Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile

Advanced

The Invisibility of Childfreedom

Posted by yurble 
Forum List Message List New Topic
yurble
The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 14, 2018
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.
Reply Quote
mumofsixbirds
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 14, 2018
I used to be a lot more quiet about my choice not to have kids, because any time I mentioned it, I heard the old addage, "You'll change your mind". It got really annoying. Now, I'm going to be 50 in a few months, and I feel free to be a bit more vocal about it. Not to the point of rubbing it into people's faces or anything, but loud enough to be heard. It feels damned good to have reached my age and feel like I did something right. Not only right for myself, but ethical for the planet, too.
Reply Quote
bell_flower
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 14, 2018
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.

The increasing visibility/mention of parental status when it's irrelevant to a one's accomplishments annoys the ever-loving fuck out of me. (note:
Also annoying how parental status is treated when one fucks up or something bad happens to you, see the breederific media thread.)

My DH watches a lot of sports and no place is safe: golfers who win tournaments and accept trophies with fuck trophies in tow; race car drivers hoisting their crotch fruit on their shoulders as they celebrate; athletes, actors all being asked about their keeeeeeedz and sometimes pontificating about how their real accomplishments pale in comparison to performing a biological function. (I'm looking at Serena Williams, who was just beaten at Wimbleton 2018 in straight sets. There is a sense of Schadenfreude--ha ha.)

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.
Reply Quote
yurble
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 14, 2018
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.

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.)
Reply Quote
addiea raine
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 14, 2018
I hate the favoritism. I finished my master's and boss didn't even say grats.....new girl finished her associates, cue the party because "it was soooo hard to do while having a kyd!". Not to mention the fucking baby showers that I'm "required" to attend (I plan to be busy for the next one). I'm sort of an in-betweener because of what I do....yes my department is their department but I'm also responsible for another department and I'm not even near their building. It bothered the hell out of me to be required to go but no one even said "sorry for your loss" when my grandfather died (but again required to give money and sign card for someone else for the death in their family). Breeders only worry about themselves, if you're not a breeder you can fuck off and die after giving them whatever they want. I'm going to be going for a second degree to add to the one I have...fuck breeders and their spawn.

_______________________________________________________________

"It is better not to look like what you are; it is better to look like a bourgeois woman because then all the doors are open for you and then you can just go and make hell." - Marjane Satrapi
Reply Quote
bell_flower
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 14, 2018
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.)

This happened to some extent in 1998 when Joyce Purnick, one of the first women to be an editor at the New York Times, gave the commencement address at Barnard College. (She's an alumna.) During her speech she talked about her job and the late hours it required. She often left work at 8 pm and later.
She wanted to give the graduates a realistic picture of her sucess and she said "There is no way in an all-consuming profession like journalism that a woman with children can devote as much time and energy as a man can."

She didn't even say women weren't capable, just that the job required a lot of time. And she wasn't even CF--she was childless. She married later in life, too late have kyds. She was merely speaking to her experience and how not having kids allowed her to become an editor and manage 150 people, because she had to be there to do it and the job required long hours.

Elilnor Burkett wrote about this event extensively in her book "How Family Friendly America cheats the Childless." When Purnick got back to her job at the Times, she faced a "lynch mob" when the Moos in her department went to her supervisor and demanded that she be fired. As an aside, Burkett also noted that Purnick had already made a lot of enemies in her new position when she set up the following policy for Summer vacations such as Memorial Day, Labor Day and the Fourth of July: if you didn't work it last year, you had to work this year. Simple and fair, but the previous policy at the NYT was that parunts got preferential treatments for holidays because of fambilee. So Purnick had already pissed off the parental brigade.

Because this was 1998, and Purnick had a reasonable supervisor, she kept her job. Today, thanks to the Twatter and social media, I fear the outcome would be vastly different. A woman who said something like that today would be fired, thank to the brainless Twatter mob, the assault on free speech and spineless corporations who cave after one negative tweet.

I did find this article from the Baltimore Sun from a female journalist who agreed with Purnick at the time. The article is 20 years old and I'm surprised it's still up.

I honestly think I'm not being overly pessimistic, but I wonder whether an article like that would even be printed today? One thing's for sure...no female could give an address like that today at one of the Seven Sisters or any other school. It's all Sheryl Sandberg and the "women can have it all" brigade. Heaven forbid someone have to make choices.
Reply Quote
deegee
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 14, 2018
Bell_Flower, I have Burkett's book and enjoyed the chapter about Joyce Purnick and have mentioned it in this forum before. Thanks for mentioning Burkett, her book, and Purnick again.
Reply Quote
yurble
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 15, 2018
I've read that book, now that you mention the story it sounds familiar. There is one thing I object to about the speech, which is that it seems to place the burden on women. However, common it is for women to take on that role, it would be less sexist to frame it as parents. Because fathers do make the choice, often, to be less involved in their children's lives and to focus on their careers.

I was once on the receiving end of a speech that managed the sexism part but failed the CF test. It went something like this: to be successful, you need your partner to stay at home and take care of the children - whether you are male or female, you need a partner who puts your career first. Of course I found that just as appalling, since I see no reason you can't be DINK or single and CF, and do just as well.

Anyhow, there is a main point here which isn't sexist or biased and I don't know why people can't say it without adding their personal filter. That point is: to be top of your field, you need to spend most of your time at work, and minimize competing demands for your attention. That's a straight-forward fact people should not be able to take exception to. From there, it can be elaborated that distractions that take up time include childcare (leaving the person to consider for themselves all alternatives, such as not having children, getting a nanny, or having a stay-at-home spouse) - something the moo brigade is unlikely to deny, given how much they value their own work.

Mind you, I also object to the idea that working long hours ought to be required for success, but that's a different complaint. I don't think it is healthy for companies to expect or demand it.
Reply Quote
quiltergirl
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 15, 2018
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.

Not always. DH used to keep school photos of our two nieces in his office. He would change them out each year when he received each of their new photos.
Reply Quote
mumofsixbirds
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 15, 2018
We have some family photos in our house, because people in our family keep giving them to us. I keep them contained to certain parts of the house where they don't dominate my field of vision. I suppose that if someone came here that didn't know us, they'd assume the kids belonged to us.
Reply Quote
cassia
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 17, 2018
I live in a small community and was having a conversation near the road with a neighbour when the subject turned to both of us being being child-free and atheist.

Another neighbour was walking by and the other person in the conversation hushed me in case another person would hear that we are not religious and breeders and we might face negative consequences in the community.

I was quiet for a few moments to acquiesce to the other person's request but expressed my disgust that it is perfectly fine for people to frequently discuss their religion and kids but that she felt she had to hide being child-free and atheist.
Reply Quote
freya
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 17, 2018
Sadly, it was better in some ways in the 90's. Less brats everywhere and no online lynch mob with it's petty demands. No glorifying of downys with support groups demanding they be born. Less normalization of autards spoiled children. I don't recall as much publicity on famous people's kids either.
Reply Quote
ondinette
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 17, 2018
I think the 90s is when all this shit started, although it has gotten progressively worse since.
Reply Quote
craftyzits
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 17, 2018
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.

Yet in spite of this CF is growing. CF is evolution. And you know how the religitards view the latter.

+++++++++++++

Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!
Reply Quote
cfuter
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 18, 2018
Quote
ondinette
I think the 90s is when all this shit started, although it has gotten progressively worse since.

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.
Reply Quote
craftyzits
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 19, 2018
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.

Part of the reason I cut the cord and have ad blockers on all my software!

+++++++++++++

Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!
Reply Quote
freedomchick
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 19, 2018
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.
Reply Quote
freya
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 20, 2018
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.

Pictures of pets always grab my attention. The other pictures, not so much.
Reply Quote
kittehpeoples
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 21, 2018
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? hitting head against a brick wall

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....
Reply Quote
mumofsixbirds
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 21, 2018
I liked Elaine from Seinfeld, she was pretty awesome. I also loved Samantha Jones from SATC. I think they were pretty cool CF figures.
Reply Quote
yurble
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 22, 2018
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? hitting head against a brick wall

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.
Reply Quote
deegee
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 22, 2018
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.

Seinfeld in general was pretty hostile to kids. Elaine babysat a bratty kid. Kramer beat up kids in a karate class and scared the crap out of a kid in another episode. Jerry cursed out a kid who ruined an audiotape of his act. George threw kids out of the way to escape a kitchen fire. Remember the Hamptons episode when Jerry and Elaine had to meet an ugly baby?

Three's Company was pretty hostile to kids, to. They were often portrayed as devious, troublemaking kids who tried to wreck the lives of te main characters.

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.
Reply Quote
craftyzits
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 22, 2018
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? hitting head against a brick wall

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....

Television isn't something that caters to a minority demographic, which is what CF is. The Idiot Box caters to the common denominator, often the most stupid human beings in society. This is but one reason why people are cutting cable cords in droves, as minority demographics rebel against the Box demanding everyone fit into the one-size-fits-all common denominator. I cut my cable cord in 2014. I receive all my media via the Internet, with lots of adblockers.

+++++++++++++

Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!
Reply Quote
kittehpeoples
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 22, 2018
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.

I agree. Stay true to the character, not the actor. One of my all-time favorite musicals was shot around the lead female's pregnancy, and even though I'd seen the film numerous times over the years, I didn't know that until I got a special edition DVD with a documentary that talked about it. Camera shots and costuming-- they hid the pregnancy very effectively!

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.

I loved TNG. Worf's kid (Alexander, am I remembering that right?) really felt shoehorned in, like they "needed" one of the main characters to undergo the struggles of suddenly becoming a parent. (Bleah.) Wesley started as a train wreck, but yeah, they really pulled him out of the fire by the end of the series. But by the end of the series...he wasn't a kid anymore. Coincidence...? winking smiley
Reply Quote
cfuter
Re: The Invisibility of Childfreedom
July 27, 2018
In Homeland, when Brody's wife was preggers in real life, they digitally took her bloated belly out. Otherwise, they filmed her from the boobs up. You can tell she was preggers becuz her boobs were matronly swollen, and her face more filled out. The CGI was obvious to a keen eye when filming her from a distance.
Reply Quote
Page 1 of 2    Pages: 12Next
Newer Topic Older Topic
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login