Traversing workplace politics is a skill we all have to learn at one time or another, and it can be a long arduous task that strains the willpower of even the most patient and understanding among us. A few years back at a job I had, one of the members of staff, (we’ll call him Mark) was a veteran and was deployed in Iraq a few years before.

He never saw combat, as far as I know, but the man always, and I do mean always, found a way to work his military service into the conversation. We all know at least one person like this. We could be talking about our pet dogs by the water cooler, and he would find a way to work the glory of the U.S. army into the conversation. He did this as a form of virtue signaling.  

One specific example sticks out in my mind today, years later. We were on break, all of us, gathered in the break-room, in the basement where a television was tuned to CNN. This was at the height of the war in Iraq where things were most violent. Mark walked into the break-room and proclaimed loudly: “Thats what I’m talking about man! The US military over there kicking ass and takin’ names. We should all be thankful for these guys!”

He then scanned around the room with a look that reminded me of some Maoist seeking out dissidents of the cultural revolution, waiting and hoping that anyone would voice anything resembling disagreement.

By this time we were all used to his antics, so everyone pretty much just ignored him. Apparently satisfied with no opposition, he left the room in pursuit of his next adventure.

There are a lot of these people in the world – people who follow a script that is considered upstanding and moral by society — who make it their thinly veiled mission to walk around daring anyone to disagree with them so that they can either “set them straight” or ostracize them along with the help of society. This brings me to an article I came accross titled, Man weirdly aggressive about being a dad which highlights similar behavior from a dad finding any and every excuse to remind you that he is in fact a dad.

I’m of the opinion that this behavior is, at least in part, a means by which men who have reproduced, sometimes wish to subconsciously denigrate and disrespect men who have chosen not to. Here’s some of the text from the article:

IT worker and father-of-two Wayne Hayes seems to think he has attained a more important status in society thanks to the fairly commonplace act of procreation.

Co-worker Nikki Hollis said: “Wayne keeps saying things like ‘You can’t afford to lose your job when you’ve got kids’ as though it wouldn’t matter to a childless person.

“He also gets quite angry about anything child-related. Today he was ranting about low-quality school dinners as if everyone else in the office was in favour of stuffing his kids with reconstituted chicken fat.

“I think it’s a sort of emotional blackmail to make everyone listen to him, which no one did before he had kids and he just used to drone on about Terry Pratchett novels.”

These behaviors seem to fall directly in line with what I call “Breeder Entitlement Mentality“, or, “Entitled Breeder Mentality“, and it stems from the belief (from both moms and dads) that society has to chip in to help them navigate the monumental and super important task of adding more people to the planet.

If you do not have children and you’ve lost your job, well just be thankful that you do not have other mouths to feed. Forget about the fact that you don’t know where your next meal is coming from. The stakes are much higher for the breeders, so just figure it out, you selfish childless vagrant.

Hayes said: “I can be vocal about being a parent but that’s only because I love my kids so much and anyone who disagrees with that disrespects all the parents in the world.

“I do discuss using extreme violence against completely hypothetical people who’d harm my kids, but that’s totally different to being a random nutter with anger issues because of the ‘little ones’.”

Ah, and here we see the hypothetical fantasies of violence — a tool for slightly disturbed people to commune with their desire to see violence done to others by conconcting horrific scenarios (involving their own kids suffering in some cases) so that they can justify their fantasy of beating the shit out of or killing someone, “if”. Watch out for these folks gentleman. They’re potentially violent and always have something to prove.

Most of the times they have adopted parenthood as their identity, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing when discussing parental investment, but it becomes obnoxious and problematic when it is weaponized and used as a tool to shame others. Or, dare I say, even to manipulate others.

For example, we find these insane people while walking down the street; they pass us by with their high expectations of courtesies from total strangers, who have zero investments in their life choices.

You better put out your cigarette if Peter or Karen has his or her child around.

You better slow down, below the speed limit, before Lory pushes her stroller into oncoming traffic, because you are supposed to see her and the stroller and come to a complete stop. She must not wait, you must, because you don’t have a baby.

You must be mindful that “there’s a baby onboard” and be extra careful.

Perhaps, though, the most common display of this entitlement is in the workplace, where childless employees are essentially discriminated against and made to pick up the slack of the breeders. For example, little Jayden has a cold, or the nanny couldn’t make it today. Society tends to excuse these insane people and even rescue them from their choices.

They are breeders who think themselves and their children to be of more value than you — a person who has chosen not to have kids. The most important question to ask is, “are they doing society a service or disservice by procreating?”