Sure We’re Green. But Kids Are More Important Than The Planet
Britgirl | November 26, 2007 | 8:42 pmProps to mel for finding this article and sharing it. I saw it in a Google alert, went over to her blog to check out more. I’m always more interested in what a childfree blogger says about an article before I read the article (is that weird?) but anyway I really liked m’s review and comment. Check it out for yourself. And so I went over to read the actual article myself in The Daily Mail.
As mel rightly points out the comments are colourful. Particularly those that liken the women to out and out nutters in need of a psychiatrist. For a list of the choice comments, check out the article – or better still m’s blog. Of course the nay-sayers weren’t the only comments…. thankfully. But the point that interested me was how it seems that while everyone (seemingly) has jumped on the “green” bandwagon, doing all those nice green things to save the planet, the thought of any woman deciding not to have kids to save that same planet brings reactions of near revulsion from some.
In one of the comments, there’s no pretending at all…. “human life is much more important than the planet!!”
It’s probably not surprising that the usual suspects come out in force criticising the women for not wanting children, period. You’d think that saving the planet would be a worthier “cause” than most, but no. It’s better to have lots of kids – hey they can be eco-warriors and they can save the planet! Super! And by the way, did we childfree want the human race to die out?? Are we crazy?
Saving the planet wasn’t my reason for being childfree, but at least I can be sure that I’m doing less damage to the planet – using less resources. I’m able to live downtown, so I don’t need a car. Less pollution I can live downtown because I don’t have kids and don’t need a house and the predictable car to travel from the ‘burbs. We use far less resources overall than a family of, say three kids and two adults. Yet no-one questions those who want no only one child but two or more. In fact, having more is encouraged. Of course, our tax goes to supporting breeding anyway.
I think there may be many who are simply in denial that more kids = people on the planet = more use of scarce resources. They may try and justify it by the fantasy of raising “eco-warriors” – knowing they have no control over that whatsoever in the end.
But once again, we see childfree women vilified… doesn’t matter why you don’t want kids…as far as the childed world is concerned, if you’re a woman you should want kids, and nothing should be more important.
Green? Saving the planet? Scratch the surface… you just might find they aren’t so green after all. And that the one’s who actually do walk the talk are in fact – the childfree.
Technorati Tags: childfree
I read the article. For some odd reason, it doesn’t sound like an unbiased article… just from the tone in which it’s written. On the surface, unbiased. But it smacks a bit of sensationalism on the “saving the world through being childfree” theme.
If saving the world was first on the list of priorities for the subjects of the article, well I feel that’s way cool. However, being childfree is usually a highly personal decision first, societal decision second (or third).
But, well, maybe I’m wrong.
I did like reading all of the comments regarding it. The childfree-supporting voices were of course nowhere near as unbalanced as the ones telling the subjects to “Consider suicide pacts to further save the earth”.
I really enjoy your blog! I’ve found so many great CF blogs that I’ve decided to start my own, I hope you don’t mind that I linked to you. I hope you stop by!
Like you, BritGirl, my reason for not bearing children has nothing to do with the environment. Still doesn’t.
But when you account for parents and their children, the resources they use, the waste products they produce … there is NO WAY a family with children is more environmentally friendly than a child free person is.
I read the original article. I didn’t finish it. Chris W. You’re right, there is a biased slant. It’s in the language used – and it’s subtle but it’s still very there. I couldn’t finish reading it because of that. The author’s bias and opinions about the CF are loud and clear – and it’s not friendly. Further, reading about the first woman and what she had to endure trying to get a tubal made me angry because I went through the exact same things.
Chris W – You are correct. Thanks for mentionining this key point. The whole article was written with a biased slant, an almost sneering tone with regards to the women who’d decided to be childfree. I noted it but decided to place it to one side, because it’s almost a whole other topic to address. And that topic is the distrust I have of any mainstream media stories about childfree people written by non-childfree people because of their biased slant which comes across loud and clear. Watch this space.
CFSince6 – Correct on all counts. The bias is very much there – and not even particularly subtle – unless the writer thinks they are being so. I forced myself to read most of it – because I wanted to write about it. Reading how difficult it was for the woman to get a tubal incensed me…. that even today women are still subject to the personal beliefs and whims of others as to what control they should have over their reproduction.
As for the environment issue…. it’s interesting seeing the childed trying to justify that them having more children actually helps.
I didn’t read the article, but I wanted to add to the discussion that though my reasons for being childfree are not entirely environmental and societal, my reasons for choosing to not have biological children are close to, it not 100%, environmental (overpop.) and societal (wanting to give a home to a child without parents instead of adding more kids to ones already in existence).
If I decided to be a parent, I’d go with adoption for the reasons above, so that choice is purely due to concern for society and not for reasons of personal preference. Or perhaps as an alternative, I’d consider fostering, which would be based on both societal and personal reason for me.
As for being childfree, yes, many of the reasons for it for me are personal ones, but environmental/societal factors weigh heavily in the decision, too. From what I’ve heard from other childfree people, such issues do often play some role in people’s consideration of the issue.
Yeah, I’m not childfree for environmental reasons, but I mostly noticed the biased tone of the article and of course, all the snippy and misinformed comments. It never ceases to amaze me how narrow-minded people can be.
I’m childfree mainly for personal reasons (just don’t like kids). However I have always said that if I did want them, I’d adopt even if I could have my own due to there already being people who need a home and enough people on the planet. There’s also medical reasons for why I would like my gene pool to dry up.