Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Oh (No) Baby

By Sarah Klein, Detroit Metro Times. Posted January 10, 2006.


Is the 'childfree' community a fast-growing, misunderstood movement -- or just a bunch of mean old kid haters?
Advertisement

Winter -- with the holidays' out-of-control commercialism -- is all about children. It's a fact that makes a growing contingent of the population roll their eyes or shudder with disgust. They're the "childfree," meaning they've chosen never to have kids. They prefer that term to "childless," which they feel implies some sort of loss, or incompleteness.

Deciding not to bear the fruit of your loins is nothing new, but within the last five years the childfree community has begun to band together, largely through online support groups. The more vocal members of the community have drawn headlines with their sometimes scathing diatribes against "ankle biters," yet the range of childfree people is as varied as the range of those who choose to parent, running the gamut from caring, intelligent individuals to petty assholes.

Who are these people? What do they want? And what's a "crotch dropping?"

Kidcentric culture

It's unclear when the term "childfree" came into being, but it gained popularity in the '90s via the Childfree Network, one of the first organizations devoted to this growing segment of the population.

According to the Centers for Disease Control's 2002 survey "Fertility, Family Planning and Reproductive Health of U.S.," just saying no to kids is becoming a more popular option. Among the 61.6 million women aged 15 to 44 in 2002, 6.2 percent were voluntarily childless, up from 4.9 percent in 1982. Furthermore, the percentage of childless women who expect to have one child in their lifetimes (13 percent) was down by almost half what it was in 1995 (25 percent).

Reasons for choosing this lifestyle can range from personal to pecuniary. In a recent study conducted by economist Amalia Miller of the University of Virginia, a woman in her 20s can expect to increase her lifetime wages by 10 percent for each year she delays giving birth.

Who are the voluntarily childless? Numerous research studies have revealed that most couples who choose not to reproduce are well-educated, are employed in a professional field, have high incomes, are generally white, live in urban areas and are less religious than their child-bearing counterparts.

Childfree couples, or DINKs (Double Income No Kids), say they endure severe pressure from friends, family and co-workers, and the wrath of "breeders" who often paint the childfree as selfish, irresponsible people; hedonistic party animals; or simply "going through a phase."

From the website Childfree.net:

We choose to call ourselves "childfree" rather than "childless," because we feel the term "childless" implies that we're missing something we want -- and we aren't. We consider ourselves childfree -- free of the loss of personal freedom, money, time and energy that having children requires … being childfree-by-choice is rather frowned upon by our kidcentric society, finding information (or links to information) is difficult. Most of us are almost afraid to ask someone who might know where we can find what we're looking for … the disapproving stares and cries of "How can you not want children?!" often send us into a form of "hiding." We feel like freaks and don't realize exactly how many of us and exactly how much information is actually out there. This site attempts to remedy that problem.

The Web has become a haven for the childfree, providing a place to meet, vent and socialize. The word "childfree" nets more than 226,000 hits on Google, and there are dozens of childfree message boards and e-mail lists, from national to regional.

No Kidding is a nationwide, nonprofit social club for childfree adults. Since its inception in 1984 in Vancouver, British Columbia, the organization has grown to 92 chapters in 37 U.S. states and five other countries, including Australia, the Ivory Coast and South Korea. The group will hold an international convention in Toronto next June.

Detroit's No Kidding chapter began in 1994, and now has several dozen members who gather occasionally for barbecues and parties, and keep in touch through an e-mail list.

Member Darlene Johnson-Bignotti, 46, married and childfree: "I have friends that I can't see anymore because my idea of a good time isn't going to Chuck E. Cheese's. The very first No Kidding event I attended four years ago was really amazing; being in a room with a group of women who had something to talk about other than their children. I didn't know there were other people out there like me. It was such an experience to be around other women whose lives didn't revolve around the lives of children."

Susan Mayer, 46, works for a Big Three automaker and has been a member of Detroit's No Kidding chapter for about five years. "We do not hate children," she says. "We may not like to be around them all the time, but there are lots of things people don't like to be around all the time. Like construction."

Member Diane Evans-Gleneski, 40, and married for two and a half years: "This society has been totally brainwashed that producing a child is a must, that it's an obligation as opposed to a choice. If you don't [have kids], then you are an object of pity or scorn."

Childfree people also lament what they feel is preferential treatment given to those with kids. Debra Mollen is an assistant professor of psychology at Texas Women's University, and conducted an extensive study on childfree women. She found many of her subjects were expected to work longer hours than co-workers who were mothers.


Digg!

Sarah Klein is the culture editor at the Detroit Metro Times.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
muggles5
Posted by: kenhymes on Jan 10, 2006 3:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems like the underlying issue behind people's anger over this is the atomization of our culture. Most of us, with or without children, are living in little bubbles, and we don't want anyone else to pop them.

But obviously, there are hugely important exceptions to the categories represented in the piece: many people can't have children for reasons they don't control, either physiology or the lack of a suitable partner. Also, many have children without truly having consented to the process, whether as a result of rape, or simply social coercion. Focusing on those who see themselves as in control of their choices is not very helpful to resolving the difficulties of those who are not so lucky, on either side of this social divide.

There is not enough community, not enough shared responsibility across kinship lines. This makes nuclear families selfish and smug, and makes single people lonely and disengaged. It also perpetuates the blindness to institutionalized suffering that is the hallmark of our culture. We need to reform our small, local institutions to foster acceptance of different choices, and to offer inclusion and support for those who have little choice in their way of life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: muggles5 Posted by: sln70
» RE: muggles5 Posted by: MJ Fields
Just another symptom of anti-socialness?
Posted by: tohellinahandbasket on Jan 10, 2006 3:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If people choose not to have children, then fine, that's their perogative. As someone who has chosen to be a parent (and for the record - lest the "child-free" should begin grinding their teeth - my wife and I do control our children in public), I have found that having children is damn hard work but it brings its own rewards. Having said that, I would never push my lifestyle choice on a non-parent because, let's face it, your heart has to be in it.

However, this whole child-free movement raises more disturbing issues for me, namely, whatever happened to "society"? Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once declared that there was no such thing as society. I take that to mean that she thinks people don't share a common responsibility for one another - that somehow we can share the same land but we don't have to go out of our way to take care of our fellow citizens. In this respect she seems to share common ground with the militantly child-free, by which I mean those who use nasty nicknames such as "crotch dropping" (what a disgusting way to refer to a human being) and take petty delight in parking in spaces reserved for children and parents at the supermarket.

With respect to the child-free, children are the next generation, and our society (long may it remain cohesive) recognizes this through everything from public education and tax breaks to daycare, play groups, child-friendly restaurants and so on. Just because you choose not to have children doesn't mean we, too, must throw the baby out with the bathwater.

As if being a parent weren't hard enough (and I'm not complaining - I made a conscious decision to have them), as parents we also have to cope with the legions of do-gooders who want to tell us how to raise them, right-wingers who want to restrict what our children are taught in school and the child-haters who want us to hide our children away until they've grown up.

So, c'mon, let's have some appreciation for children and those who choose to raise them -- or at the very least, some tolerance for the sake of society as a whole.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Use your head! Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Use your head! Posted by: ttmrichter
A responsibility that cannot be downplayed
Posted by: hera62 on Jan 10, 2006 3:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like the first commentator, I've got the impression that an important root of the whole 'childfree' debate is the unilateral emphasis in about all of Western (US/European) society on the nuclear family. I'm also convinced that - while the choice not to become a parent is a legitimate one - having children is not a choice like any other. Children are a responsibility that cannot be downplayed. Therefore, I do not in the least object if my colleague - who is a mother of two - asks me to take over certain tasks. After all, being childfree does provide one with more time of one's own - a luxury situation compared to the situation that parents find themselves in.

The main problem with working parents is that working mothers tend to get the bulk of the burden shifted on their shoulders compared to working fathers. This, in my opinion, is a far larger issue than the perceived inequality between working parents and their childfree colleagues. Fortunately, I'm seeing enough examples in my own environment of healthy, broadminded parenting without living in a bubble - and with *both* parents taking their own fair share of the load.

For the record, I'm childfree myself but also the grateful godmother of two young ladies (two years and six monts old respectively) who live with their parents in a community living project - not much chance of living in a bubble there!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Burbank Sam Posted by: kww355
» RE: Burbank Sam Posted by: sln70
» RE: Burbank Sam Posted by: BurbankSam
Been on both sides
Posted by: Ruby on Jan 10, 2006 4:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At age 23, married with a stepdaughter, the thought of being pregnant (hammered into us girls growing up as something never to let happen, and difficult to shed that feeling that it was wrong somehow), going through labor and committing my time to something demanding and messy was not appealing at all so I got my tubes tied. Satisfied with that for the two years I was actually married and the several years afterwards, and not getting why people thought having children was exciting, I did an about face when I met my current husband and took the plunge. I got the surgery reversed and now have four sons, ages 6-15.

One cannot know the strong feelings for your children and the satisfaction unless you have them. Sorry, I do not think it's the same for stepchildren--and I have one. There is a physical connection to your children that you have to experience in order to know why people want you to have children so badly.

I have changed so much as a person in too many ways to go into that I just would not have done had the motivation not been there from my children. I have become a much more tolerant person, the messiness of children is not offensive to me any more and I truly look at the world completely differently. This is the hardest, stressful and most wonderful thing I have done with my life. I think it's an important experience to take us outside of ourselves and connect with others in society in a way that just doesn't happen otherwise.

That said, I wouldn't expect someone to adopt a puppy just because I might like dogs. No one can walk in our shoes but us. Parenthood is too difficult and important of a job to take on if you don't want to for whatever reason. The children deserve to have parents who want them and are prepared for the sacrifices. I would have been an awful parent if I had had my children before I was ready. I know this about myself. I am not a patient person and mixed with my own immaturity at the time, it would have been a disaster, not to insinuate that is the same about other people. I applaud those who realize it's not for them and are honest about it. There are a lot of experiences that we all miss out on--can't do everything in the world.

I don't think we should waste time trying to convince people who don't want the job to take it on. MYOB.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Been on both sides Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: Been on both sides Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: Been on both sides Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: Been on both sides Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: Been on both sides Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: Been on both sides Posted by: Ruby
» RE: Been on both sides Posted by: Astroboy
» RE: Been on both sides Posted by: ttmrichter
» RE: Been on both sides Posted by: tap17x
» RE: Been on both sides Posted by: Ruby
Let 'em be...
Posted by: Urstrly on Jan 10, 2006 5:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Motherhood, which I entered with great trepidation, made me a better person and a happier one as well. Nevertheless, I think the parents of this nation divide toward two extremes: those who struggle to provide their kids with even the basic necessities of life (and some who have given up entirely) and, on the other hand, those who raise children in a Darwinian attempt to raise the best and most indulged kids on the planet and expect us all to applaud them. I suspect it is this latter group that annoys the childless; they certainly get on my nerves.

What I'd like to see is that we look upon every child born in this country as a national asset, deserving of support and attention, decent housing, good medical care and a first-rate education. I wish some of these childless people would involve themselves with the already-born but neglected children who form a sort of national underground. Maybe that would demonstrate that it's possible to nurture without going on an ego trip and help them work through some of their resentment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Let 'em be... Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: Let 'em be... Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: Let 'em be... Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Let 'em be... Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: Let 'em be... Posted by: Kat144
Childfree and born that way
Posted by: funtime42 on Jan 10, 2006 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm the middle child of a large family, and from a very early age, knew I did not want to have children. I've made many decisions in my life, some good, some bad, but one I have never regretted was having a hysterectomy when I was 25. Was it a selfish decision? Quite probably - the idea of taking on the responsibility of a child gave me the willies. And THAT is precisely why I made the right decision. Does society really want people to have children when they are not fully committed to that level of responsibility? I should hope not. At 50, I am happy in my life, happy that my siblings are surrounded by their offspring, and happy that I am not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Childfree and born that way Posted by: munchkinpup
the other issue: what they face
Posted by: hotar on Jan 10, 2006 5:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm childfree. Although I had some confusion around the issue when I was young (inculcated by being surrounded by families with children; I knew of NO childless families), I'm confident I made the right choice for myself. My wife of 15 years feels the same way, though she never had any of the confusion I experienced. And fortunately we have a solid community of childfree friends who are also confident they have made the right choice, for various reasons.

One issue that really hasn't been touched on here is the world we are leaving our children to face. If you think the world is chaotic now, wait 50 or 100 years: More war, more famine, more environmental degradation, overpopulation, less and less security and quality of life. I see a very dark cloud over the future of our species, and part of my choice to remain childless is based on the belief that it is selfish to have children when the future we leave them will be so awful.

Of course, some of the breeders among us will say that today's children are also the future of the race, and so being childfree is irresponsible. I have had people tell me that I would make a great parent, and bemoan my choice. But while it is true that good parenting might make for a better future society, I think the negatives outweigh the positives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A reply Posted by: Colin
» Thank the Child-free Posted by: decembrist
» RE: A reply Posted by: Jasonix
» RE: A reply Posted by: Colin
» Reply to hotar. Posted by: Colin
» RE: eply to hotar. Posted by: YogiBear
» ... Posted by: Colin
» Come off it Colin Posted by: hotar
» An analogy of my own. Posted by: Colin
» RE: A reply Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: A reply Posted by: Samantha Vimes
Random
Posted by: bettsoff on Jan 10, 2006 5:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Childfree is the new gay?

I can do better things for the world than parent a child I wouldn't be interested in having in the first place.

Contribute where you can with the best you can and let the rest blather on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So What?
Posted by: Nheduanna on Jan 10, 2006 6:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't have kids. It was my choice when I was young and married to a man that I supported through undergrad and graduate school (and who left me when he finished school and I wanted to get pregnant) and it was my choice when for many years I was single (and VERY grateful not to have a biological link to my exhusband and his family). It's also my choice now that I've married a man that I love very much. We were in our later 40's when we married, and that's just too late to start raising kids.

My mother, upon meeting other seniors for the first time, is often asked "How many grandchildren do you have?" She's much more militant than I am. For many years her response was "None -- and I'm thankful because neither of my children are married." Some folks got the pointiness of her comment.

Sure, there are times when I just don't want to be around other people's children. On the other hand, I've been an outspoken proponent of more funding for public education, especially for arts and music in schools. Pro-Life folks really piss me off when they whine about all the dead babies, then decry welfare mothers. Hey Mrs. Businessowner, what are YOU doing to support better public education? How many single mothers do you employ? Do they have health insurance?

Until we get our priorities straight as a Nation and craft a National health care strategy that covers everyone, a public education strategy that inspires educators and kids and effectively educates (eral education, not pseudoscience), and support businesses that provide jobs that pay a decent wage, why oh why is anyone upset that some folks aren't breeding?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Be careful of being childfree - don't let the "prolife" thugs persecute you
Posted by: NDnative on Jan 10, 2006 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With privacy rights slipping, it may be possible for BIG BROTHER to convict couples if their record shows that they underwent "abortion" just to stay child-free.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just don't be rude.
Posted by: Allison on Jan 10, 2006 6:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like kids... other people's kids. I don't really want to have any myself. Does that make me selfish? No. Would I be justified in referring to people as "breeders" or whatever? No.

People without children have a LOT of freedom they would otherwise lack. If that's their choice, nobody should criticize them for it. Nor should they criticize those who choose to have children and trade personal freedom for the joys of parenthood. How simple is that?

I doubt most of these Internet tough guys would ever call somebody a bad name to their face. Discussion forums are like the unrestrained id of the internet, people's views and language inevitably polarize as they gradually forget they are talking to other real people. Ergo, you can only place so much significance on things you read in them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Just don't be rude. Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Just don't be rude. Posted by: crusty
» RE: Just don't be rude. Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Just don't be rude. Posted by: crusty
» RE: Just don't be rude. Posted by: cominginsecond
» ^ Posted by: decembrist
pro-child liberal
Posted by: Paul D on Jan 10, 2006 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a fiercely progressive and pro-child liberal, I read this article (and the ensuing discussion) with great interest.

I don't think it helps the child-free cause when they use insulting epithets like "crotch dropping" or "semen demon" to describe a human being they find personally repulsive. How different is that from "nigger" or "cameljockey" or "slope"?

I also suspect that the majority of these people consider themselves progressive liberals, in favor of socialized medicine and higher taxes for the rich (because they can afford it), as I do. Yet they bellyache about feeling obligated to work longer hours than a person with children. Guess what? You've got free time to spare; you can afford the extra time to take up the slack.

Every single item mentioned is one of practicality, not some "conspiracy of the breeders." Pregnant women have legitimate right to the preferential parking due to the temporary physical impediments to movement. See my comments above about people without children working longer hours. And having children is a significant financial commitment; the contribution a parent has made to the perpetuation of our species and society deserves a modest tax break in my opinion.

I support a business' right to create a child-free environment for its customers (as detailed in a NYT article a few months ago). But, just as "child haters" are in the minority of the child-free community, so are irresponsible parents in the minority. Despite what you may think, I see a lot more well-behaved kids in public than poorly-behaved.

There is also the issue of common sense. A friend recently had the audacity to complain about noisy children at an opening night showing of the Narnia movie. An early evening show of a childrens' movie, on opening night! Did he expect the theater to be empty?

I think it would behoove the child-free (especially those who claim liberal values) to examine the parallels between their prejuces and those of their opponents. Again, the name-calling doesn't help.

I respect the choice of the child-free; I certainly acknowledge that actual "child haters" are in the minority. I would actively discourage anyone from attempting to marginalize the child-free lifestyle. However, as one who plans to have at least one child with my wife in my lifetime, I think MY choice deserves the same respect and understanding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: pro-child liberal Posted by: AmandaHug
» RE: pro-child liberal Posted by: jem
» RE: pro-child liberal Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: pro-child liberal Posted by: yesman
» RE: pro-child liberal Posted by: hiroe
» RE: pro-child liberal Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: pro-child liberal Posted by: Vyking
» RE: thank you all for proving my point Posted by: electric_bonzai
» RE: pro-child liberal Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: pro-child liberal Posted by: Gracie1029
» RE: pro-child liberal Posted by: ann83
» RE: pro-child liberal Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: pro-child liberal Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: pro-child liberal Posted by: Gracie1029
» RE: pro-child liberal Posted by: Calybos
» RE: pro-child liberal Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: pro-child liberal Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: pro-child liberal Posted by: Kat144
Kids do not justify one's existance....
Posted by: xenacat on Jan 10, 2006 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Make no mistake about it - the personal decision to remain childfree is just that - a personal decision. It is amazing how many people find that a lack of children in someone else's life somehow is a character defect, not to mention very threatening. It is no such thing. Our consumer culture pushes reproduction for obvious reasons and the Christian fundies have an anti-humanistic agenda that marches right along with that. One just does'nt need children to justify thier existence - the world is over populated, not under populated. We need to be very careful about defining norms in terms of the view of man + woman = children = "normal" = ideal standard. That is an equation for repression and exclusion and as progressives, we should be very leery of labeling the childfree as minorities or freaks worthy of comment. That just panders to the Christian neo nazis out there, who feel that a woman is just worth her womb and nothing more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Child free "Movement?"
Posted by: larraine on Jan 10, 2006 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why does everything have to become a "movement?" As far as our society being "kid-centric," that's ridiculous. In fact it is far from it. We celebrate children when it is convenient. A lot depends on where you live. If you live in the suburbs, expect the culture to be more child-centered. That's just life. Frankly I would like to see our society being MORE child-centered. I have a suspicion that a lot of the "child free" types are the same ones who bitch when a colleague needs time off because of sick kids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Child free "Movement?" Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Child free "Movement?" Posted by: cominginsecond
» RE: Child free "Movement?" Posted by: borealis
» RE: Child free "Movement?" Posted by: YogiBear
There's a Place for Us....haha....
Posted by: familyfriendly on Jan 10, 2006 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow I had no idea there were actually movements for those that desire to remain childfree.

I am 36, female and decided very young I wasn't having kids. I think we're way too overpopulated as it is and I enjoy being free. If that's a crime than so be it. My parents never pressure me and are busy with 12 grandchildren from my siblings, and even if they didn't they have always allowed me to be my own person.

It seems that the philosphy many parents have and our govt. propogates is that having children....regardless of whether you are mentally fit or financially capable...is more admirable than if you chose to go it alone and devoted your life to other lofty causes. A childless scientist who invents life-saving drugs is less worthy than anyone who is a parent. That's the kind of mentality we have today in America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: There's a Place for Us....haha.... Posted by: cominginsecond
Why is it selfish?
Posted by: jpinder on Jan 10, 2006 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can someone explain to me why is it selfish to not want children? I think if you have 2 or more children you are the ones that are selfish. It means less food for another child and you add to the already overpopulated planet where they will use more resources and pollute.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why is it selfish? Posted by: ladyoracle
» RE: Why is it selfish? Posted by: Paul D
» RE: Why is it selfish? Posted by: McJulie
» RE: Why is it selfish? Posted by: cominginsecond
» ^ Posted by: decembrist
» RE: Why is it selfish? Posted by: demidesigrrl
» RE: Why is it selfish? Posted by: kittynboi
» Sinister Posted by: decembrist
» RE: Why is it selfish? Posted by: jpinder
» Selfish Ridiculousness! Posted by: Astroboy
» RE: Why is it selfish? Posted by: Indy
» RE: Why is it selfish? Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Why is it selfish? Posted by: Calybos
» RE: Why is it selfish? Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Why is it selfish? Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Why is it selfish? Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Why is it selfish? Posted by: sln70
» RE: Why is it selfish? Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Why is it selfish? Posted by: sln70
» RE: Why is it selfish? Posted by: YogiBear
As a pro choice feminist, I feel bound to respect choices to have and not to have a child.
Posted by: ladyoracle on Jan 10, 2006 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most comments on this list are redramatizing the tension between adults who don't have children and those who do.

The parents feel that thier choice to breed is being dissed by the child-free. People are using really conservative arguments, economically speaking, to goad those without children.

Personally, I never played with baby dolls as a child, but went straight to Barbie; I sometimes held other people's children and cooed over them, but for the most part, I found those fragile, wriggling things disturbing and absolutely never said I wanted to have children; I didn't (and don't) even want to get married, because really I don't want my life to in any way be associated with "family values."

Still, I support other people's choices to reproduce; one of my best friends is the mother of an amazing little girl. I respect the work my friend and her husband have done in raising her.

As far as working longer hours because one is childfree, well, yes, but we also have better chances of advancing in our jobs than mothers, who statistically put children before career. That isn't discrimination, but it's giving more responsibility to the employee who has more time and energy to devote to the job. And of course, parents who don't let children interfere with work should not be discriminated against.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jesus was child-free.
Posted by: Artkansas on Jan 10, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing I noticed that was not mentioned, is that those who are child-free are the only ones not contributing to the population bomb. Of course, children are necessary, civilization would quickly come to a halt without them, but the world's population is skyrocketing, to a toxic degree.

The article mentioned that those most likely to be child-free are well-educated professionals. It's ironic because to progress as a society, these are the people we need more of.

As was mentioned, there is a wide range of child free. Some of those quoted sound like officious child haters. The step mother mentioned certainly fits my definition of "child free". She didn't supply sperm or egg to create a child. She did not notch the population up. That she is involved in a family is fine.

I'm kid-free myself. Mostly because the woman I chose to marry, proved to be infertile. I had to choose between my desire for children and the vows I had taken. But even before we knew that, there was debate on the pros and cons of the issue. After it was proven, we both ended up finding ways to get our kid-fixes, volunteering at the Boys and Girls Club or working with Soap Box Derby.

It's a strange issue, because it cannot be yes or no. We must have kids to continue. But we cannot have too many. Deciding who has how many should never be up the the government as it is in China. But somehow the right balance must be found. I'm not sure if our society has a good mechanism for doing that.

I think that our culture is way too child-centric as if bible based "family values" is the only way to organize things. Those, like Jesus, who choose not to have children, should be honored too.

I think groups like No-Kidding miss the big picture. If they are helping the child-free, they should work to provide more for old-age. Medical insurance, burial insurance etc. One of the real benefits of children for people is that as you get older, you are more likely to have people who care for you and are willing to help you, if you have raised them. Until a similar structure is formed for the child-free, fewer people will opt for the benefits of helping stop overpopulation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jesus was child-free. Posted by: deejayvee
» RE: Jesus was child-free. Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Jesus was child-free. Posted by: YogiBear
Non-nuclear
Posted by: cielo on Jan 10, 2006 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have wondered if under other circumstances I would have chosen to have a child despite programming that encouraged me to get my tubes tied (a decision that after 7 years I still feel very good about). I see US culture as exceptionally child-unfriendly. Lack of adequate public space in many places has made childhood for many seem like a shut-in lifestyle. Private property is off-limits for those wishing to explore nature as I did as a child (though I was chased off property too on numerous occassions), while TV, computers, and video games control and pollute young minds. In Europe and Latin America, with ample public spaces and vibrant street life, I have witnessed far more families in the streets, and young children out on their own, non-chaperoned. If the built-environment itself cared more about children than corporate need for sprawl I might have been more inclined to have wanted to bring a child into the world.

But the most basic reason I feel it is so difficult for parents and children, even beyond horrid healthcare, is the expectation for one or two parents to take on all the burden of childraising. My mother-friend from Africa tells me how being a mother in her culture was easiest in the early years, because extended family and friends shared so much of what was not viewed as a "burden" while the mother was given ample time on her own. Here, all of the responsibility is placed on parents or babysitters and day care people they must pay, and so the child can more easily become a burden. And now we are at a point where even the "nuclear" family is becoming obsolete.

Maybe in a different society even those of us who don't feel inclined to have children might make the choice, but unfortunately one of the toughest jobs just keeps getting tougher. But as a "child-free" person, I'd rather help out parents I know when I can and be a positive influence on their little ones than feel "persecuted" and spend time on another "movement" of those who have time enough for such pursuits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Non-nuclear Posted by: kittynboi
» Bad! Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Bad! Posted by: kittynboi
» RE: Bad! Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Bad! Posted by: marymad
Giving up on oneself
Posted by: Sigil on Jan 10, 2006 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It really burns me that our culture has set forth the notion that parenthood somehow legitimizes giving up on oneself. That (in a perfect world, where she has a choice about it) a woman with talent and imagination can decide that she is tired of making an effort-- that she would rather just assert the sanctity of her biological imperitave and force the world to take care of her. Force the world to smile as we tolerate the burden both her absence and her progeny creates.

Until reading this article I had no idea there was such a box to be put into as "childfree"-- but it certainly suits my point of view. My wife and I don't want kids, in spite of the fact that most people we know inisist we would make excellent parents. But our children are our careers, and they require just as much patience and nurturing as any drooling, clubfooted, noisy little precious toddler.

To those who paint a picture of people like us being selfish or anti-social, I would point out that by choosing to not procreate is actually enhancing our contribution to society by a) not diluting our efforts between trying to earn a living and properly raise a human being, b) not creating yet another drain on our world's resources for the simple & arrogant reason that the fruit of my loins is somehow the most important mouth to feed out of 5 billion people, and c) not retreating from the world to create some foul-smelling spawn hive; to actually go out and interact with interesting and creative people.

I have seen too many of my vital, intelligent, creative friends succumb to this pressure and turn away from the beauty they could have created in favor of inulging themselves in narcisstic self-propogation... As if letting their biology run amok and living with the consequences took more discipline than living a rational and contemplative life and making contributions to the world that mattered to somebody other than myself.

And the icing on the cake is that this gender role is considered the trump card for many women. You can see if in how they conduct their lives, that sense that oh well, if this doesn't work out, I can always get preggers and not have to worry about it anymore. Oops! Sorry, guess you'll have to take care of me now, sucker! A fine way to express a desire for equality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Giving up on oneself Posted by: owleyes
why is this a controversial issue?
Posted by: owleyes on Jan 10, 2006 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some people want kids. Others don't. Why can't that just be alright? Why is it something people want to fight about?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: why is this a controversial issue? Posted by: cominginsecond