A European Informational Website
learn more
Childfree is a term used to describe people who neither have, nor desire children. An alternative description is "childless by choice".
A person who has no desire or plans to have children is called childfree. The term stands in implied contrast to "childless." Since the suffix "-less" indicates some kind of lack, the term childfree has been adopted to differentiate those who choose not to have children from those who desire children but do not have them.[1][2] Childfree persons assert that their lives are no less complete than the lives of parents.[3]
The term "childfree" was used in a July 3, 1972 Time article on the creation of the National Organization for Non-Parents [1]. It was revived in the 1990s when Leslie Lafayette formed a later childfree group, the Childfree Network.[4]
The term is sometimes capitalized in regular usage, e.g., "He describes himself as Childfree"; also being frequently abbreviated as "CF".
"Childfree" is regarded as offensive and pejorative in some circles, with the "-free" suffix held to imply that children are inherently bad or unwelcome.
The National Organization for Non-Parents (N.O.N.) was begun in Palo Alto, CA by Ellen Peck and Shirley Radl in 1972. N.O.N was formed to advance the notion that men and women could choose not to have children--to be childfree. Changing its name to The National Alliance for Optional Parenthood, it continued into the early 1980s both as a support group for those making the decision to be childfree and an advocacy group fighting pronatalism (attitudes/advertising/etc. promoting or glorifying parenthood). According to its bylaws, the purpose of the National Alliance for Optional Parenthood was to educate the public on non-parenthood as a valid lifestyle option, support those who choose not to have children, promote awareness of the overpopulation problem, and assist other groups that advanced the goals of the organization.
N.O.N.'s offices were located in Reisterstown, MD; then Baltimore, MD; and, ultimately, in Washington, D.C.
The organization's most widely-distributed publication was "Am I Parent Material?" This publication is still in print and distributed by ETR Associates in Scotts Valley, CA.
NON designated August 1 as Non-Parents' Day. Some of the early works on non-parenthood/being childfree include:
A range of motivations are cited for choosing a childfree lifestyle; these individuals may agree with one or more reason across the range.
Controversy surrounding the childfree state segments into criticism based on socio-political or religious reasons.
Some opponents of childfree individuals consider them "selfish" for neither having, nor wanting, children. The idea behind this is that, since raising children is a very important activity (childfree author Virginia Postrel calls it "the most important work most people will ever do"), not having children means living a hedonistic, consumption-based lifestyle that makes no contribution to the world, only to the self. [4]
The assumption behind this idea is that the best way to make a meaningful contribution to the world is to have children. For many people this may be true, but some people with special talents choose instead to direct their energy toward improving the world that today's children will inherit.[10]
Childfree individuals sometimes respond to these accusations of selfishness by claiming that the act of having children can itself be just as or even more selfish especially when poor parenting creates many long term problems for both the children themselves and society at large. The decision to become a parent is often based on characteristically 'selfish' and egotistical motives as well.[11]
There is also the question as to whether having children really is such a positive contribution to the world in an age when there are so many concerns about overpopulation, pollution and resource depletion. Some critics, however, argue that such analyses of breeding may understate the expected benefits of reproduction to society - e.g. a greater labor force, which may also provide greater opportunity to solve social problems as well - and overstate the costs. [5]
Many childfree people are active in community volunteerism, are teachers, librarians, and authors of children's books. Service groups, community theaters, and even youth centers, benefit from the many hours of work given by childfree people.[10] Some childfree relatives assist in providing tuition assistance to nieces and nephews seeking higher education or specialized training in an area of interest or talent (music, swimming, acting, or horseback riding lessons, for example).[10] Childfree advocates point to these activities as evidence that the childfree can contribute to society in ways other than providing offspring.
Some of the childfree believe that overpopulation is a serious problem and question the fairness of what they feel amount to subsidies for having children, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (US), free K-12 education paid for by all taxpayers, family medical leave, and other such programs.[12] Others, however, do not believe overpopulation to be a problem in itself; regarding such problems as overcrowding, global warming, and straining food supplies to be problems of public policy and/or technology.[13]
According to Brian Whitaker, writing in the The Guardian on 6 November 2004, "If fertility levels remained unchanged at today's levels, the current world population of 6.4 billion would rise to 44 billion in 2100, 244 billion in 2150 and 1.34 trillion in 2300".[14]
Some childfree people regard any governmental or employer-based incentives offered only to parents — such as a per-child income tax deduction, preferential absence planning, employment legislation, or special facilities — as intrinsically discriminatory, arguing for their removal or for their reduction to form a corresponding system of matching incentives for other categories of social relationship. Childfree advocates argue that other forms of caregiving are not considered equal — that "only babies count." Caring for sick, disabled, or elderly dependents entails significant financial and emotional costs but is not subsidized in the same manner. This commitment falls most women, contributing to the feminization of poverty in the U.S.[15]
The focus on personal acceptance is mirrored in much of the literature surrounding choosing not to reproduce. Many early books were grounded in feminist theory and largely sought to dispel the idea that womanhood and motherhood were necessarily the same thing. Books and articles such as Burkett's The Baby Boon argued that childfree people face not only social discrimination but political discrimination as well.[12]
There has been a large improvement in contraceptives over the years. Some choosing to be childfree sometimes prefer sterilization, however many have difficulty finding physicians willing to perform sterilizations, especially when they are in their 20s. Some feel patronized about their reproductive choices with the additional suggestion that they will change their mind later in life and should leave this option open. This advice is motivated partly by the doctor's risk of lawsuits from patients who do change their mind. However studies have shown that geriatric patients have more regrets about not being married, over not being a parent.
There has been a debate within religious groups about whether a childfree lifestyle is something to be condemned. Some religious conservatives have stated that it is a rebellion against God's will. In numerous works, including an Apostolic letter written in 1988,[16] Pope John Paul II has set forth the Catholic understanding of the role of children in family life. The Southern Baptist author R. Albert Mohler, Jr. says, "Couples are not given the option of chosen childlessness in the Biblical revelation. To the contrary, we are commanded to receive children with joy as God's gifts, and to raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."[17], a position reminiscent of Christian condemnation of homosexuality, gay couples, and gay marriage.[18] In response, there are new churches being formed with the childfree movement. For example, a group called The Cyber-Church of Jesus Christ Childfree is a group of Christians who feel the call to have no descendants by fleshly means, just as Jesus had none.[19] Other mainline evangelical Christians have more balanced views, as published in Today's Christian Woman in an article by Raymond Van Leeuwen entitled "Is it All Right for a Married Couple to Choose to Remain Childless?" He shows that Gen. 1:28 "Be fruitful and multiply," what people generally think of as the Biblical mandate to procreate, is really not a command formula but a blessing formula: "You shall be fruitful..." He writes that while there are many factors to consider as far as people's motives for remaining childless, there are many valid reasons, including dedicating one's time to demanding but good causes, why Christians may choose to remain childless for a short time or a lifetime.[20]
These issues led to many childfree people setting up support networks, either to vent about others or draw strength from the knowledge that they are not alone; groups such as No Kidding! seek to provide social interaction and friendship free from social pressure to have children.[21]
This discontent, though widespread among childfree people, does not translate into a unified political vision. This is largely because childfree people come from all shades of the political spectrum and temper their beliefs accordingly. For example, while many childfree people think of government handouts to parents as "lifestyle subsidies," others accept the need to help out parents but think that their lifestyle should be equally compensated.
There are suggestions of an emergence of political cohesion for example the Australian Childfree Party (ACFP) being proposed in Australia as a childfree political party, promoting the childfree lifestyle as opposed to the family lifestyle. Increasing politicization and media interest has led to the emergence of a second wave of childfree organizations that are openly political in their raisons d'etre, with a number of abortive attempts to mobilize a political pressure group in the U.S.. The first organization to emerge was British, known as Kidding Aside. Despite becoming increasingly vocal and organized, the childfree movement has had little political impact and struggles to have its concerns taken seriously, more frequently treated as little more than as a human interest story.
The Simpsons episode Marge vs. Singles, Seniors, Childless Couples and Teens, and Gays presented a scenario where people without children, including Childfree adults, squared off against the families of Springfield with children.
There is a growing corpus of slang terminology used by some childfree people, some of it borrowed from other groups or pop culture. The terms are often derogatory in nature, generally focusing on names for bad parents ("breeder"), lifestyle choices ("baby rabies" as a reference to the strong desire to have a child) and even terms for the children themselves ("sprog", "Bratley" and "crotch-dropping" are amongst negative terms to describe children).
Positive terms are focused on well-behaved children and parents who demonstrate a willingness and ability to properly care for their children. Most of the positive terms for children (angel, darling, etc.) are common to most, and the obvious one aimed at parents is the "PNB" or Parent Not Breeder label.
Contents