TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

The choice to be child-free is admirable, not selfish | Jill Filipovic | Comment is free

[deleted]

August 18, 2013
9 upvotes
/r/RedPillWomen
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title The choice to be child-free is admirable, not selfish | Jill Filipovic | Comment is free
Author

[deleted]

Upvotes 9
Comments 18
Date August 18, 2013 2:41 PM UTC
(12 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/RedPillWomen
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/RedPillWomen/comments/1klu7l/the_choice_to_be_childfree_is_admirable_not/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/RedPillWomen/the-choice-to-be-child-free-is-admirable-not.197295
https://theredarchive.com/post/197295

Comments

[–]p3ndulum 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't understand how not wanting a kid could be considered "selfish". It's not like there's a back order of unborn babies that are in desperate need of parents.

[–]empyblessing 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Aww, that put a sad image of lonely children who need mommies in my head.

[–]sugarcrushEndorsed Contributor 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't really understand child free people, but I also don't think having them or not having them is admirable. It's just a thing you do like eating or breathing. We are animals, we eat, we breathe, we reproduce.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Without knowing the context, I see it as neutral. Neither is it selfish, nor is it admirable.

But for an individual, it can either be bad or good, depending on the reasons they chose not to have children. Because you never wanted them and were "made that way"? Good. Because you think they'll interfere with your "career" everyone says you should have? Bad.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh, and selfish and admirable are not opposites. Who the heck has children despite not deriving any joy from having them? People have them cuz they want them. Duh. It's pretty selfish, yet not morally bad obviously.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A society that prioritizes pleasure and self-worth sounds a whole lot better than one that valorizes denial, unnecessary sacrifice and general resignation at the way things are (at least for women).

I agree, to a point. I personally don't think pleasure and "self-worth" (which in the context of this statement basically equates to "my desires are the most important") are "virtues", but hey, that's me and nobody has to live their life according to my ideals. I also think denial is dangerous, when it comes to having kids, and the kids are typically the ones who suffer when people make decisions about having them based on external forces.

I wish people would quit attributing value judgements to this shit, though. It's not as if the human race is dying out, so there's nothing especially "virtuous" about reproducing... but I don't see how not reproducing is "admirable", either. I suppose it bespeaks a certain level of self-awareness ("hey, I'm not well suited to the task of raising kids, for whatever reason"), but if this makes one "admirable", then we're setting the bar way too low. >.>

[–]JimmyTheIntern 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Recognizing that having children is staggeringly expensive doesn't mean that individuals shouldn't have kids unless they're financially well-off.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. Sorry to get all tautological, but if you can't afford a child, YOU CAN'T AFFORD A CHILD!

It means that we need better social and political mechanisms to ensure that families at every income level can raise children who are healthy and who have access to good food, a decent education and the prospect of social and economic mobility.

I stopped reading when her proposed solution to the problem of people having children they can't afford is a socialist/feminist utopia where everybody has equal opportunities and plays fair.

In other words, force child-free people to pay for other people's kids, since those other people cannot afford them. In fact, by not having their own kids, child-free people have even more money to pay for the destitute to reproduce. No wonder the child-free choice is so admirable in the eyes of a feminist.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

i dont have kids for various reasons and at my age never will. the notion that this is admirable in some way and that all f society has to change to make it not weird because women dont like the feeling of being disapproved of is bizarre.

[–]margerym 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

the notion that this is admirable in some way and that all f society has to change to make it not weird because women dont like the feeling of being disapproved of is bizarre.

This is exactly my issue with it. So they come up with ways to make it admirable. My favorite excuse is the environment because the problem is over consumption not over population yet you don't see these same people rushing to consume less (in fact, they tend to consume more liking their things and their fun). Families with kids (even families with a lot of kids) can be better for the environment than one child-free person depending on their level of consumption, plain and simple. Nothing these people have ever put out as a "righteous" reason not to have kids holds water. If they would just say "I don't want them, I'd rather not have to deal with them" and leave it at that it'd be one thing but spouting off bull about all the reasons we supposedly need to not be having children in general is just more lying to make themselves feel better and pull others under with them.

[–]DorianaGray 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think it's admirable if one would say, "I'm not having children because I'm too self absorbed and a kid would really interfere with my navel-gazing time."

But almost no one says that.

[–]FleetingWishEndorsed Contributor 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

How can an article that tries to defend my view point also be so offensive? Oh, it's written by a feminist.

I'm not child-free to to make some political point about whether or not child-free people are selfish, or to prove I'm an independent woman who doesn't subscribe to gender roles, or any other feel good bull shit. Ultimately, she totally misses the point. Whether or not you bring a child into the world isn't a question of selfishness vs unselfishness, it's a question of responsibility vs irresponsibility. There are only two responsible choices, choosing to have a child and dedicating your heart and soul to that child for 18 years, or not having one. Everything else is irresponsible. Having a child because it's "what everyone does", having a child because "it's selfish to do otherwise", these are all irresponsible reasons to have children. So rather than being shamed by society for being selfish, I simply point out that they are weighing the decision to have a child too carelessly. Ultimately most people I meet don't know whether or not I have a creepy crawly running around my house, so they can't shame me anyway. But thank you feminist author for patting feminism on the back for that one.

Also, I wanted to mention the part at the end about women being valued for something other than making their life about someone else. Again, this is feminist feel good bull shit. It's fine if you don't care about people, just don't go around expecting people to care about you in return. Just because I'm child-free doesn't mean I have nobody who I make my life about, I have my SO, and I dedicate all my time and attention to him, rather than splitting it with some kid.

[–]angeliswastaken 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

There are only two responsible choices, choosing to have a child and dedicating your heart and soul to that child for 18 years, or not having one. Everything else is irresponsible. Having a child because it's "what everyone does", having a child because "it's selfish to do otherwise", these are all irresponsible reasons to have children.

Well said!

[–]rugbytitsandmedicine 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Aaaannd she's a feminist

[–]Lord_Perseus -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's good teh fewer children these broads produce the better off society will be

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The choice to be child-free is to abdicate the most ancient and honorable role that most women may fill in this world, that of a mother. You are the product of billions of years of mothers birthing, caring for, and protecting their offspring and now you dropped the ball. On purpose. So that you could save your money to buy more shoes or spend more time watching sex and the city or some shit.

You're not admirable, your'e a selfish, sorry evolutionary dead-end. I hope the fabulous new shoes you buy are fucking amazing enough to make up for erasing your lineage from the halls of eternity.

[–]angeliswastaken 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't think its as simple as that. A child deserves a mother who wants it, and if you don't what a child why make yourself and your child miserable just because you are product of generations of procreation?

We are overpopulating currently, and I think at this point in the evolution of human society its not hurting anyone if a woman drops the evolutionary ball.

[–][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]angeliswastaken 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The earth can physically support more people, but does that necessarily mean that it should? Further population will put a strain on our already limited resources (limitations self imposed or not, they still exist) I didn't say anything about starvation, in fact I agree with you that pillaging for resources and poor food distribution are the main causes and have little to do with overpopulation. However, we are most definitely overpopulating our current societal constructs, this is a fact. Why are classrooms in the U.S. 30 to 1 student/teacher ratio? Why are Chinese citizens forced to pay for additional children past one? Sure, not every inch of the surface of the earth is overpopulated, but many areas are. But this is not even my main argument against the OP's idea that its selfish to refuse procreation.

The fact is that systematic population as an evolutionary tool is used to gain numbers and compete with other species for dominance. In case you haven't noticed, humans do not presently face that concern. We are by far the dominant species on planet earth. Therefore continuing to systematically populate will lead only to overtaxing of our resources. At this point as the dominant species, it is in our best interest to maintain rather than grow the population, and focus on longevity rather than creation. I honestly believe that this is the natural order and that some people are instinctively turning away from reproduction.

So saying that a person is selfish for not having children is stupid when in terms of the survival of our species, the exact opposite is true.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter