Voluntary childlessness, also described by some as being childfree, is the voluntary choice to not have children.
In most societies and for most of human history, choosing not to
have children was both difficult and undesirable. The availability of
reliable contraception along with support provided in old age
by one's government rather than one's family has made childlessness an
option for people in some, though they may be looked down upon in
certain communities.
The usage of the term "childfree" to describe people who choose not to have children was coined in the English language late in the 20th century.
The meaning of the term "childfree" extends to encompass the children
of others (in addition to one's own children) and this distinguishes it
further from the more usual term "childless", which is traditionally
used to express the idea of having no children, whether by choice or by
circumstance.
The term 'child free' has been cited in Australian literature to refer
to parents who are without children at the current time. This may be due
to them living elsewhere on a permanent basis or a short-term solution
such as childcare (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2011).
Supporters of living childfree (e.g. Corinne Maier, French author of "No Kids: 40 Reasons For Not Having Children") cite various reasons for their view:
- competing familial or social obligations, such as the role of primary caregiver for a disabled spouse, sibling(s) or parent(s)
- concerns over the effects pregnancy has on the woman's body (weight gain, stretch marks, drooping breasts, hyperpigmentation on the face, looser pelvic muscles leading to reduced sexual pleasure for both the woman and her partner, haemorrhoids, urinary incontinence, death, etc.)
- economic insufficiency
- lack of access to support networks and resources
- personal well-being
- existing or possible health problems, including genetic disorders
- reluctance to replicate the genes of one's own parents in cases of child abuse
- fear that sexual activity may decline
- various fears (for example, of being trapped or disappointed) as well as fears for the child
- damage to relationships or difficulties with them
- fear and/or revulsion towards the physical condition of pregnancy, the childbirth experience, and recovery (for example the erosion of physical desirability)
- belief that one can make a greater contribution to humanity through one's work than through having children
- perceived or actual incapacity to be a responsible and patient parent
- the view that the wish to reproduce oneself is a form of narcissism
- the absence of a partner with which one deems fit to sexually reproduce
- belief that it is wrong to intentionally have a child when there are so many children available for adoption
- concern regarding environmental impacts such as overpopulation, pollution, resource scarcity and the resulting effects on the global climate and the welfare of existing children
- antinatalism: the belief that it is inherently immoral to bring people into the world. That is, one may generally wish to spare a potential child from the suffering of life. Moreover, the parent can never get the consent of the unborn child, therefore a decision to procreate would be an imposition of life
- belief in a negative, declining condition of the world and culture and in the need to avoid subjecting a child to those negative conditions. This includes concerns that calamitous events (e.g., global warming effects, war, or famine) might be likely to occur within the lifetime of one's children and cause their suffering and/or death
- belief that people tend to have children for the wrong reasons (e.g. fear, social pressures from cultural norms)
- adherence to the principles of a religious organization which rejects having children or the rejection of procreative religious beliefs imposed by one's family and/or community
- dislike of children
- uncertainty over the stability of the parenting relationship
- lack of the so-called maternal or paternal instinct
- belief that one is too old or too young to have children
- career orientation
- simply not wanting to have children
Statistics and research
According to economist David Foot of the University of Toronto, the level of a woman's education is the most important factor in determining whether she will reproduce:
the higher her level of education, the less likely she is to bear
children (or if she does, the fewer children she is likely to have).
Overall, researchers have observed childless couples to be more educated, and it is perhaps because of this that they are more likely to be employed in professional and management occupations, more likely for both spouses to earn relatively high incomes, and to live in urban areas. They are also less likely to be religious, subscribe to traditional gender roles, or subscribe to conventional roles.
Being a childfree, American adult was considered unusual in the 1950s.
However, the proportion of childless adults in the population has
increased significantly since then. The proportion of childlessness
among women aged 40–44 was 10% in 1976, reached a high of 20% in 2005,
then declined to 15% in 2014. In Europe, childlessness among women aged 40–44 is most common in Austria, Spain and the United Kingdom (in 2010-2011). Among surveyed countries, childlessness was least common across Eastern European countries, although one child families are very common there.
From 2007 to 2011 the fertility rate in the U.S. declined 9%, the Pew Research Center
reporting in 2010 that the birth rate was the lowest in U.S. history
and that childfreeness rose across all racial and ethnic groups to about
1 in 5 versus 1 in 10 in the 1970s. The CDC
released statistics in the first quarter of 2016 confirming that the
U.S. fertility rate had fallen to its lowest point since record keeping
started in 1909: 59.8 births per 1,000 women, half its high of 122.9 in
1957. Even taking the falling fertility rate into account, the U.S. Census Bureau still projected that the U.S. population would increase from 319 million (2014) to 400 million by 2051.
The National Center of Health Statistics confirms that the
percentage of American women of childbearing age who define themselves
as childfree (or voluntarily childless) rose sharply in the 1990s—from
2.4 percent in 1982 to 4.3 percent in 1990 to 6.6 percent in 1995.
Factors involved in voluntary childlessness
In 2010, updated information on childlessness, based on a 2008 US Census Population Survey, was analyzed by Pew Research.
Age
While younger
women are more likely to be childless, older women are more likely to
state that they intend to remain childless in the future.
Marriage and relationships
Being
unmarried is one of the strongest predictors of childlessness. It has
also been suggested through research that married individuals who were
concerned about the stability of their marriages were more likely to
remain childless.
Socioeconomic status/labor force participation
Most
studies on this subject find that higher income predicted
childlessness. However, some women report that lack of financial
resources was a reason why they decided to remain childless. Childless
women in the developed world often express the view that women
ultimately have to make a choice between motherhood and having a career. The 2004 Census Bureau data showed nearly half of women with annual incomes over $100,000 are childless.
Education
Among women aged 35–44, the chance of being childless was far greater
for never-married (82.5%) than for married women (12.9%). When the
same group is analyzed by education level, increasing education
correlates with increasing childlessness: non-H.S. graduate (13.5%),
H.S. graduate (14.3%), Some College no degree (24.7%), Associate Degree
(11.4%), Bachelor's degree (18.2%) and Graduate or Professional degree
(27.6%).
Social attitudes to remaining childfree
Most
societies place a high value on parenthood in adult life, so that
people who remain childfree are sometimes stereotyped as being
"individualistic" people who avoid social responsibility and are less
prepared to commit themselves to helping others.
However, certain groups believe that being childfree is beneficial.
With the advent of environmentalism and concerns for stewardship, those
choosing to not have children are also sometimes recognized as helping
reduce our impact, such as members of the voluntary human extinction movement. Some childfree are sometimes lauded on moral grounds, such as members of philosophical or religious groups, like the Shakers.
There are three broad areas of criticism regarding childfreeness,
based upon socio-political, feminist or religious reasons. There are
also considerations relating to personal philosophy and social roles.
Feminism
Feminist
author Daphne DeMarneffe links larger feminist issues to both the
devaluation of motherhood in contemporary society, as well as the
delegitimization of "maternal desire" and pleasure in motherhood. In third-wave handbook Manifesta: Young Women, Feminism, and the Future, authors Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards explore the concept of third-wave feminists reclaiming "girlie" culture, along with reasons why women of Baby Boomer and Generation X
ages may reject motherhood because, at a young and impressionable age,
they witnessed their own mothers being devalued by society and family.
On the other hand, in "The Bust Guide to the New Girl Order" and in Utne Reader magazine, third-wave feminist writer Tiffany Lee Brown
described the joys and freedoms of childfree living, freedoms such as
travel previously associated with males in Western culture. In
"Motherhood Lite," she celebrates being an aunt, co-parent, or family
friend over the idea of being a mother.
Overpopulation
Reduction of one's carbon footprint for various actions.
Some believe that overpopulation is a serious problem and some
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.
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.
Some have argued that this sort of conscientiousness
is self-eliminating (assuming it is heritable), so by avoiding
reproduction for ethical reasons the childfree will only aid
deterioration of concern for the environment and future generations.
Government and taxes
Some
regard governmental or employer-based incentives offered only to
parents—such as a per-child income tax credit, preferential absence
planning, employment legislation, or special facilities—as intrinsically
discriminatory, arguing for their removal, reduction, or the formation
of a corresponding system of matching incentives for other categories of
social relationships. Childfree advocates argue that other forms of
caregiving have historically not been considered equal—that "only babies
count"—and that this is an outdated idea that is in need of revision.
Caring for sick, disabled, or elderly
dependents entails significant financial and emotional costs but is not
currently subsidized in the same manner. This commitment has
traditionally and increasingly fallen largely on women, contributing to
the feminization of poverty in the U.S.
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, arguing, for example, that
childfree people face not only social discrimination but political
discrimination as well.
Religion
Abrahamic religions such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, as well as Hinduism
place a high value on children and their central place in marriage.
In numerous works, including an Apostolic letter written in 1988, Pope John Paul II has set forth the Roman Catholic emphasis on the role of children in family life. However, the Catholic Church also stresses the value of chastity in the non-married state of life and so approves of nominally childfree ways of life for the single.
There are, however, some debates within religious groups about
whether a childfree lifestyle is acceptable. Another view, for example,
is that the biblical text Gen. 1:28 "Be fruitful and multiply",
is really not a command but a blessing formula and 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.
Matthew 19:12 describes Jesus as listing three types of eunuchs
including one type who chooses it intentionally, noting that whoever is
willing to become one, should.
Ethical reasons
Brian
Tomasik cites ethical reasons for people to remain childfree. Also,
they will have more time to focus on themselves, which will allow for
greater creativity and the exploration of personal ambitions. In this
way, they may benefit themselves and society more than if they had a
child.
The "selfish" issue
Some opponents of the childfree choice consider such a choice to be selfish.
The rationale of this position is the assertion that raising children
is a very important activity and so not engaging in this activity must
therefore mean living one's life in service to one's self. The value
judgment behind this idea is that individuals should endeavor to make
some kind of meaningful contribution to the world, but also that the
best way to make such a contribution is to have children. For some
people, one or both of these assumptions may be true, but others prefer
to direct their time, energy, and talents elsewhere, in many cases
toward improving the world that today's children occupy (and that future
generations will inherit).
Proponents of childfreedom posit that choosing not to have
children is no more or less selfish than choosing to have children.
Choosing to have children may be the more selfish choice, especially
when poor parenting risks creating many long term problems for both the
children themselves and society at large. As philosopher David Benatar
explains, at the heart of the decision to bring a child into the world
often lies the parents' own desires (to enjoy child-rearing or
perpetuate one's legacy/genes), rather than the potential person's
interests. At the very least, Benatar believes this illustrates why a
childfree person may be just as altruistic as any parent.
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
many concerns about overpopulation, pollution and depletion of non-renewable resources.
Some critics counter that such analyses of having children may
understate its potential benefits to society (e.g. a greater labor
force, which may provide greater opportunity to solve social problems)
and overstate the costs. That is, there is often a need for a non-zero birth rate.
Organizations and political activism
Childfree
individuals do not necessarily share a unified political or economic
philosophy, and most prominent childfree organizations tend to be social
in nature. Childfree social groups first emerged in the 1970s and
1980s, most notable among them the National Alliance for Optional Parenthood and No Kidding!
in North America where numerous books have been written about childfree
people and where a range of social positions related to childfree
interests have developed along with political and social activism in
support of these interests. The term "childfree" was used in a July 3,
1972 Time article on the creation of the National Organization for Non-Parents. It was revived in the 1990s when Leslie Lafayette formed a later childfree group, the Childfree Network.
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. N.O.N. designated August 1 as
Non-Parents' Day. Just as people with children come from all shades of
the political spectrum and temper their beliefs accordingly, so do the
childfree. For example, while some childfree people think of government
welfare to parents as "lifestyle subsidies," others accept the need to
assist such individuals but think that their lifestyle should be equally
compensated. Still others accept the need to help out such individuals
and also do not ask for subsidies of their own.
There are suggestions of an emergence of political cohesion, for
example an Australian Childfree Party (ACFP) 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'être, with a
number of attempts to mobilize political pressure groups in the U.S.
The first organization to emerge was British, known as Kidding Aside. The childfree movement has not had significant political impact.
