Childfree By Any Other Name?
18 10 2007Since 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
I can’t believe this never crossed my mind especially since I pay very close attention normally to the nuances of language, and especially in contexts such as this. To answer your question, yes, I don’t really like defining myself by what I’m not, in any area, not just when it comes to having kids or not. I like to define myself by what I am.
Unfortunately since the whole concept of childfree in a large sense is a reaction to our as you say “pronatal” society, using that term does makes sense in many ways, I think. But I’d certainly prefer an alternative. Love to hear what your other readers have to say and whether anyone has a good substitute or not.
This post raises a lot of questions and ideas for me–very thought provoking, ,thank you!
My answer to that is that we’d be labled anyway. If not childfree, they’ll call us childless. And they’d make that our identity anyway. That was the whole point of coining the term. If we’re going to be labled, we may as wee pick a lable and definition we like, respect and agree with.
For most of my life I have referred to myself as CFBC - Child-Free By Choice. Why that term?
I feel it exactly describes my lifestyle. Everyone has a choice in life. My ‘choice’ is to be child-free. I made an active decision based on what I felt was best for me…not for anyone else, mind you..but for me.
I have to add here that back in the 80’s (when I was first married) so many people had problems with my choice. My mom especially!
But these days? More and more I meet people that are CF as well as people who have children and realize they ‘may’ have been sold a bill of goods as to how ‘wonderful’ being a parent is.
Granted, they love their kids, but admit the good parts of parenthood were trumped up while the bad parts of parenthood were glossed over or just not talked about.
I’d rather not be defined by anything, as definitions pin us down and can often be used against us. (”Oh really? You’re one of those are you?”) That’s why I’m somewhat irritated by demographics pollsters, always trying to slot us into neat little boxes. But I guess we just live in a world where every aspect of us defines us one way or another. So - fair enough, if that aspect of my life has to have a label, then I’m happy with being “childfree”, but it’s not the only thing I am. I don’t go around everywhere only being childfree.
I’m also dogfree, motorbikefree, beardfree and, sadly, large-house-in-the-country-free.
I think childfree is fine. It only defines us as far as our stance on having children, so of course it’s in reference to children.
“I’m also dogfree, motorbikefree, beardfree and, sadly, large-house-in-the-country-free.”
I think that’s sort of the point of the original post, isn’t it? We are many things -”free” and yet we don’t refer to ourselves with the terms in the quotes above.
In most cases, we don’t refer to ourselves by what we are not. That we do so in this case, simply perpetuates the notion that being childed is the normal or default position and we are in some way unusual or remarkable for not being childed and thus need a label that defines us by whether or not we have or will have children.
I understand that when talking about issues involving this choice, a term is needed, by why not like so many other terms isn’t there a term that focuses more on what we are than what we are not?
Those who aren’t married are called single (though there are issues with that as well, you can certainly be unmarried but not single). Those who are not heterosexual are not called non-straight or straight-free; they are gay or homosexual. Those who don’t own homes are not called non-home-owners or home-free, they are called renters, or tenants. Those who are adopted aren’t referred to as so and so’s non-biological child, they are called adopted child, or simply so and so’s child. I could go on and on, but in most cases people are referred to not by what they aren’t and not by what they aren’t doing, but what they are and what they are doing.
My examples may not be perfect, but overall, in each case, there is a way to describe the group by referring to them in reference to who or what they aren’t (nonmarried, nonhomeowner, etc.) but yet our society has managed to instead find and focus on something those groups actually are or do, that is not based simply on a comparison the the other, usually majority, group.
The same is possible for the term childfree. I think it’s just hard to see because the whole concept appears to be focused around what we don’t have and what we aren’t doing. What I’m trying to say is is that there probably are things that we all are doing that could be what unites and thus defines us, rather than what we aren’t doing defining us. For example we are all choosing lives with adult family members. Why not focus on that instead of the fact that we aren’t choosing to have non-adults/children in our families?
Rather than be defined by what we aren’t (parents) and aren’t doing (raising and/or having children), we could use a term similar to single that describes those who go through life as an adult who remains part of family of adults only (or something like that or some other factor that unites us that may be hard to see with our current paradigm). I don’t know a good term, but I certainly believe that one exists or can exist.
Of course like a commenter above said, I too prefer “childfree” to “childless.” One is accurate and the other is not for the population we are talking about. But I felt that the point of the original post was: Why does it have to be a choice between either of those two terms. Yes, we prefer “childfree” to “childless,” but why can’t it be something else altogether that doesn’t define us by something that is pretty much expected by society but that we have not taken part in?
I don’t believe that if we don’t use childfree, we will end up being called childless even more. There is no reason why there can’t be another term of our choosing that describes us more positively than childfree does. Childfree is negative, using what we are *not* to label us. If we must have labels (which is pretty much par for the course in society), then why not have a positive one at least. (By neg. I don’t mean bad, only using negating terminology, like not, or free or less).
I don’t know the answer, nor do I have a great term to suggest, but I am just suggesting that we may be so used to thinking that childed is the way to be, that even we see ourselves as being defined by that standard. And I’m not suggesting we need to change the term, or that we need to do it this minute, or at all. I am simply saying that there is power in language , and our words do reflect societal norms and expectations even when we don’t realize it and that this is a subject that warrants thought and reflection. And I have a pretty strong feeling that if our demographic isn’t the one to discuss this issue, the rest of society is certainly not very likely to do so take the initiative.
Again I’m not saying we must change the term we use. Only engaging in a discussion about the implications of the current usage and suggesting that there is another way to look at it (which I don’t take any credit for, since it was the original thought provoking post above that led me to contemplate this topic to begin with).
I’d love to hear from the person who made the comment that inspired the post to begin with, by the way. I’m very interested in what that person has to say.
I’d guess that I’m the guilty one. The comment was made in reference to the woman who wrote the article about how she is now “blissfully childfree” after leaving it too late to have kids. That was a great discussion with some funny comments.
I loved JSD’s comment!- sadly, I am also large-house-in-the-country free, although I think I’d prefer a small villa in Umbria. But I digress.
m. that was a GREAT discussion and very true. I think “childfree” is a very recent invention, and it may well be that over time it will morph into a different word with different connotations. At the moment people who choose not to have children are definitely a curiosity and an aberration, so I kind of see it as almost drawing a battle line between the haves and the have nots. But I’m totally with JSD when he says that society chooses to label us, because it HAS to find a box to fit you in, and that’s ours.
Personally I couldn’t care less what people want to call me, and I could define myself by a dozen other things as well as being childfree. And I’m sure polite society would prefer “childfree” to “bog off, I can’t stand the little f*****s” free.
I guess breeders think that we must just sit all day and concentrate on being childfree and hating children…. um, sure, whatever.
Love this discussion! More view please!
I love m’s post because I was thinking along the same lines, just not nearly as eloquently. We certainly don’t call those who don’t want to get married “spousefree”, and so I can see the point of wanting to find a better word than childfree. There will someday, as more and more people come out and let the world know that there is a willed alternative to having children, be a word that will be used to describe the alternative to parents. Until then, we can only wait or try to be the ones who coin the term that will change the dictionaries…
We spend our lives being defined and this is just one more title to add to my personal long list. The first thing said from the moment of my birth was “it’s a girl” and the titles kept coming. You are an infant, then a toddler… you can be gifted or “regular.” Fat or Thin. Short or Tall. Single, married, divorced, widowed. Etc. etc. etc. These designations help people understand you, know how to talk to you or not talk to you. I don’t mind the “childfree” designation of who I am; it is just one piece of a long list of things that can be used to define me. I am Childfree just as I am Married or Female or White or a college graduate; it really is just another title that makes up the many facets of who I am. With that being said, although I do not mind the title of childfree, I live life ensuring that the moment I take my last breath on earth leaves people with nothing more then people saying “she was amazing,” and I think that is how we should each live whether we have the title of mother or not.
What about “untrammeled”. It’s a fun word to say that means ‘not confined or limited’. It’s not a common word so it’ll work — all we need to do is start a PR awareness campaign….
I have a friend who hates to call herself “childfree” for this very reason — she doesn’t want to define herself in terms of children. She reluctantly calls herself “CF” but wishes there was a better term.
I like the term childfree, because I think it makes people think. There are still people out there who don’t realize you can choose not to have kids.
Nullipara/Nulligravida are great, but most bumpkins wouldn’t know what the words mean, and would never figure out how to spell them. Instead the breeder-brigade would say, “Those stupid nulla people who don’t want kids!”
Besides, the terms also apply to wannabreeders who just don’t have kids yet but would love them. Telling someone I’m “nullipara” is just saying I don’t have kids YET. I prefer a more specific term that doesn’t lump me in with all those teenaged twits trying to find someone to knock them up for the welfare benefits (iow, all my relatives).
Ok. I figured it out. We use the term childfree because we’re lazy. It’s a lot easier to convert childless to childfree than to waste time coming up with a name that doesn’t define us by what we don’t want. We did it the easy way.
Extremely interesting comments everyone! I have to say of all my recent posts, this one (and the comment that inspired it) have had me thinking about this more than I think of any childfree subject. I am heading out right now
but I wanted to say a couple of things and then I’ll be back to add my thoughts. Probably more than one comment, because your thoughts are so insightful.
First - CFSince6… Yes! THAT was the comment!! You have no idea how long I read that…I had simply never even considered it and I wondered why.
m- so much of what you said was what I was thinking - and you put it so well. It was a little like a “that’s it!” What gets me is that childfree is defined by (a) what we are not. And (b) the implication that the defacto is to have children. Which, as we know it is for most of society. Whereas if you have children… you are a parent. OK, more on that later.
Just wanted to also add these points initially.
Ashley - we’d probably be labeled yes. But does that mean we have to live with it if we’re not happy with it? I don’t believe so. But I liked your last comment.
Why is it so hard to think of another name EVEN if we still are OK with Childfree??
JSD - I would rather not be labelled either. I accept that people will always try to label - and I think if we’re honest, we all do it to some extent, without realising it before we catch ourselves and stop. I think that, though this is more than a label, it’s about a description… wouldn’t you say?
Kath - I too made the choice to be childfree. And believe me I wouldn’t have it any other way. I embraced the term wholeheartedly because I thought it was a great way to describe myself. But now I am thinking….It never crossed my mind to even question it - except when comparing to the term “childless.” And then it was certainly the de-facto and preferable term.
But as soon as I read that comment by CFS6 I have been wondering… do I really like being defined as child - anything? Was it just that there’s was no other term that fit? I think that because we often feel that it’s “us” against the parents, childed and the majority, that “childfree” is like a cohesive rallying call for us. I don’t know….
Kat… ok let’s for one moment put aside what others call us. What about what we call ourselves? To tell the truth, for the most part what others call us is less important than how we identify ourselves. We insist on being called childfree instead of childless. Slowly (finally!) I see more and more people coming to use the term WE prefer… what does that say? I think it says that we are responsible for whatever we want to call ourselves. Of course that’s not the end of the story…
ExplosiveB…. great point. What matters isn’t really what people call us, but what we call ourselves.. hang on but that brings us back to where we began doesn’t it? …. or does it? Before I started thinking of this post, I had no problem with the word childfree. For the most part - I still have no problem. Like Phoena says, it makes people think - once you explain what it means to them.
I think I am feeling more and more that it would be nice if there was a better term. Only if that is to be, it would have to be chosen by childfree people.
CFSince 6 - guess I have you to thank for my headache … lol. (Joking of course). This is a very interesting discussion.
Christine - Untrammeled. I like it. More suggestions… But just why is it so hard to think of alternative names??
Back soon, folks…
I was trying to figure out what the opposite of the word Mother would be, but then I realized that wasn’t fair to many of us either. The definition of mother is:
To give birth to; create and produce.
To watch over, nourish, and protect maternally.
Given that definition, I am a mother. I have not satisfied the “give birth” portion, however, I nourish and protect two very adoreable and needy dogs… not to mention a husband with the same qualities
Opposite to mother…I’m having entertaining thoughts of being called the anti-mother by people with kids and of all the terrible things that would imply. =P Opposite to creation is destruction and to nourishment is starvation so perhaps finding an opposite for mother isn’t the best way to give outselves another name.
A term I sometimes use for is “I have decided to opt out of breeding” but that is not very catchy. I don’t really have a problem with being called childfree but if there was a better term for my choice then I’d welcome it.
What about trying to capture the essence of freedom and choice - but without reference to child, mother, birthing, nurturing, non or anti in the word at all?
@Ashley… I hope you’re wrong there!
Fascinating discussion - enough to make a lurker like me want to add my two cents.
While the label “childfree” does not bother me and I’ve used it often in reference to myself, a method of describing myself according to what I AM as opposed to what I am not is to refer to myself as being in a “family of two” (I am married).
I like this term because it captures the idea that my husband and I are a “unit” in society (since “family”, traditional or non-traditional, is defined as a “natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State” according to Article 16(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). We are not a “couple”, we are a family - a complete unit - and there are two of us - hence “family of two”. This term also includes people who are in a relationship (married, commonlaw, or other) who do not, and will not, have children.
Naturally, the term “family of one” will also work for a person who does not want to be referred to as “single” and who does not have children. That person is a fully-functioning societal unit that just so happens to consist of one person.
When I am asked the question, “Do you have children?” I reply that my husband and I make a “family of two”. I’d like to note that this doesn’t free me of bingoes, as it is usually followed up by, “Oh, you have yet to have children, then?”, but I’ve found that responding “We’re childfree” leads to bingoes anyway… so I guess it’s just a matter of which bingoes are worse.
Feel free to pick my definition apart… I don’t know if it’s somehow offensive in a way I haven’t thought about. So far it’s worked for me.
Thanks for listening!
~ MysticLady
Mystic lady - thanks for sharing…I have to say I hadn’t considered “Family of two.” Thanks for that interesting suggestion. I don’t think it’s offensive, why would it be? It is also a good one for those who keep insisting that we’re not a family unless there are children which is of course nonsense.
I have to agree that saying “Oh, I’m childfree” does also get bingoes. First there’s the “doesn’t mean I hate kids…” explanation then the bingoes of “you don’t know what you’re missing!” bingoes et al. And, yes, f”amilies of two” bingoes are inevitable, with “oh, don’t you worry, wait till you have one and then you’ll wonder why you didn’t do it earlier… gahh!
What about “permanent family of two”?
I’ve had a friend answer, in response to the “Why don’t you want children?” question, “I’m sorry, but I can’t bear children.” ( a play on the word ‘bear.’) ha!
I really like that “family of two” thing.
I like the “Family of Two” as well
Nary a mention of “child”.
I love “family of two” as well, but it doesn’t describe all childfree people (some childfree people are single).
How about “unencumbered”?