Two or more people sent me this link (thank you) so I thought it should probably be the next article to blog about.
Why bosses are right to distrust women who don’t want children
Frankly, after reading the article I half-wondered if it wasn’t some hoax to get attention… you know, last time it was Nicki Defago trilling about how she’d de-camped to mumsy-land because she fell in love with her pet somewhat out of the blue.
But no. It’s certainly a headline-grabber, but it sounds like the writer has been off her meds, or needs new ones, or broke that crystal ball she looks into instead (presumably) of working. I mean how else can a person (a one-time boss no doubt) latch on to some inconclusive research to trumpet that childfree women are not only likely to be distrusted, but actually ARE un-trustworthy. For no other reason that they’ve chosen not to have kids.
Definitely Ms Sarler is off her meds. Pity anyone who ever worked for such a myopic idiot. And she was a boss? I am very happy to say that wherever I have worked I have never seen childfree women vilified or prevented from fulfilling their careers. Quite the reverse. It is the childfree women that put in more hours, and that are there doing the work while the mothers are on maternity leave or dashing off to deal with the latest child crisis. The bosses of smaller companies are tearing their hair out… especially now.
The over generalizations in the article were so astounding that they would have been funny, if it wasn’t so sad that a supposedly educated person was spouting them. A boss who:
- Trumpets that women should have the right to choose, but deep down doesn’t really believe it, because SHE can’t understand why that choice might extend to not reproducing
- Understands if a 66–year old person wants to become a mother… nothing wrong there apparently…
- Plays guessing games about whether women are mothers or not and comes to weird conclusions based on that fact.
Heaven help the women – and men – of whom this woman is boss. I think this comment by a business owner says it:
“Uh, no..in my experience as a business owner I can assure you that the most dedicated and reliable employees have been women without children..I can’t count the times I have had mothers expect more time off due to all kinds of child-related excuses..and they expect it..the reality is, its difficult to work and have kids and something usually suffers and many times it is the workplace..what era is the author living in?”
You will have to read the article for yourself because as I read it I found it hard to believe this woman could actually really believe the nonsense she was scribbling. I may come back and add another part to this… The comments more or less make short shrift of her. Feel free to leave your comments here on the blog.
My message to Carol Sarler is this…you’re more than weird… you are ignorant. That’s much much worse. You need to get out more and smell the coffee. We are past rating women on the actions of their uterus. It isn’t up to you to understand anyone’s choice to reproduce or not… just mind your own business and keep your nose out of what you don’t understand. The world will be a better place.
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
A mother chose to push something the size of a watermelon out of her vagina and be a slave to it the rest of her life, only to add another person to a planet that really can’t handle any more people, with the delusion that she is doing something noble with her life, and we CF have our sanity questioned?
The article was so ridiculous I had a hard time finishing it.
After reading that article last week, my first thought was, “I should argue with her article by point on my blog.”
Then I re-read it and found it so ridiculous and lacking in substance that it just wasn’t worth it. She’s the same as any other bigot who’d splash prejudice on a blog. What do you say to someone who says, “[Insert ethnicity] are [this] or [that]!” (depending on the popular stereotype)? The best you can say us, “Nuh-uh! I have evidence that this isn’t true!”
And then they’ll throw their anecdotal evidence back at you. Arguing with a bigot is a waste of time.
(My aunt, a few months ago, told me she thought women without children were less flexible, less giving, and very selfish. She told me this knowing I had no children and wanted no children, but she talked about it as if she DIDN’T know this. As if she weren’t talking about me at all. I told her, then, that I knew several people without children who were extraordinarily charitable, volunteered their time to wonderful causes, etc. She didn’t even hear me. “Well, all the women I know who don’t have children are colder than most mothers.” There’s no winning.)
The bit that made me snort with derision was when she said something along the lines that “mothers have an essential humanity” that everyone else lacks. It’s the ususal bull of trying to say that something that really isn’t an achievement (“I had unprotected sex! I’m amazing!) is a shorthand for all these wonderful qualities. If all women who gave birth were amazing, there would be no need for foster care or adoption. Hell, there would be no mothers whining about how haaaard it all is, like in the Mail today.
I meant to reference this quote from the article with my post above:
“there’s one choice I simply cannot understand: the choice of an otherwise sane and healthy woman not to have children.”
Zena – I suppose that means any woman who doesn’t want kids is insane… at least according to Ms Sarler. Quite the narrow world she lives in.
Yes Britgirl, and with everything I mentioned in my first post (Post #1) to this item, mothers should be judged as the insane ones, not us.
Schizophrenic. Does she read minds too??
Too insane to take serious.
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6342116.ece
A well written opposing argument to Sarler’s. AND written by a parent!
I bet the people Carol Sarler works (worked?) with just love her and her constant stream of unsolicited opinions. Kristen has it nailed, this lady probably has a KKK outfit hanging deep in the closet somewhere.
I took a look at some of her other articles and have concluded her to be a professional “troll”. She is paid to increase ratings by writing vitriolic articles about stupid topics. Surely nobody could be as inconcsistent, nasty and ignorant as her?
In this article she states that a woman without children is not a true woman, but then in another article states that the WI, in creating a video of sex tips for older women, is suggesting that “women are lacking something” if they’re not still enjoying a sex life. Well now, are we allowed to judge whether other women are “lacking something”, or are we not?
Then again, she probably bounces all her article ideas off her toddlers, who, not knowing better, nod and smile at everything she says.
Sometimes I think that the childfree are the ones who SHOULD be having kids – so that we can at least raise them to be sensible, sensitive to the choices of others and open minded.
Shame more parents out there don’t think just a little more like we do!
I tried to leave a comment but it wasn’t published. Some people don’t like it when they’re handed reality checks.
As for the fool who wrote the piece of trash, I had to laugh when I read she spouted off something along the lines of childfree women “lacking an essential humanity”. Sarler is a mother, yet she’s one of the bitchiest writers on the paper! Where’s her “essential humanity”? And if mothers are so noble, how come there are so many abused and neglected children in the world?
IMO, she’s secretly jealous of childfree women. If you’re happy and secure about your own life choices, you don’t go around lambasting anyone else’s. Just sayin’!
I wrote about this too, honestly, I was appalled. I just learned about the article last night, but I was absolutely infuriated. I mean, who’s she kidding? Does she really believe she’s making mothers look amazing by propagating the 1950′s sitcom myth? Does she really believe all childfree are just a bunch of drunken party people? Uniformed, ignorant, and published.
It’s ridiculous. I was amused until the whole, “lacking essential humanity” thing, that’s the point at which my amusement turned to anger. I guess it just get’s tiring hearing that some other ignorant mommyist has published something nasty about the childfree.
I agree with Serrin – this woman is basically a hack who is paid to write inflammatory articles in the hope of pushing up the ailing circulation of a nasty and hate-filled rag (the ‘Daily Heil’, as we call it in our house).
When I see articles like this, I try just to smile and walk on by in a ‘forgive them, they know not what they do’ kind of a way. She is beyond contempt and probably more worthy of pity, if this is really the way she thinks – after all, you must be a pretty unpleasant and unhappy person to be that ignorant, closed minded and prejudiced.
On another UK CF forum that I visit, several members have made complaints to the Press Complaints Commission under Article 12, stating that this article amounts to hatemongering and also contains elements of sexism – as a test, try removing the phrase ‘childless woman’ (also, ‘childless’?! Has she done no bloody research? Er, well, no…) and replace it with Muslim woman/woman of colour/Jew etc.
If anybody is interested in making a complaint, you can click the link here:
http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/process.html
Even if the PCC don’t take any action, they still send a record of all complaints made to the editor of the paper in question, so at least we will be getting our point across in a small way!
Yes, that was rather hilarious. not.. In fact i thought it was that point that showed how mean and spiteful she really was.
At least we can discuss and rebut her claims in a way that would probably explode the likes of the Daily Mail (I call it a Fascist Rag – or is that the Observer?). One thing that I felt was that the childfree women didn’t need to explain why they decided not to have children – especially to her… and yet they were doing just that.
In the end who cares whether she understands? As a boss she’s paid to do a job, not asses the reproduction odds of her staff. Wonder if men get subjected to her “essential lack of humanity” stripe?
I was looking for this alleged study and found it on the DailyMail. It’s called “Childless Women vilified by bosses: Why Not having a family could ruin your career.” I’ve linked it here: http://tinyurl.com/qemdo5. Basically it was a study done by a researcher named Dr. Caroline Gatrell who conducted 120 in-depth interviews and read 1400 internet forum posts.
So after reading the article that deals with the “study,” it looks as though Carol Sarler took the findings out of context (Gee–what a shock!).
“Women of child-bearing age can also be overlooked for more senior roles because employers are unsure whether they are likely to have a baby soon.” Well, that makes sense. What employer wants to invest the time and money in someone who’s gonna ditch them soon after being hired? So the perception of impending parenthood is seen as a negative here. Where does Sarler address that?
The researcher concludes that “working women can’t win.” She added: ‘Women with children are blamed for combining motherhood with paid work – and women with no children are sidelined and discounted because they are not mothers.’
Clearly Sarler filtered the study and mangled it to fit her skewed view of reality. I bet she completely ignored the differing view located toward the end of the article, where Dr. Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics disagreed with the study: “‘I carried out a survey for the Economic and Social Research Council on childlessness in Europe, and found that a high proportion of women in higher-grade occupations are child-free or childless.”
Isn’t that weird Miss Sarler? Hedonistic lushes are somehow outperforming the ultra productive, multi-tasking super moms. You should look into that, or better yet–quietly guzzle your winebox and leave your bigoted opinions where they belong—with the Republican party.
Very pretty new blog look!
@ Kristen and all – comments are now threading so you’ll be able to more easily respond to individuals rather than having to scroll up and down when there are a large # of comments. I am hoping it makes conversing a lot easier. Thanks for making this blog so interesting – and better than most “rags” – if you know what I mean! Enjoy.
Thanks Kristen! I will be playing with a few of them – kept the same basic theme though
Thanks for sharing the link Kitikaze. I recall seeing it on a forum somewhere, but I couldn’t remember if I did, if it was the same research or if I’d imagined seeing it.
Mse Sarler is clearly a journalistic hack, who isn’t above twisting things to suit her bigoted views. With complicity from the Daily Mail.
Love the new layout
It’s just a cheap and nasty puff-piece. She’s paid to write these; just to stir up conflict. But there’s no denying she’s a selfish, dispassionate, ignorant and offensive bitch. If I ever crossed paths with her, she’d have to have surgery before she could type another article like that one. Doesn’t it say enough about her as a hack that she’s employed by the Daily Heil?
that she’s a “journalist” for the Daily H..Mail is a giveaway. a rag that just loves to stir controversy because it doesn’t really have any news.
“Much as I like to trumpet the importance of a woman’s right to choose all things at all times, there’s one choice I simply cannot understand: the choice of an otherwise sane and healthy woman not to have children.”
Notice the ‘poisoning the well’ tactic here – your ‘otherwise sane and healthy’ comment clearly states that the choice NOT to have children must be insane and unhealthy as a foregone conclusion. Without actually having PROVED it at all, you present it as a given. Why? If YOU want or like something, assuming that you are sane (and judging from this article that is a BIG assumption), all other sane people must think the same as you? Quite a large logical fallacy here, and were are only on the first paragraph. Not very promising.
….
Yet if she says she hasn’t a shred of maternal feeling in her, moreover, if she says she would prefer to concentrate on her career and that a child would only get in the way of it, then my head might acknowledge her right to do so. But my heart whispers: ‘Lady, you’re weird.’
So anyone who doesn’t like the same things as you is ‘weird’ by your book? And of course if she is ‘weird’ by YOUR book, she must be objectively really weird and damaged? And you are the one saying that OTHER people are the ones with the problems? Seriously? Archaeology is my life – that doesn’t mean that I need to expect that other people must want to be archaeologists too – and it doesn’t mean that I think that there is anything wrong with them if they don’t. I am confident and happy enough in my own self and path not to need to validate myself by negatively judging those who do not want to follow that path. It is a well known trope that those who are truly happy in what they do, do not feel the need to judge those who do not want the same thing.
It was welcome news, therefore, to discover this week that I am not alone.
Because if other people share the same delusion or bigoted idea, that makes it all OK? Would you say the same to those who are racist or homophobic? It is OK, because there are others who feel the same?
A stereotype being makes it no less bigoted.
i>As a result, it is these single-track careerists who are increasingly likely to be vilified, refused jobs and denied promotion because many employers believe them to lack what the study calls ‘an essential humanity’. And I know exactly what they mean.
I’m sure you do – it is already pretty clear that you can’t look beyond your own choices and lifestyle to allow that others may also be valid.
And if that touch of ‘essential humanity’ – or its absence – colours such notably tough professions, it’s hardly surprising that employers are starting to notice that the same applies across the spectrum of workplaces.
*Blinks* wait a minute – where exactly have you proven anything about lack of ‘essential humanity’? Did you drop a whole paragraph? The only mention you made was an idea held by some employers, and now you are trying to pretend that it is an established fact. You are trying to sneak in an unproven claim (a lack of humanity in those who don’t want kids) as a given fact. If you suggest that people who don’t have (or want) kids are less human you had better have something to support such an outrageous and offensive statement. How dare you.
Of course, we need not be silly about it.
Nobody wishes to see a female soldier in combat with a six-week-old infant in one arm and a rifle in the other.
Assuming that she even WANTS the kid. But then you do allow for women who physically CAN’T have kids and here you allow a LITTLE for women who are in a career where they actually cannot have them (except they are just supposed to wait a bit). It is us evil wenches who CAN have them and choose not to that you have a problem with. Newsflash – it is not all abou thte career, either – some of us just do. not. want. them. PERIOD.
….But most jobs aren’t like that – and most children don’t stay babies for long.
So what? Those who REALLY want to have kids will find a way to make it work, except for those hardest jobs. Therefore, those who don’t may NOT really want kids at all. Why is this such a shocking concept? Aside from the fact that YOU really like being a mother, and wanted to do it and were attracted to kids! Not everyone is the same as you. That does not make them wrong, damaged or faulty in some way. You are not the default for all women, and your personality is not the be all and end all for all women..
[The mothers] They’re not there to compete for the attentions of the male executives;
And women who don’t have kids are? Going after men is connected to whether or not you are in a committed sexual relationship, not whether you have children. You are conflating SINGLE and childless – these are not the same.
…and they’re there because they have mouths to feed other than their own and shoes to buy for someone else’s feet.
So, I am not going to work hard because I am only paying my own rent, buying my own food and clothes and medications? If I don’t have kids, I can just live on air? Or does it just matter less if *I* eat and have a place to live?
Two-thirds of working mothers, a recent survey found, could not provide for the children they love in the manner they would wish if they lost their jobs. So there’s incentive for you.
And if I lost my job, I couldn’t provide for myself – but I guess it is a crime for a woman to love herself and care aobut her OWN wellfare.
If I lost my job, *I* couldn’t eat either – is that somehow less important? And I would have LESS access to public help, so I would be in WORSE shape. There is much less of a safety net for people without kids.
…
The prioritising that may baffle other people is a cinch for a woman who has spent years juggling a household. Negotiating skills? A request for 10 per cent off an overdue invoice is nothing to a woman who has had to broker a deal on Britain’s Got Talent versus bedtime.
Because if you don’t have children, you don’t have a household? Are you seriously suggesting that a deal that could affect multiple people’s job security is somehow LESS important than one kid’s bedtime????? If anyhting, I would take this as evidence that parenting 9at least in YOUR life) has made you LESS caring – you now elevate the importance of your kids over that of other people.
When it comes to emergencies, if you have run all the way to a clinic with a terrified toddler vomiting down your neck then, trust me, a package delayed in transit is a piece of cake.
And again, emergencies only count (or exist) if they are baby related? The person whose job or pay might be in jeapardy because of that package would NOT agree with you that YOUR child is more important than everyhitng else.
And if those are the tangibles, the intangibles – the ‘essential humanity’ – are more important still.
So? Are you saying that those without children don’t have ‘essential humanity’? Are you only allowed to get to be human after having kids? And does this mean that you don’t think your kids are really fully human yet?
You cannot be a mother without knowing something about selflessness, compassion, generosity, commitment, fierce loyalty and plain hard work.
Actually, you CAN very well be a mother and learn none of those things. Not a GOOD mother, but not all mothers ARE.
Note the unspoken implication that the women who don’t have kids do NOT have those things. This implies that the ONLY way to knowing something about “selflessness, compassion, generosity, commitment, fierce loyalty and plain hard work” is to have kids. I would love to see you back this up!
Why do you have to have kids for any of the above? Yes, you can develop in those areas through kids, but there are countless other ways, not any less important or valid. People are either originally essentially decent in those areas, or they are not. If they are, they do not need to have kids to develop as a person.
You cannot – surely – be a boss and not value assets such as those in your staff.
But apparently only in those members of your staff who have a similar personal life to yourself? Or does the ‘good’ boss assume that only the people who have a similar personal life to her could have those good qualities? Funny, that sounds more like a BIGOTED boss to me. Do you have the same views of people who don’t have the same sexual orientation or religion as you?
…But, more than all the things we want, we actually need our children; they complete us as women, they are our light and our love and our legacy.
And so all other women need to feel the same? Who made YOU the judge of the entire gender? There is something wrong with me because I am complete as a person myself? Do you tell the lesbians that they are wrong because they don’t need a man to complete them?
I have different lights, different lives and different legacies than you. You are not the basis for measuring the lives and interests of other people – you are not the default woman, and you have no basis for telling me what should complete me.
We feel desperately sorry for those who yearn for children they cannot have; the unwilling barren, if you will. But when we meet a woman who chooses her childlessness in the belief that there is something out there worth more, we smile politely even while – once again – our guts whisper: ‘Lady, you’re weird.’
Why? What have you proved here? (Aside from the fact that you are narrow minded and pathologically incapable of projecting your own personality and motivations onto all other women and punishing those who do not conform).
Every single argument you make is flawed and based on unspoken assumptions and leaps in logic.
First you say that you feel that someone who does not want the same as you is weird, just because they are not like you and you can’t understand it. Now here you present it as some sort of objective observation. They are ‘weird’ because you feel that they are weird (because they are not (like)you), and because of that they are weird. This is circular reasoning that proves absolutely nothing.
So three cheers for the employers who are catching on, the ones who don’t want to people their workforces with the cold, the calculating, the sad and the mad. The only question is: what took you so long?
And here you take it even further – now you feel free to insult me openly. How dare you impose your life on mine?
Each of the things you say here has not been even remotely openly or honestly addressed, yet alone proven.
You have not once clearly discussed women who don’t want kids –instead you talk about mothers and their supposed characteristics.
Apparently, that was supposed to imply that women who don’t want kids don’t have any of those characteristics. I guess by implying in a sneaky way you didn’t think that you have to support what you say.
Mothers are ‘caring’ and ‘hard working’? Well apparently that is supposed to mean that non-mothers are not? Why? How did you make this point, let alone support it?
Cold? Where did you get this from? Why is not wanting what you want cold? You have never supported this in anyway.
As best I am able to reconstruct this argument, you are saying that motherhood causes you to be warm and caring, and therefore, you have to be a mother to be warm and caring so then not being a mother means you have to be cold and uncaring. This is full of fallacies.
I could say that taking care of a big dog makes you warm and caring, but does that mean that people who don’t want a pet, or who prefer cats are cold and uncaring?
The same for calculating. Again no proof.
Sad? According to whom? So now I have to be sad if I don’t have what you do, regardless if I want it or not?
And MAD???? Here we really see your bigotry, and crazed narcissism straight out. You honestly think that if someone is not like you and doesn’t want to be like and live your life they must be crazy. If you ask me, THAT is the truly insane point of view.
…and they’re there because they have mouths to feed other than their own and shoes to buy for someone else’s feet.
So, I am not going to work hard because I am only paying my own rent, buying my own food and clothes and medications? If I don’t have kids, I can just live on air? Or does it just matter less if *I* eat and have a place to live?
Two-thirds of working mothers, a recent survey found, could not provide for the children they love in the manner they would wish if they lost their jobs. So there’s incentive for you.
And if I lost my job, I couldn’t provide for myself – but that is not suposed to be *real* motivation???!!!??
but I guess it is a crime for a woman to love herself and care aobut her OWN wellfare.
If I lost my job, *I* couldn’t eat either – is that somehow less important? And I would have LESS access to public help, so I would be in WORSE shape. There is much less of a safety net for people without kids.
…
The prioritising that may baffle other people is a cinch for a woman who has spent years juggling a household. Negotiating skills? A request for 10 per cent off an overdue invoice is nothing to a woman who has had to broker a deal on Britain’s Got Talent versus bedtime.
Because if you don’t have children, you don’t have a household? Are you seriously suggesting that a deal that could affect multiple people’s job security is somehow LESS important than one kid’s bedtime????? If anyhting, I would take this as evidence that parenting 9at least in YOUR life) has made you LESS caring – you now elevate the importance of your kids over that of other people.
When it comes to emergencies, if you have run all the way to a clinic with a terrified toddler vomiting down your neck then, trust me, a package delayed in transit is a piece of cake.
And again, emergencies only count (or exist) if they are baby related? The person whose job or pay might be in jeapardy because of that package would NOT agree with you that YOUR child is more important than everyhitng else.
And if those are the tangibles, the intangibles – the ‘essential humanity’ – are more important still.
So? Are you saying that those without children don’t have ‘essential humanity’? Are you only allowed to get to be human after having kids? And does this mean that you don’t think your kids are really fully human yet?
You cannot be a mother without knowing something about selflessness, compassion, generosity, commitment, fierce loyalty and plain hard work.
Actually, you CAN very well be a mother and learn none of those things. Not a GOOD mother, but not all mothers ARE.
Note the unspoken implication that the women who don’t have kids do NOT have those things. This implies that the ONLY way to knowing something about “selflessness, compassion, generosity, commitment, fierce loyalty and plain hard work” is to have kids. I would love to see you back this up!
Why do you have to have kids for any of the above? Yes, you can develop in those areas through kids, but there are countless other ways, not any less important or valid. People are either originally essentially decent in those areas, or they are not. If they are, they do not need to have kids to develop as a person.
You cannot – surely – be a boss and not value assets such as those in your staff.
But apparently only in those members of your staff who have a similar personal life to yourself? Or does the ‘good’ boss assume that only the people who have a similar personal life to her could have those good qualities? Funny, that sounds more like a BIGOTED boss to me. Do you have the same views of people who don’t have the same sexual orientation or religion as you?
…But, more than all the things we want, we actually need our children; they complete us as women, they are our light and our love and our legacy.
And so all other women need to feel the same? Who made YOU the judge of the entire gender? There is something wrong with me because I am complete as a person myself? Do you tell the lesbians that they are wrong because they don’t need a man to complete them? I will thank you to NOT tell me what I want, what I need or what will complete me. You do not know me.
I have different lights, different lives and different legacies than you. You are not the basis for measuring the lives and interests of other people – you are not the default woman, and you have no basis for telling me what should complete me.
We feel desperately sorry for those who yearn for children they cannot have; the unwilling barren, if you will. But when we meet a woman who chooses her childlessness in the belief that there is something out there worth more, we smile politely even while – once again – our guts whisper: ‘Lady, you’re weird.’
Why? What have you proved here? (Aside from the fact that you are narrow minded and pathologically incapable of projecting your own personality and motivations onto all other women and punishing those who do not conform).
Every single argument you make is flawed and based on unspoken assumptions and leaps in logic.
First you say that you feel that someone who does not want the same as you is weird, just because they are not like you and you can’t understand it. Now here you present it as some sort of objective observation. They are ‘weird’ because you feel that they are weird (because they are not (like)you), and because of that they are weird. This is circular reasoning that proves absolutely nothing.
So three cheers for the employers who are catching on, the ones who don’t want to people their workforces with the cold, the calculating, the sad and the mad. The only question is: what took you so long?
And here you take it even further – now you feel free to insult me openly. How dare you impose your life on mine?
Each of the things you say here has not been even remotely openly or honestly addressed, yet alone proven.
You have not once clearly discussed women who don’t want kids –instead you talk about mothers and their supposed characteristics.
Apparently, that was supposed to imply that women who don’t want kids don’t have any of those characteristics. I guess by implying in a sneaky way you didn’t think that you have to support what you say.
Mothers are ‘caring’ and ‘hard working’? Well apparently that is supposed to mean that non-mothers are not? Why? How did you make this point, let alone support it?
Cold? Where did you get this from? Why is not wanting what you want cold? You have never supported this in anyway.
As best I am able to reconstruct this argument, you are saying that motherhood causes you to be warm and caring, and therefore, you have to be a mother to be warm and caring so then not being a mother means you have to be cold and uncaring. This is full of fallacies.
I could say that taking care of a big dog makes you warm and caring, but does that mean that people who don’t want a pet, or who prefer cats are cold and uncaring?
The same for calculating. Again no proof.
Sad? According to whom? So now I have to be sad if I don’t have what you do, regardless if I want it or not?
And MAD???? Here we really see your bigotry, and crazed narcissism straight out. You honestly think that if someone is not like you and doesn’t want to be like and live your life they must be crazy. If you ask me, THAT is the truly insane point of view.
Bravo ehartsay! I think you shot every fish in that barrel! It’s sort of grisly watching a logical person who is capable of critical thought take on a dim bulb, but it’s also tremendously entertaining!
I think I’m going to print out your comments and carry them in my wallet! Job well done!
It is fascinating isn’t it how many people take the huge leap to conclude that because someone had sex and produced a baby they are suddenly bestowed with all the best character traits? Having a child doesn’t make you a good person/parent anymore than owning a guitar makes you a rock star.
The woman who wrote this article is either completely demented or a professional button pusher. I don’t know what the laws state in the U.K. but in the U.S. it is illegal to ask in a job interview if you have children or are married, since how you conduct your private life should be irrelevant to how you do your job. There are very strict EEOC laws in place here. Any sort of hint that you are discriminating against an employee in any way but especially with regard to her reproductive life and you’ll end up with a whopper of a lawsuit on your hands.
Thanks! I just HAD to do a write up on this. It was just killing me until I got all the poison out of my system!
An excellent write-up and tnank you for this!
I think that journalist was off her meds… revealing her true character. I bet she was jealous of someone who didn’t have kids as Lee said. She’s probably been traumatized ever since.
You know this woman (who doesn’t appear to be the sharpest crayon in the box) probably lost out on some opportunity in her professional life to a woman who had no children who was more capable (how could one not be smarter) than she was and rather than compare skill sets and see where hers were lacking, she decided to demonize an entire group of women who happen to share one characteristic with her “cold”, “calculating” childfree enemy.
Poor her. She has the thought processes of a two year old child.
I have one child and enjoy parenting. I have friends who have children and who have chosen not to. It’s never been an issue but then we’re not unidimensional.
I’ve never cared one bit about whether a person decides to reproduce. It’s about as much concern to me as sexual orientation or religious belief. I only start to care when the rhetoric turns hateful or fanatical.
I’m an atheist and a vegetarian. I get hit a lot by Christian fundies who feel compelled to tell me my beliefs and choices are abnormal or unnatural. It’s annoying to be put on the defensive your entire life.
So here’s my question…maybe you’ll consider posting a reply addressing this topic…
Why is there a subpopulation of the childfree who hate women who have chosen to reproduce? I stumbled across a board full of fairly nasty and inflammatory rhetoric – children were called crotchfruit, mothers were called moos or cows. The posters wrote that they hated children and talked about ways they liked to or planned to hurt mothers.
Is this sentiment typical of those who are childfree? That solitary website has permanently altered my perceptions of those who use the descriptor childree.
@Elizabeth – 1.You go to one childfree board and that permanently alters your perceptions of those who are childfree? Really? Here’s the thing. One solitary childfree board does not the internet nor a group of people make. 2.)There’s no censorship on this blog. But there is a pretty big archive of posts and comments if you’re at all interested in learning more about childfree people and what we think and feel. Don’t forget to read the disclaimer first.
Elizabeth, Any group of people that is constantly harrassed is likely to fight back, and often to overdo it. It’s nothing to do with being childfree and everything to do with being human.
I personally find the use of words like “moos” quite insulting and I don’t like it, but I do note that it refers to a certain type of person – usually the person who has just spent twenty minutes telling me that I am selfish, stupid etc etc etc. At times my frustration overflows and I bite back. Other times I casually wave it off and turn away. The important point here is that I don’t hate ALL women who have reproduced – but I do get very angry at the women who have reproduced AND insist on telling me how much better they are than I because of it.
This blog does tend to be fairly level headed, which is why I come here a lot. Others aren’t so much. That probably just means that certain blogs attract a certain kind of person. If you saw a site that condones something abhorrent like rape, and saw a bunch of guys posting on it, surely you perceptions of ALL men wouldn’t be “permanently altered”? That’s just ridiculous.
I’d suggest staying away from sites that you find unpalatable and seek out ones that you find more in line with your own way of thinking, if you’re interested. You’ll come across just as many reasonable and unreasonable people in the childfree community as you will in any other community, and if you’d stopped to think before posting on here I’m sure you would have realised that.