Childfree by Choice

A recent trawl through my Facebook friends revealed that many of my peers are now parents.  I suppose I am in that kind of age group where many people are at least starting to consider swapping their boozy nights for bedtime stories and lunch out with the girls for messy home baking sessions.  But what about those of us who haven’t and have no intention of doing so?

The phrase “child free” has now been coined to denote those of us who have made the conscious decision not to have children.  It is thought to be more positive than its more traditional and wider used “child-less” because, in removing the “less,” it is removing the implication that the person is lacking something in not having children.  A Google search for the term “Childfree” yields thousands of results, including a link to the Childfree by Choice page.  Childfree by choice is a movement which aims to increase awareness and, ultimately respect for childfree persons.

In this day and age it would seem odd that we need to have websites set up to increase awareness of a particular lifestyle choice.  I mean, we are supposed to be living in an open and accepting society, right?  I will concede that we have come a long way in many respects, particularly with regards to gender equality.  Women now have the vote and can matriculate from British universities, including Oxford and Cambridge.  However, when it comes to certain lifestyle choices we still seem to be firmly rooted in the dark ages.  The one subject that always seems to bring out the traditionalists in even the most liberally minded people is children. 

This question seems to get raised more and more as I get older.  This is possibly to do with the fact that more of my peers are becoming parents themselves and are therefore curious to know when I shall follow suit or maybe they are mistaking the ticking of the office clock for my biological clock.  Either way, I have been getting this question levelled at me more and more as time has progressed.  When I reply that I never intend to have children the response is usually a sharp intake of breath, followed by the assertion that I will change my mind, followed by an in depth treatise about the joys of parenting.  This reaction I can deal with.  I mean, I might change my mind and I suppose they are only doing the decent thing and trying to keep the conversation going.  What bothers me are the people who become vitriolic, almost to the point of insinuating that I am evil and unnatural.  Yes, I have had people question how normal I am simply because I have been honest enough to tell them that I don’t want children.  My anger is compounded by the fact that when a man expresses the same point of view as me he is not vilified in the same way.  Nobody looks at him in a strange way and calls him unnatural and selfish.  They don’t even seem to question the choice.  Surely this difference demonstrates the fact that attitudes haven’t really changed.  As a society we still think that a woman exists purely to bare children and that any woman who refuses to do this is a freak of nature. 

I understand that people on my side of the fence can be equally cutting about people with children and, for the record, I find this equally loathsome.  I want to make it abundantly clear that I have nothing against people with children.  I am not one of those people who bemoan the fact that maternity leave exists or that children are allowed in restaurants.  I do not get cross if somebody has to leave work early to tend to a sick child.  No.  In a workplace environment we find ways to help each other and to accommodate everybody’s needs, whether they have families or not. 

If we were to cancel maternity leave then this would bar many women from working altogether.  You don’t have to be a fully fledged sociologist or employment specialist to figure out how much this would hamper women and the ongoing struggle for gender equality.

My issue is purely attitudinal.  I do not go around asking couples with children why they chose to have them.  I don’t say that they shouldn’t have had their children or call them selfish for doing so.  I respect their choice and reason that as long as it works for them then I have no right to pass judgement.  I only wish that the same courtesy was shown to the childfree.

Rules of engagement

This post is going to be more emotive than my other posts.  However, I shall try to add in some coffee shop sociology and possibly some cheap jibes for good measure.  I will have to see how it goes.  I am literally typing my little heart out and am not quite sure how this is going to turn out.  Those who know me will probably agree that I am usually quite reserved when it comes to emotions.  I find public displays of emotion quite uncomfortable and am especially scornful of individuals who seem to enjoy posting about their on public forums, such as FaceBook. 

So I recently got engaged, which is yet another revelation since I never envisioned getting engaged or married.  In fact, I would go as far as to say that I was actively against the idea.  Even when I was younger and my peers were happily discussing their dream weddings I would do all I could to stay out of the conversations.  I just found the whole idea completely ridiculous since nobody NEEDED to get married in this day and age.  Furthermore, these discussions were happening before we could even legally marry!  I’m pretty sure that the majority of people haven’t even met the person whom they want to inflict this white meringue infested nightmare upon by this point.  Thus, it was just an utterly pointless conversation to be having.

 Then there was the idea that in getting married would mean forfeiting my identity and independence.  Both things that, as a self respecting woman, I value quite highly and have done from an early age!  Naturally, my attitude prompted many people to suggest that I would change my mind when I met “The One.”  Of course, I scoffed at this idea too. 

So what happened to make me change my mind?  It was a combination of meeting the person to whom I would propose (yes, women CAN and DO propose) and losing somebody close to me.  I expected to feel an immense sense of grief and loss when the inevitable happened but I did not expect the deluge of emotion.  Naturally, everyone was really kind and supportive but there comes a point at which everything has to move on and get back to normal.  It just has to.  I totally understand that you cannot spend all day everyday bewailing your loss when there is still stuff to do.  So I got back to work, plastered my best smile on and carried on as normal.

Except, things are far from normal.  There is a person missing from my life and this hurts much more than I am able to express.  This is why I have been prone to nasty outbursts over nothing.  Why I have been prone to disturbed sleep due to nasty nightmares that have woken me in the night.  Why I will be happily chatting one minute and staring into space, utterly bewildered and confused the next.  All of this started literally weeks after we had moved in together, which just added stress and confusion to a situation that should have been a happy and exciting one.  Yet, it didn’t seem to strain things.  I would spend ages crying and getting angry, whilst he just sat there saying nothing.  He would also make me meals to make sure I ate and gently wake me when I was having nightmares.  All the while he never complained or asked me to snap out of it.  There must be days when he goes to work absolutely shattered and drained because I have kept him awake with my nightmares.  Still, he says nothing. 

My friend Dan often says that big life events give you a certain level of perspective and I think he is right.  I have often deplored the idea of being financially and emotionally dependent on somebody else.  Whilst I would not say that I am dependent, I would certainly say that there have been times when I have questioned what would have happened had he not been there.  In short, the events of last year have taught me that there are people who, through no expectation or obligation, decide to stick around when things are less than ideal. I did not propose because I want to be some Kate Middleton-esque style nightmare in an over-priced frock.  Nor did I do it in the hope that society would finally see me as normal or to become part of some suburban, smug marrieds club.  Frankly, dinner parties and B&Q Sundays aren’t really my thing!  I didn’t even do it as a thank you.  It was more of a promise.  A promise that, even when things get a bit too much, I will be there.  Just like he has been for me.  

A marriage of convenience

This has been sitting on my memory stick for a while but I still felt that I needed to share it, even if it does seem a little out of date...

This week has seen a positive step forward for equality.  The SNP led Scottish parliament has announced its intention to introduce same sex marriage to Scotland, which could see the first ceremonies take place as “early” as 2015.  Depending upon your own viewpoint, this is either fantastic news or a sign that the end is nigh.

To be honest, this isn’t the first blog post I have drafted on this issue.  A few weeks ago a local MP posted an article that stipulated why he thought that same sex marriage was wrong and why he would be voting against it. Like many of my friends, I took exception to many of his comments.  Not only were many of them groundless musings upon what could potentially happen if we as a nation allowed this dreadful thing to happen; it also contained ill thought out statements that were blatantly untrue.  There were way too many inflammatory statements for me to pick each and every one (and I would like to get to the part where I actually discuss my own opinions on the subject before you lose the will to live), so I have picked the ones that aggravated me the most:

1)      Marriage has a unique place in our society. It is a bedrock institution and the most stable environment for raising children. Redefining marriage would make marriage adult-centred rather than child-centred. 

I take exception to this comment for three reasons.  Firstly, marriage was NEVER a child centred institution.  Back in the day it was merely a method of passing property between rich families.  Ok, so in poorer families it was a way of ensuring that a woman wouldn’t be left to raise any offspring alone.  Either way, marriage IS an adult centred institution that was entered into for material reasons rather than to ensure a stable, loving family environment in which to raise children.  Secondly, there are now many unmarried couples who stay together and raise children.  Has this person or any of his cronies interviewed children of unmarried parents? Did these children admit to feeling insecure because their parents are not married?  I am one of these children and can safely say that the fact that my parents weren’t married did not bother me one bit.  Thirdly, what about hetero couples who either cannot or do not want to raise children?  Is he saying that marriage is pointless for these people?  Or is their decision perfectly alright because their relationship is “normal.”

2)      Marriage also has a place in our history. The oldest recorded English law referencing marriage between husband and wife goes back 800 years – and part of that legislation is still in force today. Marriage is yet older than that. It predates the English language and our nation, and it predates the Christian church. It is as old as the hills, not a recent invention of society to be refashioned on a political whim.

Slavery, witch burning and wife beating are all parts of history.  Yet, no person of sound mind would ever advocate that these things be practiced.  Same sex marriage is not about satisfying whims, political or otherwise.  It is about enabling people from all walks of life to celebrate and gain legal recognition of their relationship.  Thus, “I want to marry you” could be translated as “I love you and want the state recognition that will enable us to look after one another for as long as we are both here.”  This sentiment is probably the same regardless of the gender of the people who are expressing it so why should we be subject to different rules?  Why should one group be allowed to express this sentiment however they wish whilst another group is subject to restrictions?  When viewed in this light, it is clear that we are not merely seeking change for the sake of it: we are asking that every single loving relationship be celebrated and recognised in the same way and in order for this to happen

we need a change in the law.  This provides a convenient segue into my next point....

The viewpoints of the Catholic and Anglican churches on this subject have been well documented in the press.  Therefore, I am not going to waste time on explaining their positions.  Needless to say, they are opposing it. What is less well documented is the fact that some religious groups, such as the Quakers and Unitarians, want to offer same sex wedding ceremonies but are forbidden from doing so.  Why?  Because until an act of parliament is passed in order to allow this, it cannot happen.  This is quite an odd and some might say, unfair situation.  After all, many of those who are opposing same sex marriage are doing so on the basis that it is contrary to their beliefs.  Equally, many Quakers view discrimination as being against their beliefs.  Thus, in denying the rights of same-sex couples to marry they are also denying other faith groups to act according to their beliefs.

In addition to this, churches fear that if same-sex marriage is allowed they will be overrun by couples and ministers will be forced to solemnise ceremonies which they are uncomfortable with.  Crucially, Scotland’s Deputy First Minister has been keen to reiterate that this will not be the case: “The Scottish government has already made clear that no religious body will be compelled to conduct same-sex marriage and we reiterate that today.  Such protection is provided for under existing equality laws.”  (www.bbc.co.uk/news)  This is, I feel, a compromise worth making.  It is a shame that many of our clergy feel that it is their business to demonise other people on the basis of sexuality.  However, this is the situation we have.  I’m not saying that we should blindly accept it but what I am saying is this:

If the church wants to opt out of equality then they should be allowed to do so.  I can foresee that they will probably alienate some of their members by doing so.  I do not see that any good would be done by forcing them to do things that they are not ready or willing to do.  If they were indeed forced into this (and mercifully, it doesn’t look like they will be), this would be an infringement of THEIR rights to practice their faith according to their collective conscience.  This is the very thing I argued against further up the page so please do not expect that I am going to go back on this for the sake of convenience. 

Contrary to the concerns expressed by some, I do not think that same-sex couples will be drawing up outside their local church in droves expecting to be married.  I think many will still opt for civil ceremonies rather than the more traditional job.  Ergo, I think that much of the debate is still shrouded in panic and “what if” considerations, which don’t really help people on either side of the argument.  My only hope is that, at some point in the not too distant future, same sex relationships will get the legal support and recognition that they so richly deserve.