Original post (numbers are provided for points I'll be elaborating on):
[An Unpopular Opinion post transplanted from Reddit to Instagram]
Older children should not expect children to become unpaid babysitters (1a) for their younger siblings.
Entitled parents should not expect (2) pre teens / teens to share parental duties (1b). Don't have additional kids if you do not have the resources to hire childcare (3). Older children can learn responsibility in other ways that enriches their life (4). They should not be saddled with the burden of parenthood (5).
My response:
Jeez, not everyone has resources and even if they do circumstances can change (6). Single parents don't have the luxury of paying for childcare so they can go out to earn a minimum wage (7). By the same logic don't get old if you can't afford care... (8)
Annoying bloody human response:
Don't have children if you do not have the resources to care for them (3, 6, 7). YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO CHILDREN (9). On top of that, children do not owe their parents anything (10).
My further reply:
I have so many questions... So what are you supposed to do if once having had kids you lose those resources (6)? Lose your job, your partner, your savings, suffer illness, become disabled (6 & 7)? Will you magic your kids out of existence cos you can no longer afford childcare?! And sure children don't OWE their parents anything but when your mum is incapacitated by a severe stroke will you be able to turn your back on her (10)? Is it nice being such a horrible excuse for a human being?
(1) There is a massive difference between babysitting (1a) and parentification (1b). Asking ANY family member to watch a child (or children) on occasion is a normal and acceptable thing to do; asking that person to be a parent to your child is not. That's a given whether it's a grandparent, aunt / uncle, older offspring... The post would have had some validity if it had been taken as the latter but most people seemed unable to differentiate, seemingly saying an older sibling (of any age - 12, 14, 33) should never have to shoulder any responsibilities within their families whatsoever.
If this were purely about parents pumping out sprogs for their older kids to actually parent I would be in absolute agreement. That is most emphatically a form of child abuse (see the 'buddy system' implemented by families such as the Duggar clan - in their case with added sexism cos it's only the GIRLS who are forced to parent their siblings).
I've seen a lot on social media about dads 'babysitting' and pointing out that as a parent it's his DUTY to PARENT and he is emphatically not babysitting. Let's work on that point for a sec... Parenting duties usually fall predominantly on one person regardless of how many adults are involved and people refer to a non-parental duties adult (dad, step parent, poly partner etc) as 'babysitting' when they do it. If the non-parental duties adult(s) are supposed to raise the children - regardless of biological relationship (the number of times I've seen 'don't date someone with kids if you won't be a parent to them' (which is also BS, *IF* you take on parenting duties as a step parent it should *ONLY* be with the express consent of the custodial parent(s)) - is it really any different or extreme to expect older siblings to help out?!
Ever heard of the expression "it takes a village to raise a child"? Yet somehow we expect, nay DEMAND, that a couple (or single parent) do the job 100% alone unless they can AFFORD help.
(2) There is a massive difference between expecting / demanding childcare and needing / asking for it. Again, whether the potential provider is an older sibling or a grandparent or whoever. Taking advantage is wrong.
There is a world of difference between getting your 14 year old to watch their siblings so mum & dad can have a date night or somesuch bollocks and getting the same kid to do the same thing so mum can go to work to earn enough to feed them (see #7).
I'd say this was a thread of entitled lazy brats rather than a legitimate complaint against entitled parents who're actually being shitty.
(3) OP is literally a hair's breadth from eugenics here, essentially arguing that only the wealthy (and presumably those immune to mental and physical weakness) should have breeding rights.
Yikes.
This point also assumes that even if you have one child you will never acquire a step sibling or cousin or whatever for whom they may have childcare responsibilities foisted upon them. It also seems to presume that an only child cannot be neglected to the extent that they have to SELF-PARENT.
Furthermore I be people who spout this shit are the same people who endlessly complain that the people in power on this planet are all part of a super-elite of inherited wealth and status.
(4) Looking out for younger siblings is a principal way in which childcare skills are learned. But yeah, lets just focus on generalised 'responsibility'.
(5) Assumes all parents chose to be parents. Newsflash sunshine, some of us never wanted kids but they happened anyway. TBH if I'd done babysitting at some point in my youth I'd have been far more careful and far more afraid of what I was getting myself into.
Also having parents is a burden and I never asked to be born (see point #10). Life comes with responsibilities - get over yourselves.
(6) The 'don't have additional kids if' bit REALLY gets me. You can be gainfully employed, a homeowner, have savings, be married when you conceive and lose the whole damn lot before the child is born. You never know what shit life is going to throw at you and only the ultra wealthy are likely to have any immunity against that kind of catastrophic life change. And if that can happen between conception and birth imagine what can happen before a kid reaches adulthood?!
Your partner can leave / refuse to pay child support / die.
You can lose your job / your home / your savings.
You, your partner, or one of your kids could suffer an illness, injury or disability that swallows up everything you have (medical bills, care bills, living aids, being unable to work due to incapacity or hospital visits etc etc) and / or require you to need physical help in looking after the kids you already have.
I find it incredibly elitist and ableist to assume that circumstances will not change. Imagine you are stable, working, have some kids... then a family member gets diagnosed with MS or cancer or something. Most families can't absorb the financial burden of an even like that. And that's assuming only ONE such catastrophic event hits your family.
(7) Personal story here: I was obliged to come off welfare and work instead. Fair enough in principle but I also had to take whatever job I was offered or suffer financial penalties. What I was offered was a split shift cleaning job 0545-0745 and 1700-1900. As I have no car / bike and buses weren't running (not that I could afford them anyway) at that time of the morning I was out of the house a minimum of 6 hours a day (I often did errands and grocery shopping en route cos all that walking destroyed my feet) when my kids were home alone... to earn £7/ hr (minimum wage at the time) for 4 hrs.
Assuming there are any babysitters who would come out at 5am and still only charge minimum wage (which, lets face it, for those antisocial hours isn't going to be a thing) I'd be paying £42 to earn £28 - a £14 loss with NOTHING left to pay the rent, fuel, food etc.
So yeah my then 14 yr old was responsible for her younger sister because there was literally no alternative. And yes, my younger child nearly died and was hospitalised as a direct result of this arrangement. I'm emphatically not recommending this lifestyle BUT I DIDN'T MAKE THE GODDAMNED RULES.
When I had my kids it's not even remotely the circumstances I thought I'd be in - for one thing at that time parents weren't obliged to work until their youngest was 16! Now it's something insane like 3 and I should consider myself 'lucky' it was 'only' 11 in my day.
How is a single parent supposed to feed their kids if they can't work?! Again, back to point #6 that just cos you have a partner at conception doesn't mean they'll stick around and not die. Anyone can end up a single parent and trust me, it's HARD.
(8) If you need to be able to 'afford childcare' (to an unknowable extent, at an unknown future rate of pay) to have kids what about getting older? Sure, paying into a pension and having a savings pot against incapacity would be good for those of us on a low or no income basis what do you suggest? Should I guzzle a case of quince gin and go for a swim when the time comes so as to reduce the burden on my kids? I certainly can't 'afford' to get old, especially if I end up like my mum...
I think we should have a Hurling Day like that episode of Jim Henson's Dinosaurs where elderly & infirm members of the herd are hurled (often by a son-in-law) off a cliff and into a tar pit. Okay, if it were actually a thing it'd probably be a rather kinder form of euthanasia but I hope I've made my point: we all face expenses we can't meet. The 'fortunate' among us won't encounter them or will die before we reach such a state of vulnerability. The rest of that need is largely met by a veritable army of unpaid carers without whom society would grind to an abrupt halt (see also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0yPZYBCuQU). And in that, lets not forget that an awful lot of those unpaid carers are themselves CHILDREN who society as a whole does little to nothing to assist. Yes, it's a bloody disgrace but blaming the parents for their own hardships is NASTY.
(9) Agreed. Children are NOT an entitlement or a fashion accessory. But coming back to point #3 berating poor or disadvantaged people for choosing to have a family is elitist, eugenicist bullshit. And if poor / disadvantaged people aren't 'entitled' to have a family what are you gonna do? Penalise them into greater poverty? Bring back workhouses or forced sterilisations? GENOCIDE???
(10) While I agree in principle many countries require children to pay for their parents' old age care and China has a law forcing adult kids to visit their elderly parents. In parallel we maybe should argue that kids aren't owed a particular type of childhood.
There's been at least a proposition of a law that parents have to love their kids... Sorry but that's not a thing that can be forced. Just because you have crotch goblins doesn't mean you automatically love or even like them.
Again, my personal story: my mum was a cold fish; I could never have described our relationship as close. But when she had a severe incapacitating stroke not only could I not in a gazillion years afford her care I also couldn't face dumping her in one of those awful places. The 'care' she got in an NHS hospital was appalling so heaven knows how bad it gets in those death waiting rooms.
Maybe I don't 'owe' her care in her decline but I am not such a terrible person as to ditch her. I don't even know if I could do that to my dad and he's a right toxic asshole.
I wonder if OP / asshat commenter would really be so agreeable if their beloved and pampered only child (as I would presume their crotch goblin to be if they stick to their principles) leaves home at 18 and never contacts them again cos "I don't owe you anything!"?
I may have asked the questions but I don't care to return to see if they answer any of them.
It is against my beliefs to ill-wish them but I kinda hope karma gives them a wake up call such as they end up a single parent of a half dozen kids with no familial support and minimal income and see how they fare. Their complete lack of empathy or understanding of hardships is staggering.
I privately judge other people's life choices as much as anyone; I'm particularly harsh on myself for ending up in this mess. But telling people they shouldn't have had their kids is VILE.
Mind you, I almost wish I was a callous, heartless individual who'd managed to dump my kids and my parents and have a life of my own but it wasn't to be.
