DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bad Manners and Brimstone
HTML https://badmanners.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Life in General
*****************************************************
#Post#: 29932--------------------------------------------------
Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Victoria
Date: April 26, 2019, 12:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Posting on behalf of a friend, who has requested a post mortem
on some attempted bean dipping that went south.
My friend Fiona is an antinatalist, which means that she doesn't
believe it's morally upright to have children. Fiona keeps this
to herself and doesn't feel the need to stir the pot or announce
her opinion, so very few people know it. Fiona was recently at a
restaurant with a handful of people and Kimmy would not let the
subject go. Kimmy has a one-year-old, and latched onto Fiona and
Fred as the "next" newlywed couple to have a baby. Fiona's first
response was a casual "Oh, we're not going to have any
children," and she tried to launch into their travel plans for
the next year. Kimmy wouldn't let the subject go despite Fiona's
attempts to beandip and continued telling her/the group about
how life-changing it was, how it was wonderful, etc. I
(Victoria) wasn't there, but Fiona swears up and down that she
tried everything under the sun, and finally stopped Kimmy when
she said that she could "recommend a great IVF guy if that's
your issue." At which point Fiona finally explained that she is
just an antinatalist and doesn't want to bring sentient life
into the world. Apparently some people were shocked and some
were interested enough in the philosophy of it all to look it up
on their phones, but Kimmy was offended and stopped talking.
The group is now divided between who was rude, Kimmy or Fiona.
Pretty much all of them agree that Kimmy should probably have
let it go sooner, but some people think that Fiona was rude for
stating her position on the subject, since the default is that
most people (and the ones at the table who had kids) are
natalists. Fiona says that Kimmy asked, and should have been
prepared for an answer she didn't want to hear, and that she
doesn't feel the need to lie about serious topics like that just
to keep the peace. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts. I think
that bean dipping and the idea of just getting up and leaving
are good ideas in theory, but I also see Fiona's side of the
story.
#Post#: 29935--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: AnnNottingham
Date: April 26, 2019, 12:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Agree with Fiona. If you don't want my opinion on something,
don't push the subject. And even if Fiona had said "The
discussion is closed" or something like that, Kimmy was still
100% in the wrong for sticking her nose where it doesn't belong.
#Post#: 29936--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Jem
Date: April 26, 2019, 12:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I suppose I should google this before I respond, but.....
From what you posted, Fiona stated that SHE was antinatalist,
not that she thinks everyone should be, correct? Assuming that
Fiona simply expressed her decision not to have children, I
don't think she did anything wrong.
Kimmy sounds obnoxious in general, but it's not inherently rude
to be excited about your own kids or want to talk about how
fulfilling having children has been for you. What IS inherently
rude is the steps beyond that, especially mentioning
infertility. Just...….no.
I do think that if Fiona used the term "antinatalist" that could
have added more tension than if she instead just said she didn't
personally want to have children.
"I am antinatalist, and I think it is morally wrong for anyone
to have kids."
comes across very different than
"I have decided not to have kids."
#Post#: 29937--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Victoria
Date: April 26, 2019, 12:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jem link ---
>
> I suppose I should google this before I respond, but.....
>
> From what you posted, Fiona stated that SHE was antinatalist,
not that she thinks everyone should be, correct? Assuming that
Fiona simply expressed her decision not to have children, I
don't think she did anything wrong.
>
> Kimmy sounds obnoxious in general, but it's not inherently
rude to be excited about your own kids or want to talk about how
fulfilling having children has been for you. What IS inherently
rude is the steps beyond that, especially mentioning
infertility. Just...….no.
>
> I do think that if Fiona used the term "antinatalist" that
could have added more tension than if she instead just said she
didn't personally want to have children.
>
> "I am antinatalist, and I think it is morally wrong for anyone
to have kids."
>
> comes across very different than
>
> "I have decided not to have kids."
>
--- End Quote ---
She began with "We've decided not to have kids," and ended with
"I'm an antinatalist" and explained what that was after Kimmy
wouldn't drop the issue. I don't have the exact definition that
Fiona gave, but by definition (I think) it encompasses the idea
that it's morally wrong for anyone to have kids. From the way
Fiona frames it, that was her last resort to get Kimmy to drop
the issue and leave her alone. She thought that presenting a
stance as opposed to an opinion or feeling like "We're not
having kids" or "We don't want kids" or "No thanks."
#Post#: 29938--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: lowspark
Date: April 26, 2019, 12:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok wow. Just wow. Kimmy way, way overstepped. It's bad enough
that she wouldn't let it go, but this: she could "recommend a
great IVF guy if that's your issue" was incredibly over the
line.
There are all kinds of reasons why people choose not to have
children, and those reasons are no one's business but their own.
But hey, if you keep pushing and insisting, you deserve whatever
answer you get.
I don't blame Fiona one bit for just going ahead and stating her
philosophy because I'm not sure how else she would have gotten
Kimmy to back off.
#Post#: 29940--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Jem
Date: April 26, 2019, 12:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Victoria link ---
>
> [quote author=Jem link=topic=1108.msg29936#msg29936
date=1556300217]
> I suppose I should google this before I respond, but.....
>
> From what you posted, Fiona stated that SHE was antinatalist,
not that she thinks everyone should be, correct? Assuming that
Fiona simply expressed her decision not to have children, I
don't think she did anything wrong.
>
> Kimmy sounds obnoxious in general, but it's not inherently
rude to be excited about your own kids or want to talk about how
fulfilling having children has been for you. What IS inherently
rude is the steps beyond that, especially mentioning
infertility. Just...….no.
>
> I do think that if Fiona used the term "antinatalist" that
could have added more tension than if she instead just said she
didn't personally want to have children.
>
> "I am antinatalist, and I think it is morally wrong for anyone
to have kids."
>
> comes across very different than
>
> "I have decided not to have kids."
>
--- End Quote ---
She began with "We've decided not to have kids," and ended with
"I'm an antinatalist" and explained what that was after Kimmy
wouldn't drop the issue. I don't have the exact definition that
Fiona gave, but by definition (I think) it encompasses the idea
that it's morally wrong for anyone to have kids. From the way
Fiona frames it, that was her last resort to get Kimmy to drop
the issue and leave her alone. She thought that presenting a
stance as opposed to an opinion or feeling like "We're not
having kids" or "We don't want kids" or "No thanks."
[/quote]
I can see how people might disagree with Fiona's position (and I
have never heard of "antinatalism" before - off to google.....),
but I don't think Fiona did anything wrong here. Kimmy can
certainly be offended, but Kimmy practically forced the issue. I
would feel differently if Fiona just out of the blue said, "I
think all of you people who have kids are morally wrong."
#Post#: 29946--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: GardenGal
Date: April 26, 2019, 1:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm totally on Fiona's side here - Kimmy was way out of bounds.
I hope I would have the presence of mind to say in a situation
like this, where a "friend" is verbally harassing me about
something that I have already stated my position on, something
like "I told you my answer, so please stop pestering me with all
these comments - I won't discuss this any further and I don't
appreciate you badgering me like this."
#Post#: 29948--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Andi_3k
Date: April 26, 2019, 2:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Antinatalism is a subset of the more familiar childfree cohort.
I am strictly team Fiona here and if everyone at the table is
upset that she told Kimmy she is antinatalist, they need to look
at why they did not put a stop to Kimmy's badgering of Fiona.
It seems to me they were OK with KImmy pushing the idea of
having kids until Fiona snapped. Someone should have told Kimmy
to back the heck off before it got to this point. Even if Kimmy
didn't it would have made Fiona less likely to snap and would
have made the group look less like they backed Kimmy
#Post#: 29952--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: Victoria
Date: April 26, 2019, 2:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Andi_3k link ---
>
> Antinatalism is a subset of the more familiar childfree
cohort.
> I am strictly team Fiona here and if everyone at the table is
upset that she told Kimmy she is antinatalist, they need to look
at why they did not put a stop to Kimmy's badgering of Fiona.
It seems to me they were OK with KImmy pushing the idea of
having kids until Fiona snapped. Someone should have told Kimmy
to back the heck off before it got to this point. Even if Kimmy
didn't it would have made Fiona less likely to snap and would
have made the group look less like they backed Kimmy
>
--- End Quote ---
To me it's interesting because natalism is the default state. I
don't mean that everyone wants kids themselves, but we are
taught and tend to "default" to the idea that life and creating
life is valuable and good, or at least that it's not immoral. So
for me it's a question of, should Fiona have just kept her mouth
shut because she knew full well that she had a polarizing
opinion that everyone else disagreed with, and that doesn't go
along with the overwhelming norm.
#Post#: 29954--------------------------------------------------
Re: Revealing dissent vs. keeping the peace
DIR By: NFPwife
Date: April 26, 2019, 2:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Victoria link ---
>
> [quote author=Andi_3k link=topic=1108.msg29948#msg29948
date=1556305888]
> Antinatalism is a subset of the more familiar childfree
cohort.
> I am strictly team Fiona here and if everyone at the table is
upset that she told Kimmy she is antinatalist, they need to look
at why they did not put a stop to Kimmy's badgering of Fiona.
It seems to me they were OK with KImmy pushing the idea of
having kids until Fiona snapped. Someone should have told Kimmy
to back the heck off before it got to this point. Even if Kimmy
didn't it would have made Fiona less likely to snap and would
have made the group look less like they backed Kimmy
>
--- End Quote ---
To me it's interesting because natalism is the default state. I
don't mean that everyone wants kids themselves, but we are
taught and tend to "default" to the idea that life and creating
life is valuable and good, or at least that it's not immoral. So
for me it's a question of, should Fiona have just kept her mouth
shut because she knew full well that she had a polarizing
opinion that everyone else disagreed with, and that doesn't go
along with the overwhelming norm.
[/quote]
Fiona did keep her mouth shut -- for several rounds of this. The
dissenting and polarizing opinion finally stopped the Kimmy's
haranguing; I'm not sure what else could have or would have. I
suppose Fiona could have left the gathering, but why should she
be punished by cutting her evening short when Kimmy was the
clod?
I don't use the word bullying often, but this reads to me like
bullying behavior. In every bullying encounter there's the
bully, the bullied, and the bystander(s). If the bystanders
would have stepped in for Fiona (as mentioned above) this could
have gone a different direction. If when Fiona tried to change
the subject someone supported that and said, "Oh yes, I'm quite
interested in your travel plans, tell me more!" and kept that
conversation moving, Kimmy would have been crowded out. Instead
Kimmy was allowed, by their silence, to continue. They are in
the wrong. Not as much as Kimmy, but they are not innocent here.
My hypothesis is that the ones who are now saying Fiona was rude
are doing so to assuage their guilt at allowing Kimmy to
continue. It's easier to victim blame than look at what you
could have done differently.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 8
DIR Next Page