The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 14, 2018 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 12,434 |
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 14, 2018 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 7,835 |
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 14, 2018 | Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 9,199 |
Quote
In a world where the CF choice were fully respected, perhaps neither CF nor parenting choices would be the subject of discussion, but that is not the world we live in.
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 14, 2018 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 12,434 |
Quote
bell_flower
If I ran the world, accomplishments would stand on their own. It's dehumanizing to reduce us all to our gonads and whether or not they worked or we chose to use them.
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 14, 2018 | Registered: 10 years ago Posts: 880 |
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 14, 2018 | Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 9,199 |
Quote
If I ever accept a major award, I promise to attribute it to my non-existent kids - specifically to their non-existence. (And you just know there would be a lot of hate over that, whereas nobody says boo if someone praises their kids.)
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 14, 2018 | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 497 |
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 15, 2018 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 12,434 |
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 15, 2018 | Registered: 5 years ago Posts: 48 |
Quote
yurble
By contrast, if you walk into that room and you see a framed picture of children, you know beyond a doubt that the co-worker is a parent. It is seen as normal and natural for them to put that picture up.
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 15, 2018 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 7,835 |
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 17, 2018 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 3,003 |
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 17, 2018 | Registered: 9 years ago Posts: 3,712 |
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 17, 2018 | Registered: 8 years ago Posts: 353 |
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 17, 2018 | Registered: 11 years ago Posts: 3,576 |
Quote
yurble
I have been thinking about how childfreedom is relatively invisible in the public sphere. I'm not talking about how true CF characters are rarely mentioned, even less positively, in media and entertainment, but about the subtle ways in which pronatalism is reinforced through the invisibility of the negative choice.
Consider the following situation: you walk into a new co-worker's office and see a framed picture of another adult. You might assume it is a partner, although it could be a sibling or best friend. You can't make any assumptions about children: are there no children by choice, no children yet, no children by circumstances, or simply no children included in the picture. By contrast, if you walk into that room and you see a framed picture of children, you know beyond a doubt that the co-worker is a parent. It is seen as normal and natural for them to put that picture up. But if you were to put up a picture of a stork with a baby, with a bulls-eye superimposed over it, it would be considered confrontational and unprofessional. One private circumstance - parenthood - is acceptable to draw people's attention to, while another - childfreedom - is not to be mentioned. The pronatalist message is reinforced by one choice being normalized and the other being invisible.
Childfreedom is not an absence of parenthood, it is a worldview which is directly in contrast to the pronatalism that surrounds us. In a world where the CF choice were fully respected, perhaps neither CF nor parenting choices would be the subject of discussion, but that is not the world we live in. The world we live in is one that respects mentioning being a parent, and frowns upon mentioning being CF.
In some ways, it reminds me of the uphill battle of atheism. Recently in the US there was a court case where a transport advertisement containing only the word 'Atheism' and a link to an organization was rejected, claiming that it could cause divisiveness. Really? The mere mention of the word atheism is that much of an affront? Childfreedom is in the same boat: whenever we try to assert our existence we're accused of being aggressive and it is claimed that our protests are a sign of insecurity.
Imagine if Wikipedia pages prominently listed an individual's religion in the biographical information box. You would read that the Pope is Catholic and that the Dali Lama is Buddhist, but when you viewed Richard Dawkin's page you'd simply see a blank and be left to infer that he didn't have a strong opinion on the matter.
The situation I described is exactly how famous people appear now on Wikipedia, with regard to children. Go to Brad Pitt's page, and you'll see "Children: 6". Go to Cameron Diaz's page, and you won't see "Children: CF" but simply no entry for children, which doesn't even tell you if she has no children or if someone forgot to add the information! Information about CF people is being systemically hidden because the negative choice (in the scientific sense, not in the value judgement sense) "goes without saying." (The same, by the way, is true for relationships on Wikipedia: spouses are mentioned but lack of spouses isn't clarified even when the information is available.) For historic figures who never stated their preferences, it would be enough to simply write "Children: 0", but when we do know that someone is CF, that information ought to receive equal billing to parenthood.
CF people need to see that they are not alone. Young people need to be aware of the options. The pronatalist philosophy must be exposed for what it is: an opinion, not fact.
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 18, 2018 | Registered: 7 years ago Posts: 651 |
Quote
ondinette
I think the 90s is when all this shit started, although it has gotten progressively worse since.
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 19, 2018 | Registered: 11 years ago Posts: 3,576 |
Quote
cfuter
Yes, inklings started in mid to late 80s, definitely underway in 90s, but I see what she was saying, now there's a solid altar to kyds, parunts, autards, etc etc etc. Every ad on TV shows a single dad cleaning a bathroom w/ clorox so he can bring a child dressed in a fu-fu dress to the tub, to glorify the parunt angle to every product. If you thought the 90s worship of breeding was bad, it is so ingrained now it isn't even funny. The 90s were bad, and we just can't believe how far it has gone. Ridiculous really.
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 19, 2018 | Registered: 11 years ago Posts: 105 |
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 20, 2018 | Registered: 9 years ago Posts: 3,712 |
Quote
freedomchick
I am guilty of having pictures of pets in my office - multiple pics of multiple pets. It just makes me happy to have them there, it's not a broadcast of my identity or anything. I imagine that for many parents it is the same, though for some it is an attention getter.
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 21, 2018 | Registered: 10 years ago Posts: 2,364 |
Quote
yurble
I have been thinking about how childfreedom is relatively invisible in the public sphere. I'm not talking about how true CF characters are rarely mentioned, even less positively, in media and entertainment, but about the subtle ways in which pronatalism is reinforced through the invisibility of the negative choice.
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 21, 2018 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 7,835 |
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 22, 2018 | Registered: 13 years ago Posts: 12,434 |
Quote
kittehpeoples
I had an online conversation once with a breeder about a show whose main character had flipped from happily CF to breeder when the actress got pregnant. I complained that there were so few good representations of CF characters on tv, and they came up with two or three as examples-- one of whom was Buffy. A teenager. Seriously, that's how far you have to dig to find a CF rep, but you think we're well represented?
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 22, 2018 | Registered: 15 years ago Posts: 497 |
Quote
mumofsixbirds
I liked Elaine from Seinfeld, she was pretty awesome. I also loved Samantha Jones from SATC. I think they were pretty cool CF figures.
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 22, 2018 | Registered: 11 years ago Posts: 3,576 |
Quote
kittehpeoples
Quote
yurble
I have been thinking about how childfreedom is relatively invisible in the public sphere. I'm not talking about how true CF characters are rarely mentioned, even less positively, in media and entertainment, but about the subtle ways in which pronatalism is reinforced through the invisibility of the negative choice.
I had an online conversation once with a breeder about a show whose main character had flipped from happily CF to breeder when the actress got pregnant. I complained that there were so few good representations of CF characters on tv, and they came up with two or three as examples-- one of whom was Buffy. A teenager. Seriously, that's how far you have to dig to find a CF rep, but you think we're well represented?
I think I've mentioned this show before, but I've been binging it for the past few days so it's on my mind and fresh: The Red Green Show was prettily happily CF. When children were featured in a scene, often the children received the brunt of the humor or were just shooed away. The main character was very happily CF and had a clearly happy marriage and active sex life. They didn't shove the CF aspects into the viewers' faces, but when it did come up, it was always presented as a positive and never as a negative. Other characters, however, did have children, and got no end of grief because of it. They complained about the normal hazards of raising kids like daughters dating guys the father didn't like, but also how much kids cost and how that affects your lifestyle. For a broad comedy show, it represented the CF pretty damn well.
...and that's it. That's the only show I know of that was so CF-friendly. I know I don't watch a lot of tv, but jeez....
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 22, 2018 | Registered: 10 years ago Posts: 2,364 |
Quote
yuirble
I suppose they can't have something in the contract that forbids pregnancy, but the writers should not take a CF character and work in a pregnancy. They should either shoot that character from the neck up until the pregnancy is over, or kill it off. It does a lot of harm to portray previously firm characters as all wishy-washy on the topic.
Quote
deegee
Star Trek: The Next Generation wasn't friendly to kids, either. Captain Picard didn't like kids. Worf's Kid was marginal at best. Wesley Crusher started badly but became okay.
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom July 27, 2018 | Registered: 7 years ago Posts: 651 |