Like It Is

Let’s leave aside the fact that I consider childfree families to be families as well. And the fact that I’m unimpressed with the oft trotted out (and rather tired) “reason” that anyone having children these days is “building the future” and “making the next brood of taxpayers who will “support all of us non-parents in our old age.”

The fact is, regardless of whether the child comes about by accident or by design, people with children get priority, both inside and outside the workplace.

This BBC article has hit the nail on the head with “the family” being one of the many sacred cows that everyone’s afraid to challenge – the assumption that people with children get options that non-childed don’t get a sniff of.

Recently a colleague mentioned he was going on six weeks paternity leave in a couple of weeks to enable his wife go back to work after having their first child. Since our company offers maternity and paternity leave it would be daft of him not to take advantage of it. But I couldn’t help thinking that once more “family friendly” meant that only parents with kids really get the friendliness and benefits such as time off to spend with the children. Childfree people, meanwhile, have to justify every single absence.

Politicians can hardly wait to grab the first baby and kiss it, while promising to deliver to “families” by which they mean people with children only. Families supposedly win more votes, make politicians appear more caring – at least to those who want to be taken in by the lie. As soon as they’re voted in of course they do the same old things as the last lot. And they still manage to see that people with children get preferential treatment.

As the BBC article states, politicians and corporations may need to start rethinking – and soon. For one thing, says the article:

“the patterns of how people live are changing. People living in married couples, for centuries the backbone of traditional family structures, will in the not-too-distant future almost be matched in numbers by single-person households.”

In the UK, the number of people who live alone has has doubled since the 1970’s according to the same article, while the number of people getting married has almost halved.

Where some fast thinking needs to be done is in the workplace. Flexible working should apply to everyone, not just those with children. If a parent is allowed to bunk off and go to hockey matches, school plays and other child-related activities - without having to make up time or have any fewer holidays then why isn’t the same latitude extended to those without kids?

In addition, jobs are held open for those on maternity leave (at least in most forward looking companies in the UK and Canada). Yet the number of women graduates who never have children is set to reach one in three, says the article.

When we hear sound-bites like “hard-working families” it’s not referring to the hardworking singles or childfree people (who can’t simply bunk off, not having the excuse of being childed or pregnant– or both. Yet the childfree work just as hard, if not harder, pay considerably more tax (direct and indirect). In fact, childfree people are working hard to support the rights of those who’ve decided to have children. The amount of tax I pay each year tells me that. And the harder we work, the more tax we pay – with no recognition.

Oh, and anyone who’s waiting on a government pension to support them is in for a rude shock. If you’re not socking money away right now, be prepared to live at poverty levels if you’re waiting for a pension by the time we retire. So much for breeding the new supporting tax payers (who by the way might not get jobs anyway, but that’s another story).

We’re told the childed are breeding the future…whose? And aren’t these new additions going to be using more of the world’s resources?

More importantly, while not asking for benefits for the childfree, equal recognition for time off to do the things that matter to us (and is not related to kids or caring) is long overdue.

Useful tax breaks wouldn’t go amiss either.

Your comments?

Why Do Families Always Come First

Technorati Tags: childfree

How can I keep this short and sweet? I could begin by simply stating how nice it would be to see this statement –

“Childfree. No Justification Required.” But, I fear, that’s a long way away. But it is posts like this that make me sorely wish that that day was Today. Or sometime soon at any rate.

The skinny? Simple. If you’re childfree you don’t need to provide a “good reason” for those who simply don’t get why you’re childfree, but who immediately seem to lose no time to assign possible list of “So-called legitimate reasons not to have children.” According to this post:

Finances? Check.

Medical Issues? Check.

Demanding career? Hang on… erm. Yeah. OK. Check.

Don’t have any mothering in you? Hmmm… Check. I think this must include not having the mythical maternal instinct or a tyrannical biological clock.

Just don’t want kids? Pass.

Don’t like kids? Pass – again.

Now, I did not see the original post when CW sent me this link. But from the post it’s obvious that yet again a childed person had seen fit to rant and vent against the childfree, got a rather unexpected reaction, backtracked and offered standard “I’m sorry if I offended… I didn’t mean to…” But note – the apology is interestingly worded… in fact it appears to only include childfree folk “who love children.”

What did I gather from the post. That yet another childed person who knows no childfree people, and probably sees fit to say that it’s ok to be childfree as long as you have a nice neat reason.

Well, here’s the thing. Some childfree people DON’T like children. Some childfree people DO like children. Some can’t tolerate them – and yes, that includes the nasty, wild out of control juves who make life a hell on earth for their parents and whoever happens to be anywhere around them. I won’t include the kids who like to beat up other kids and take their possessions (oh, they’re only 12… or maybe 14). Ah, yes, but they’re precious.

But all that’s an aside. Childfree people don’t need a reason to be childfree, regardless of whether these are assigned by uninformed childed people who can’t seem to see past their own world view.

Chances are we’ve given far more thought to it than most childed people (many of whom clearly should not be parents).

Instead of trying to make excuses for or fathom why childfree people don’t want to pro-create, why don’t childed people pay more attention to people who simply have kids for the many bingo reasons given to the childfree?

Regardless of the the many reasons that childfree people are…childfree, comments like “It’s OK not to have children if (tick the appropriate box) are pretty patronizing – to say the least.

It is OK to choose not to have children for the simple reason that… wait for it… you don’t want them.

Having children is a choice. If you’re childfree (or a fence-sitter for that matter) you should know that you do not need to justify yourself. The demands to justify reasons why you don’t have/want children come from those with children.

So you don’t understand the way some childfree people feel? Get over it. You don’t need to understand. And, as one of ToThe Ends Of The Earth’s commentators said

The choice not to have children is a personal one and not subject to be judged by the childed… or anyone else.

Thanks, but we really don’t require your permission.

And ChrisW – thanks for finding the link!

Let Me Clarify My thoughts on childfreedom

Technorati Tags: Childfree, childfree

First of all dear readers – Hello – Britgirl’s back! And I had a fabulous time in England.

There are new rules at Bella Online.  Of the Censoring kind. And several childfree members are leaving have left.

Bella Online - Married No Kids Thread

Bella Online - Married No Kids, later posts

I was informed by another childfree person of this development in the Bella Online, Married No Kids Forum. I do visit Bella Online from time to time (though I would not call myself as regular a visitor as some of the members of Married No Kids, mainly because of time). Each time I was there however I was impressed by the posts, and the open down to earth childfree discussion and conversation. And since several of my posts are linked there I get many hits on Like It Is from the MNK forum, even from articles I wrote many months ago.

Now though, that there have been “complaints” about the forum. These appear to centre on using certain words considered derogatory. “Breeder” and “it” when referring to people who have children and to children respectively.

You will have to read the post thread to get the full story – as I don’t want to present half the story. It’s not hard though to get an idea of what has happened. On one hand the moderator is considering whether she wants to carry on moderating the forum. On the other, and this is what really stopped me is that there have apparently been complaints against some of the members that post in the forum. What those complaints are about (or who they’re against) nobody is quite sure. From reading the posts it appears that those less understanding about the childfree have seen fit to complain.

Anyway, I encourage you to read through the threads… perhaps beginning with the last post. Some CF members are going to set up their own blog where they can talk and vent about childfree issues without having to watch their words.  I think this is a great idea and the way to go. The comments on the forum were extremely interesting to me.

The childfree segment of the population - and indeed of Bella Online -  are a small segment of the population - even though our numbers are growing. Yet our views are rarely recognized in society, they are all but drowned out by the loud voice of a child-crazed society that stubbornly believes that all women should be mothers, all men should be fathers and all couples should be parents. In short, pro-create or you’re nothing and you don’t matter. As one commentator said,

“we spend our lives keeping our mouths shut at work”  - true, as family friendliness doesn’t include non-childed people unless we force it.

And now, increasingly in forums and online, the childfree are having to walk on eggshells to appease those who don’t like some of things we say.

We use disclaimers… if we don’t want kids, don’t forget the disclaimer that “oh we don’t hate kids, we just don’t want our own.”

Or, “I don’t mean your kid when I’m talking about the ill-behaved juvenile who’s just beaten up a fellow citizen.” Of course not.

We now have to specify, as another poster said, if we are talking about parents that

“it’s not all parents, just the stupid ones. Hey, my best friends are parents!”

We add disclaimers like “most childfree people like kids,” which  may be true, except that there are some that, like or not DO NOT like kids. That’s their right. ( It doesn’t make someone a child-hater - or worse).  And it’s odd that those who blab about liking so much kids have no issue with the steady stream of abuse meted out towards some of them and the equally steady stream of bad parents who are unable to see beyond their own narrow and often ill-informed perspective. Did I say narrow?

Now, that in itself isn’t my problem. I understand that people want to have children and for some odd reason many women feel incomplete without children as their raison d’etre. I know many parents give less than two minutes thought to why they became parents, but I get it. And frankly, I don’t really care.

The thing is I don’t visit parenting blogs, or fertility or kiddie blogs to get a rise or to tell them how great being childfree is. So I wonder why then we have to appease those on the other side of the fence? Do we now have to watch what we say in childfree forums and online? To make childed parents who happen to stray in feel “comfortable? Play nice, folks or someone’ll get their knickers in a twist about your childfree views and expressions. Be bland, conform.  If that isn’t censorship (which is righteously denied of course) I wonder what is.

I read almost all the posts in the thread and they make fascinating reading. They were well balanced. I encourage you to read them as well.

Meanwhile,  many are leaving Married No Kids to set up their own blog it’s a loss to the forum but at least they won’t have to worry about the thought police and being told what they should and should not say and do. It seems to me that there are enough signs of creeping censorship to convince childfre-ers that MNK is no longer the place for them to do share the ups (and in particular the downs) of their childfree lives.  So, quite rightly they’re upping stakes and moving on to where they don’t have to restrict to appease.

Very sad that yet another childfree space may soon cease to be, yet I’m looking forward to even greater things from them.

Word to the wise. It’s impossible to please everyone. It just can’t be done. You are going to offend someone somewhere.  That’s life.

Your thoughts.

Note - this post has been slightly edited - (but happily, never censored)! 

One of the great things about being childfree is that my husband and I can simply decide we want to travel –and just do it. And this week that’s what I’m doing. I’m off to England for a week…. just because I want to. Although many childed people will tell me that having their kids is well worth the sacrifice of spontaneity, and that a smile from their child makes up for everything;that I am missing out on so many things – that’s their truth, not mine. I see more childed people using the term “childfree” to describe a break from the children, whether that’s a coffee break at Starbucks or a holiday without the kids. Interesting to see how the term is being somewhat hijacked, since being childfree has to do with deciding not to have kids in the first place… rather than trying to escape from them one they’ve arrived Even more parents tell me they wish they could just have some time away from the kids… just for themselves… and that I’m lucky to be able to take off when I want to.

It isn’t really luck. It’s looking ahead, listening learning, considering and then deciding what’s best for my life and taking decisions and actions. Different decisions and actions to the mainstream, but isn’t that what choice is all about? I don’t call that luck. I call it sensible. If I had children I knew there would be certain things that would have to take a back seat for a very long time. So I made my choice and every day I’m happy that I made the right choice.

As childfree men and women, regardless of whether or not we like children or have them in our lives through work or family interaction, we are bombarded by the message that to have children is to live. To have many of them exalts you to even loftier levels, therefore breeding kids is what it’s (aka life) is all about. While our close circle of supportive friends may not repeat that message quite as much (since they may have given up faced with our refusal to buy into it, society as a whole subscribes to this mantra big time. From cradle to grave, your every need is marketed to – if you are a parent. If you are childfree it’s a different story – and that’s a point I’ll be touching on in another post.

So, while some try to convince me think I’ve made a choice I couldn’t possibly be happy with I like to remind myself to the thankful for my blessings. I hear many parents complain. About

• How hard parenting is
• How expensive it is to have children
• How expensive child-care is
• How friends don’t step forward to baby sit
• How they can no longer do things together
• How they need to get the latest (fill in the blank) for the kids because (fill in the blank)
• How they can’t spend enough time with kids because of work…
• How fast the children grow
• How….( fill the blank – again)

You get the picture.

Yes, bringing up kids is hard. Stuff has to go. I got it then, and I get it now. Are the above true? Yes, they are. But since it was their choice to have them, why do parents complain? Children take everything you have – and more – which is part of the reason I didn’t want to have any. O.K, I know that complaining is often a way of life, we all do it. But when it comes to my life, particularly when I have some person going on about how life would not be worth living if they didn’t have their kids (yawn) and how I’ve missed out on the most life changing experience every woman wants…. (oh, please) – I think otherwise.

So, here are some of the reasons I am happy I’m childfree. It’s a list I made some time back and it rings true still. I would guess that many childfree people can identify with at least a few of these.

• More energy to nurture my marriage
• A closer and more intimate relationship with my husband
• More time and energy for my career
• Spontaneity
• Freedom
• More time and energy to devote to any other endeavor I choose to
• More money with which to live more comfortably
• More disposable income
• Greater choice as to where we live and work (read no commute)
• More money and time to travel
• More time and energy for to personal/professional development
• More time and energy to volunteer
• And a whole lot more…

All the above are important to me. And I’m sure other childfree people will have their own reasons. The most important though is that I’m happy with my choice because it’s right for me. It really matters not what others think.

Since we are so often told by the childed that our lives are sad (as opposed to their happy ones), it’s well worth remembering the above.

When you’re happily childfree and people insist on telling you you’re going to be unhappy, counting and living the reasons why you’re happy is a great way to tune them out. They don’t know what they’re talking about. You, on the other hand do.

So, enjoy your life. When people tell me I need kids to be happy I know it’s nonsense. If you’re still getting the pressure from others or you’ve just discovered the world of being childfree (and yes, that you DO have a choice) you might be tempted to believe the myth.

No need. You don’t have to have kids to live a happy, fulfilled, adventurous and thankful life. Having children is a choice.

Back in a week or so folks – but I will be checking in. Have a great week!

Technorati Tags: childfree, childfree

Purple Women And Friends has closed its doors for the last time. I was sad to read this. The online space will be all the poorer for it, but I can completely understand Teri’s reasons… the sheer effort to keep the high quality she had and to make it a place where childfree people could converse is considerable. And, when you’re working full time, it’s a jolly sight harder. I should know.

Thanks for all your effort and contributions to the childfree universe Teri – and best wishes in your future endeavours!

Technorati Tags: childfree

A childfree reader of Like It Is from Australia sent me this interesting story (thank you V!) and I wanted to share it with you all. The story is from Australia’s Daily Telegraph, but the actual link has disappeared (or goes to a non-standard web page) so I am posting the story and some of the comments here. Some of the comments are just spot on. Enjoy.

“RETAIL giant Gerry Harvey said it was no secret that couples were splurging the baby bonus on televisions, alcohol and holidays.

The Harvey Norman boss said he had seen young families spending their baby bonus on wide-screen television and computers.

“They’ve called it the plasma bonus, haven’t they? They spend it on everything,” Mr Harvey told The Daily Telegraph yesterday. The revelation from one of Australia’s biggest retailers comes as the Federal Government considers dramatic changes to the baby bonus scheme, effectively cancelling out the lump-sum arrangements currently in place.

One proposal being examined would include 14 weeks’ paid maternity leave rather than a $4133 payment to new mothers, which is due to rise to $5000 on July 1 this year.

Mr Harvey said there would be a small ripple effect felt along a number of retail industries if the lump sum system was changed.” If they pulled it, it would have a very minimal effect on Harvey Norman, but it goes across every sector from alcohol to food to entertainment and overseas trips. It goes to everything,” he said.

ACTU president Sharan Burrow this week said the new incentives being examined by the Rudd Government would include a paid maternity leave scheme. She said it would be delivered in weekly or fortnightly instalments rather than in a lump sum that could be spent on luxury goods.

A 14-week scheme paid at the minimum wage rate would give women $7310.

The Government has asked the Productivity Commission to inquire into the structure of a Government-funded scheme.The baby bonus was introduced by John Howard in 2004 to help parents meet some of the initial costs associated with having a baby.”

Source: The Daily Telegraph

Here are some of the comments. As there were 160 of them I thought a selection would suffice – I’m sure you’ll have no trouble adding your own. It doesn’t look as if Australia has paid maternity leave. But it looks like getting paid to reproduce is the key to a spending spree anyway. And taxpayers, among whom are the childfree of course get nothing – while they have to contribute not only to peoples need to have kids, but to their apparent willingness to splurge.

I like this comment by Pissed off myself: “What I want to know is - where is MY BONUS for not having children and bludging off the rest of the country !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Seems that being self-sufficient counts for nothing these days. Except to be a never ending resource for funding the desires of others – including, it seems luxury goods.Having kids could be quite the cash cow. And the funny thing is that these childed will be the ones who turn around and tell us we are leeching off society because we’re not breeding (and creating more little taxpayers – presumably to fund our old age. We considered the cost of having children.  Yet here we are with people who clearly can’t afford kids but still have them and need government support  and the childfree are funding them instead??!

Comments from the article:

“Rebecca from Caufield, the Government (ie, the taxpayer) does not owe you because you want to have kids. Your situation is far from unique and everyone else seems to get buy. Either means test it and give it in the from of fortnightly payments, or put it into free public education.

Posted by: Andrew of Engadine 1:25pm today

Thanks for your comments Sara. Once again I ask why I should pay for your need to be a mum? To be frank, I don’t care about your needs. Yes, I am selfish, so what? So is your belief that I should fund your need to reproduce. I dont see the correlation between that and highways, as one benefits the society in whole and the other just satisfies your dream of being a mummy. Get over yourself. Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: childfree

Bookmark this! These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

So, yesterday was Earth Hour. There was a lot of build up to switching off the lights across the globe for an hour as part of the drive to look at how live in a more eco-friendly way. Use less of the earth’s resources, reduce carbon emissions etc. And after a while it began to rather irritate me.

I am all for looking at ways of living responsibly so that there’s less pressure on the planet’s resources.

However, as a childfree person, I couldn’t help thinking that many are missing the point or at least a crucial part of the point. While everyone is smugly patting themselves on the back for turning out the lights for an hour, it’s really not going to do a whole lot for the environment – except of course for that one hour… when predictably consumption dropped. Of course, everyone knows that, and it’s supposed to be more about to raising awareness of what people can do.

Which is all well and good.

Except, as I said to my hubs yesterday, everyone’s going to go right back to their usual way of living. And no-one has yet mentioned one of the most effective ways of reducing our footprint… have fewer children. Fewer children means less people, means less need to use resources, means – hey less pressure on the earth’s resources! Fancy that!

I can almost hear the scream of indignation from the pro-natalist (green) corner (yawn) “Whaddya mean have fewer children?? Who’s going to pay for your old age, blah, blah…” “Are you nuts? We NEED more children to… well, to ensure we (and our ways) continue. For ever! We wanna leave our name behind when we go. Besides, we LIKE having kids!

Sure you like having kids. The more the merrier. And I said having fewer, not none at all (although having none at all because of your convictions is a good thing, regardless of what others say). Having kids is mercilessly marketed at everyone from cradle to grave as The Thing To Do To Be Accepted Into Civilized Society. Everyone does it. And if they don’t, life will not be particularly easy for them. Not having kids is Most Definitely Frowned Upon. Ask for a permanent form of contraception and you’ll be sent off to… go have a kid or two first.

So, while Earth Hour is a nice little feel-good blip on the eco-monitor, it’s going to do very little unless people make some big choices in the face of the environmental challenges, and basically put their proverbial money where their mouth is.

Having kid(s) puts pressure on the environment like nothing else. Consumption in all its forms increases exponentially. Getting the kids to school? Well, still have to drive that people carrier, or that SUV, because we can’t let them take transit to school. And, anyway, since most families live out in the ‘burbs (have kids, so got to get a bigger house) there often isn’t much in the way of transit, everything is made for cars.

And then the family owns 2 cars. Thinking about this reminds me that the number of ads for cars and car related products seems to be on the rise. But maybe that’s just me.

When the kids are young, they need diapers – among lots and lots of other things. Diapers don’t degrade biologically as far as I’m aware (or maybe they do) so off to the landfill they go. I’m sure you can think of many more things that result in increased usage of the earth’s scare resources.

Though not confined to childed families, I still see cars commuting into town, with ONE driver. I hear people telling me they’re off to have their 2^nd, or third child because they love having babies and love being pregnant and want a big family. And of course, I hear the folk who tell me I should be doing the same, ‘cos I’ll regret it.

Presumably they aren’t among those that took part in earth hour, because if they were there’s more than a wee bit of hypocrisy there. Having kids is directly incompatible with saving the planet… that’s if you really want to conserve resources. And should some believe that doing their little recycling bit cuts it… it doesn’t. You’re using more, so you recycle more.

Apart from giving a nice little “feel good cos I’m doing my bit for the environment” glow, it’s next to nothing. Most of the recycling ends up in the general garbage anyway. And I don’t even want to think about all the resources that families with children use up and will continue to use.

As a childfree family, my hubs and I do not own a car. We take transit, walk or take cabs. We live in a condo and have no need of a three-bedroom house which needs extra resources to maintain. We buy energy-efficient appliances. We still have to pay all the extra “green taxes” that are creeping in from air travel to anything else you care to name. But while we do what we can we’re not eco-warriors. Some of the worst so-called “environmentals” are those who come along with kids in tow, urging us to “save the environment” while in the same breath informing us that we should be parenting, and shouldn’t be “going against nature.”

Meanwhile, they also want to make it even easier for people to have more kids at the expense of those who choose not to do so.

While I am not childfree specifically to save the environment and we do what we can, let’s not forget that there are many who’ve decided to be childfree because of environmental concerns. Concerned about over population, they’ve decided the planet does not need more human beings (who, lest we forget, do nothing but consume). Those who decide not to have kids, even for logical reasons like being eco-friendly are pilloried, as the article below clearly shows.

Earth Hour. Nice idea. Maybe it will make a point. For a while. Everyone’s reminiscing about how wonderful it was by candlelight and patting themselves on the back because they “did their bit for an hour” to save the planet or reduce climate change. Who’s kidding who here? A childed family can never, as has been pointed out, be as eco-friendly as a childfree one.

Having fewer (or no) children is a logical way,perhaps the logical way, to reduce our footprint on the environment. But no-one dares to mention it… except the childfree.

Don’t you think it’s time for “eco-folk” to deal with the great big elephant in the room? Or is it only childfree people that get it?

Kids are more important than being green by Britgirl.

Going green by sterilization by Mel

Babies are not eco-friendly, so we’re not having any

How to make every hour earth hour

Technorati Tags: childfree, childfree

Not for the first time have I wondered why the thought of anyone being childfree, wanting to remain childfree or thinking of not having children evokes such a violent reaction in certain circles. See example of last article as case in point. As many have related, when childfree people say tell people of their happy status, it’s enough to make some childed people rear back in in disbelief, righteous indignation, criticism and umbrage.

Why?

A simple expression of difference, such as “No I don’t want kids” seems to be worse than saying “ I’m an axe-murderer.”

Terrible things happen to many kids at the hands of their carers and parent (this is no longer rare, check out the site Parents Behaving Badly) yet all these seemingly pale into significance beside a women or man declaring that they’ve declined to re-produce. And that they are childfree. Without any further thought (and with no brain engagement) the expression of a life choice becomes equal to “ Selfish, child-hater.”

Totally bizarre.

The worst people can become parents. They may not be able to care for their kids. But it’s always o.k. They are never questioned. Never asked “why are you having kids, or why they don’t stop having kids… seeing that the last four of them are all by different fathers. Planning, plotting and lying to unsuspecting – or unwilling – spouses are par for the course – if a baby is the intended outcome.

But say you’re childfree? Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: childfree, childfree

Those “evil” Childfree people

And NFP calls this an apology?!

Thanks to Christopher W for finding this link.

Folks, I thought you’d be interested in knowing that, in an effort to “apologize” Natural Family Planning seems to have completely lost the plot. And she’s still on her bender about the Childfree.

Here’s a quote from her latest post:

“First, I’m going to say something long overdue, knowing full well this doesn’t mean much to those embittered by my words and clinching their own acrimony.”

In fact they don’t mean anything at all, because – surprise, surprise – they aren’t an apology. An apology doesn’t go on to insult the people you’re supposedly “apologizing” to. And “embittered by her words?” Self-delusion is a sad thing.

“I never meant for my post to be a personal indictment on the souls of readers.”

Of course she did! She still does.

But here’s the thing. It doesn’t matter what she meant. Who cares? The fact is she summarily dismisses a whole group of people as evil, simply because she disagrees with the way they’ve decided to live their lives. the fact that they are childfree and like it.

As for personal indictment… talk about flattering oneself….

The rest of her ugly and ill-informed, fundamentalist post is of course on NFP’s blog. You can read it if you like – she calls it her “truth” – but it’s just as ignorant as her previous post – maybe worse because she’s so obviously wriggling on her self-imposed hook. Even if she did consult a dictionary rather carefully to check she had just the right number of words to verbally deride the “evil childfree people” who, well, who don’t want to have kids. (How dare they?)

This person calls herself a Christian??! Well, at least she didn’t quote (a child-free, childfree) Jesus, preferring instead to fall back on Freud and Gandhi!

It took all these weeks for her to come up with a load of claptrap that only makes her look sillier than ever.

Discernment ? Not a chance.

NFP Works – Intolerance is intolerance – no matter how many meaningless “apologetic” bleatings you wrap it with. Save your apologizing… it’s showing your hypocrisy, and the funny thing is the only person you’re fooling is you.

That you take all this time worrying about our reproduction - something that’s none of your business AND which you can do nothing about - is very sad. But guess what? We’re used to fundies… you’re not the first and you certainly won’t be the last.

And we’re still not having kids.

I agree with ChrisW – childfree people have no need to affirm or prove anything to this woman or people like her. And this fact is also true…nothing anyone says to this woman will make a blind bit of difference…so have a laugh at her post, but save your energy for… not making babies!

Technorati Tags: Childfree, childfree

Of all the bingoes that the Childfree get one of the most patronizing ones is the variation on this one:

“Oh, you’ll change your mind when…”

It’s usually pronounced by strangers and non-strangers alike, completely disregarding any other possible outcome. There are many translations of the “you’ll change your mind” bingo. Whether you’re going to change your mind because your partner/husband wants kids (and won’t commit without some promise that he’s got a chance of being a Daddy) or because you’re suddenly going to be struck with “baby fever” (and feel that life is simply not worth living if you don’t have an infant to make you feel “whole” ) the implication is the same.

The implication is that your childfree decision isn’t worth a bean in the face of your supposed directive to procreate. And, as far as they (the childed) are concerned, you don’t know your own mind. Just wait until the old biological clock kicks in they say. The odd thing is, it’s not as if as a childfree person I go around announcing my childfree status. Unlike parents and parents to be, who never lose an opportunity to tell anyone and everyone that they have kids, expect to have kids or are about to have kids. It’s usually in the process of informing the world of their childed (or about to be childed) state, that they decide to ask the childfree person about their intentions.

When they get the answer “I’m childfree” or “I don’t want /decided not to have children” or similar, it’s clear they neither expect it, nor like it. Whether they like it or not isn’t my issue. What’s clear is that they automatically assume that a choice to be childfree isn’t as valid as their own choice to procreate. In other words, they do not respect the decision.

Yet, we are expected to not only respect their choice to have kids, but to say nothing that doesn’t completely support it. Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: childfree