Hostile is also a state. Not just a action.

Let's take a look at at the full text:

If this does not read as a person that has a poor outlook on family and child rearing, I don't know what does. His family is full of tension and anger. He apparently believe all families are because he see many others are. Family is not attractive to him as a result. Why would he want kids if this is true in his mind? Rebuking children apparently is ingrained. The author has some issues. He sees himself as one of those rebuking parents. The rest of the article is nothing but a good cover up to his real issue IMO.

Okay, let's stop fantasizing about the man's "real issues", for nobody here knows them, nobody here is his psychiatrist, and he gave some more arguments on what he was about than just talking about his family.

Let's stick to what he actually said.

So he has issues and doesn't want to have children so he may not transfer the issues on another generation. Good kid. Not strong enough to change his bad parts in the personalty but smart enough not to let them pass on.

He has issues. The issues I had manifested with an atempted suicide, not a decision not to have kids. And he's the one who's hostile. Svašta

Question is what came first his personal issues and then grand justifications or the other way around.:)

As i said i don't like the idea of world being run by bitter old men with personal issues.

Where might the fantasy be? The first paragraph lays out his childhood.A family full of anger and tension. :hmmm: Was this just filler for the essay?

He says nothing of passing on his issue to another generation. It is all about saving the world by not having kids.

Doesn't work like that Betanov, if he was getting use of those he would probably be happier and not lamenting about babies making him angry, its the lack of release you see, a build up of the inner tension.

errrr .....he said he had a bad family life and doesn't like families...plain enough isn't it.
Could this be a link to your views on the topic?

In what you quoted he says that he knows he would be the same way as a parent (as his parents were with him). Whether it's a fact that he would be that way or not, it sounds like he either believes or fears that he would be what most of us would consider a "bad" parent.

Given that a lot of "bad" parenting and family dynamics are in fact passed down from one generation to the next even despite the best intentions and hopes of those involved, it's not unreasonable for him to believe (or fear) that he would not be any better as a parent than his own parents were.

For someone who feels they are likely to be very bad at parenting, and wouldn't be able to provide a better environment than the negative one they experienced, not having children is exactly the opposite of being "selfish" IMO. It's certainly a lot better than having a bunch of kids he isn't able to raise in a healthy and positive environment.

I guess I'm an abberation. I've never understood that need. I have two daughters, both are married and none of my grandchildren have my last name. I don't see why it's important.

But that's just me.

It's important because "my seed" and "my DNA" and "my name" MUST MUST MUST be preserved down through the generations because some part of ME ME ME must remain after I'm gone and it must be properly stamped with the word "MINE" so people know exactly who made it.

This is why having children is the only purely unselfish choice. :O:

He means it by the famed first paragraph. I can also say describe my fammily by tension and anger. It's not a filler, it's describing his background. And I can relate. I am displaying the same tension and anger I got from my fammily. You can't see it on the forum since I don't post in an angry mood, but it's there. His biggest mistake was, that he asumed everyone will see it like he sees it. But only those of us that were verbally abused by our own mothers can see it. Only those of us that can relate.

Good for you if you can't relate. But some of us had to cope with verbal and pshycological abuse (never physical though) that we would be better off unborn. That's his message. Such issues are carried over.

Not all bad parenting is passed down. Many make it a point not to be like their parents. But I do agree bad parenting is passed down. Kids are products of their environment. But, IMO, that is as far as it goes for this author. I see his position as has very little to do with saving the planet.

It is not just you Steve. I never saw the need. Plus I have 2 brothers with sons. I'm covered. :haha:

While dad is complaining mom is really screwed. She gave up her name and replaced it with his, and even her sons will never have her name.

Kinda sad if "name memory" is really the goal.

Lack of sex is not the only thing that builds up inner tension.
Not being able to stand up to people that damaged you because of their own issues, because one cannot go against ones parents, is far worse.

I never once heard from my father state I must carry on the line. I think we are just about out of the Dark Ages. :O:

If the name is all that matters, I guess I'm fine. My grandpa had seven sons. My brother has no kids, but I have a passle of cousins, and the name is still out there in the hundreds.

Not in the slightest

I'm not certain but centuries ago I believe it was a mix of carrying on the name and bloodline. Today perhaps just the name? I don't know. I have two beautiful brilliant daughters and I simply would not have it any other way. :up:

Can we continue in about an hour or two.

I really need to go to the pub and don't want to be lost in all the replies when I get back. I'll be sober, I promise