Like It Is

One of the most misunderstood impressions of childfree people (or simply people who do choose not to have kids) is that they don’t like children at all in any way shape or form. While there are those who don’t like kids; in fact some who can’t stand them, “childfree” does not translate to child-hate. All it means is the person who is childfree has a choice not to have children. Many childfree people like children and have children in their lives from time to time, either through being an aunt, uncle or involvement with children through work, volunteering, or via charities.
For myself, through a charity, I support a child in South Africa. It isn’t something I necessarily throw into the conversation but it is relevant to what I wanted to say in this article. While I have no intention of having children, I consider I have been blessed with such a rich life that supporting a child who has a lot less than I do gives me a lot of pleasure, plus it’s one of my ways of giving back. I’d actually love to do more and it’s one of my goals for the future. I’m sure there are many childfree people who support kids in other ways.

When I see my friends who have young kids I’m quite happy to play with them… for a limited period. It’s great because a) my friends don’t push them on me and don’t bingo me, and b) I get to give them back post haste and their parents don’t suddenly take it personally.

What really gets on my nerves is kids in the workplace. Especially babies. Now, I like my colleagues. I really do. But some of them don’t seem to understand that bring their 3 month-old baby into the cubicle farm is disruptive to say the least. Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: childfree, childfree

If you read my last post, you’ll be well aware of the conversation about the term Childfree. The meaning of the term is not in question, and what it describes (a person who has chosen not to have children) isn’t in question either. And the conversation on that thread isn’t over by any means, so if you have a comment, add it to the very thought-provoking ones on that thread.

From the comments so far, most of us are happy with the term “childfree”, feeling it correctly and accurately describes their choice and decision to be childfree. Some of us though, while childfree will do, it’s almost as if because there isn’t another term to describe us, it’ll have to do. We use the term childfree reluctantly, if at all, and would love another term that was more positive.

One of the points that really struck me though is this one. It’s the fact that “childfree” puts the focus on what we are not. Not a big deal, you might say, except when you consider that it takes its entire reference from from the word “child” – the default state – in a way few other terms do when they describe. I guess the question I can’t get away from is… if people have chosen not to have children, then why refer to children in how we refer to them? (and by them I mean ourselves). Even people who do have children are called… parents. Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: Childfree

Since one of my readers (and right now I can’t remember if it was Phoena, or CFSince6 or Kat or Strawberry… or someone else) said this I haven’t been able to dislodge the thought from my head. I will find the comment, but it’s late right now and I just want to post this up.

Hopefully, you know who you are and you’ll find it before I do (hint, hint).

What was it one of my readers said? It was that they don’t understand why, being so decided about not having kids, she has to be defined in reference to children. Exactly why are we called “childfree”? OK there is some history there, the term was coined several years ago, partly in response to the term “childless.”

Of the two terms, I certainly prefer the term “childfree” no question. But that statement has had me thinking. My thoughts include asking myself – Well, what do I feel about being called childfree? I never questioned it until my fellow childfree reader voiced her thoughts and then, my thought was – it’s true. We take our reference point from children – as in we don’t have them. So, what should we be called instead – if anything?

We’re still trying to make our voices heard in a very pro-natal world. Does being called childfree help or hinder? And what about those of us without children who have never even heard of the term? Is it right to upset the apple-cart so to speak? I am not disturbed by the term childfree. Even though it’s still misunderstood it’s still a term that I happily use. But the question did get me thinking… it IS in reference to children. Wouldn’t it be great if we had a totally independent name… like… hmm…like?

As a childfree person do you care that our collective name is in reference to children? Does it even matter?

Would you rather be referred to as something else? If so, what?

Or are you totally, blissfully happy with childfree?

I’m not necessarily advocating for a change… but I thought it was a very interesting question.

Share your thoughts.

Technorati Tags: childfree

There’s a rather sinister move afoot in Europe. In an effort to stem the rapidly falling birth rate by increasing the number of babies born, several European countries have gone on the offensive – in more ways than one. Bribes to have children, sweeteners in terms of money for additional children, generous leave allowances, not to mention tax breaks are all lined up to coax more babies out of women who have either decided they don’t want children or are waverers.

Europe is ratcheting up the ante more aggressively every day. Generous allowances have appeared to work in France and even Spain is coming out with a plan to pay Spanish women 2,5000 euros to breed more and – and breed faster.

But this isn’t really news. We can expect childed and childed to be much better off than their childfree counterparts if this trend continues, as sickening as that is. What is more disturbing is Germany’s increasingly aggressive stance. That stance is not only to bribe women for breeding more, but also, just to be on the safe side, to stigmatise the childfree. Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: childfree, childfree

The Happy Ending Foundation are planning a series of Bad Book bonfires in October to protect kids from unhappiness. Parents will be encouraged to burn novels with “negative endings”.Parents plan to burn books to protect the children

Edit - October 13. Apparently this was a hoax. It was a very well done hoax done by the makers of Lemony Snicket, but very sneaky. It doesn’t make me predisposed to ever buy their books (don’t they know that hoaxes even if it’s called “PR” can backfire)? Nobody likes to feel foolish.

It’s rather annoying because I was taken in as well - royally… and spent time writing my view on… well rubbish. I’d rather have used it writing something real. But I can feel somewhat comforted that all the big newspapers were taken in as well. So I’m taking the story down before it does any more damage. Thanks to those of you who did comment.

I saw this in the Toronto No Kidding Forum. It wasn’t linked so I asked for the email thought you’d enjoy reading it.

It’s very humorous (it did make me laugh) but it’s not completely tongue in cheek…

It’s at least a good chunk of the reason I decided to be childfree since I had no great longing to have kids. But had I great longings to have kids I think I’d still have looked at my parenting colleagues and seen what I still see.

I’ve no doubt parenthood is hard and thankless. It’s no walk in the park. I took a good look at what I saw around me with my childed colleagues and, un-beknownst to them, they helped me make up my mind not to test the concept. The other day someone suggested to me that once I successfully achieved my lofty goals (which I will) I would then feel like having kids. I said, “Hell, no.” I ain’t having kids. I couldn’t even be bothered to feel annoyed.

Parenthood (regardless of what others say – including that uterus) IS optional. Not everyone should do it.

But when is parenting ever presented for what it really is? The good as well as the not so good? The whole shebang, as we often say. Hardly ever.

So my question to you is – would you apply for this job? I hear there are no shortage of openings. Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: childfree

Single Mother Jammie Thomas fined $220,000 for music file sharing

I’m wondering exactly why the fact that she’s a single mother who has two children makes a blind bit of difference. Would they have said, if she was childfree that “Childfree woman Blahblah fined $XX for music file sharing?”

Doubt it.

So what does the woman’s marital and reproductive status have to do with anything?

Other than to prove that she wasn’t very bright.

I’m not going to get into the ins and outs of downloading music and file sharing. Well, not much anyway. The people commenting on the piece in The Times Online have done that to death, galvanized into sudden verbal diarrhoea by the topic of big bad music corporations winning a case against the “innocent” consumer. Most of them completely missed the point. It’s not about downloading music for free, neither was she being prosecuted for downloading music for free .

What Jammie Thomas did was to make an unlimited number of copies of thousands of songs and advertise on the web where everyone can see her ad, telling everyone they were available. Not hiding anything. If she was bright, she would have known that this isn’t “fair use”. She didn’t have a license to distribute music in this way, but she went ahead and did it anyway.

But here’s the thing that proves she’s really stupid. When she got caught, instead of admitting it and saying sorry (like so many others who have been caught have done) and settling, she fought it through the courts, and lost. Boohoo!

Maybe she thought that being a single-mother-with-two-kids would get her off.

She was fined $200k for her stupidity and arrogance.

As for the writers, shame on them. Neither the fact that she’s a single mother, has kids or is Native should make any difference to the facts. For shame.

Just tell the facts as they are.

Technorati Tags: childfree

Not that Doug Saunders writing in the Globe and Mail did a particularly good job at making that clear. While he did get over 270 comments with his post – most of whom were roundly critical of Ms Maier – he didn’t really provide a view…. it seems he used three pages to regurgitate her book.

And typically he used the term childless to refer to childfree women.
The comments on his post prove Ms Maier’s point roundly. Particularly the poster who said that “a person who decides not to have children is selfish and should “keep their legs crossed and grow up.”

I rather think that term applies to a (brainwashed) person who continues to breed and not a childfree person.

I think Ms Maier touched more than one nerve because you could sense the defensiveness on the board. Maybe, just maybe they know deep down she has more than a point and has hit a collective nerve.

I talked about Corinne Maier in my post here…

Enfants Terribles - Would parents lives be better without children?

What a difference a childfree view makes! Read the rest of this entry »

Technorati Tags: childfree, childfree, childfree

I agree with Liz Johnson. Enough of bleating on about saving the planet by way of fiddling with the non-essentials. If you really, really want to be green, don’t have kids. Or,if you must have them have fewer.

Unfortunately, as Liz Johnson also notes, mothers are the last sacred cows in our society and beyond reproach. Childfree women? Don’t expect much of a look-in when it comes to “making sure families can make ends meet” as David Cameron (the UK Conservative leader) says he wants to do. Of course, the families that matter seem only to be those with kids.

Must they subsidise motherhood as if it’s dormant farmland?

I know that even daring to raise an eyebrow at a mother’s 2^nd maternity leave in as many years brings protests of shock that we could be so cold and uncaring? Clearly, that shows we’ve never had kids!!

No, I‘ve never had kids. And seeing how coddled and spoiled most kids today are I’m glad. But are people (except the childfree of course) totally ignorant of the extra damage to the environment that having three or four kids does? The nappy mountains for example?

I know exactly how Liz feels. When mothers leave the office on the dot and we’re left to pick up any slack we childfree aren’t not allowed to complain. After going off and having their kids, we are then subjected to how hard it is for them, how little sleep they now get, tired they are, how expensive child-care is, how exhausted they are, how hard it is to find a bigger house, how expensive everything is.. etc etc.

I could care less. THEY wanted to have the kid. They should quite complaining, because not only does it bore me, it reminds me that I am subsidising their kids. I could understand having one kid. But what about the ones that go on to have two, three, four? Don’t tell me they are thinking of saving the planet.

Yet now, in the UK mothers can get lump sums of £250 at birth, free IVF, the right to an expensive home birth and help with child care, not to mention a just introduced new subsidy – the equivalent of about $200 to “eat good food”. (A silly idea since the pregnant mothers are free to spend it on booze and fags if they like)

Just why does the Government subsidise motherhood (and breeding) as if it were dormant farmland? Far from parents being the backbone of hardworking society, who do they think is holding the fort when they’re off on maternity leave every other year? Surprise! it is the unsung hardworking singletons and the childfree, from whose taxes the government fund these mother-centric programs.

I think Liz Johnson’s article is brilliant. At last someone saying what many people think. For the government to beat the be green drum on one hand and be encouraging even higher population on the other is hypocritical, to say the least.

Your thoughts?

(Thanks to mercurior for the link)

Technorati Tags: Childfree, childfree