(Childfree Forum) Article in the Independent

[KimberleyClark]

Good article. Worth reading the comments too.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mother-child-free-parenthood-motherhood-kids-b2413062.html

A great summary of all that’s wrong with the phrase.

The implication that only parents truly care about what happens to children is really upsetting.

I've seen it on here, on the feminism board - oh you don't have children, you can't understand why we get so concerned over safeguarding. I was surprised at how insulted I felt by that comment; as if being without children is the moral equivalent of the Childcatcher.

It would be nice if the parents who come on here would read that and comprehend the rage and pain an apparently innocuous remark can arouse. And yes, good article.

My response (not voiced but definitely thought) is that someone who says that they feel these things “as a parent” is that they must have been pretty shallow people before reproducing.

Brilliantly put:

"Victoria Derbyshire said: “If you’re a parent you might find this upsetting.” Because, yes, as a non-parent that poor child’s tragic death was the highlight of my week. Even toyed with bunting."

I can understand why the phrase must be really hurtful and dismissive. I know that childfree people care about children just as much as parents. And while my counter point below may still feel hurtful, please know I am trying for it not to.

It's worth noting that people who are saying this have existed as both childfree people, and people with children. They have the point of comparison.

What they mean is that when you have a child, suffering of other children takes on this new dimension where you involuntarily feel a vicarious sense of that danger happening to your own children. It creates panic, vulnerability, the desire to protect your children (probably biological). It's quite different to the empathy that all good people have towards children suffering.

I work in a field (criminal law) where unfortunately the suffering of children comes up a lot in different ways. Across different sectors which work together (police, social workers, criminal prosecution and defence) people often move away from crimes involving children once they have their own. Is it because they care more? No- and in fact they're now helping those other children less, by leaving that area. It's because the way child harm impacts you as a parent is different and relates to your own children.

Of course, there are parents who probably do think they are "more" caring about children than childfree people. They're idiots using a biological protective instinct as proof of a higher morality.

I hope that this contribution did not feel patronising and understand if people still disagree.

@Yazzi but your post is incredibly patronising

I hope that this contribution did not feel patronising and understand if people still disagree

Yeah, well unfortunately it did - it came over as just another version of 'you feel things SO much more deeply when you're a parent because you know that special love.'

It's worth noting that people who are saying this have existed as both childfree people, and people with children. They have the point of comparison

They've had a few years of adulthood without children. That's not 'childfree.' Do you have any colleagues without children or are they weeded out because they don't have the right amount of empathy andcan't feel the impact a crime against a child has - you know, not having any of their own? Isn't that discrimination?

I think this is one of the most enraging posts I've read on here in a while. The condescension and patronising drips off it. But well done, you've told us yet again how wonderful parents are.

Incidentally how does that special empathy work for other crimes?

How is it patronising? Someone expresses a different view to you and you jump to it being patronising?

Pondering now on whether I get more upset about animal cruelty since I started cat fostering.

On another thread someone said something along the lines of ‘we all get better with money after we’ve had kids.’ Which is bollocks.

Or ask - do you get upset about cruelty to animal species you don't have as a pet and are never likely to have? Answer in my case - yes. I won't cite examples as it's too upsetting, but a couple of recent cases kept me awake at night.

It's patronising because while telling us that not having children is a valid choice it still tells us several times how much more empathetic and caring parents are and how good that makes them at what they do and how much they suffer at seeinng children suffer (because they're parents and have that special empathy) while simultaneously telling us that anyone who says parents are more caring is an idiot. Presumably the writer of that thought we can't read between the lines and see what the real intent is.

It's a very well written piece, I'll give it that. Some people might even take it at face value.

I explicitly said the opposite though, in several places:

It's quite different to the empathy that all good people have towards children suffering.

Sorry the above should have been clearer- I mean I don't think being a parent gives you BETTER empathy just it gives you a different (and much more selfish, because it is focused at your own child really) empathy.

Is it because they care more? No- and in fact they're now helping those other children less, by leaving that area.

The above is the opposite of me saying "how good that makes them at what they do".

parents who... think they are "more" caring (are) idiots using a biological protective instinct as proof of a higher morality.

I meant the above. It's not a false flag or something.

@MrsDanversGlidesAgain

I think you misread bits of my post. I didn't say colleagues get BETTER at their child protection or child harm related jobs when they have kids, I said they are more likely to leave those jobs when they have kids. It's a pretty common phenomenon; if you know people in the police or working in criminal law, I'm confident they'd agree.

My point was actually this means that when people have kids, and feel like they can no longer do a job which involves exposure to the significant harm of children because of now having children , the children actually being harmed are worse off. It's not a positive outcome for those kids.

I dont know how you read that to mean child free people are getting fired.

I am happy to have my viewpoint challenged and very interested in how childfree people feel about this ropics, but if you think I'm secretly arguing "parents are better" then I'll leave it, because I'm not.

I dont know how you read that to mean child free people are getting fired

Perhaps you've misread 'weeded out' to imply fired. I meant at the recruitment level.

You said yourself that What they mean is that when you have a child, suffering of other children takes on this new dimension where you involuntarily feel a vicarious sense of that danger happening to your own children. It creates panic, vulnerability, the desire to protect your children (probably biological). It's quite different to the empathy that all good people have towards children suffering. Implying that parents have a special empathy to children by way of being parents; which may or may not be the case.

If parents are leaving because of this empathy overload then by definition they're leaving the work to the CF who presumably don't have it. Your words again

My point was actually this means that when people have kids, and feel like they can no longer do a job which involves exposure to the significant harm of children because of now having children , the children actually being harmed are worse off. It's not a positive outcome for those kids.

Your last sentence implying that parents leaving (and presumably leaving their cases to CF people) is not positive for the children and leaves them worse off because parents aren't dealing with them.

But agree, we'd better leave this because I'm not reading what you said at all in the way you said you meant it.

I’m childless (wanted children but couldn’t have them) and childfree (now feeling quite relieved I don’t have any). The thought of a child growing up in a home where they have no one to look out for their best interests and protect the. From harm is upsetting beyond measure to me. I still think about Baby Peter Connolly to this day. But hey zI’m not a parent so don’t have that special empathy.

Interestingly, I’m a lawyer and I deliberately avoided criminal law and childcare law because I was abused as a child and suffered ACEs. I knew that those areas would be too difficult for me to handle.

That for me is the problem with @Yazzi’s argument. I don’t doubt that many parents move away from these sectors after having kids. But there are other people who never go into these sectors because of their own experiences, who don’t get “counted” and therefore aren’t available to use as an anecdote to explain why they are in possession of a unique type of empathy.

It’s too binary.

@fitzwilliamdarcy I am so sorry for your experiences.

I would certainly consider people who have had a particular experience reflected in their legal practice to likely experience a unique type of empathy. For example, people who were refugees who practice in immigration law- or who choose not to focus on asylum seeker claims due to their experiences. Victims of DV or family violence working in family law, or care and protection. As someone outside of these groups if they said their personal experiences cause them to have a particular dimension of empathy in their work that's inaccessible to me, I wouldn't challenge it and I wouldn't be offended by it.

However to be clear I don't think parents have more empathy for the child who has been harmed. I have said that a few times now. What I am describing is not empathy. It's a biological urge to protect your own child, causing anxious and painful emotions, when you hear about harm caused or another child. That's why I'm saying while parents do have, in my opinion, an additional dimension to their response to stories or material of harm, they're not more empathetic, and they're not better.

But well done, you've told us yet again how wonderful parents are.

And glosses over the fact that mostly the perpetrators of crimes against children are parents.