Like It Is

It’s a short post today.

And to be honest this story doesn’t need that much dwelling on. But every time I read one of these reports of violent children (and they seem to be depressingly common these days) it makes me think of how glad I am that I am childfree. This is one thing I don’t have to worry about.

Clearly these violent children (now criminals) did not make the roll call for those who were destined to save the world. When asked by childed people if I “wasn’t interested in seeing if my progeny would develop the next world saving miracle drug, and how they were making a valuable contribution” I’ve been surprised at their total certainty. Not a chance of their child becoming anything less than the next Einstein. And while most kids don’t grow up to become criminals, it’s clear that it doesn’t take much as this link proves.

15 Year Old Gets Mad

Sadly this is but the latest in a string of reports about the violent tendencies of some of today’s children. The past few weeks in London have seen fatal stabbings by children as young as 13. Now, even being asked to pick up litter (garbage) you’ve dropped in a public place risks an attack by an angry teenage mob. Leave aside the fact that that dropping litter carries a fine anyway, the sheer disregard for other people, the lack of respect for the police and the sheer violence of the attack on the Police who were just doing their job are simply scary.

If these children have no sense of responsibility or common decency (which they obviously don’t) then who is to blame for creating these anti-social elements of society who are going to cost us more than they already do?

We should be concerned, since we’re forever lectured that children “are the future” so the childfree are doing a disservice in not having them.

I’m quite happy to pass. It’s just one more reason to be childfree.

Technorati Tags: childfree, childfree

Maternity Leave “Damages” Women’s Careers

The childfree have little cause to worry about maternity leave… or do we? In Britain, women can take statutory maternity leave of up to a year with statutory pay of 39 weeks. The 52 weeks is the result of a recent extension, but what we’ve been suspecting for some time now is out in the open. And that is employers (particularly smaller businesses) are thinking twice before offering women jobs or promotion. Fathers can now also take paternity leave for up to two weeks. The government, after focusing on maternity leave for years now thinks that it’s that focus that’s causing the backlash. Their solution? To extend more leave to fathers so that it’s shared and called “parental leave,” presumably to take the heat off the maternity leave.

The times I’ve wished that I was entitled to some leave (other than holidays or vacation) to take care of what’s important to me are innumerable. Parental benefits always take priority over those without children. Family-friendly means people with children friendly. Women can go off every other year to have children and would still get the same benefits. But let’s put that unfairness aside for now and get back to the article.

While businesses want a rest from the changes to maternity leave the government on the other hand wants to extend the leave to both the mothers and the fathers. So that would mean upping the time fathers can take off as paternity or “parental” leave. That, of course only widens the problem for employers. Both parents could feasibly take up to 6 months off… if the current leave time is shared. Meanwhile businesses would be left with sorting out the resulting administrative paperwork nightmare as if they don’t have enough already. It remains to be seen whether men would rush to take up the extended parental leave. But who knows?

The anecdotal stories that some businesses are refusing to employ women of childbearing age maybe aren’t all that anecdotal after all.

So what does this have to do with the childfree? Leaving aside that the childfree and others without children are left to carry the extra workload when their colleagues are off having kids – and get no such accommodation it might actually be a good time to talk up the fact that we’re childfree. That we’re not going to go off and have children and that means we bring more flexibility to the employer.

Childfree Chick shows the way on her post here: Side Stepping the mommy tax. Well worth a read – and a indication of the future – a future where we won’t have to hide our child free-ness but can make it a unique selling point when it comes to getting a job.

Mothers feel they should have the right to careers as well as time to spend with their children. Here are the views of one mother taken from the BBC website:

“I took a year off when my son was born. I think spending the first year of your child’s life with them is hugely important and would not have done anything differently.

However, I was not entitled to my old job back when I returned to the same company, regardless of my loyalty and hard work, so a compromise had to be reached. I know that I will not have the same opportunities for promotion as I chose to come back part-time, but your priorities change and you don’t take work so seriously once you have a kid.

I think the whole process of returning to work should be made easier for women as it nearly gave me a hernia… it was so stressful arranging childcare and working out finances.”

If you don’t take work so seriously once you have a kid, then why should any business take the mother seriously? I wonder, will there ever come a time when childfree men and women get even half of the benefits one gets simply because they’ve decided to have children, a personal decision.

Here’s another view…

“Next week I will return to work after 10 months’ maternity leave. I have had to compromise my career in the police but that is more my choice than that of my employer, who has been very good. I do feel that some women feel they should have it all. Having children is a choice and a privilege that some are not lucky enough to have.”

My view? From what I have seen in working environments I’ve been in, mothers have nothing to complain about. Granted those are larger employers, whose benefit packages are substantial. But just recently I was hearing from one of my colleagues how three people off on maternity leave (one for the second time in as many years) was wrecking havoc on projects. Hiring replacements was extremely difficult and so people were doing double, even triple duty in terms of workload. That we still have to play second fiddle to those who decide to re-produce is something I hope will be rectified at some point. But I’m not holding my breath. And neither am I blaming smaller employers for looking out for what works best for their business.

Over to you.

Technorati Tags: childfree, childfree

http://talk.sheknows.com/f86/its-negative-723657/

Which does beg the question… isn’t this a childfree alert? of course it’s because the word “childfree” is used, but it’s so annoying when it say “Google Blog Alert for; Childfree” only to read a bunch of discussions about ivf, devastation because  you can’t get pregnant and how it sucks that others take their fertility for granted. I just wish these weren’t in our “childfree” blog alerts. Then I wouldn’t have to read them.

But it’s clear that people don’t really understand what being childfree is all about. They’re now tending to use the term because it sounds better than “childless.” Of course it does. But is the term being incorrectly used?  Here’s my view.

“Childfree” is a state of mind and a state of living. It’s a profoundly happy and, grateful and joyful state of mind, in that truly childfree people, if they ever wanted children, do not regret that they don’t or couldn’t have them. Overwhelmingly  most childfree people can say quite happily that they don’t have children and don’t want children. They’ve made a choice – and they’re satisfied, despite public criticism.

“At this point I need to figure out what to do next. I’ve looked into adoption before. I’m not exactly sure if I want to go that route, but the alternative is to live “childfree.” I read that in a book, which sounds better than “childless”. Although technically, that is what I would be.”

So, what do you think –  is she childfree or childless?

Technorati Tags: childfree, childfree

To breed or not to breed

“One day, when all the non-breeders are sitting in their recycled-wood rocking chairs, having developed gout from too much red wine and good living, I trust my children will be working hard to keep the Earth in good nick. For their children.”

I just had to laugh when I read this line. Dream on. It will be interesting to see just how much of the Earth will remain to be kept in good nick given the procreation instincts of the pro-childed. it’s funny that people with kids seem to forget how much children consume… consoling themselves into thinking that the children will just find “environmentally friendly ways of doing things.” That sounds like the “mother” of all oxymorons. Having children is about as un-environmentally friendly as you can get. Being childfree is the biggest environmental statement you can make, but one reason not to breed and often not the main reason.

According to the pro-natalist, however humans must breed. But look at the tired reasons they give… old people (whom she says are well off but still need strong young ‘uns to keep them in the life they’ve become accustomed to). Actually, fewer of them are actually that well off, many are going to be working well into their old age and it will be toss up if they can even maintain their current living standards. Instead of prattling on about how humans must go forth and continue populating the world with “the right breed of konsumer kiddies” wouldn’t it be more prudent to advocate for systems to help people sock as much away as possible for their older years? But no. Having children will presumably solve that…

As always, the comments are revealing…along with the usual collection of bingoes – too many to mention – and those who think having children is a “duty, mandate, or a directive from God.

The childed still believe they can convince the childfree they have to breed oops – pro-create… they don’t seem to understand that we are comfortable with our decision… unlike them.

Check it out – your thoughts?

Thanks to Childfreeeee for sending me the link to this video clip and her post.

Praise and Criticism for the today show

Blogspot mechanics meant that for some reason I couldn’t leave a comment on her blog (I don’t think blogger likes me) but I am only too happy to post here. I hope you’ll check out the post on her blog and comment there too.

I watched the video and my thoughts are very similar to Childfreeee’s. I wondered why the Today show was talking about the happiness of childed and childfree couples – yet had only childed people on the show. How on earth would childed people know anything about how happy childfree people are? Except of course through reading the studies that have been done.

As was mentioned in Childfreeee’s post, it would have been more authentic if they had actually had childfree people talking about their lives, how being childfree is an equally valid choice and that there are other options other than parenthood. And, as Childfreeee also said they could have given advice for parents not to be so intrusive when they speak with childfree people. But no.That was too much to expect.

But where I tuned out was when the interviewer asked “so how can we help parents be happier when they have children?”

It was back to the the supremacy of parents with children. Which was probably where it had always been, since they were the target audience.

I really don’t know why they even bothered to mention the childfree at all. But if shows can’t be bothered to get actual people who are living childfree (and represent them fairly) then let’s not have parent talking heads pretending to speak for them.

Watch the clip and do share your thoughts.

Technorati Tags: childfree