Childfree by Choice

Newer
The Mommy Wars Older
The Toxins Around Us

Embed this Video

February 11, 2009

There's a growing movement across the blogosphere of people who have chosen to remain childless. It's called childfree by choice, and its proponents claim societal discrimination due to their decision not to have kids. But does their desire to remain kid-free cause them to look down on moms and their children? Heather Armstrong from Dooce asks the panelists, "What do you think about the childfree by choice folks?"

What do you think about people who are childfree by choice? Do you think they're anti-kid? Or do you see it as just another life decision? Are you childfree by choice? Join the Momversation by commenting in one of our related forums below:

Panelists

Dana Loesch - Mamalogues Heather Armstrong - Dooce Rebecca Woolf - Girl's Gone Child

Keywords

Parenting

Related Episodes

Sexual Abuse: How Do You Talk to Your Kids About It?

The "R" Word: Is It Ever OK to Use It?

Bargain Hunter: Are You One?

Finances and Friendships

Life Experiences: Do They Count as Education?

208 Comments

Krissybell76

I am child free by choice, but I love to hear, and read, what all you mommy bloggers have to say. On this issue I have a pretty different perspective. I grew up with an Aunt that was child free by choice, so in my family it wasn't odd for me to announce, as a young adult, that I had no intention of having children. I think that most of my extended family expected me to change my mind as I got older, but now I think they just tell their kids that I'm "crazy Aunt Kristin", and of course all of my nieces and nephews think I'm the coolest person on the planet. What really solidified my decision, though, was a class I took my third year of college, Marriage And Family Life. The teacher was a brilliant lady, but one entire lecture was about the choice to have, or not have, children. She said 'Having children requires you to give up on your own ambitions, if necessary, to allow for your child's development. If you are unwilling to selflessly focus a majority of your attention on their needs, then you should refrain from having kids." I know that most people don't consider this when having kids, and that you are all lucky enough to live in situations where you can focus a lot of your attention on your children, but I wouldn't wish my own upbringing on anyone. Although I'm positive that my mother would have loved to spend more time with us, she was a single mother just trying to put food on the table, and didn't have the time for us. I'm also self-aware enough to recognize that I am unwilling to give up my freedom for a child. To bring a child into a home of regret, or apathy, is more of a disservice to them, than a boon to myself.

Fri, 2010-03-05 12:26

momosan

Also...just...yes...

"The anger that is experienced on some childfree forums comes from the root fact that the society that we all share judges anyone harshly who does not conform to “the norm”. Childfree people are not taken seriously, even though we contribute equally, work just as hard and pay more than our fair share of taxes.

I have gone to the “childfree by choice” sites and I have posted on them in the past, and yes, there are some very angry people there. In many cases (whether or not people want to admit it), the anger is justified and it is focused on a society that perceives the childfree, and the way we choose to live in a negative way, while stumbling all over itself to make excuses for people like the utterly terrifying individual known as the Octomom.

Hearing that “I was childfree until I had my first child” is an insinuation that we can just have the experience and our minds will be immediately and forever changed, and our previous feelings, beliefs, concerns and reservations can just be conveniently tossed out the window. Even though it is probably not meant as such, statements like this dramatically illustrate the flippant condescension that we regularly experience, and only exacerbates the anger that a lot of childfree people feel. "

Thu, 2010-03-04 22:48

momosan

I am one of "they". I have chosen not to have children. I am no more the demon that was portrayed in these clips than you, the attacked mommy bloggers, are. I would probably love and dote upon your children. I don't hate the idea of them or your choice to have them. I am not bothered by any child's presence in public. I try to defend any parent who is being judged for not "controlling" their child's behavior because kids are kind of nuts, which is their appeal. I have never held an infant and had that pull. I just don't have the Maternal Instinct. Should I bring a child up in a home of apathy or regret? Not everyone stumbles into (spoken as a "happy accident") or works hard for the priviledge of becoming a parent and loves it. Given the fact that I don't see myself as someone who wants or would be good at the job, you should respect my decision, too. Yes, there are crazies who think you all should quit with the kids already or at least shut up about them, but we're not all like that.

Thu, 2010-03-04 22:33

Ajrxutho

Jusdbfedfwf

Thu, 2010-03-04 10:07

Esmlzmej

Hjuasdfasef

Wed, 2010-03-03 17:37

DGnoKidsEver

Aontonia, you are sorely lacking in knowledge about SS. You should check out www.concordcoalition.org for the truth. The retirement portion of it is a bad deal for many people. If corporations ran their pension programs the way the government runs SS, they would be thrown in jail for vastly underfunding the program. We will face either big tax hikes or benefit cuts once SS really goes broke.

You may not believe this, but I retired in 2008 at the age of 45. I can live off my current investment income for at least 20 years. After that, I will have my growing IRA ($300k now) and my pension to supplement it. Yes, I will collect SS in about 20 years if it is still around, even at reduced benefit levels. I was able to retire mainly because I am childfree and debtfree. No kids, no debts. If I had 2/3 of the SS taxes I (and my employer) paid for 23 years back (the part which pays retirees), I would have an even greater nest egg.

Your remarks about local school taxes are also off the mark. In my large co-op complex (about 220 units), we have nearly no kids going to any local schools. The high local school taxes are an obstacle to living here (especially for the elderly on fixed incomes) and hurt property values because a prospective buyer (likely a childless/free or elderly person) will need to compensated for these high taxes by paying a lower price for the apartment. Indeed, when I moved here 21 years ago, I did not care one bit about the quality of the schools. I cared about being able to afford the maintenance charges, most of which are property taxes.

I would love to live in an area which had no public schools so I would not have to pay any school taxes. When I turn 55, I can hopefully move to one if their age is that low. For those of us under 55, we are not allowed to create a community like that because it would violate housing laws if we banned kids from it. That rots.

All we get from paying more in local school taxes is the privilege of paying more in local school taxes. The teacher salaries and benefits are way out of line with the rest of us but that is a topic for its own discussion. I love what happened in Rhode Island last week when all the teachers in one area got fired.

The local school taxes I am paying are not some kid of repayment for my education. My parents paid for mine with their local school taxes. It is not a Ponzi scheme like SS is. It is a subsidy from the childless/free to the childed.

As far as family-friendly workplaces, you should read a few chapters from the great book, "The Baby Boon: How Family-Friendly America Cheats the Childless". I am glad my former company was as family-friendly as others I heard about. But they still gave some preferential treatment to those with kids. Once again, having kids is a lifestyle choice. It should not entitle you to prefenertial treatment in the workplace. How about equal pay for equal work?

I don't where you get your blather about DNA and the so-called "need" to pass it on. I feel no need whatsoever to pass along my DNA. It makes me angry to see those "Save the Children" ads from Africa where they breed and breed even though they can't afford to feed them. I'd rather send them all condoms. What purpose does their DNA serve when most of them won't survive for than a few years?

It is turning out to be pretty useless arguing with you, as you surely can't see what a childfree person sees. Having your facts wrong on SS doesn't help, either. And I don't see things the way a childed person sees. Can we just shake hands and call it a day?

Fri, 2010-02-26 16:26

Antonia

I want to comment on the idea that childless people feel like they don't get some of the benefits that people with children get. This is totally ridiculous. The reason they don't get those benefits is because they get the financial benefit of NOT HAVING CHILDREN! That's huge. Childless people by definition have no dependents, so they have no financial obligations to anyone but themselves, which puts them at a huge financial advantage in every way. They also have the advantage of climbing the professional ladder completely unfettered. You see, that luxurious maternity leave is not without it's penalties. If you are a professional woman and you come back from maternity leave, you find that you are no longer on the same career track as your peers and over time no longer on the same pay scale. You are not considered for the same work or same promotions. Forget partnership and all the cash that comes with it. So forgive me if I don't sympathize with the plight of childless people and the disparity they perceive in benefits.

Wed, 2010-02-24 21:07

DGnoKidsEver

Antonia, you have it all backwards.

Those of you who made the lifestyle CHOICE to have kids chose to FORGO the financial benefits of NOT having children. Nobody made you make this lifestyle choice, you made that choice all by yourself.

But when you made the lifestyle CHOICE to have kids, you also ended up forcing us childfree people to subsidize your lifestyle CHOICE, be it through the workplace or through the power of government. You could have kept the financial benefit you surrendered when you decided to have kids, but instead you made the CHOICE to weaken your financial position. Why should those of us who did not make such a choice be forced to compensate you?

Do skiers force non-skiers to help pay for their skis, travel, and lodging expenses? Of course not. Skiing is a lifestyle CHOICE and non-skiers don't have to help skiers out with their expenses even though non-skiers will have more money available, all other things being equal, because they don't ski.

And we childfree people surely have financial obligations that everyone else has. We have housing expenses, food, utilities, car loans, health care, and taxes to pay just like everyone else. Why should subsidizing those who made the CHOICE to have kids be an added expense for us?

Same thing with professional advancement. If you make the lifestyle CHOICE to have kids, you may be making yourself less available to your work and hurt your career advancement. This tells me that your kids are more important than your career, which is fine, but once again that is your CHOICE.

Why should a childfree person have any sympathy for a childed person who made a lifestyle CHOICE but then complains about the consequences of that CHOICE? If you were a skier, would you lash out at the non-skiers because they had more money than you?

Thu, 2010-02-25 20:04

Antonia

Firstly, you don't subsidize families any where to the degree you believe. Conversely, families produce the tax payers that will subsidize your old age. The military and Social Security are the largest chunk of the countries tax burden and families are producing the tax payers who will one day fund your medicare and SS benefits, and the people who will staff your hospitals and nursing homes and will inevitably take care of you in your old age. Europe over the next fifty years faces the greatest loss of life since the Plague because their citizens have chosen to be childless and as a consequence they will have to import tax payers.

Secondly, your skiing analogy is incongruous. It is fairly accepted by science that reproduction is a biological imperative. The majority of society does not have to ski for the human race to exist, but the majority of people do have to reproduce at least twice or we will cease to exist.

Look, I have no issue with people choosing to be childless, in fact I applaud the decision. However, to expect benefits beyond those you already inherently have puts you at an unfair advantage over families which produce a necessary component of society, people. No one exists in a vacuum. You needed people to bring you into this world and you will need people to help you on your way out. Where would you be without the sacrifices of a parent? Anyway, it should give you solace, that families are largely struggling to hold it together even on two incomes, which is further evidence that they don't get much in the way of benefits.

If you don't want kids, why are you reading/posting on a mom site?

Thu, 2010-02-25 22:11

DGnoKidsEver

Ah, where do I start? Can I count how many "bingos" you have thrown at me? A "bingo," in case you don't know, is one of the many tired, overused words or phrases the childed throw at us childfree to belittle their choice for being childfree.

Let's take the "Who is going to pay for your Social Security?" one. The retirement part of the Social Security program is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme, like Bernie Madoff's. His Ponzi scheme succeeded (for a while) only because he was able to find new "investors" to keep paying into it, the same way SS will continue to exist as long as people keep breeding to bring in new "investors" year after year. Ler people at least TRY to save for their own retirement instead of automatically depending on future generations to pay for them.

I would much prefer to have been able to opt out of the retirement part of SS and use the money I paid into the program (which went to other people older than me) to help fund my own retirement. Furthermore, I would have liked to add to my retirement account the money I paid in local school taxes (and will continue to pay even though I have no kids using the local schools) to educate everyone else's kids. Remember, the amount I pay in local school taxes does not take into account my burden on the local schools.

I don't expect everyone to be childfree. But it still a lifestyle choice, one which is overly subsidized and encouraged. A great many kids end up being a burden on society. They commit crimes, end up being breeders themselves to another generation of moochers, and can never repay to society what society has given to them.

Humans are not animals who as a race breed without thinking. We have free will. We can't just have sex with anyone we want like animals do. That's called rape. Some people don't want to have kids. There is nothing scientific about it. Do people have kids simply because they are horny and can't control their urge to have sex the way animals do? Well, maybe some do. I would hope we as a race are better than that. The same free will which allows us to choose to have kids also allows us to choose to ski. Some people do one, some the other, some both, and some neither.

I don't expect extra benefits from others because I am childfree. What I expect is to not subsidize others who made certain choices, choices over which I had no control. If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em. I'll pay for some of the costs of educating everyone else's kids. But how about a school tax credit for not using the local schools? Or a pay-per-child basis for local school taxes the same way we pay for college? We childfree don't pay "tuition" for college if we don't send kids to one. In the workplace, why are the childfree always asked to cover for the childed without added compensation when parents have to leave early or not be as readily available to do their work? We don't like being dumped on at the office because of the lifestyle choices of our coworkers.

Families struggling to "keep it together" put themselves, in part, in a tough economic situation by having kids to begin with. If they had fewer kids, or none at all, they would have more disposable income. Once again, they made a lifestyle choice to use their money that way. They get no sympathy from me. They do get tax credits and subsidized public education at the expense of we childfree who had no say in their lifestyle choice to have kids. It is the childed who voluntarily put themselves at an economic DISadvantage while at the same time wanting to put the childfree at a disadvantage because of their own lifestyle choices. THat, in a nutshell, is what annoys me the most.

Nothing wrong with Europe having to import people from other countries. It balances out the places which have bred too much.

I never asked my parents why they chose to have kids. But they waited until they were married for 6 years before they had their first child (me). This was not common back in the 1950s and early 1960s. They made sure they could afford to have and raise us and not be on the taxpayer's dime. They were what we in the childfree world call PNBs, or "Parents Not Breeders."

As to why I am posting here, it is because the topic is the childfree, or people like ME. You should ask the moderators the same thing I asked them on another page: "Why did you have a discussion about childfree people yet you included NO childfree people to discuss this issue with?" Why would a MOMversation forum discuss people with whom they do not share this trait? Other childfree people posted here to express their opinions, so why can't I? I don't seek out these forums but I did learn of it and thought my views were worthwhile since people like me were the topic of the debate.

Remember, "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em."

Fri, 2010-02-26 05:29

Shevon

I chose to have children, but I have to say, I completely agree about not having children if you can't afford them. And the Parents not breeders, that is fantastic. My husband and I made smart choices so we wouldn't be struggling or on public assistance when we had children, and I can't stand how many teenagers out there are popping out babies right and left and then relying on the government to help them support their stupid choices.

Sat, 2010-02-27 15:35

Antonia

Ah yes, the "If I only had that money that I put into to SS to invest myself" misconception. My husband just calculated my father-in-law's contributions to SS from day one, verses what he will receive in benefits assuming he lives until 80, which is a low estimate. He made a very good salary and despite, did not contribute to SS nearly as much as he stands to receive. This is why people can't stomach the idea of privatizing SS, especially when they've experienced huge 401K losses. Most people can't save the amount required to sustain them on their own. Just look at the national savings rate. With all these baby boomers and their vast sums of credit card debt, set to retire imagine the mess of homelessness if there was no SS. They privatized retirement savings in Argentina and then their economy imploded leaving everyone with nothing. As you know, the our system was created at time when most people died at 65, but now that's not the case. So you will need to burden others for your survival in retirement I'm afraid. And even if you did save every penny of your medical and living expenses, I assume you will want the young people who care for you to be qualified and sane, so the next time someone from the office needs flexibility for their children care issues, think, "they are producing the nursing home staff that will one day be kind to me." People who care, after all produce people who care. Also that extra work load that you might get, is an opportunity to get ahead of someone who chose to have kids. You can choose to take that opportunity or not, but someone with children can't chose to neglect their kids. But I guess, your rebuttal would be they shouldn't have had them in the first place if it conflicted with their work. Kids conflict with everything. They get sick, they have emergencies, babysitters cancel. What realistically to do you expect people to do? The vast majority of people want children and they have to earn an income, most likely two incomes. If you chose to work for a company that wants to attract qualified people, they are going to implement family friendly policies because that suites the majority of their workers. You can chose to work elsewhere if those family friendly policies burden you.

Furthermore, there are places that you can live in this country with incredibly low local taxes. The schools get the bare minimum and as a result the education of the population reflects that, as do the property values and the complete lack of companies offering competitive jobs. By paying local school taxes even though you don't have children, you are merely paying back the cost of your own education, unless you went to private schools all your life. You are also keeping your property values up, making your town desirable, because most people want to buy homes in towns with decent schools.

Now the irony of places where family friendly services like education are bare bones, opportunities are low, and people are stressed for resources as a consequence, is that people in these places tend to breed young and prolifically. Yes, people have free will, but they are subject to the same laws of survival as all other living things. It is well documented that when people, animals, and even plants are stressed for food, water, etc., they breed because it is the best survival strategy for their DNA. If there is no hope of you're situation getting better, you must put your genes out there as soon as you can and as much as you can because most of your progeny will not survive you. This is not opinion. This simply observed human behavior. You can say, "but they shouldn't!" Yet the fact of the matter is they do because that's how nature works. When people such as your parents and myself and probably everyone on this site, have resources, they have the luxury of postponing breeding because a better situation is around the corner. You can put all your eggs in one or two baskets because you know those children will have the resources to survive. So if you're goal is to get people to breed less or not at all because their children place a burden on you, paying high local school taxes should be priority no. 1. Quality education gives people the luxury to make economic choices that keep families small. Again I point to Europe, where even college education is publicly funded in many countries, keeping people in higher learning longer, creating more attractive opportunities than breeding and as a consequence they don't feel the need to breed at all.

By the way, I noticed your parents raised you in the 50's and 60'. That makes you a baby boomer, a member of a generation that benefited immeasurably from the family friendly reforms of the New Deal, such as higher taxes and labor unions which built the largest middle class this world had seen up to that point. That post WWII culture largely revolved around the needs of families and the economic policies reflected that. So even if your parents didn't get a welfare check, they had economic policies which taxed the wealthiest, sometimes at marginal tax rates of 90%. At the very least they had a deduction for having you. Your parent's ability to provide for you again did not occur in a vacuum. It was fostered by a culture and policies that encouraged family building after a horrific war. Thus, I think it is very selfish and ungrateful of the baby boomers, in general, not to pass on the same child-centered economic policies that they benefited so greatly from as children, while at the same time demanding that Gen. X and Y shoulder the unprecedentedly large burden of their aged health and survival.

I do agree with your comment about the moderators of the site. I don't know why they chose this topic in the first place. And yes they should have had someone childless to explain their view point. Finally, I wonder if we are all a bit over-worked and stressed for time in this country. Perhaps if public policy could be crafted in such a way that careers and lifestyles could accommodate each other more, as they seem to in Europe, we could all get the fulfillment we seek, children or not, without feeling like someone else is getting fulfillment at our expense.

Fri, 2010-02-26 12:56

Anonymous

Why are you reading/writing on a Mom's blog anyway?

Thu, 2010-02-25 21:59

MonaGram

Childless by choice? Having four kids, I understand anyone's decision NOT to have children...but from my perspective, it's a tad bit self-centered. Certainly children are inconvenient, but they are also fabulous!

www.monogrammedgiftsetc.com

Sun, 2010-02-21 14:54

Loqi

Self-centered? If babies are so fabulous, then how could it be self-centered to forgo having one?

Thu, 2010-02-25 00:47

Jade Angel

i love how well mannered this blog is... i've had to leave other mother chats and blogs because i was tired of the mothers that seemed like they had nothing but insults and condescending comments on whoever wasnt in their "click" and younger mothers such as me.

so my cousin is child free by choice, lets see if he stays like that... but he adores my little girl regardless. when i was younger i was interested in a career that would involve a load of traveling and didnt want a family or kids because it wouldnt be fair to have children and never be home with them.

now i have been married for over 4 years, have a 6 month old precious girl, and have become a stay at home mom (i never would have planned that but its how it worked and i am thrilled :D )

it's everyone's choice to have kids or not... but some women are more "i HATE children" than simply of the "i dont want any" attitude. it's unfortunate that someone should expect everyone to respect them in their choices but not respect those of us with children in ours. fortunately i live in an area where there arent many people like that, i suppose its more noticeable in some areas than others.

Sat, 2010-02-20 09:56

Laura Carroll

I am an author who has written about childfree couples, and have interviewed hundreds of people who have made the choice not to have children. Seeing your video inspired me to do a post on my blog http://lauracarroll.com about it...while there are sites out there that have posts and discussion that speak negatively about parents and kids, I have to say that the majority of us are not about that. We respect the choice to have children. Although we may feel misunderstood or judged for our choice, we don't make others wrong about theirs...Many of us find fulfilling ways to have children play a role in our lives, e.g., mentors, aunts, godmothers. We have just chosen to not make parenthood the focus of our lives. We don't look down on parents, instead respect them for the job they have to raise the next generation...Please surf a bit more on the internet and you will find lots of childfree info that has nothing to do with judging those who make a different choice! My blog also lists a blogroll and links. ~Laura Carroll, Families of Two

Sat, 2010-02-20 09:22

mamaemma

Wow, this has hit a lot of buttons. I've always thought that if you don't want to get married or have kids you certainly should not do it. I think a lot of people have kids just because they think they should, I've seen those families it's horrendous. I do wish that who have not had children would not compare pet ownership to parenting. If you had your cat grow in your womb and had suckled it at your breast, you can compare it. Trust me it's not the same. It's okay if we don't understand each other's experiences. I live in Kenya right now we'll be back in the states this year. Very few Americans will understand my experience, I can either get angry about it or accept that I will consistently feel mis-understood and act as an ambassador for those who don't know.
The child-free can be angry at parents or be happy with your life. I am happy with my choice to have kids and wouldn't change that. Get happy with your choices or change them.
Oh, and don't glare at me in airplanes. Like I made the decision to procreate just to ruin your flight.
www.redearthsafari.blogspot.com

Mon, 2010-02-15 02:20

Alessia Pirolo

Hi,
I'm writing an article about women who decide to not have children, starting from a UK survey that says that 74% of women would agree to parental leaves even for non mothers. I am looking to someone who would accept to share her experience and who agree/disagree with this survey. I'm a student of Columbia University School of Journalism and the article will be published in Columbia News Service which is distributed by The New York Times Service. Please contact me at ap2806@columbia.edu .
I look forward to hearing from you!
Thank you
Alessia

Sun, 2010-02-14 12:29

asifford

Everyone has a choice of how they want to live their lives. I personally am not the child free type. I love kids and my daughter is such a blessing to my husband and I.

Good for those who want to put their time and energy into other things.

Sun, 2010-02-14 12:07

Anonymous

I think that's fine. Why aren't they forming a successful weblog that is nominated for a webby that discusses the benefits their lifestyle affords them. Seems like that would be a better use of their time and energy rather than whining at and criticizing women excercising a different choice. Maybe we could all form groups arguing about the perfect number of children to have.

Sat, 2010-02-13 21:22

Anne H

Thank goodness we have the choice. I have two divorces because I married men who thought they didn't want children, then boom. Yes, I divorced them so that they could find a partner to have their children. I'm now happilly married and the exes both went on and each had one child. We each need to find what is right for us and in doing so we need to be a bit considerate about the planet.

I love kids, I love other peoples kids, I'm good with kids. I don't have the desire to be pregnant or have children. If that did hit me I would adopt as there are thousands of children without parents.

I applaud all those parents who make an effort to make sure their children are not inconveniencing or intruding onto others and I loathe those who do not. Don't take it personally I'd think the same of your spouse or your pet.

I've many a friend who feels they didn't have a choice or had been sold a story about fulfillment but it's usually not until the second or third are in high school that people are comfortable enough with this realization. I've an equal number of friends who are happy with their choice. Even so we need to teach everyone that it is an okay choice, especially our youth. If you always tell your children that they will grow up and give you grandchildren and you'll be sooo happy. You are doing that. We don't want to project our issues concerning something so important.

Fri, 2010-02-12 07:19

2Maggie

As a couple on the fence, I found this interview http://www.2forcouples.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=... with child-free lifestyle advocate Jerry Steinberg really refreshing and enlightening. Thought I'd share in case there are any others out there who are struggling with the decision as well. For those of you who have opted out of having kids, what was the deciding factor for you?

Tue, 2009-08-18 13:42

geewhittakers

The one woman, Rebecca Wolfe, in this video says that she respects child-free people's decisions, but she says "respect that I have children because I chose to be a parent" why do child-free people have to "respect" her decision? And what the hell does she care what child-free people think? If i had kids, I would NOT care if anyone "approved" and I would most likely be oblivious to child-free people because I would have so little time for the internet. And child-free people are a small minority in the United States, why do people with kids feel so threatened by them?

People grow up in this culture and just pop out kids and do not think (I am NOT saying that is the case with all people or these women on this video, who are obviously thoughtful individuals).
I am child-free, if you want to have kids, fine, but the romantization and marketing of children in the US, mixed with the fact that we are a conservative and religious nation creates this screwed up culture that says that you MUST have children, that you build this household where you care ONLY about your family, but screw everyone else's kid, most people are having families, internal cocoons where they go and do not participate in public life.

BUT I am ALL FOR PAID maternity leave, which we do not have in the United States and I am a strong supporter of childrens' rights. I also agree that SOME, a minority, of the people in the child-free movement are wacky (folks, every movement draws nuts, that's a reality). But neurotic parents who feel threatened by those who do not want kids are wackier.

Sun, 2009-08-16 10:03

I am 48 and my family and I are child free by choice. Yes, I said "Family." That is probably one of the most annoying things about being child free in this society; it disrespects the "child-free" by denying us the right to be defined as "family." Two people are just as much a family as 22, yet we get treated as lesser beings. My partner and I both like kids. My cousins and their children think I am fabulous because I am like Auntie Mame and take the kids to movies and restaurants because I often have discretionary cash that their parents do not. And why do people with children assume that the choice is because we cannot "handle" kids. As the oldest in a large extended family I have helped raise all of the younger kids. I can handle kids just fine, I just do not feel the need to be a parent. That does not make me less mature or selfish (I personally think it is more selfish to bring a child into a world that is already taxed for resources, but that is just me), or otherwise deficient because of that choice. If those with children were smart (and I think at least one of my cousins has figured this out) they would treat those who have chosen not to have children with courtesy and respect because most of us will have a nice chunk of money to leave to someone someday and their kids could benefit. BTW, I think any kind of name calling is bad, no matter where it is coming from.

Fri, 2009-07-24 07:55

Moanie

I really appreciate your email. My boyfriend is going on 40 and and I'm going on 38, and we don't have kids, and both came from large families (of 10 kids and 6 kids-also an inhome day care center). He is Uncle E (kids love him), and my nephews and niece call me Aunt Moanie. We take relatives kids out all the time, and go to some of their events, and help out financially, but don't plan to have our own children. I was also an oldest kid, so got all the mothering out of me pretty early in life helping to raise 5 little brothers & sisters and neighborhood kids. I identity with the "selfish" comment in your email because that really hurts when coworkers, relatives, etc. make assumptions.....I think everyone has a different role in society and community. It's good that some of us are childless to help out in ways we couldn't if we did have kids. I have a Aunt that never got married or had children and was very generous my family (especially with school clothes and holidays)....We just shouldn't judge people by marital or parental status--it's not a good judgement of character (hint: its not that hard to get married or make a baby).

Tue, 2010-02-16 13:51

Catgirl

I am childfree by choice, and I do not identify with the militant aspects of the community. I respect parents (excluding the ones who abuse and neglect their children, of course. Those ones really bug me). I enjoy spending time with friend's kids. I just don't want any of my own. I came to this decision early in life. I don't have the temperament to be a good parent. I am quite impulsive and artistic, and I think that a child would suffer in my care. Also, I watched my brother develop a treatment resistant type of schizophrenia in his teens, and the impact of that on my parents' life. I knew that I would not be able to deal with having a child who would need so much ongoing care. When I met my husband, and discovered that he didn't want children either, I was so happy! We've been married for a year now, and things are going wonderfully.

I do not resent parents for getting tax breaks, or maternity leave, or any other benefits. I think that we do have an obligation as a society to make it a bit easier on those who are raising the next generation. Seriously, kids are expensive! If you don't like the tax breaks, get over it! I do admit that, if I'm going out for dinner, I would prefer not to be seated next to a table with a screaming baby, but I think many parents would agree with me on that one. All in all, I'm happy that there are people out there who are able to take on the daunting task of parenthood. I also recognize that I will miss out on certain experiences by choosing not to parent. With every choice, a door opens and another closes. We all have to be at peace with the path we take, and the path we do not take.

Mostly, I object to the social stigma that childless by choice people are somehow less caring, less responsible, etc, than parents. But I think that we're doomed to be stigmatized for our choices no matter what. I've seen how critical many people are toward mothers. All in all, we just have to make the best choices we can for ourselves, and try to forget about what other people might think about us.

Wed, 2009-07-15 15:24

nikooru

Wow. So funny to be on the other side of the fence now... My entire life, I ranted and raved about never wanting kids. I was FURIOUS when people told me, "Oh, you'll change your mind." I lived a wild life, spent 3 years abroad, traveled, never thought I was finished with all that... and then I hit 30... and I started to feel like I wanted something more, something different. I was still deeply ambivalent about it, but then I met my boyfriend and he's one of those men that was just born to have a family. He made me want. Now, at 33, WHOOPS! found myself pregnant (with 5 months to go yet.)

I used to hate kids. Well, maybe I still hate other people's kids (ha.) Now, of course, I realize that I will one day be one of those people with the kids screaming in the cafes, so I'm trying to be more tolerant. But you know what bothers me more? The person sitting in the corner of the cafe on their iPhone, having a conversation that's loud enough for the entire block to hear. There are LOTS of annoying types of people out there and kids have very little to do with it.

As for kids being a disease, well... for those of you who say so, thank god your parents had YOU, right? Kids are a necessary evil. If people stop having kids, then no more kid-hating hipsters in the world.

I would never tell anyone that they'll change their mind (although I have been known to threaten to say that to a couple women whom I despise, because I know it would piss them off. It's great ammo) and I don't believe that everyone will.

But for any one camp to hate the other - it's just stupid. And pointless. Kids are here to stay. As for "kid-free zones"? You have them. They're called bars.

Wed, 2009-06-10 15:31

DGnoKidsEver

Hey nikooru, bars are kid-free zones? Think again!

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/02/brooklyn.babies.in.bars/index.html?...

A 14-month-old in a bar? Yup! Is there any place stupid parents won't take their kids?

Wed, 2010-03-03 22:04

rkbreland

Thank you for the Momversation regarding childfree by choice.

Very interesting word, “choice”.

The anger that is experienced on some childfree forums comes from the root fact that the society that we all share judges anyone harshly who does not conform to “the norm”. Childfree people are not taken seriously, even though we contribute equally, work just as hard and pay more than our fair share of taxes.

What is more selfish - an individual declaring themself childfree and sticking unwaveringly to those tenets, or someone who has a child, then decides that being a parent is not for them, condemning the child to a loveless and emotionally devoid existence? (and do not for one minute kid yourself, this happens every day. Visit your nearest prison or drug and alcohol rehab facility, as they are all jam packed with examples).

Speaking for myself, the notion that I will turn away from everything I know and believe and fall head over heels in love with being a parent is an irresponsible gamble at best, and not one that I am willing to make with the life of an innocent child, much less my wife’s or my own.

I have had many people over the years to tell me “you know, I love my kids, but if I had it to do all over again……”. People who say things like this to me typically bred out of tradition and then are surprised (and sometimes very angry) when they realize that they DID have the choice to begin with - the very valid and legitimate choice to be childfree.

In my opinion, no reasonable individual would hate children simply for the sake of hatred. Environmental considerations notwithstanding, children are not the problem. I totally understand the occasional temper tantrum. We don’t need adults only sections in restaurants or separate movie theater schedules, we just need (and expect) for people to be responsible for the behavior of the children they choose to have - in other words, we expect them to be Parents. We also need a society that values and rewards us for the contributions we make as individuals, not for the number of future taxpayers we can produce.

Like a lot of childfree people, I love children. I love them enough to know that I would serve them and the rest of our world better if I stood by my choice not to have them. I appreciate the differing opinions I have read on this site, and hope that positive communications between parents and childfree continue in this regard.

Rob
New Orleans

Sat, 2009-06-06 12:29