Anyone else feel aggrieved by the Child-free movement?

[beatie]

Mostly my feelings have surfaced in response to this article

in The Observer and the responses of support it provoked the following week. (Can't find them online but they are the usual)

I?m pretty sick of smug journalists writing articles about being child-free and how they feel so hard done by because the rest of society is having children. I?m as sick of their articles vilifying parents as I am sick of reading articles about parenting.

Must there be such a polarisation of child-free Vs parents within society? Can the two camps not co-exist and appreciate what all have to offer society?

And what about some of the terminology that is used by the Child-free, by men and women?. Some of it smacks of misogyny. Child-rearers? Breeders? What vile phrases for women to use against their fellow womankind.

I don?t give two hoots if women make a choice not to have children but I mind very much that they have a problem with those who do. Whilst their act of not having children is no more selfish than my desire to have children, they do show themselves up to being selfish people when they start complaining about their taxes being spent on things which benefit children - like education, nursery places maternity benefits etc? Are they that small-minded not to realise that we ALL pay taxes into a pot from which we do not take out an even amount? I don?t begrudge paying for day centres for the mentally ill, drug rehabilitation units, incapacity benefit, unemployment benefits, new roads, regeneration projects (the list could go on) or many things which I rarely use or hope never to use. Why are parents being singled out?

Have they forgotten that sometime in the past, someone?s taxes paid for their maternity ward, their children?s library, their education?

One the one hand they complain that they come last in the queue to be allowed to take holidays during school holiday time whilst on the other hand gloat that they can take several long-haul (term-time) holidays per year (in fact cite this as a huge plus reason not to have children)

I wholeheartedly agree that ALL employees (not just parents) should be entitled to flexible working and should be able to establish a good work/life balance but often it is non-parents who set the precedence for working excessive hours over and above what is contracted. Also, why moan to us? Parents and parenting groups have spent decades fighting for flexible working rights (it?s not like we even really have it - only the right to request it). If other groups want it, then they can fight for it too.

Pre-children I worked in two different places of work which offered flexi-time to all. My BIL has no children and is allowed to take a 3 month sabbatical every two years (he uses it to travel). Another friend of mine is child-free and she has been allowed to compact her hours into 4 days. Such flexible jobs do exist for non-parents. And there are plenty of part-time jobs out there? many, many part time jobs. They are typically low paid and lowly rewarded but nothing is stopping non-parents from applying for these jobs.

Do child-free women really want a return to the 1960s attitude towards women of childbearing age? How would it benefit them if ALL women had to leave their careers and work-places as soon as they have a baby? It would most probably send the feminism backwards, leaving these child-free women working in an even more male-dominated workplace, perhaps having to put up with sexist comments from the men wondering when the said child-free woman was going to leave and have babies.

Grrrr - can you tell I get a bit hot under the collar about this?!

I can remember being single and happy that I had the freedom and disposible income to go out every night, indulge expensive hobbies, travel around the globe and visit friends across the other side of the country on a whim.

I also knew when I was ready to move on in life and become a parent. A life much different to the earlier one, but no less rewarding or interesting.

It takes different strokes to make this world.
If a person choses to remain childless, fine. Just shut up and get on with it.

Oh and god, do these people realise that life just IS DIFFERENT if you are responsible for keeping another human being alive? You do have to look after them when they're sick and feed them and blah blah blah, wtf are we expected to do? As if parents have it so much easier than non parents ffs. She wants a shitty poorly paid low respect job in school hours and the attendant low pay/kudos she can go right ahead.

Yes, did laugh at travel and art being a life changing experience on a par with having a child. Well, yes, they might be life-changing but not quite the same surely?

These people drive me mad as well, esp living in central London where they seem to dominate all spheres except school gates! I painstakingly avoid reading such articles. It is definitely a social phenomenon in this country, and always a huge relief to go somewhere like France, Egypt, India, where people see you as a real interesting fulfilled woman being a mother, not some nutter whose hormones are wild. I am sure I am so chronically single because the child-free culture is so dominant that very few men get round seriously to thinking about settling down with a family this side of 40.

I can't understand rather than slagging off having children why it is not encouraged to have larger families. It is generally accepted that there is a pension crisis looming as the baby boomers increasing retire.

Surely, what is needed is an increasing younger population working and paying national Insurance contributions - so the pot is covered or at least isn't diminishing? The 'childfree' should perhaps consider this - who is going to be paying their pensions?

I wholeheartedly support child tax credits etc but I really wish tax relief was given on nursery fees . If these weren't so crippling for many working families/combined with family friendly work environments then there is more chance that more children would be born.

good post Beatie. the other thing that some people tend to forget is that at some stage in their lives they're probably going to need someone to wipe their bum. (having had a student career in old people's homes I'm not sure I'd particularly recommend it to DD but you get my point...). The other thing about journos, sorry, some journos, that really winds me up is the ones who have kids who write about how horrid and competitive all the mums they come into contact with are. Who, exactly, are they hanging about with? And if they don't like them why don't they move on and find some nice mums (we do exist). I think it's a perceived need to distance themselves (upwards)from the rest of us. Not all parent journos are like this but some are. I had lunch the other day with the editor of part of quite a prominent newspaper (don;t you know) and I could tell she didn't believe me when I said I had genuinely not come across competitive mum sydrome.

oooh, interesting post. nothing to add. except I think that often people who are in a certain position like to gloat about it. It often stems from an innate sense of insecurity that actually the rest of the world is happier than them. ie They may be trying to prove to themselves that they really are happier by shouting it to the world.

In reality they are probably sobbing themselves to sleep aching for a baby.

Also journalists look for patterns and stereotypes in life, that is their fodder.

I never feel like I fit into any of these stereotypes though nor do I know anyone who does? Where are all these types of parents?

i know Beatie - did you see the Guardian piece telling us that the latest social phenomenon was married single mothers (I think the actual phrase used lent itself to some catchy abbreviation). Neitehr me nor dh recognised ourselves at all in that. I just get the impression that some of these pieces are written on the back of a few chats by the office water-cooler and the odd lunch at Moro. I'm really not convinced that they actually move beyond the confines of the Faringdon-Islington-Stokey triangle.

We're all going to the wrong dinner parties!

I don't go to dinner parties - I go to kitchen suppers

it's not a proper debate though, it's just journos attacking journos. Some like Rosie Millard continue to invite criticism by writing about their domestic life - her articles about having 10 nannies in 7 years and about being an 'impoverished professional' doesn't just reinforce stereotypes it creates even more ludicrous ones. And Lucy Siegle should just be open and honest about which of her particular colleagues she is attacking and stop pretending it's anything but a personal cat fight.

ladies ladies! it's such a defensive article that I can't believe we're wasting our breath on it. and confused too, on the one hand she hates that everyone talks about their kids and on the other she wants to be able to look after them without being biologically related, methinks she doth protest etc?

it must be hard being 34 and not having kids and living in a segment of society where everyone else does and has dinner parties....poor love she was only venting (am i smug enough yet )

dinosaur the reason that lots of female journos write about kids and parenting is because we live in a sexist twat of a world, and that's all they're good to write about...right?...NOT

I used to find the phrase 'breeder' hilarious! I always understood it to be a gay term for hetrosexuals, although in the plural: breeders.
Now, to find women using it as an insult towards other women is just depressing somehow.
I once read a sci-fi book about a futuristic world run by women in which men were slaves, kept on farms for reproducing purposes. And of course they had to have the mothers but they were regarded as second class citizens and kept out of sight. They were called breeders as well.

there was a travis video about that wasn't there cupcakes...i thought it was lovely (apart from man in cage at end!) loads of beautiful pregnant women showing off their bumps...flower in the window was the song...

The whole 'smug mums' phenomenum has been created by the Observer, with their endless self-indulgent articles about parenting as if it has never been done before. Then people write more articles, then Frank Furedi writes one of his endless bandwaggony books about it, which then means that yet another Observer journalist can write a 'revelationary' article about the remarkable Frank Furedi's findings!

Take no notice - none of it has any bearing on our real lives!

BUT before I had children it drove me mad when people used to claim superior moral understanding / sympathy with various world tragedies on the basis of their parenthood - and since I have had DS I can honestly say that I always felt the way I feel now about things that effect small children and grown up children (aka adults).

Message withdrawn

I've just skimmed through this but it does annoy me when childless people complain about having to pay taxes towards child orientated things like education etc which they say they'll never use and feeling resentful bacause those with children have made that their 'lifestyle choice' (horrid little soundbite phrase!)

I notice the childless who complain don't object to living in a civilised society though and are happy to enjoy the benefits that come with one. Surely that has to mean nurturing the next generation and protecting it's weaker members ie the elderly, children and those who are incapacitated. You cannot cherry pick the bits you want out of it - there would be no society if we were all at liberty to do that. They have benefitted from the same system when they were children.

It's like staying in a 5 star hotel, getting the bill and asking for a discount because you didn't use the pool, restaurant or the steam room; it was there if you wanted or needed it though!

I agree but for the same reason the government's going to have to rethink tuition fees. It's not fair to burden tomorrow's students with such a debt.

Blu, you have summed up why we don't bother with the Observer any more. Vile MIL sneers at us for reading the Telegraph, but its parenting coverage is more even-handed and helpful than any of the other broadsheets IMO. Just don't get me started on their political/foreign policy coverage of course...

Completely agree. The Observer, once proud of its left-leaning emphasis and containing some decent writing now seems to me to be the most sickening, London-centric, moaning minnies at dinnerparties talking about mortgages rag going. Swapped to Indy on Sunday ages ago.

Oh, and whinging about Inheritance Tax.

There's an e in there somewhere isn't there?

Agree about the Observer. I used to devour it on a Sunday but quite often don't even bother buying it anymore. It's getting very predictable. But then I don't buy The Graun anymore either. Is it only a matter of time before I'm harrumphing through the Sunday Telegraph, then? Crikey.

I do like the OFM though

I like a good harrumph on the train or at the weekends. At least there is plenty to get your teeth into in the Telegraph although I can no longer indulge my fume-at-Conrad-Black-and-Barbara-Amiel tendencies. And its coverage of health and lifestyle issues is much less stuffy than you might imagine. Go on, snafu, do it. I left the Indy behind on a regular basis when they let so many of their really good writers go a few years back. Still prefer their foreign news coverage.