Childfree… Do We Count?
15 11 2007Here’s your chance to stick your hand in the air literally or figuratively – and shout a resounding “Damn right we do!”
Since I already wrote my post on why Childfree women should be represented anywhere women are represented – so that includes BlogHer and other “women only” blogging sites – this isn’t going to be a long post. It’s more of a follow up to my post Childfree…and Invisible? an in support of the Purple Women Count campaign. I hope you’ll continue to add to the conversations, link and post – if you’re childfree – and frankly even if you’re not childfree, but a supporter of a childfree woman for example. And please, there is no “on the way to - or from – childfree” here. Sorry. Fence-sitters are counted though.
As I said in my original post, my experience of BlogHer has been far from stellar. I find their weak response to our request for representation even as the suggested rather innocuous Women Without Children frankly risible. In fact I’m less interested than ever in so-called “women-only” blogging sites. But since we are on that subject Childfree (or Child-free) women should not have to ask to be represented – anywhere. It’s clear for anyone who cares to look that we are here, we are here to stay and we ain’t going away. Our contributions to society are innumerable, both in the workplace and outside it, and we are in every single sphere of life.
There are women who have children. And those of us who don’t, because we choose not to. We don’t want to be shunted away into some “Family” bucket, neither do we necessarily want to stuck out there as an example.
We want what’s fair and reasonable and that is representation. If BlogHer can find room for every kind of “mommy blog” there is absolutely not a leg for BH or any other site that purports to be for “Women bloggers” to stand on. If we’ve done them the courtesy of actually asking them to enable us to be properly represented then, I would think that should send a message to them that it’s long overdue.
But in the last few days there’s perhaps another more pressing reason that childfree women should be represented and thus enabled to be more visible in the aggregate blog-line world. And that, my friends is plain ignorance about childfree people, the childfree lifestyle and anything else that concerns us.
This is brought sharply home by this illogical post, which though it will send lots of hits to the site in question is worth reading for all the reasons I’ve mentioned below and commentators have mentioned on the my blog post and on the blog in question. When someone “Christian” sets out to call a group of people “evil incarnate fatuous and whatever other negative terms have been used, clearly there is an issue of ignorance on their part. A section on BlogHer, in all honesty won’t solve that. But it will at least provide a semblance of a level playing field.
Commentators said it pretty succinctly, and I’ve selected Hillari’s comment to sum it up:
“Thanks Britgirl, for bringing yet another person to our attention who has such asinine opinions about the childfree movement. That blogger could not even respond intelligently to the responses to their negative, poorly thought-out article.
The opinions expressed by that blogger are just another example of the rampant ignorance that the childfree are constantly up against.
If BlogHer and sites like it that purport to be for women bloggers fail to represent all women across the wide and varied spectrum then whom exactly are they representing?
Technorati Tags: Childfree, childfree
Thanks for writing this BritGirl. My are the childfree invisible post is up at my site as well–it’s quite lengthy but can be summarized by saying that it does echo many of the same points you’ve made here. I think we need to speak up more and more and not accept being ignored or treated as “less than” other female bloggers, and other women in general.
BritGril, you are an inspiration. My struggle as a childfree woman has focus much on my personal life and the social limitations/exclusions I’ve found. Maybe it’s time for me to think more globally, since I’m clearly not making any advances on this small scale. My post is up on my site as well.
BritGirl - You go Girl!
I want to report here that I formally contacted BlogHer to request/suggest a panel for childfree women bloggers. They replied favorably and told me to get my panelists together. How about joining us in Chicago next summer ‘08?
Who’s in? Let’s not give up on them yet. We could cause quite a stir if we want to. There are reporters crawling all over that event. I attended in 2006 in San Jose.
Hi there,
I’m sending you my best wishes while letting you know that I will not be participating in the BlogHer panel. I’m one “childfree” person who does not feel the need to take a stand, cause a stir and get media attention.
In fact, if I ever do attend a “blogging” conference then I wouldn’t be in any way drawn to attend such a panel discussion myself. My interest would be focused on the blogging end of things and not on the subject matter.
In essence, I’m unwilling to invest any time or energy into “correcting” anyone’s thinking on this issue. I was raised in a fundamentalist christian family and I know that there is no logical basis of reasoning from which one can reverse the thinking of the brainwashed.
Respectfully
Personally I don’t want to be on a panel for childfree bloggers. I don’t want to be on a panel for childfree anything. I am a blogger who happens to be childfree - I enjoy blogging. I enjoy epressing my opinion on my blog - which happens to be a childfree blog.
I’m not interested in media attention. I believe that Blogher, if they want to recognise us and show they’re taking us seriously should simply put their money where their collective mouth is and make available a section that could represent our interests on their site - as they have for women with children, women who are infertile, et al. Did any of them have to sit on a panel first?
Yes, I will blog - and hopefully what I write will inspire others in some small way. I might add that as far as time and energy goes, blogging takes a considerable amount. But I enjoy it. In my locality and my daily life I’ll stand up for what I believe is right whether that’s writing or speaking. But I’m not interested in a panel.
And Brightfeather has a point… are we really going to convince people who’ve already made up their minds we’re too insignificant to even have a spot on their site? Or face people who’ll be asking exactly why are not using our uteri? Do we really believe the media won’t have a field day writing it up?
Neda - thank you! I am going to read your post.
M - yours too.
I can’t even bring myself to read the link, because I know I’d just get too mad. That’s also why I haven’t yet ventured into any messageboards, or poked around BlogHer too much. I’m afraid of what I’ll find.
I hate to make sweeping generalizations but I agree with Brightfeather about trying to reason with fundamentalist Christians — I too grew up in a somewhat similar situation. I’m not shy about talking about my childfree status but I don’t try to change the thinking of people who think I’m some kind of heathen or child-hating misanthrope.
I wouldn’t worry. I’m sure in a year or two the people of BlogHer will be kicking themselves for not having had the initiative to put in a Childfree section when it was suggested to them. They will look a bit silly when the realisation *finally* hits them…. “Oooh, you know what?! We could do with a Childfree section after all !”
And we can say “We told you so!”
It’s just a matter of time
Britgirl asked:
Brilliant.
I’ve never heard of “blogher” before I read about it in a previous BritGirl post and frankly I have no interest especially since its mostly mommies and their TRIUMPH over life and childrearing (insert eye roll here.)
If they want to add a childfree section, great. But quite frankly - for them to ask childfree women bloggers to “sit on a panel” and then The Powers That Be at BlogHer decide whether to have a childfree section is a slap in our face. Essentially saying we need to justify our existence. We don’t have to justify jack to anyone.
I realize I’m probably taking this way overboard, but honestly. Why do CF women have to sit on some panel just to try and get a CF section BlogHer? It just REEKS of them wanting us to justify ourselves. No one asks a woman who is a mother to justify having children. Why should we have to justiyf NOT having children? IMO, it should be the otherway around.
BlogHer does not have specific categories (or even sub-topics) for a wide range of “people” or “groups” but that does not mean that they are not welcomed or embraced on the site.
As I’ve said before, many of our blogging members and our blogging Contributing Editors are childfree (or childless as some people prefer.)
And Shelley is right, at some point we may expand our sub-topics to include a specific “childfree” sub-topic. We are slowly expanding those as we grow. But, right now, our navigation doesn’t make sub-topics easy to find (Can you find the “singles” sub-topic? or the “books” sub-topic? Probably not unless you get lucky and visit the site when someone has recently used the sub-topic.) We’re working on that.
Come on over to BlogHer - blog about being childfree, we’d love to have you join us - and use the free tagging feature to make it easier for others who search for childfree bloggers to find you, please.
Denise: Thank you for commenting.
“BlogHer does not have specific categories (or even sub-topics) for a wide range of “people” or “groups” but that does not mean that they are not welcomed or embraced on the site.”
Personally, as a person who has used BlogHer in the past also does not show that we are embraced particularly when we are comparing what’s available for Women with children (whom I suspect can slot nicely into “Mommy and Family”) as opposed to Women without children - who go… where?
“As I’ve said before, many of our blogging members and our blogging Contributing Editors are childfree…
So what? What does that have to do with us wanting to see a section for women without children or childfree people ( most reading this actually prefer childfree as we’re not childless, thanks). As I already said, it’s a poor excuse. The point is it doesn’t matter if your editors, writers or whomever are childfree or not. We are not them, nor they us. And if you have a section called “Mommy and Family” that clearly caters to women with children by implication, regardless of what you say about being welcome, and embrace those are merely words that don’t match with the reality. As far as Blogher is concerned, childfree women are not counted as significant enough to have a section equivalent to “Mommy and Family”. Why? Where would you suggest we slot ourselves? We are not Mommies.
“…at some point we may expand our sub-topics to include a specific “childfree” sub-topic.
That would be a step in the right direction, though overdue. And it would demonstrate that, childfree women ARE recognized, welcomed and embraced as you say. By “sub-topic” I hope you mean a sub-topic of “women.” I think Mommies and Family is its own topic…As we are just as important women who are not mothers/women without children, childfree.. should be at the same level on Blogher as the M&F.
I understand your restating your reasons for not having a childfree section, topic, sub topic or whatever you wish to call it. But we’re not really interested in reasons why you can’t do it. We would like to hear reasons why you can and, importantly, more appreciation of why you should. It’s rather like a company serving customers.
If you fail to cater to their needs or at least show you understand them you will not sell to them, you will lose them, and certainly will not attract them. If Blogher claims to be about WOMEN bloggers, then it should represent women bloggers fully.
I’ll admit I’ve never been to BlogHer — I’ve never joined any blogging sites despite having been online since 1998. But I went over…and I can’t figure out what the big deal is — it’s not a maze of categories and sub-categories. It seems like a pretty straightforward thing to add a new topic area.
There are all kinds of sections there and it’s not hard to add a new one — Childfree Blogs is no more controversial than say Feminist & Gender Blogs or Sex & Relationships Blogs.
But that said, it’s up to the editors. I run a site too (not my blog) and often I get requests to add things and sometimes I do and sometimes I don’t. That site is not a democracy. But — and this is a big but — if I get a lot of requests (or even just one) about something that seen sensible and relevant, I look into them and consider them carefully. Sometimes I say yes and sometimes I say no — and sometimes I say maybe later (and mean it). But a big demand for something usually makes me think that I’ve missed something…
So in this case, while I respect that the site is not a democracy, I think the editors should think it over a bit, perhaps gauge interest more widely and see if they really are missing a topic section that could link to a lot of interesting and well-written blogs. I suspect that there is a lot more interest than they realize.
Mind you, my blog would not fit into the category as I don’t focus on Childfree issues but rather daily minutiae….:).
In response to the post from a BlogHer rep, I have to agree with BritGirl’s sentiment as expressed with these words:
“If you have a section called “Mommy and Family” that clearly caters to women with children by implication, regardless of what you say about being welcome, and embrace those are merely words that don’t match with the reality. As far as Blogher is concerned, childfree women are not counted as significant enough to have a section equivalent to “Mommy and Family”. Why?”
The issue is not with subtopics so much as it is with why this category needs to specifically mention “Mommy” but not “Childfree.” In my opinion, either we all should fall under the category of “Family,” since that is what being a mom and being childfree are both about, and “Mommy” should not be part of the title at all, or if moms are going to be specifically mentioned and clearly by implication welcomed, so too should childfree–since we deserve the same respect and consideration, I believe, as those who’ve had children.
My recent post on my blog about this issue makes the same point as well, (albeit with many more words). Thanks for addressing this BritGirl.
*cheering on BritGirl*
I notice the hard questions can’t be, or aren’t, answered by BlogHer reps.
I have never been interested in blogging sites, although I have had my own website since 1994 when I was at university. For one, I don’t like all of the advertisements. eesh. I now have my own personal domain and so I don’t have to have any advertisements if I don’t want to. Although… I hear the advertising dollars can be nice …
Ok. I will never ever visit a site like BlogHer. Or any other “for women” type sites. Why? Because they are, invariably about mommies. Mommies whining about how haaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrddddddddddd it is to raise their chhhhiiiillldreeeennn. They’ll whine about how much it costs, and how Bratlina did some gross and nasty thing. Then there are the pregnancy stories, and on and on and on ad naseum. And then how all of this is soooooooooooooo wwwwooooooorrrrrrrrrtttttttthhhhhhh iiiittt!
Yeah. Uh huh. Every time I hear that tired cliche of “it’s all worth it” - which is usually followed after some whine about how hard it is to be a parent - I always wonder if it really is some sort of chant or mantra that these women tell themselves to lul them back into being ok with motherhood.
I have ZERO interest in those topics.
Further, if there were to EVER be a childfree blog or topic, invariably some breeder “mombie” will post her bingo cliches of how we’re evil, we’re stupid, etc. etc. and how worth it is to have children and how we’re so missing out, etc. etc. Then they almost all come in droves … like flies to shit, to defend their stance on parenthood. Essentially beating the CF blogger or poster until they’re a virtual bloody stain on the site.
I also have ZERO interest in being a punching back for women who are clearly frustrated with motherhood and do not want to be reminded of how life IS and COULD BE great without the fruit of their loins. Or my favorite term: cunt loaf.
This is why I will probably never visit a site like BlogHer or any other “for women” site because, IMO, they’re not for *ME* as a woman since there is no place for a childfree woman as myself to not only post, but to be SAFE from vile and vicious attacks from women who are mothers.
It’s not just representation of the CF community on sites like BlogHer, but will we be SAFE as well?
CFSinceSix…. High Five!!
You have made some excellent points. In both posts
First of all, Blogher survives because it’s supported by advertisers. Advertisers need eyeballs -which they have with the Mommy blogs aplenty.
Second - As a former user of blogher - if only for a short while - I can say that the mummies rule. For all the “you’re welcome to blog on our site that’s all about women” from BlogHer, it is invariably unattractive to anyone who is not from their core demographic. Which begs the question, why is saying it’s for all women bloggers? Clearly it’s not.
And third - I really could not say it better… even if the childfree had a section, would it then become a battleground? A pastime to take the minds of the whining about how harrrrd it is to bring up kids, how expensive, how blah blah blah - frustration. I think you’re right. I think we’d become virtual punching bags and objects of everything they dislike because we represent the choice they didn’t make.
I have never been a fan of women only sites. I think they are disingenious (what are wimmins not able to blog where the menz are?) and backward looking. I also don’t know of any men-only blogging sites… obviously men have better things to do and don’t need “coddling.” And I honestly can’t see myself ever using BlogHer again, for many of the reasons you’ve mentioned.
But hey CFSSix… you know you’re safe here
m- ” In my opinion, either we all should fall under the category of “Family,” since that is what being a mom and being childfree are both about, and “Mommy” should not be part of the title at all, or if moms are going to be specifically mentioned and clearly by implication welcomed, so too should childfree–since we deserve the same respect and consideration, I believe, as those who’ve had children.
Exactly! To me really is as simple as that.
Firstly, just wanted to point out, I’m really new to the whole Childfree blog thing. I’ve been gradually reading around more blogs and I’m really enjoying being able to learn from other peoples experiences and observations on CF issues.
I’ve since been reading PW&F blog and I now realise that there is someone already with the title “Shelley” in the CF blogsphere, so I will now post under the title UKShell. Apologies if this has caused confusion for anyone. I wouldn’t have chosen “Shelley” as my posting name if I had known it was already being used! Sorry…
Anyway, very nice of Denise to quote me:-
“And Shelley (now UKShell) is right, at some point we may expand our sub-topics to include a specific “childfree” sub-topic”
Although I totally agree with you BritGirl:-
“That would be a step in the right direction, though overdue.”
Why should we have to wait? Have we already waited too long…? Just because I suggested that they would ‘get there in the end’ with regards to having a CF section, didn’t imply that I thought it was OK to actually have to ‘wait’ for it!
Anyway, I’m really enjoying this blog. I’m now going to change my posting name on blogspot too from “Shell” to “UKShell” (if it’ll let me) as I’ve posted on Childfreedom too, and Shell could be interpreted as Shelley.