Childfree? It All Boils Down To Materialism and Selfishness
29 03 2007So says Lydia Lovric, journalist and broadcaster writing for the Vancouver Province.
I’m not entirely sure which part of Lydia Lovric’s “let’s play at journalism” article disgusted me the most.
Was it that Ms Lovric was calling childfree people selfish and materialistic? Well, she isn’t the first uninformed person to do so and she certainly will not be the last. If you’re childfree, being called all manner of interesting names and being bingo-ed becomes par for the course. And we can give as good as we get; being childfree is not for the spineless or the faint-hearted. However I don’t think it was that – although her piece was chock-full of bingoes.
Was it the way Ms Lovric managed to take a serious statistical fact – namely the findings of the 2006 Census in Canada -and turn it into the whiny stereotypical bleating of an obsessed m…person?
Or was it the her fear that – shock! horror!! heavens above!!! Canada is in danger of population growth by immigration – never mind that Canada has already grown by means of immigration, welcomes several hundred thousand immigrants a year and is one of the best places to live in the world? I should know, since this Brit immigrated here six years ago. Ms Lovric for some reason seems to fear the growth by immigration and wants Canadians to get on with their breeding duties pronto, instead of gallivanting around getting on with their lives the way they want to.
But that wasn’t really what disgusted me. Nor was it her question:
“What do you think will happen to the property values should the (native?) population decline. Of course, we wouldn’t want the wrong type of people (immigrants?) moving into our cute suburbia neighbourhood now, would we? We want folk just like us, total breeders with 2.5 going on 3 kids to keep those property prices up where they should be. She kind of contradicts herself somewhat, since she used said immigrants to later illustrate her points as why a lack of financial stability or affordability is simply not good enough a reason not to breed. Immigrants, she says have no problem feeding their offspring on next to nothing.
Nope. It was this line…
“For many, it all boils down to materialism and selfishness.”
And this: “No doubt many of these couples [shunning parenthood] do ultimately regret their decision to postpone parenthood…as evidenced by the boom in fertility treatments… and adoption…” (italics mine).
I actually started laughing at this point.
Who is this “journalist” making such statements, with nary a reference or back up in sight to support her hyperbolic “claims”? Firstly, “no doubt?” Where is her proof, if there is no doubt? Secondly, the decision to be childfree is completely different to postponing parenthood. Ms Lovric wavers between the two, further showing that she has no idea what she is talking about.
I’d read the nonsensical “nothing better than getting butterfly kisses from your baby” blather. My thoughts on that particular idiotic gush-fest are in my earlier post. Maybe thinking about how she was going to declare that motherhood above all and for all made her forget to bother to do any research.
I thought journalists reasoned. Researched. Checked facts. Balanced arguments. Listed sources or at least referred to sources – especially when they quote surveys and figures.
Is that not basic?
While we’re talking surveys and the like, perhaps Ms Lovric should check out the Ann Landers survey which gives at least some indication that far from childfree couples regretting their decision to remain childfree, some parents actually regret having children. 70% of them, this survey showed.
Lovric’s response to Christine (a childfree woman who was politely attempting to inform her that the childfree choice was just as important as her own and that people do have reasons for their choices which should be respected as such) was frankly as arrogant as it was offensive, tossing aside that there could be any reason not to have children, and going completely off-topic to boot!
Word to Ms Lovric - being hacked off at childfree couples is no excuse for flimsy, lazy “journalism.”
If taking the time to think about whether breeding is for me makes me selfish, then cool. It’s my life. I’m not here to breed, nor to find my reason for being in a child. I don’t need to. And I am, as are my readers, very happy being childfree.
Rather than waiting for indentured servants to pay my pension (which for most women at least will be precious little) I am making my own investment plans so I can retire in comfort.
In the meantime I love travelling and doing all the things I am enabled to do because I’m childfree. No brats to consider, no “butterfly kisses” to crave, no little person to dictate my life.
Freedom is wonderful. And life, as they say, is not only good. It’s bloody great.
Lydia Lovric thinks childfree people are selfish for not having kids
A great response to Lydia Lovric’s article on the selfishness of childfree people
An idiot’s ramblings and a great response
Technorati Tags: Lydia Lovric, childfree, immigration, Brit, childfree choice
so, we are selfish..
we dont need mcmansions, we dont need suv’s, we dont need the new fashionable diaper, or fashionable baby clothes. children just take until they start to earn at 18 or 21 or even later.
compare the needs of a child, and an adult. most cf adults will save up for things, most parents buy on credit.
http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art1235.asp
this is an ok article
**The true meaning of selfishness must be considered in evaluating whether or not the childfree are selfish. The definition of selfishness includes a willful disregard for the well-being of others. But the childfree have carefully considered the life that their potential offspring might lead before making their decision to not raise children. By choosing not to bring children into a home that may have too little time, money, or interest to raise a child properly, these folks are not demonstrating selfishness. Their decision is based on concern for the happiness and welfare of everyone, including their possible progeny, family, friends, and communities.**
I agree with mercurior about the childfree selfishness business. Those who choose to be childfree are making an informed decision to not bring a child they know they can’t properly provide for into the world. If anything the childfree are unselfish in thinking of what’s best for a child not yet even conceived.
Sloppy journalism, to be sure.
I am childfree by reality- it was not truly by choice, since my husband and I have tried for about 7 years to conceive naturally, and never made it past a first-month pregnancy. I agreed to a few tests, and nothing came back. There seems to be no reason, but hey, that’s life. Like Mick once sang, you can’t always get what you want. I could have gone down the road of a battery of further tests, in vitro, etc… but I chose to just accept that maybe things aren’t meant to be. We haven’t seriously considered adoption, so maybe we aren’t all that determined to push what is meant to happen to us. Some of my school friends with children envy us our freedom to travel and just do what we like, and then, when we really have a more serious conversation, we both realise that it’s not better or worse, it’s just different. There are advantages and disadvantages to both lifestyles, and why people like Lovric can’t accept that differences are what makes the world interesting is beyond me.
On a more environmental note, there are enough humans around. I don’t need to make myself immortal by adding another- I can just teach and influence the next generation by proxy.
mercurior - well said, great points. And interesting link, thank you. I think this part of the bellaonline article is one of the ones that struck a chord:
Jannette - It’s very interesting when one turns myths on their heads by challenging them isn’t it? Beggars belief that a well thought out choice can be called selfish, whereas thoughtlessly popping out kids “just because” is celebrated. Ass-backwards for sure.
AM - Thank you for sharing this. I know very few couples who even consider acceptance that maybe it wasn’t meant to happen. Most seem to automatically head down the in-vitro route and only after failing and great financial and emotional expense to they consider any other option. Perhaps being unable to live with being “different”The fertility industry (and everyone else) is only to ready to sell them the fantasy.
Oh, and I loved the environmental note. Yep, there are more than enough humans around! ;-). And now I have Mick’s song going round and round in my head.
The mention of a “cute suburbia neighbourhood” made me think that’s one the reasons I enjoy being childfree. We can live where we want and it doesn’t have to be near good schools or in the middle of a sea of houses that all look the same with no cafes or shops for miles.
And I do mean shops. That’s another reason — discretionary income. I’ll freely admit that I’m regular consumer but I’m not paying for a child’s university education and I need more shoes…and bags….and a weekend in New York…;-)
ohhh….I’m so selfish…..
To Britgirl and all who’ve read and commented: Christine and I would like to thank all of you for being supportive of her effort to speak her side to this “Journalist”. I have only this to say in closing…
… When Christine first had shown me the article, I read it and thought Lydia was just a “opinion columnist”, being paid to write her opinion on topics. When I went to her site, I realized I was right! I did notice on her home site that it does say just that, along with “controversial” and “fearless commentator”. Well, she’s certainly fearless in the regard to making fuzzy claims and pawning them off as literal fact. If she wants to call that “journalism”, spewing out baseless “facts” (or not backing them up), I’ll give it an alteration: “Journaljizzm”.
My advice to her, if I were allowed to give it, would be to stick to her opinions and don’t dress them up to be facts that everyone in their right minds should know. After all… what do we know? Were just selfish people who don’t want kids.
Newsflash to Lovric: Everyone has needs. Some people have different needs than others.
Again, thanks to all of you.
unfortunatly the journo spin, is getting more and more mainstream, and one sided as well, you hear a lot about the global warming brigade, but not much about the people who say hang on its not as simple as that..
one sided journalism, in reality journalism should be about the facts, not feelings, give evidence (from the latin that which is seen), yes put your own slant on it, but also be prepared to put the opposite view as well.
there are always 2 sides to a subject, to just listen to one does you a disservice. if she put this is my opinion, and should only be taken as such that would be ok, but as chris said dressing up opinions as facts (and its done in so many areas now), sets a bad precedence.
Chris - First of all, my thanks to you and Christine for allowing me to share both her letter and Ms Lovric’s response. The discussion it’s generated has been great. And of course, it saved me from firing off my own missive to the woman. It was much better to share it here.
Certainly gives Journalism a whole new meaning. Her opinion dressed up as fact was just what this “journalist” was touting. Any quality newspaper editor would have at least asked her to back up her “article” with facts.
mercurior - I’m pretty convinced whatever she is, she isn’t a journalist. More an opinion columnist as Chris said, calling herself a journalist.
sadly the journalism scene is deteriorating, no one knows how to write properly anymore. Everyones just saying what they want to say, ignoring facts and using journalism as a means to get their rants or misinformed opinions out into the world.