What's new

Pretty 29-yr old happy without kids. Internet has opinions.

Al-O-Meter

Well-Known Member

View: https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1698375234909307373


While I don’t like Matt calling her stupid, I do think her take is naïve. Maybe naïve isn’t the right word as I think she knows it as she admits to getting down on herself.

Life is good being a pretty 29-year old, and you can’t fault her logic if all you seek is immediate gratification. The mindset is no different from a 29-year old thinking she could afford to spend more money on fun stuff now if she wasn’t putting away a portion of her income into a retirement account.
 
I mean, I guess her voice and delivery and penchant for reality TV are kind of annoying, but that's all relative. If anybody wants to judge her as some kind of mindless hedonist based these 1.5 minutes of TikTok, that says more about them than it does her. To me, this sounds like a person who is choosing to be present in her circumstances and be grateful, despite not having attained what she really wants quite yet. Would Matt Walsh rather see her talking about being mired in depression because she isn't married with kids? He has no idea what her priorities are, or how much she may have invested herself in those things, and he comes across as a prick because he only sees the world through the lens of his own value system. I'll concede that he makes good points here and there, but I don't really care for his narrow, self-important perspective, and I think this is a great example of it.
 
That doesn't seem hedonistic to me at all, honestly. Feels like she recognizes what she values and lives her life accordingly. I'm not sure what's so offensive about that. The person who doesn't want to get married young but does so anyways due to societal pressure is a far sadder story to me.

Her "admitting to getting down on herself" didn't seem like a confession that she's actually unhappy. It's tough when your values don't align with what society says your values should be, even if you have conviction in your values.

The mindset is no different from a 29-year old thinking she could afford to spend more money on fun stuff now if she wasn’t putting away a portion of her income into a retirement account.
Seems like a false equivalency to me. Having a financially stable retirement is something that generally anybody should strive for. Getting married and starting a family in your 20's, less so.
 
Seems like a false equivalency to me. Having a financially stable retirement is something that generally anybody should strive for. Getting married and starting a family in your 20's, less so.
It is exactly the same. For nearly all of human history, your family was your retirement program. In the past 80 years there has been an effort to obscure that fact but even now it is the next generation that will pay the bills and if there isn't enough of them then governmental social safety nets and instruments like 401k's will break down. The kids are the future. The kids are the future. The kids are the future. That has been evolutionarily wired in and that is the little voice in her head telling her that something isn't right. Maybe she'll be fine and maybe people who don't save for retirement will be fine.
 
It is exactly the same. For nearly all of human history, your family was your retirement program. In the past 80 years there has been an effort to obscure that fact but even now it is the next generation that will pay the bills and if there isn't enough of them then governmental social safety nets and instruments like 401k's will break down. The kids are the future. The kids are the future. The kids are the future. That has been evolutionarily wired in and that is the little voice in her head telling her that something isn't right. Maybe she'll be fine and maybe people who don't save for retirement will be fine.
For nearly all of human history, hunting and gathering was how we subsisted. It was evolutionarily wired in.

Modern society no longer requires virtually everybody to be hunter-gatherers, just as it no longer requires virtually everybody to reproduce. If somebody in modern society decides they don't want to start a family in their 20's (or at all), but they make prudent financial decisions, they'll be just fine.
 
If somebody in modern society decides they don't want to start a family in their 20's (or at all), but they make prudent financial decisions, they'll be just fine.
If you mean "be just fine" as another way of saying "exit the gene pool to make future generations stronger by not contributing their own obviously broken ladder" then sure, I guess. Addition by subtraction, and all that. Hooray for Darwinism? At least by making her own money in her 20's instead of prioritizing making a family, she'll expand the labor pool which will reduce the amount businesses have to pay for labor so there is a plus side there. With more 20-year old women coming in to the labor pool, society doesn't need to employ 50-year olds at all. In with the new, out with the old, and don't worry about the effect population collapse will have on entitlements or annuities. It'll be fine says Celexa.
 
If you mean "be just fine" as another way of saying "exit the gene pool to make future generations stronger by not contributing their own obviously broken ladder" then sure, I guess. Addition by subtraction, and all that. Hooray for Darwinism? At least by making her own money in her 20's instead of prioritizing making a family, she'll expand the labor pool which will reduce the amount businesses have to pay for labor so there is a plus side there. With more 20-year old women coming in to the labor pool, society doesn't need to employ 50-year olds at all. In with the new, out with the old, and don't worry about the effect population collapse will have on entitlements or annuities. It'll be fine says Celexa.
I think you're talking on a macro level, where I'm talking more on a micro level. But applying the macro to the micro is a pretty strange mindset to me.

I mean, on a macro level, the most optimal thing you could do for our population is to pump out as many kids while simultaneously producing as much growth for the economy as possible. So that's what you should devote your life to doing? Any desire to the contrary, for example, being gay, or valuing free time over producing for the economy therefore deciding to get by on a lower income to make room for that, or wanting just one kid or even no kids, means you're failing?

Like, I think we can both agree on a macro level, we need people to have kids. But, if society has a shortage of people reproducing, I don't think anybody on an individual level should feel guilty or like a failure for not having kids any more than somebody should feel guilty for not being a doctor if we have a shortage of doctors. There are and will continue to be people who have very fulfilling, meaningful lives who've never had kids.

And I apologize if I'm wrong on this, but you seem to be implying that people who don't have kids are depressed because they're working against their evolutionary wiring. The research on that is a bit mixed, but from what I understand, the general consensus is that parents of new-borns do get a brief boost from a mental health standpoint, but after a year or so, it dissipates and eventually, generally-speaking, lowers below the level of non-parents. Not to say people shouldn't be having kids, but the idea that your mental heatlh will suffer without having kids is nonsense.
 
I think we can both agree on a macro level, we need people to have kids. But, if society has a shortage of people reproducing, I don't think anybody on an individual level should feel guilty or like a failure for not having kids
Do you think there is a social contract? Is it all narcissism all the way down now? Is it fine to eff up the environment, not pay taxes, end social safety nets, etc., without any guilt if the individual can eek out a tiny bit more serotonin?
 
Do you think there is a social contract? Is it all narcissism all the way down now? Is it fine to eff up the environment, not pay taxes, end social safety nets, etc., without any guilt if the individual can eek out a tiny bit more serotonin?
Wow.

Well, firstly, arguing that people who don't have kids are just selfish/trying to eek out a tiny bit more serotonin is unbelievably narrow-minded, but for the sake of keeping this a healthy discussion, I'll put that aside.

Let's tackle the opposite side of this: Do you think everybody should strive to maxmize their fulfillment of the social contract at the cost of their own mental health? No non-sick days off, everybody must marry a woman and procreate as much as they can afford even if they're gay, etc... ?

I think the reality is that society as a whole will continue to thrive even if people who don't want kids don't have kids. Shaming those people for not fulfilling their end of the "social contract" seems to me to be essentially arguing that there's no room for balance. Either you're fulfilling your social contract or you are not. What about somebody who contributes meaningfully to society in other ways but doesn't have kids? They should feel guilty, end of story.

I don't think the social contract is an all-or-nothing deal, where either you have a kid and fulfilled it or you didn't and should feel guilty. We need people having kids in society, yes, but there's also plenty of room for people who contribute in other ways but don't have kids to still fulfill enough of their social contract to be a net benefit.
 
Do you think there is a social contract? Is it all narcissism all the way down now? Is it fine to eff up the environment, not pay taxes, end social safety nets, etc., without any guilt if the individual can eek out a tiny bit more serotonin?
People with kids eff up the environment more, pay fewer taxes, and are more likely to need the services of social safety nets. That's a weird combination of effects to associate with childlessness.
 
What about somebody who contributes meaningfully to society in other ways but doesn't have kids? ... plenty of room for people who contribute in other ways but don't have kids to still fulfill enough of their social contract to be a net benefit.
She describes her life as "effortless", "ease", and "focusing on herself". She isn't curing cancer. She's going to Beyonce, drinking, waking up at 10:15, scrolling on her phone, and has plans to watch reruns of Real Housewives of New York. She might put in the effort to learn how to make shakshuka but we all know she won't because it is effort and she's already said that putting in effort isn't her thing. Twenty-nine and pretty turns into thirty-nine and used-to-be-pretty in the blink of an eye.
 
She describes her life as "effortless", "ease", and "focusing on herself". She isn't curing cancer. She's going to Beyonce, drinking, waking up at 10:15, scrolling on her phone, and has plans to watch reruns of Real Housewives of New York. She might put in the effort to learn how to make shakshuka but we all know she won't because it is effort and she's already said that putting in effort isn't her thing. Twenty-nine and pretty turns into thirty-nine and used-to-be-pretty in the blink of an eye.

And what the **** are you doing in your life? I'm going out on a limb and guessing not curing cancer either.
 
She describes her life as "effortless", "ease", and "focusing on herself". She isn't curing cancer. She's going to Beyonce, drinking, waking up at 10:15, scrolling on her phone, and has plans to watch reruns of Real Housewives of New York. She might put in the effort to learn how to make shakshuka but we all know she won't because it is effort and she's already said that putting in effort isn't her thing. Twenty-nine and pretty turns into thirty-nine and used-to-be-pretty in the blink of an eye.
My brother, she was describing her Saturday morning.
 
Top