7 ms·

I really hate this attitude. It's a condescending and patronising attitude - that men who don't (or can't) have children are less. Are you really saying that ab

by tr888 3y ago

I really hate this attitude. It's a condescending and patronising attitude - that men who don't (or can't) have children are less. Are you really saying that absolutely nothing is more important than reproducing? For everyone, in every situation? I sincerely hope not.

halfmatthalfcat 3y ago
If you look at things objectively, then yes, it is the most important for the species. If you look at things relatively, then no, there's a lot of factors at play and everyone does not need to have kids (overpopulation concerns, cost of living, personal preferences, etc). That being said, having kids brings so much perspective to a life already lived. You almost live a second (or third, forth, fifth, etc) life vicariously though them, so it's up there in "experiences to have".
- tr888 3y ago
  It certainly is an experience, it's just not the only experience in life's rich tapestry!
- hhjinks 3y ago
  Looking at things from the perspective of the species is not equivalent to looking at things objectively. Hell, there is no such thing as an objective measure of life. How can I objectively measure that a life is worth living? What if my child only lives for a few years, in agony due to getting cancer? Was such a short life worth the pain? It's impossible to say.
_V_ 3y ago
Is it? I don't see anything patronising in there. It is just a statement. I don't think that people who cannot have children are seen as something less. This is just you wanting to be offended. And yes, in general there is almost nothing more important other than reproduction from the perspective of species. Nothing controversial about that either.
- tr888 3y ago
  I'm not offended, thanks. I'm just saying that there is a life for everyone, and reproducing is not the most important thing for many. We're not talking objectively about the biology of the human species, really. We're talking about anthropology and what being a human means.
  - _V_ 3y ago
    It seemed like that when you were saying how you hate "that attitude". Nevertheless, that statement does not say that there is not a life for everyone. It merely states that there is an inner drive to have children, see them grow and ultimately take care of you and the world. And this inner drive exists despite many people trying to say otherwise. I mean it might be cool to work for $BIGCORP and build your career. You get cool things like nice car, nice suit... But the $BIGCORP will not hold your hand when you are scared before surgery, it will not help you move something when you are old and most certainly will not wipe your butt when you are too old to get up on your own.
- em-bee 3y ago
  the offending part is that there should some kind of drive to have your own children or more specifically that the desire to have children is reduced to the need to reproduce. i have children because i love them and want to care for them. i would adopt children for the same reason. i felt no drive to have children be my own. i could not care less if it is me who reproduced instead of someone else. of course if humanity as a whole were in danger because there are not enough kids then i would want to contribute that however i can. but even then that could mean helping someone take care of their kids so they can have more kids.
  - _V_ 3y ago
    Why is that offending? There is some kind of drive to have kids/to reproduce. That drive makes biological sense. I'd say that majority of living things acts on it. If you personally don't feel that drive, there is nothing inherently bad with you and you certainly can have full and happy life. Maybe even happier because you can separate your decision and weigh pros/cons of having kids wihtout emotional involvement. But you are still probably a statistical anomaly. :)
anon291 3y ago
> I really hate this attitude. It's a condescending and patronising attitude - that men who don't (or can't) have children are less. Are you really saying that absolutely nothing is more important than reproducing? For everyone, in every situation? I sincerely hope not. Of course not. Humans (including men) show parental care to increase their young's fitness as well. Human males are not solely obsessed with the mechanics of reproduction (as many animals are). Instead, most men also want to pass something on to their children that will set them up for success, and if you look at it, throughout history, most men were striving for this and most social structures evolved to make this possible.
10g1k 3y ago
Read what I said, not what you imagine due to your fear of whatever. I said it is programmed into us. I did not say anyone is less or more. Although reality is that different people are less or more in various ways.

by tr888 3y ago

halfmatthalfcat 3y ago

If you look at things objectively, then yes, it is the most important for the species. If you look at things relatively, then no, there's a lot of factors at play and everyone does not need to have kids (overpopulation concerns, cost of living, personal preferences, etc). That being said, having kids brings so much perspective to a life already lived. You almost live a second (or third, forth, fifth, etc) life vicariously though them, so it's up there in "experiences to have".

tr888 3y ago
It certainly is an experience, it's just not the only experience in life's rich tapestry!
hhjinks 3y ago
Looking at things from the perspective of the species is not equivalent to looking at things objectively. Hell, there is no such thing as an objective measure of life. How can I objectively measure that a life is worth living? What if my child only lives for a few years, in agony due to getting cancer? Was such a short life worth the pain? It's impossible to say.

_V_ 3y ago

Is it? I don't see anything patronising in there. It is just a statement. I don't think that people who cannot have children are seen as something less. This is just you wanting to be offended. And yes, in general there is almost nothing more important other than reproduction from the perspective of species. Nothing controversial about that either.

tr888 3y ago
I'm not offended, thanks. I'm just saying that there is a life for everyone, and reproducing is not the most important thing for many. We're not talking objectively about the biology of the human species, really. We're talking about anthropology and what being a human means.
- _V_ 3y ago
  It seemed like that when you were saying how you hate "that attitude". Nevertheless, that statement does not say that there is not a life for everyone. It merely states that there is an inner drive to have children, see them grow and ultimately take care of you and the world. And this inner drive exists despite many people trying to say otherwise. I mean it might be cool to work for $BIGCORP and build your career. You get cool things like nice car, nice suit... But the $BIGCORP will not hold your hand when you are scared before surgery, it will not help you move something when you are old and most certainly will not wipe your butt when you are too old to get up on your own.
em-bee 3y ago
the offending part is that there should some kind of drive to have your own children or more specifically that the desire to have children is reduced to the need to reproduce. i have children because i love them and want to care for them. i would adopt children for the same reason. i felt no drive to have children be my own. i could not care less if it is me who reproduced instead of someone else. of course if humanity as a whole were in danger because there are not enough kids then i would want to contribute that however i can. but even then that could mean helping someone take care of their kids so they can have more kids.
- _V_ 3y ago
  Why is that offending? There is some kind of drive to have kids/to reproduce. That drive makes biological sense. I'd say that majority of living things acts on it. If you personally don't feel that drive, there is nothing inherently bad with you and you certainly can have full and happy life. Maybe even happier because you can separate your decision and weigh pros/cons of having kids wihtout emotional involvement. But you are still probably a statistical anomaly. :)

anon291 3y ago

> I really hate this attitude. It's a condescending and patronising attitude - that men who don't (or can't) have children are less. Are you really saying that absolutely nothing is more important than reproducing? For everyone, in every situation? I sincerely hope not. Of course not. Humans (including men) show parental care to increase their young's fitness as well. Human males are not solely obsessed with the mechanics of reproduction (as many animals are). Instead, most men also want to pass something on to their children that will set them up for success, and if you look at it, throughout history, most men were striving for this and most social structures evolved to make this possible.

10g1k 3y ago

Read what I said, not what you imagine due to your fear of whatever. I said it is programmed into us. I did not say anyone is less or more. Although reality is that different people are less or more in various ways.