12345...10...


Im childfree, not childless heres why that difference matters – Stylist Magazine

This is why I advocate for the use of the descriptor childfree instead of childless for women like me. Childfree implies a choice that many women dont know they have. A freedom its right there in the name. More than that, its a rebellionagainst societal expectations and community norms.

Historically, society doesnt like women taking freedoms for themselves, especially when the survival of the entire species is apparently at stake, so its vital to express solidarity, be a role model, and promote preferred terminology like childfree. Its a way to own my status.

Claiming freedom from societal norms is never without cost. Having children is perceived as a duty, first to the individual family or genetic line, secondly to the immediate community (at a family funeral a few months ago, the religious leader informed us mourners that a womans job was to have babies) and lastly, to the species. Theres an implication of What if every woman thought like you? as though I personally am supposed to be responsible for the continuation of the entire human race.

Read this article:

Im childfree, not childless heres why that difference matters - Stylist Magazine

How babies change the dynamics of friendships – ABC News

In the early days of motherhood, I found it incredibly isolating.

It never occurred to me that my childfree friends might feel isolated too.

But then I read an ABC Life story about childfree women, which explained how women without kids often feel excluded from society and forgotten by their parent friends.

The "forgotten" accusation left me wounded. Motherhood can be all-encompassing and it was a blow to feel like I might be letting my friends down.

So I reached out to my childfree colleague Kellie Scott.

We are both in our 30s and have seen how babies change the dynamics of friendships (from different sides of the fence).

We've written letters to our friends about our thoughts.

Since having my daughter almost two years ago, it's been hectic with some soaring highs, new mother worries and tears, and endless nights of broken sleep.

And a lot of time spent alone with the baby.

Before bub arrived I had no idea what this "mother" thing was about.

The load certainly isn't what I expected. It's so much more physically and emotionally demanding sometimes planning beyond today is too much.

But here's a news flash from a new mother: I want to talk to you. I need to get out of the house. But I don't know how I can make that happen as regularly as I once did.

From managing endless loads of washing to seeing their friends less, six mums and dads share what changed in their lives after becoming parents.

There's no doubt my world has changed it's a lot smaller and yours has continued on.

I've pondered the idea that you might feel excluded by me again and again. Maybe it stems from my fear of oversharing or boring you with baby photos and stories.

I didn't mean my lack of sharing about my child's bowel movements and broken English to make you feel excluded.

I remember what it was like when a friend, high on hormones, told me that she never knew the type of love and how deep it could be until she held her newborn. I wanted to vomit on the spot.

I don't want to be that person.

I do, however, need some sort of sign that you're interested. Maybe even being OK with mess, children's music in the background and bath time.

I'd love to have a gin and tonic down at the funky bar on the corner once a week (I'd even settle for once every few months).

But even when all the planets (and shift work rosters) align, my partner is home to care for the tot and dinner is almost on the table, there's a little sense of guilt that I'm leaving at the most crucial and full-on time of the day the dinner, bath, bed routine.

I was lucky not to have to cope with postnatal depression, but a few years back it was clear something else, more insidious had happened to me. Postnatal depletion, Rebecca Huntley writes.

So please, come to me. Realise the demands of a little person are hard to work around, but that I do want to see you.

Join us for a meal because the free one-toddler show is always evolving it's maturing. Pitching food is over and saying cheers and clinking milk cups is in.

After all, in our 20s a little drama at dinner or on a night out was entertaining.

If that's not your thing, maybe doing the dishes and bringing in the clothes from the line when I'm tied up.

I'd love the company of more strong women and I need everyone I can get to be part of my village to help raise an independent girl to become a good-natured, compassionate, friendly human being.

Despite our best attempts to break down some of the barriers facing women, I know my little girl will have to grapple with the same issues we have.

You are a person I have chosen as a friend. You of all people have the kind of traits I would like to instil in her.

How can you stay close as friends when kids come along? Add your thoughts (and frustrations) in the comments.

We've been through a lot we debated children, good and bad boyfriends, and career options over dinner many times. We can do this again, please don't be put off by the interruptions.

I miss you, I need you and I want to be there for you too.

I don't know if I'll ever have a child, but in my mid-30s, I'm one of the last in our friendship group to still be wondering.

My sister-in-law recently told me the best support she had with her newborns was someone just coming around to take washing off the line, or cook dinner funnily enough, the same things Sarah talks about above.

It got me thinking about what kind of friend I've been to mums in my circle.

Maybe you're too kind to say anything, but let's face it, when I visit, I just sit around chatting while sipping my wine, sometimes as chaos ensues around me.

Yes, I come to you, but no, I'm not very useful once there.

I don't really understand how hard it is to simply do washing or cook dinner, because I haven't experienced parenthood for myself.

And you rarely complain. (Maybe that's saved for mums' group, where like-minded parents can sympathise.)

I also feel incapable of helping with a small person.

Women who choose not to have children are often labelled selfish, shallow and immature. But an increasing number are not having kids because of the ridiculous standards around motherhood.

I visited one friend and her two babies not long ago. She got really sick and my partner and I had to step up.

We were so proud we'd survived a few hours alone with the kids, until I realised we hadn't checked if they needed a nappy change.

Then I had to make a bottle and needed the neighbour to come and explain how.

If you haven't been around babies much, something as simple as changing and feeding them can be scary.

You really don't want to f*ck it up.

As for being left out, I've been one of the lucky ones.

We still see each other enough that we haven't become strangers.

Yes, there's some baby chat, but it's not all PG. We still talk about how weird bodies are, how scary Trump is, and that hilarious time we did X, Y and Z.

Like what you're reading? Sign up forthe ABC Life newsletter to see more

At this stage, the kids are still little. Perhaps if I never have children, the divide will become harder to bridge. But if that's the case I hope you are as mindful of that as I will be.

I don't want to be left behind, least of all by you.

Support, judgement, concerns about the environment and mental health, a love of pets, and thoughts about loneliness readers had a lot to say about the childfree life.

What I would say to the wonderful mothers in my life is three things.

One, please don't feel bad about asking for help. I don't get what it's like and maybe never will. I'm sorry I haven't stepped up before, but I'm very open to being bossed around. Ask me to cook your dinner, and I'll do it in a heartbeat.

Two, understand I don't always feel confident around your child. I'm constantly worried I'm going to drop them (it's happened).

Three, know that your little people are important to me. And I'll never get sick of hearing about them as long as you never get sick of hearing me talk about my dog.

Oh, and there is one more thing please find a good babysitter, because just sometimes, I want you all to myself.

Link:

How babies change the dynamics of friendships - ABC News

Why you should be worried about teacher salaries in Michigan – Detroit Free Press

Elementary school classroom(Photo: dolgachov, Getty Images/iStockphoto)

Here's the last decade in Michigan education:

Schools are getting worse. Teachers are getting paid less. We've barely increased state education spending. We're not paying what we owe for teacher pensions and retiree health care, and aroads funding plan proposed by Lansing Republicans could make all of it worse.

It's a lot.

If you have kids in school, it's pretty clear why you should care about all of this stuff. But even if you're childfree, or your kids are grown, ifyou care about schools, education, kids, the state's ability to attract and keep businesses, all of that should be troubling.

Basically, it's better for all of us if our schools don't stink. And we can fix it but only if we're honest about what's going wrong.

Michigan teacher pay is ranked 13th highest in the nation, on average, with a trendline over the last 10 years that's at least stable.

But adjust those salaries for inflation, as the nonpartisan policy shop Citizens Research Council did in a report published last week, and the trend is very different. From 2008 to 2018, if you measure teacher payagainst the increasing costs of goods and services, teachers are actually getting paid 10% less.

The state collects taxes from across the state and distributes it to districts according to the number of students enrolled in each. That's how the state tries to equalize funding across districts.

And again, on paper, those numbers don't look so bad. During the recession, state government cut per-pupil funding, but it's been inching up since 2014.

When you adjust for inflation, the Citizens Research Council found, the state spentbarely more on schools in 2018 than it did in 2008, about 3%.

And most of that increase is paying for teacher pensions and retiree health care.

The state's teacher pension system has what's called "unfunded liabilities." In other words, it is paying out more in retirement and retiree health care benefits than it has in assets. A pension system accrues unfunded liabilities when its investments don't earn as much as expected, or when the government that supports it isn't making big enoughpayments or both.

More: Michigan schools stink because we stopped paying for them | Editorial

When that happens, the school districts that pay into the system are supposed to pay more. Districts have been doing that since former Gov. Rick Snyder reformed the teacher pension system in 2012. But making bigger pension payments means fewer of the dollars Lansing sends to local districts are making it into classrooms.

This is a problem that is not complicated to forecast: Not enough students are enrolling in teacher training programs, and baby boomer-aged teachers are approaching retirement. Shortages in critical areas, like math or special needs, have become commonplace.

Lower-income districtsgenerally feel the brunt of shortages first.

But it's only going to get worse.

At the same time, teachers have become a punching bag for some lawmakers, who point to teacher salaries, teacher pensions and teacher performance as the root of all the state's education problems, from unbalanced budgets to slipping test scores.

More: Kaffer: How Michigan is failing our teachers

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's proposed budget included a 45-cent gas tax hike, a levy that would generate sufficient funds to fix our roads, and free upmore dollars for education.

Lansing Republicans successfully fought Whitmer's proposed tax increase to a standstill, without offering any viable alternative.

But one plan proposed by GOP lawmakers would, in essence, borrow against the state's teacher pension fund: Those lawmakers say the state should borrow $10 billion, invest it, and use the proceeds from that investment to pay for part of teacher pensions and to fix the state's roads.

It's a terrible plan, for a lot of reasons expecting a stable rate of return over the lifetime of $10 billion in debt is wishful thinking, and there's likely a recession coming.

But the Citizens Research Council report highlights another problem with the GOP plan: If the investment income Republicans would rely on to pay for teacher pensions and retiree benefits dried up, school districts would be on the hook for even bigger payments, meaning even fewer dollars would be spent in the classroom.

If lawmakers would recognize a few facts:

We have to start now, to stop the worsening teacher shortage. In an essay for Forbes, contributor Peter Greene argues against using the term "teacher shortage." It implies, Greene writes, inevitability, when the reality is, students aren't training to become teachers because we have made teaching a less attractive profession. Make teaching attractive, and voila the teacher shortage will disappear.

Without more high quality teachers, our schools won't improve.

Good schools cost money. There are stacks of reports that say we're not paying enough, even in some of our most successful districts., and definitely not in those where student performance lags.

Teachers who want to be paid fairly or at least for their salaries to keep pace with inflation aren't greedy.

Mixing teacher pensions and roads is a terrible idea.

If we can't agree that it is important to improve our schools, we should probably hang it up.

Nancy Kaffer is a Free Press columnist. Contact: nkaffer@freepress.com.

Read or Share this story: https://www.freep.com/story/opinion/columnists/nancy-kaffer/2019/09/18/teacher-salaries-michigan-pay-schools/2314368001/

See the article here:

Why you should be worried about teacher salaries in Michigan - Detroit Free Press

Why breast cancer was called ‘Nun’s disease" – Florida Today

Breast cancer has been called Nun's disease because of the high number of nuns affected dating back to the 1700s.(Photo: fstop123 / Getty Images)

Have you heard the termNun's Disease?

My guess is you may not have as the phrase has become somewhat outdated over time.

The inception of the term became popular hundreds of years ago due to the high number of nuns being diagnosed with breast cancer, compared to diagnoses in the non-nun population of women.

As early as 1700, Dr. Bernardino Ramazzini, an Italian physician, considered to be the founder of "occupational medicine"recognized there was one female profession whose members were far more likely to die from breast cancer than any other female community, and that was the nun occupation.

Dr. Emran Imami is certified by the American Board of Surgery and is an invited Fellow of the prestigious American College of Surgeons.(Photo: PROVIDED PHOTO)

So why is this?

The answer is that lifelong nuns, comparable to all women who have not been reproductive, are at an increased risk of breast cancer, along with ovarian and uterine cancers, compared with women who have given birth.

Evidence supporting the Nun's Disease theory points to the protective side-effects of having children and breastfeeding in decreasing the chances of breast cancer.

As an example, the link connecting breast cancer and reproduction was long suspected, but not proven until a British study evaluated data from more than 150,000 women in 30 countries.

The outcome of the research continued to point to hormone related fluctuations in estrogen levels during pregnancy and while breastfeeding, decreasing breast cancer diagnoses in women who had reproduced.

In addition, a 1920s British physician, Dr. Janet Lane-Claypon, did epidemiological research that demonstrated the number of children a woman had, length of lactation, and age of first pregnancy also affected the accumulative risk of a breast cancer diagnosis.

According to WebMD, a woman has a 7% decreased risk of breast cancer per birth, and her chances drop another 4% for every year of breastfeeding.

In line with WebMD, sources from the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation state, women who give birth for the first time after age 30 are up to two times as likely to develop breast cancer as women who have their first child before the age of 20.

In addition, women who have children over the age of 35 have a slightly higher risk for breast cancer than women who dont have children at all.

Its also estimated that 5 percent of breast cancers could be prevented every year if women were to breastfeed their children for an extra six months.

If you have chosen to remain child free, the most realistic approach to reducing breast cancer is to focus on early detectionand be aware of any genetic risk factors that could contribute such as a family history; its also important to focus on reducing dietary risks such as not smoking, drinking excessively, maintaining a healthy dietand exercising regularly.

Of course, the best trajectory is to do monthly self-breast exams and take preventative clinical measures.

Self-breast exams will help detect changes that might be indicative of growths such as cancer tumors.

It's important to note that self-examinations are solely not enough, as breast screenings and mammograms are evidenced based and a must for early detection.

The American College of Radiology has reported that mammography has reduced breast cancer mortality in the United States by almost 40% since 1990.

More: Health pro: Imami carries on family tradition

More: Radiation options for breast cancer patients

More: Micropigmentation like a tattoo that makes hair look fuller

Duringthe past several years there have been several updates, changes, and confusion regarding guidelines and safety precautions for breast screenings, so here is what you need to know.

The American College of Physicians (ACP) offers four recommends for women:

1.In average-risk women aged 40 to 49 years, clinicians should discuss whether to screen for breast cancer with mammography before age 50 years. Discussion should include the potential benefits and harms and a woman's preferences. The potential harms outweigh the benefits in most women aged 40 to 49 years.

2. In average-risk women aged 50 to 74 years, clinicians should offer screening for breast cancer with biennial mammography.

3. In average-risk women aged 75 years or older or in women with a life expectancy of 10 years or less, clinicians should discontinue screening for breast cancer.

4.In average-risk women of all ages, clinicians should not use clinical breast examination to screen for breast cancer.

Simply, the goal of mammography is the early detection of breast cancer, typically, through detection of characteristic masses or microcalcifications.

Annual mammograms can help detect breast cancer in the earliest stages, when it is most treatable, while also detecting changes that a woman would not notice on her own, until months later.

The US Census Bureau Population Survey stated in 2014, 47.6 percent of women between the ages of 15 and 44 had not had children, an increase of 46.5 percent from 2012.

These statistics represent the highest percentage of childless women since the bureau began tracking the data back in 1976, and sure to be influencing the increased breast cancer diagnoses in our country.

According to BreastCancer.org, one in eight women (about 12-percent) will develop invasive breast cancer over the course of her lifetime.

This year, an estimated 268,600 new cases of invasive breast cancer were expected to be diagnosed, along with 62,930 new cases of non-invasive breast cancer.

For women who have chosen to be childfree, or considered to be of high-risk for breast cancer, they should seek a breast surgeon to quantify those risks; while discussing the potential diagnostic role of a breast MRI and/or medications to reduce risk.

Childfree or not, high risk or not, its important to focus on preventative breast health, to keep any potential breast cancer risks at a minimum.

Emran Imami, MD, MBA, FACS, is the Medical Director of TEPAS Breast Center. He is certified by the American Board of Surgery, a Fellow of the American College of Surgeon, a member of the American Society of Breast Surgeons, and a member of American Association of Cosmetic Surgery. For more information go to http://www.TepasBreastCenter.com, or call on TEPAS Breast Center at 321-312-4178.

Read or Share this story: https://www.floridatoday.com/story/life/wellness/2019/09/17/why-breast-cancer-called-nuns-disease/2340315001/

Original post:

Why breast cancer was called 'Nun's disease" - Florida Today

Living Childfree – RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association

Navigating the emotional journey towards being happy in a life without children involves a process of grieving. When individuals who have struggled with infertility face a life without children, its usually by default. Its a loss of their dream. They often feel depressed, and their anguish is often, rarely understood. Outsiders incorrectly assume that people without children have chosen not to have them.

Many people, especially women, connect their value in life with the activity of parenting. Society esteems and rewards those who raise children, often ignoring those who pursue other paths to form a worthwhile life. But it is precisely this step in the direction of another path that one must take when moving toward resolution.

When you move in the direction of living without children, you may want to consider where you will direct the energies that you would have used to parent your child. Make an agreement with your spouse to identify and prioritize what each of you will agree to do to continue to nurture these maternal/paternal instincts. Give each other the space to grow and pursue these feelings.

See the article here:

Living Childfree - RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association

Childfree – definition of childfree by The Free Dictionary

Viewing childfree-ness as anything but weird and sad can put you in the firing line for a lot of grief in life and on social media, as journalist Holly Brockwell found when she wrote about her childfree status.The term childfree first emerged in the United Kingdom as an empowering outlook for the commonly stigmatizing connotation of childlessness (Bartlett, 1996).Most of members of the fertility group, on the other hand, were not aware of the existence of the childfree group and expressed surprise that such a group existed.Families raising biogenetically related children are represented as preferable to childfree families or families raising nonbiogenetically related children.Jordan, for example, equated a single, childfree adulthood with "doing nothing with your life.Many of those who did not have children before joining the women's movement either remained childfree or delayed having children, resulting in an apparent 'babyboom' in the late 1970s and early 1980s among second-wave feminists.I have always been happy to be childfree and I hope many, many others come to the same conclusion.Many of the subjects had elected to remain childfree, citing an unfortunate absence of positive parenting role models in their own childhood.And childfree women face a range of reactions, with 49% saying people always ask them when they're going to have children.The childfree alternative marriages have been made possible by the development of effective contraceptives (Howse, etal 1988).Ambiguous constructions: Development of a childless or childfree life course.So I took my wife for a childfree pre-Mother's Day weekend lunch, only to be left relatively disappointed by the fayre.

See the rest here:

Childfree - definition of childfree by The Free Dictionary

Voluntary childlessness – Wikipedia

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 systems other than traditional familial ones has made childlessness an option for people in developed countries, 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.[1] The meaning of the term "childfree" extends to encompass the children of others (in addition to ones 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.[2] 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[3] for their view:

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.[11]

Being a childfree American adult was considered unusual in the 1950s.[12][13] 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.[14] In Europe, childlessness among women aged 40-44 is most common in Austria, Spain and the United Kingdom (in 2010-2011).[15] Childlessness is least common across Eastern European countries,[15] 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.[16] 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.[17] 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.[17]

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 1990sfrom 2.4 percent in 1982 to 4.3 percent in 1990 to 6.6 percent in 1995.

In 2010, updated information on childlessness, based on a 2008 US Census Population Survey, was analyzed by Pew Research.[18]

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.

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.

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.[citation needed] The 2004 Census Bureau data showed nearly half of women with annual incomes over $100,000 are childless.

Among women aged 3544, the chance of being childless was far greater for never-married women (82.5%) than for ever-married (12.9%). When the same group is analyzed by education level, increasing education correlates with increasing childlessness: not-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%).[20][21]

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.[22] 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.

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.[23] 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.[24]

On the other hand, in "The Bust Guide to the New Girl Order"[25] 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.[26]

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 K12 education paid for by all taxpayers, family medical leave, and other such programs.[27]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.[28]

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.[29]

Some regard governmental or employer-based incentives offered only to parentssuch as a per-child income tax credit, preferential absence planning, employment legislation, or special facilitiesas 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 equalthat "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.[30]

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.[27]

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,[31] 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. Some religious interpretations hold that any couple who marries with the intention of not producing children is not married within the church.

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.[32] 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.

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.[33]

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).[34]

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.[35] As philosopher David Benatar[36] 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 very least, Benatar believes this illustrates why a childfree person may be just as altruistic as any parent.[citation needed]

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.[37]

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.[38] It was revived in the 1990s when Leslie Lafayette formed a later childfree group, the Childfree Network.[39]

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 childrento 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.[citation needed]

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.[citation needed] 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'tre, 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.[citation needed]

Read this article:

Voluntary childlessness - Wikipedia

Live Childfree

Its Simple

We simply use the word childfree as a way to express that we are embracing a life as non-parents.

There are many separate categories often used to describe people without children (childfree-by-choice, childfree-by-circumstance, childfree-after-infertility, childless, etc.). When we say childfree, we are including anyone from any of these groups who seeks to live a fulfilling, rewarding life as a non-parent.

Original post:

Live Childfree

Welcome to The Childfree Life | The Childfree Life

This childfree website is a supportive environment for people who dont have kids and dont plan to have children in the future, as well as those who are still considering whether to have children.

Deciding not to have children, for whatever reason, can make you feel like an outcast, and the object of many negative stereotypes. The childfree choice is easy for some people, but for others it can become a quandary that lasts for years. Having no children means you may lose friends to the demands of parenthood or because you no longer have much in common. You may even find yourself facing strong pressure to conform from people close to you. Being childfree is a decision that cannot always be easily explained or understood.

We offer articles and resources for those who dont want children or cant have children, and invite you to join us in The Childfree Life forums for an honest discussion with like-minded people about all aspects of life without children.

Once upon a time, there was a group of intelligent, thoughtful, funny and wise people who met on another internet forum, and talked at length about their childfree lives, choices, and problems. As this forum was on a womens site, mothers that dropped in saw fit to complain about what they read. They didnt like our language, our opinions, or our choices. The site owner (a parent) agreed. As a result, the rules were changed, the site was censored, accounts were deleted, and the group felt the need to move on. We took that opportunity to create a new home for ourselves, and for other moderate childfree people. The Childfree Life is the result. We hope you enjoy it.

Theres a number of great childfree resources on the web, and more are springing up every day. Were a growing movement, but as yet, theres not a huge public awareness of who we are, what we represent, our hopes, dreams and motivations. Wed like to change that. Our vision is to become a hub of the online CF community, a central location for articles, resources, and thoughts about all things childfree, including the best and busiest forum on the web. We know that some of the childfree communities are a little hardcore for the average person, but theres a lot of parent-pleasing on the more women-oriented sites. Wed like to be somewhere in the middle a moderate voice, if you will.

We welcome the opinions and questions of childfree people of both genders, and supportive others. Were here to lend a sympathetic ear, give an opinion, and support people without judgment in their childfree choices.

Read more:

Welcome to The Childfree Life | The Childfree Life

The Childfree Life – Index page

ForumTopicsPostsLast postGeneral ForumsNo unread postsThe Childfree Pub

General discussion of childfree topics

Moderator: Moderators

Subforums:Dating & Relationships, Politics

83

2699

Re: Daily Rant Part 1

Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:42 am

LaTormentaView the latest post

Discussion about our furry, feathered, and scaly friends

Moderator: Moderators

9

128

Re: Frustrated With Dog

Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:32 pm

CarryOnView the latest post

Discussion about being childfree in the workplace

Moderator: Moderators

2

64

Re: General Work Rants

Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:53 pm

HerbaceousView the latest post

Connect with other childfree people in your area.

Moderator: Moderators

0

0

No posts

Discussion about birth control and sterilization

Moderator: Moderators

9

94

Re: Is the uterus closed afte

Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:59 am

CaliView the latest post

For childfree people who are partnered with a parent

Moderator: Moderators

0

0

No posts

For those who aren't sure whether they want kids and want to explore being childfree

Moderator: Moderators

1

18

Re: Some thoughts

Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:14 am

CaliView the latest post

Ask us anything. Guests can post in this forum too.

Moderator: Moderators

8

104

Re: Guest posting temporarily

Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:25 pm

CaliView the latest post

Movies, books, games, it all goes here

Moderator: Moderators

10

239

Re: TV shows - what are you w

Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:17 pm

CarryOnView the latest post

Share your travel and food experiences, bonus points for both

Moderator: Moderators

14

1218

Re: What Are You Cooking?

Tue Apr 23, 2019 10:23 am

HerbaceousView the latest post

Discussion about health and fitness routines

Moderator: Moderators

6

89

Re: Night sweats and protein

Tue Apr 23, 2019 2:58 pm

LadyPhoenixView the latest post

Discussion that doesn't fit into the other categories

Moderator: Moderators

3

66

Re: The Crafting Thread

Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:23 pm

HerbaceousView the latest post

Forum issues go here

Moderator: Moderators

4

34

Re: Why exactly can't my acco

Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:53 pm

LadyPhoenixView the latest post

Visit link:

The Childfree Life - Index page

Voluntary childlessness – Wikipedia

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 systems other than traditional familial ones has made childlessness an option for people in developed countries, 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.[1] The meaning of the term "childfree" extends to encompass the children of others (in addition to ones 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.[2] 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[3] for their view:

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.[11]

Being a childfree American adult was considered unusual in the 1950s.[12][13] 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.[14] In Europe, childlessness among women aged 40-44 is most common in Austria, Spain and the United Kingdom (in 2010-2011).[15] Childlessness is least common across Eastern European countries,[15] 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.[16] 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.[17] 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.[17]

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 1990sfrom 2.4 percent in 1982 to 4.3 percent in 1990 to 6.6 percent in 1995.

In 2010, updated information on childlessness, based on a 2008 US Census Population Survey, was analyzed by Pew Research.[18]

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.

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.

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.[citation needed] The 2004 Census Bureau data showed nearly half of women with annual incomes over $100,000 are childless.

Among women aged 3544, the chance of being childless was far greater for never-married women (82.5%) than for ever-married (12.9%). When the same group is analyzed by education level, increasing education correlates with increasing childlessness: not-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%).[20][21]

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.[22] 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.

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.[23] 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.[24]

On the other hand, in "The Bust Guide to the New Girl Order"[25] 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.[26]

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 K12 education paid for by all taxpayers, family medical leave, and other such programs.[27]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.[28]

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.[29]

Some regard governmental or employer-based incentives offered only to parentssuch as a per-child income tax credit, preferential absence planning, employment legislation, or special facilitiesas 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 equalthat "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.[30]

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.[27]

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,[31] 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. Some religious interpretations hold that any couple who marries with the intention of not producing children is not married within the church.

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.[32] 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.

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.[33]

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).[34]

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.[35] As philosopher David Benatar[36] 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 very least, Benatar believes this illustrates why a childfree person may be just as altruistic as any parent.[citation needed]

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.[37]

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.[38] It was revived in the 1990s when Leslie Lafayette formed a later childfree group, the Childfree Network.[39]

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 childrento 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.[citation needed]

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.[citation needed] 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'tre, 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.[citation needed]

Read the original here:

Voluntary childlessness - Wikipedia

Childfree – reddit

I have been working really hard towards losing weight. I recently celebrated my 100th pound lost and my Father expressed being very proud of me. I posted a full body picture of myself on my facebook and posted about the weight loss.

I don't have either of my sisters on social media for a variety of different reasons. I am completely no contact with one of them and very, very near to no contact with the other. One is 18 years older and the other is 12 years older than me. He texted them the picture I posted and said, "I am so proud of your sister, she's lost 100 pounds. Look how great she's doing." My NC sister said I looked great while the other one got very upset.

She responded with, "Yeah, I already know she has. At least you're proud of one of your kids."

She recently announced that she's pregnant with her fourth child (which I posted my disgust about.) She is a very detached and bad mother. All of her child are from different men and were direct results of ditch efforts to keep men interested. She depends on her oldest child to watch the others while she parties, spends time with her boyfriend, and generally neglects her children. It's very common knowledge in my family that she's a terrible mom.

She can't afford another child as she exists on welfare as it is. She has been told time and time again that she needs to get her tubes tied. She had an IUD but had it removed when her relationship with her boyfriend got rocky... Then all of a sudden, she was pregnant again! I suppose she expected some huge celebration but everyone is disappointed with her.

I can't stand her as a person, much less a sister. It stroked my ego knowing how petty she was about my success. Her announcing her fourth pregnancy was not any kind of accomplishment. She was just announcing that she is an irresponsible and selfish person.

Oh, and that she doesn't swallow. That's it.

I'm going to keep on celebrating my huge accomplishment and relish in the fact that I did something incredible while she stays petty.

View post:

Childfree - reddit

Live Childfree

Its Simple

We simply use the word childfree as a way to express that we are embracing a life as non-parents.

There are many separate categories often used to describe people without children (childfree-by-choice, childfree-by-circumstance, childfree-after-infertility, childless, etc.). When we say childfree, we are including anyone from any of these groups who seeks to live a fulfilling, rewarding life as a non-parent.

Go here to see the original:

Live Childfree

Welcome to The Childfree Life | The Childfree Life

This childfree website is a supportive environment for people who dont have kids and dont plan to have children in the future, as well as those who are still considering whether to have children.

Deciding not to have children, for whatever reason, can make you feel like an outcast, and the object of many negative stereotypes. The childfree choice is easy for some people, but for others it can become a quandary that lasts for years. Having no children means you may lose friends to the demands of parenthood or because you no longer have much in common. You may even find yourself facing strong pressure to conform from people close to you. Being childfree is a decision that cannot always be easily explained or understood.

We offer articles and resources for those who dont want children or cant have children, and invite you to join us in The Childfree Life forums for an honest discussion with like-minded people about all aspects of life without children.

Once upon a time, there was a group of intelligent, thoughtful, funny and wise people who met on another internet forum, and talked at length about their childfree lives, choices, and problems. As this forum was on a womens site, mothers that dropped in saw fit to complain about what they read. They didnt like our language, our opinions, or our choices. The site owner (a parent) agreed. As a result, the rules were changed, the site was censored, accounts were deleted, and the group felt the need to move on. We took that opportunity to create a new home for ourselves, and for other moderate childfree people. The Childfree Life is the result. We hope you enjoy it.

Theres a number of great childfree resources on the web, and more are springing up every day. Were a growing movement, but as yet, theres not a huge public awareness of who we are, what we represent, our hopes, dreams and motivations. Wed like to change that. Our vision is to become a hub of the online CF community, a central location for articles, resources, and thoughts about all things childfree, including the best and busiest forum on the web. We know that some of the childfree communities are a little hardcore for the average person, but theres a lot of parent-pleasing on the more women-oriented sites. Wed like to be somewhere in the middle a moderate voice, if you will.

We welcome the opinions and questions of childfree people of both genders, and supportive others. Were here to lend a sympathetic ear, give an opinion, and support people without judgment in their childfree choices.

Read the rest here:

Welcome to The Childfree Life | The Childfree Life

The Childfree Life – Index page

ForumTopicsPostsLast postGeneral ForumsNo unread postsThe Childfree Pub

General discussion of childfree topics

Moderator: Moderators

Subforums:Dating & Relationships, Politics

82

2662

Re: Life Ambition

Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:37 pm

TSPView the latest post

Discussion about our furry, feathered, and scaly friends

Moderator: Moderators

9

123

Re: Frustrated With Dog

Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:57 pm

CarryOnView the latest post

Discussion about being childfree in the workplace

Moderator: Moderators

2

64

Re: General Work Rants

Mon Mar 25, 2019 6:53 pm

HerbaceousView the latest post

Connect with other childfree people in your area.

Moderator: Moderators

0

0

No posts

Discussion about birth control and sterilization

Moderator: Moderators

9

94

Re: Is the uterus closed afte

Fri Mar 22, 2019 9:59 am

CaliView the latest post

For childfree people who are partnered with a parent

Moderator: Moderators

0

0

No posts

For those who aren't sure whether they want kids and want to explore being childfree

Moderator: Moderators

1

18

Re: Some thoughts

Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:14 am

CaliView the latest post

Ask us anything. Guests can post in this forum too.

Moderator: Moderators

8

104

Re: Guest posting temporarily

Mon Mar 18, 2019 10:25 pm

CaliView the latest post

Movies, books, games, it all goes here

Moderator: Moderators

10

239

Re: TV shows - what are you w

Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:17 pm

CarryOnView the latest post

Share your travel and food experiences, bonus points for both

Moderator: Moderators

14

1205

Re: What Are You Cooking?

Thu Apr 18, 2019 4:26 pm

CarryOnView the latest post

Discussion about health and fitness routines

Moderator: Moderators

5

73

Re: What do you do to stay fi

Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:09 am

AmbrosiousView the latest post

Discussion that doesn't fit into the other categories

Moderator: Moderators

3

66

Re: The Crafting Thread

Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:23 pm

HerbaceousView the latest post

Forum issues go here

Moderator: Moderators

4

34

Re: Why exactly can't my acco

Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:53 pm

LadyPhoenixView the latest post

Go here to read the rest:

The Childfree Life - Index page

Voluntary childlessness – Wikipedia

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 systems other than traditional familial ones has made childlessness an option for people in developed countries, 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.[1] The meaning of the term "childfree" extends to encompass the children of others (in addition to ones 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.[2] 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[3] for their view:

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.[11]

Being a childfree American adult was considered unusual in the 1950s.[12][13] 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.[14] In Europe, childlessness among women aged 40-44 is most common in Austria, Spain and the United Kingdom (in 2010-2011).[15] Childlessness is least common across Eastern European countries,[15] 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.[16] 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.[17] 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.[17]

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 1990sfrom 2.4 percent in 1982 to 4.3 percent in 1990 to 6.6 percent in 1995.

In 2010, updated information on childlessness, based on a 2008 US Census Population Survey, was analyzed by Pew Research.[18]

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.

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.

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.[citation needed] The 2004 Census Bureau data showed nearly half of women with annual incomes over $100,000 are childless.

Among women aged 3544, the chance of being childless was far greater for never-married women (82.5%) than for ever-married (12.9%). When the same group is analyzed by education level, increasing education correlates with increasing childlessness: not-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%).[20][21]

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.[22] 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.

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.[23] 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.[24]

On the other hand, in "The Bust Guide to the New Girl Order"[25] 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.[26]

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 K12 education paid for by all taxpayers, family medical leave, and other such programs.[27]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.[28]

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.[29]

Some regard governmental or employer-based incentives offered only to parentssuch as a per-child income tax credit, preferential absence planning, employment legislation, or special facilitiesas 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 equalthat "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.[30]

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.[27]

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,[31] 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. Some religious interpretations hold that any couple who marries with the intention of not producing children is not married within the church.

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.[32] 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.

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.[33]

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).[34]

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.[35] As philosopher David Benatar[36] 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 very least, Benatar believes this illustrates why a childfree person may be just as altruistic as any parent.[citation needed]

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.[37]

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.[38] It was revived in the 1990s when Leslie Lafayette formed a later childfree group, the Childfree Network.[39]

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 childrento 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.[citation needed]

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.[citation needed] 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'tre, 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.[citation needed]

Original post:

Voluntary childlessness - Wikipedia

IVFML Season 2, Episode 9: Going From Childless To …

Erik and Melissa Jones were optimistic and grateful. After thinking theyd have to go through the long and expensive process of in vitro fertilization, their infertility problem was attributed to a seminal blockage in Eriks testicles, which could be cleared with a simple procedure that would be covered by insurance.

And if the issue was fixed, it could give them a chance to conceive naturally.

It was kind of a weight off because [the urologist] seemed really optimistic, Melissa said. We were really excited.

But after his outpatient procedure, Erik started experiencing severe abdominal pain. He later became constipated, and after two weeks, the pain was so intense that he wondered if he was about to die.

Egg retrievals, testicular surgeries and other infertility-related procedures are extremely safe, and deaths and near-deaths are exceedingly rare.

Thats why Melissa was in shock as Eriks health kept deteriorating. First, he was diagnosed with a perforated bowel caused by the surgery, which had allowed fecal matter to leak into his abdomen for weeks. The toxins caused an infection to set in. That triggered sepsis, which is when the body over-responds to a threat, putting organs at risk of failure.

Once Erik was stabilized, doctors performed surgery to reroute his intestine to a colostomy bag attached to the outside of his abdomen. The colostomy bag would collect his waste for a year to allow his large intestine to heal from the perforation.

All of Eriks complications weighed heavily on Melissa and filled her with immense guilt.

I just start bawling because Im thinking, okay my husband just did this procedure, mostly because I want to have children, Melissa recalled. And with everything hes already been through, now hes going to be in surgery that he may not come out of.

Erik did come out of his surgery, and after a year, his colostomy reversal surgery was a success.

Immediately after his surgery, it was difficult for the couple to imagine trying any other medical interventions to try to conceive. Still, after time passed, Erik consented to more treatment. This time it was IVF, and it was Melissa who had to deal with all the appointments and procedures.

After several unsuccessful cycles, they finally made the decision to stop trying.

The Isolating Pain Of Involuntary Childlessness

While experiencing infertility itself doesnt have long-term psychological consequences, involuntary childlessness does, said infertility sociologist Larry Greil of Alfred University.

The people who are distressed tend to be the people who wanted children but never had them, said Greil, explaining his 2003 study on the issue.

Whether it be through adoption, giving birth or some other means, many infertile people do end up having children. But while there is research on infertile women who end up giving birth (Greil estimates itswell below 50 percent), and research on infertile families who adopt children, there is no comprehensive estimate of how many infertile people become parents in the end.

Strange as it may seem, no one has actually come up with a conclusive answer to the question: What percentage of infertile couples actually end up with a child? Greil said. Media reports give the impression that everyone comes out with a baby, and that impression is false.

Erik and Melissa suspected that their story, which ended with the failure of infertility treatment, was more common than success stories. Yet they couldnt find any support from others who had gone through something similar. Instead, they encountered hostility from infertile people for deciding to stop treatment, and disbelief and a lack of support from some friends or family who wanted them to just keep trying, despite Eriks near death experience.

Even with what weve been through, theres still people who have said, Dont quit why are you quitting? Melissa said.

To create a support community for themselves and people like them, Erik and Melissa created a podcast called Living Childfree With Erik And Melissa, and are hoping that other people in similar situations will reach out about their own experiences.

Theres still sadness. We still feel like outcasts. We havent really figured out that great path, Erik said.

But for me, not to get too philosophical, but I like the idea of trying to figure it out, he continued. Maybe Melissa and I wont figure it out, but maybe somebody coming behind us will.

IVFML Becoming Family is produced and edited by Anna Almendrala, Simon Ganz, Nick Offenberg and Sara Patterson. Send us an email at IVFML@huffpost.com.

Here is the original post:

IVFML Season 2, Episode 9: Going From Childless To ...

Voluntary childlessness – Wikipedia

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 systems other than traditional familial ones has made childlessness an option for people in developed countries, 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.[1] The meaning of the term "childfree" extends to encompass the children of others (in addition to ones 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.[2] 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[3] for their view:

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.[11]

Being a childfree American adult was considered unusual in the 1950s.[12][13] 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.[14] In Europe, childlessness among women aged 40-44 is most common in Austria, Spain and the United Kingdom (in 2010-2011).[15] Childlessness is least common across Eastern European countries,[15] 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.[16] 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.[17] 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.[17]

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 1990sfrom 2.4 percent in 1982 to 4.3 percent in 1990 to 6.6 percent in 1995.

In 2010, updated information on childlessness, based on a 2008 US Census Population Survey, was analyzed by Pew Research.[18]

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.

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.

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.[citation needed] The 2004 Census Bureau data showed nearly half of women with annual incomes over $100,000 are childless.

Among women aged 3544, the chance of being childless was far greater for never-married women (82.5%) than for ever-married (12.9%). When the same group is analyzed by education level, increasing education correlates with increasing childlessness: not-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%).[20][21]

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.[22] 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.

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.[23] 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.[24]

On the other hand, in "The Bust Guide to the New Girl Order"[25] 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.[26]

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 K12 education paid for by all taxpayers, family medical leave, and other such programs.[27]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.[28]

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.[29]

Some regard governmental or employer-based incentives offered only to parentssuch as a per-child income tax credit, preferential absence planning, employment legislation, or special facilitiesas 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 equalthat "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.[30]

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.[27]

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,[31] 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. Some religious interpretations hold that any couple who marries with the intention of not producing children is not married within the church.

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.[32] 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.

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.[33]

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).[34]

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.[35] As philosopher David Benatar[36] 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 very least, Benatar believes this illustrates why a childfree person may be just as altruistic as any parent.[citation needed]

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.[37]

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.[38] It was revived in the 1990s when Leslie Lafayette formed a later childfree group, the Childfree Network.[39]

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 childrento 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.[citation needed]

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.[citation needed] 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'tre, 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.[citation needed]

Originally posted here:

Voluntary childlessness - Wikipedia

Voluntary childlessness – Wikipedia

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 systems other than traditional familial ones has made childlessness an option for people in developed countries, 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.[1] The meaning of the term "childfree" extends to encompass the children of others (in addition to ones 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.[2] 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[3] for their view:

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.[9]

Being a childfree American adult was considered unusual in the 1950s.[10][11] 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.[12] In Europe, childlessness among women aged 40-44 is most common in Austria, Spain and the United Kingdom (in 2010-2011).[13] Childlessness is least common across Eastern European countries,[13] 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.[14] 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.[15] 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.[15]

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 1990sfrom 2.4 percent in 1982 to 4.3 percent in 1990 to 6.6 percent in 1995.

In 2010, updated information on childlessness, based on a 2008 US Census Population Survey, was analyzed by Pew Research.[16]

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.

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.

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.

Among women aged 3544, the chance of being childless was far greater for never-married women (82.5%) than for ever-married (12.9%). When the same group is analyzed by education level, increasing education correlates with increasing childlessness: not-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%).[17][18]

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.[19] 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.

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.[20] 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.[21]

On the other hand, in "The Bust Guide to the New Girl Order"[22] 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.[23]

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 K12 education paid for by all taxpayers, family medical leave, and other such programs.[24]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.[25]

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.[26]

Some regard governmental or employer-based incentives offered only to parentssuch as a per-child income tax credit, preferential absence planning, employment legislation, or special facilitiesas 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 equalthat "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.[27]

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.[24]

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,[28] 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. Some religious interpretations hold that any couple who marries with the intention of not producing children is not married within the church.

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.[29] 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.

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.[30]

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).[31]

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.[32] As philosopher David Benatar[33] 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 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.[34]

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.[35] It was revived in the 1990s when Leslie Lafayette formed a later childfree group, the Childfree Network.[36]

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 childrento 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.[citation needed] 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'tre, 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.

Visit link:

Voluntary childlessness - Wikipedia

"I want a baby" : childfree

Access to the list of doctors who accepted to sterilize young, childless adults with minimal fuss. The list is international.

Feel free to add your doctor too if you had a good experience! If you don't have access to editing, please modmail the team. We'll be more than glad to do it for you.

Childfree friendly doctors list

Not sure how to address the issue with your doctor or how to ask for a referral to your general practitioner? Here are some tips and some facts that can help you.

How to get sterilized guide

See the original post here:

"I want a baby" : childfree


12345...10...