To think the term 'childfree' is as bad as 'childless'

[JemimaWithTheStripeyTights]

I totally understand why somebody would prefer not to describe themselves as 'childless'. The -less has connotations of something missing, of being somehow inferior or lacking when compared with people with children. It makes 'having children' the default, and 'not having children' abnormal. I get it.

But something about 'childfree' really grates with me. The -free seems to imply liberation from the idea of children, as if that's some obligation or burden, or as if they're something to be escaped from at all costs. Basically, I think it sounds as much like a smug value judgement as 'childless' is a thoughtless one.

Not sure what the alternative would be, but how about 'nonparent'? It needs to be a word that's totally neutral about whether having kids is a good or bad thing.

Children ARE a massive burden. Rearing a child responsibly, and making that child happy uses vast reserves of its parents' time, energy, and material resources.
If you have a child and love them, and want them ( as I do) then this burden is usually offset by the happiness your child brings you, and the love you have for them.
But describing yourself as child-free if you don't have children and don't want them is fairly accurate, I think.
None of my child-free friends is judging people who have children, they are mostly very kind and generous to mine; they just don't want to have their own, and that's honestly no one else's business.

Childfree people aren’t talking negatively about existing children

Are you not reading the same thread. Where they are describing children as burdens, and quite nastily, awful.

Many childfree people work with or are very close to children in their lives. We don’t hate kids because we don’t want our own.

Again, not how others are coming across. And that's the problem. A minority smirking how they are "free" of these awful humans, free of these burdens. And then doing Pikachu-shocked-face that it could remotely be offensive to those with said awful humans.

Then there's the majority of people without children, very normally and respectfully saying that they enjoy not having the obligation of raising a child, which is not loaded, not derogatory....yet their voices are completely drowned out by the minority. And that's what is being represented as "childfree". Unfairly so.

I love my DC. Can I see the pleasures I would have in life without them? Oh god yes. I can absolutely see the appeal. There are many benefits, many pros. I can see why people would choose a life without children. For 100 reasons.

But it's not my choice. And that's ok. My choice isn't better, but it isn't worse either. It's just different. It's about being respectful to others life choices.

That’s good. Lots of people have though and that’s why a lot of people use childless or childfree, so they’re not given unwelcome advice or asked unwelcome questions.

I have a friend who was disowned by her parents and lost what she thought was a good friend for not wanting children and she now says she’s childless rather than childfree. Alternatively I have a friend who is childless and says she’s childfree because she’s sick of being given advice on how to conceive or adopt. Everyone has their own reasons for the language they use around different topics so it’s good that there’s plenty of ways to say things and different options for everyone’s choices.

it isn't saying children aren't valuable to someone else

That's the point I'm arguing against - value isn't determined by someone else. It's intrinsic. The suffix "free" is a subjective value statement. A neutral term, such as "does not have children", is better.

My point about adoption was that there are children in care who are actually not wanted, but that this doesn't make them any less valuable. It wasn't that people without children should feel obliged to adopt them, which is how you seem to have interpreted it.

Using language to manipulate our opinions of certain demographics has been proven very dangerous multiple times throughout history.

The whole word replacement thing is fairly ridiculous in 99% of cases. Childless is a word formation that just means a person without a child. Any moral or emotional element comes from inside the person thinking about, saying, or hearing it. In and of itself it simply isn't offensive.

And of course just changing the word doesn't change people's feelings about having or not having children. If they feel badly about it, they will still feel badly. If they feel judged, they will still feel judged. Etc.

"Child free" however is a strange word because the construction is usually used to refer to something unpleasant, like "bedbug free" or "disease free". It's not something you'd normally use about people - "Italian-Free" or "elder-free" or "woman-free" all sound pretty nasty and would never be accepted. Even in a place where for some reason women weren't supposed to be, it would be an odd thing to say and people would wonder.

But adopted children and children in care exist. That’s why they have value, whether they were wanted by their biological parents or not. A non-existent child which doesn’t exist because a woman decided she didn’t want it to exist is neither wanted nor unwanted, and it can’t feel sad or intrinsically lower in value than anything. Saying “I’m childfree because I didn’t want children” has absolutely no impact on any other child or their situation and doesn’t mean “if an existing child was unwanted by its parent it has no value.”

I agree

This is a very weird definition of 'normal'. I am 5 feet 2 inches tall. 70% of British women are taller than I am. Does that make me abnormal?

If not, what percentage has to be taller than me to make me abnormal? 75%? 80%? 95%?
Your choice of 'abnormal' rather than 'unusual' sounds very much like a value judgement to me.

A lot of the people on this thread saying that children are a burden are parents.

Some people are reading WAAAAAAY too much into “childfree” and coming to some frankly hilariously deranged conclusions. Literally no one has said that children as a class/demographic are valueless and universally awful. Childfree people would PERSONALLY find it awful to have THEIR OWN child, and would find parenting burdensome, unpleasant and significantly worse than a life without children. There is a huge gap - nay, a CHASM - between feeling that a child would be a negative presence in one’s own life, and feeling that an entire demographic is worthless. Maybe you lot who think the childfree are secretly hoping for a genocide of under-18s can pass that brain cell around and think about the simple concept of ~personal opinions~.

The whole word replacement thing is fairly ridiculous in 99% of cases. Childless is a word formation that just means a person without a child. Any moral or emotional element comes from inside the person thinking about, saying, or hearing it. In and of itself it simply isn't offensive.

But it can be used as a slur,as in childless cat lady.

Yes it’s too much like “non-person”.

And almost never used in the context of men. Couple, yes but single men, no.

It's fine, besides you get parents making jokes about hoenfheyvwish they could he free of their children for one day or a few hours.

It was definitely first invented as a "fuck you" to people who used childfree as a derogatory term.

It does grate a bit because it sounds a bit like something a teenager would say. NO mum! I'm going to be CHILDFREE!"

But I just ignore it grating a bit, as I can't think of a better term and childless is a bit unpleasant.

But to be honest I have never heard anyone use the term childless or childfree in speech, just "has kids" or "they don't have kids" sometimes followed by "by choice".

This ^^.

People without kids have appropriated the term ‘child free’, because if they haven’t got kids, they don’t know what it is like to have time ‘free’ of needing to parent.

It’s like saying someone is ‘work free’ or ‘pet free’ or ‘family free’ - if it’s a permanent lifestyle choice, not a temporary thing, it doesn’t seem right to be crowing about it.

Isn't it an age thing?

At mid 20s one wouldn't really state childless or childfree.

At 40 you do want to clarify which it is. As you don't want someone to feel sorry that you don't have something (or you want to make it clear you would have like that)

I always used to say "fortunately no" to the question do you have kids. But that's probably tactless if the person asking desperately wants them. But it's rare people ask me and I was shocked at a university open day when someone assumed I was another students mum, it never occurred to me anyone would consider me a mum.

I think only someone who is not happy with their choice to have children would feel that someone without kids who uses the term child free is “crowing” about it.

The term child free for those choosing not to have children has been around since the 70s. I don’t think it’s people without kids who have appropriated it.

Many MNers (who are parents) take personal offence at those who have chosen to be “child free”. Most people aren’t saying that parenting is a terrible burden and that don’t value the worth of children, they are saying they do not want to parent and raise and be responsible for their own human beings. I know a couple who are both teachers and they are childfree by choice. They think children are amazing, respect them and work hard for them but they have decided - for various reasons- that they don’t feel fit to parent themselves.

Some people choose to be “childfree” when it’s not really a choice, they may have not met the right person or they may not be financially stable. They may have health issues or maybe they didn’t have a good upbringing and don’t feel able to parent.

If you’d gone another 10 years, perhaps you’d have felt differently. Many people say “child free” to shut down conversation. I always get asked more questions if I say “I don’t have any children”. I lie and say child free because I don’t owe anyone an explanation on my emotional devastation about being childless.

To be free of something permanently like ‘mortgage free’, suggests the thing is a real bind and a burden, that’s why you might want to crow about it. Having children isn’t a bind and a burden in the way that having work, family, pets, isn’t a bind or burden - it’s a joy that sometimes you have short breaks from. It’s not a ball and chain like debt - which is what calling it ‘child free’ suggests.

There should be a term that is "work-free"!

Not unemployed and not yet retired. One could work but doesn't as don't need to financially.

Pets and kids are both binds or burdens.

So what?

Children aren't things to be owned.

They are people.

So we should not be referring to them as if they were bedbugs.

You can use any word as a slur if you want to treat it as if it's a problem.

You are the one who brought bedbugs into it.