and given over to anxiety, but they are not hedonistic. Rather, these people are foregoing childbearing because they think the primary thing in the “pro” column is that they personally would benefit from the child in their house and the adult child to take care of them. They are trying to be unselfish.

The OP seems to be specifically referring to people who view having kids as a drag, to which Juliane was responding.

E.g.:

I don’t understand this general idea prevalent in society… that glorifies being single and living for yourself.

and…

So many people seem to want to hang on to a teenage lifestyle well into their 30s now, what a depressing existence!

 

[EasterJoy]

The OP seems to be specifically referring to people who view having kids as a drag, to which Juliane was responding.

E.g.:

and…

She said, “It’s pure hedonism and selfishness. The Pill started this. We’ve just continued it until having children seems unnatural and rather wasteful, and untidy. We can have so much more fun without them, yes?”

If she didn’t mean that as a blanket condemnation of people who don’t have children and yet still have the audacity to go to concerts and restaurants on the weekends anyway, then I think that at the least the word “pure” was chosen badly.

Or are you telling me that the OP was posing a totally rhetorical question, and that no one here can really imagine such a creature as someone who remains childless for reasons they believe to be selfless, rather than selfish?

I know a man who did not marry because he was going into a demanding field that he thought caused most of the people in it to neglect their families for several years in order to succeed. He thought it self-centered to consider marriage or children when he knew that he’d be spending that kind of time on a job. Was he wrong to forego marriage, when he knew his part in it would be one-sided? Or was his decision “pure hedonism and selfishness”?

I’m not defending everyone who decides not to have children. I am only saying that to automatically condemning everybody who is out on weekends instead of starting a family because they must be engaging in “pure hedonism and selfishness” is rash judgment.

Christians who devote themselves to a great deal of charity work have been known to go out and socialize. Not everybody has the vocation to marriage. Isn’t that the party line here? Maybe that is just parrot talk?

Consider, too, that some people have only their parents as a model, and their parents had them as an “accoutrement” that the parents could pay attention to when it suited them and ignore when it didn’t, or those who stayed home and “lived through” their children and wanted to control their lives. Who is selfish, the parents who had the children and didn’t care for them except as it suited their own ego desires, or the children who don’t want to give their children the kind of childhood they knew growing up? Do we really have so little compassion for people whose experience is nothing like what the OPs children are getting? There are people who are unfairly bitter, but sadly have a fair reason for their slanted view. Not everybody, but some.

 

[Havard]

She said, “It’s pure hedonism and selfishness. The Pill started this. We’ve just continued it until having children seems unnatural and rather wasteful, and untidy. We can have so much more fun without them, yes?”

If she didn’t mean that as a blanket condemnation of people who don’t have children and yet still have the audacity to go to concerts and restaurants on the weekends anyway, then I think that at the least the word “pure” was chosen badly.

Or are you telling me that the OP was posing a totally rhetorical question, and that no one here can really imagine such a creature as someone who remains childless for reasons they believe to be selfless, rather than selfish?

I know a man who did not marry because he was going into a demanding field that he thought caused most of the people in it to neglect their families for several years in order to succeed. He thought it self-centered to consider marriage or children when he knew that he’d be spending that kind of time on a job. Was he wrong to forego marriage, when he knew his part in it would be one-sided? Or was his decision “pure hedonism and selfishness”?

I’m not defending everyone who decides not to have children. I am only saying that to automatically condemning everybody who is out on weekends instead of starting a family because they must be engaging in “pure hedonism and selfishness” is rash judgment.

Christians who devote themselves to a great deal of charity work have been known to go out and socialize. Not everybody has the vocation to marriage. Isn’t that the party line here? Maybe that is just parrot talk?

I think the OP was trying to gain understanding of the people who actually think of kids as a drag, and I think Juliane was trying to offer an explanation about those people.

As a single 35-year-old myself, I don’t feel that either of them are talking about me. As you and others have mentioned, there are plenty of other reasons why people are single. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t see the OP or Juliane as denying that, I just see the OP’s intended direction as focusing in on this one (of many) reasons for being single.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

I have really no idea what you are talking about. The vast majority of people I know are or would love to be married with kids and have a stable career and nice house. If anything, it is the American Dream itself.

I have never heard any negative comments or hatefulness towards this type of life.

It is a dream for many people to have a family and settle down… someday.

Have you seen the leap list commercials for the CR-V? The commercials feature twenty somethings envisioning the things they want to accomplish before they make a big leap, like getting married or having kids. One man says, “Before I have kids, I want to: fly a plane, go sailing, go mountain unicycling, learn to pick the banjo." One woman who has just been proposed to says before marriage she wants to “like hike the Appalachian trail or something”

I think the commercials capture the attitude that the OP is talking about. Many people have disposable income and a desire to delay marriage and children to accomplish, like, stuff. And even when they do get married they have a unique view towards marriage and children as offering some sort of personal fulfillment. Not that they hate either marriage or children, it’s just that they have a very unique view towards it as a culmination of all the cool stuff they will accomplish in their lives.

 

[Baelor]

I wrote that not to brag, but to lay out the next part of my post. Why on earth would anyone be against this kind of life, or not want it, or make disparaging remarks and prefer to be single or at least married-with-no-kids?

It is not clear what you mean. The thread has not actually clarified. I view the “childless” people as divided into two categories:

1. Childless couples
2. Singles

The childless couples may not be in a position to have children. Catholic understanding is that marriage is for raising children in the natural structure, i.e. the nuclear family.

The singles may not be called to marriage. There is nothing wrong with being single throughout one’s life. In this light, your post is both ridiculous and offensive – clearly, priests are not called to marriage, yet fit your broad criteria for people who should “want” that kind of life, at least as you delineated them in your post.

I just don’t get it, it totally boggles my mind. There is such a strong anti-family sentiment especially amongst younger people and intellectual types.

That is quite odd – most of my professors are married with children. I have not heard any disparaging remark about the family among the nebulous “intellectual types.”

How could anyone not want joy, love and happiness and prefer self absorption and a very shallow kind of autonomy?

This dichotomy is false. There are some people who recognize that they can glorify God and find fulfillment in their lives far more easily being single than being married. These people should not get married.

What you are asking is not clear. Are you talking only about selfish single people? Selfish married couples? What?

…as unnatural as two married people living for years without children, or living as a solitary individual indefinitely, is somehow preferable to having a family"?

Living as a solitary individual indefinitely is NOT unnatural; the Church does NOT condemn that lifestyle. For those called to it, it is preferable to having a family.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

So after calling Calliso selfish and explaining why I see the world differently than you do you mind just answering why she owes all of these things to people who don’t exist and why she is obligated to have children?

She is not obliged. But she seems to represent the worldview the OP is discussing: seing family as something that constricts personal freedom. And personal freedom defind as constantly focusing on oneself and one’s needs and wants **is a part **of the anti-family vibe. Becasue having a family is demanding, children don’t allow you to focus on yourself to that extent anymore. It is hard.

These things can be expressed in a subtle way, for example by calling the lifestyle ‘child-free’. You know, like being cancer-free or STDs free, or having a smoke-free home. Free of things that are bad for us, that constrict us. Language is so powerful, don’t you think?

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

It is a dream for many people to have a family and settle down… someday.

Have you seen the leap list commercials for the CR-V? The commercials feature twenty somethings envisioning the things they want to accomplish before they make a big leap, like getting married or having kids.

Many people have disposable income and a desire to delay marriage and children to accomplish, like, stuff. And even when they do get married they have a unique view towards marriage and children as offering some sort of personal fulfillment.

Exactly. Couldn’t agree more. People want a family in theory, but only after they accomplish A,B,C and X and run out of stuff to do. I know a crazy number of people who are well into their 30s and who have this attitude. Of course, they are not anti-family (that would be too extreme for nice, educated, middle class people), but they are not *pro-family *either. And they are the intellectual types so it happens. This kind of attitude is definitely a growing trend. It is not at all surprising that secular people hold such views, but when this ideology poisons Christians - I see a problem. It is not just a question about children, but about who we are, who God is and how we are supposed to live. The problem goes much deeper than the questions of family.

 

[Baelor]

Exactly. [snip] when this ideology poisons Christians - I see a problem. It is not just a question about children, but about who we are, who God is and how we are supposed to live. The problem goes much deeper than the questions of family.

Would you mind posting the Church teaching that prohibits individuals from pursuing some particular goals or living certain experiences while single and then getting married? I must have missed that in my Catechism.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

Would you mind posting the Church teaching that prohibits individuals from pursuing some particular goals or living certain experiences while single and then getting married? I must have missed that in my Catechism.

It doesn’t prohibit these things. I have a nice list of things I managed to do before I started my family, and I am glad I had the opportunity to do them. (However, I wish I married younger and had kids youger, but my life just didn’t turn out that way.) The attitude **discussed by the OP **is of seing family as a burden, as a problem almost. What has happened is that people delay marriage until they tick a number of things off the list, and marriage and children being just another thing on the list that comes at the end. And there is so much negative propaganda about family these days. People buy into that junk. Is that a Catholic way? I don’t think so.

That said, I’m off this thread now.

 

[tvdxer]

Young people today (sometimes) have the ability (or foresee having the ability) to do appealing activities that would be hindered by having a family to take care of. They also have sex drives, but you don’t need to be married nor even in a relationship to “quench” them nowadays (speaking practically, not morally). As a result, it seem logical in the minds of middle class and up young people today to delay marriage and childbearing, and family life in general, for travel, etc.

Also, as one of the ephemeral representatives of my generation said - “commitment is scary”. If they’ve learned this from anywhere, it’s probably from divorces.