Re: "Family values"

[Adam Ophir Shapira <vorlon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Katha Pollitt wrote:

> Celia, I completely agree that benefits should not be tied to family
> status, or families period. And here's another reason why. It's all very
> well to talk about children being so socially important, etc, but if
> parents get more benefits than childless people  that breeds resentment.
> Lots of childless people feel put=upon when they are asked to rearrange
> their schedules or take on extra work to accomodate a parent colleague,
> because it's never going to be their turn to be accomodated.  Lots of
> childless people see children as a chosen burden, and wonder why it
> should be accomodated more than other relationships or passions. I know
> childless people who are really annoyed at the parents they work with.
> Of course there are arguments against this view of childraising as a
> kind of socially-sanctioned hobby, but it seems to me the best way round
> is to offer everybody a list of benefits from which to choose. Raising a
> child should be accomodated, but so should other kinds of relationships
> -- and interests, too. Like continuing education etc.
>   I read somewhere than 20 percent of women of childbearing-age are not
> going to have children.

One group that would *especially* want alternative
benefits are those who want to have children but
for some reason or the other can't. I'm refering to
people who (a) can't have children of their own,
and (b) either are not allowed to adopt or would
not be satisfied by adoption.

Such people, when they see someone *else* get
accomodated for having children, while they don't
get *any* benefits, would be *especially* bitter,
because this would form an ironic double-jeopardy,
as one would say "rubbing salt into an open wound".

These peple (unless they're *really* bitter about
their situation) wouldn't want benefits taken away
from those who *are* parents, but they *would* want
to receive some kind of *alternative* benefits for
those who are *not* parents.

True, these people who want to have children but can't
need to pick themselves up and get on with their lives.
However, in the process of doing so, a hobby can be
helpful at least, necessary at most ... and these
people need their hobbies to be accomodated to a
reasonable extent.

Of course, one must not forget that flexibility for
parents is not only for the sake of the parents, but
also for the sake of the children, and that must in
all cases be taken into account ... but those of
us who can't have children, or even for that matter
those of us who choose not to, must not be denied
their passions (or remaining passions) simply because
there is no specific other person who relies on this
being accomodated.