Faulty Policies and Patriarchal Attitudes: The Real Trouble in Femininity and ‘Childless by Choice’ Movement

The ‘childless by choice’ trend has managed to gain some traction, presenting a perspective that views living without children not just as a mere inclination, but as a substantial lifestyle decision. Paradoxically, the very notion of ‘childlessness by choice’ has become a subject of friction, particularly among mothers. A silent yet influential change is taking shape in our discourse on individual choices, primarily towards determining to have or not have offspring. The proponents of this movement strive to encourage it, however, associated interpretations reveal numerous deeply-rooted subtleties, most of which raise alarming questions about women’s roles and the perception of femininity.

The turmoil of thought can be discerned notably from reactions to a comment made by Jamella Jamil, a model, TV presenter, and activist. In her remark, ‘Being childless at 38 was one of my best decisions’, numerous reactions sprung forth. These ranged from critical Facebook responses questioning her views on motherhood to grim prognostications shared on Instagram about a potential future of solitude and loneliness. The fragments of negativity embedded in these comments exposes an immutable truth – a failure to comprehend the multifaceted identities of women beyond their conventional roles of nurture and care.

A striking example is Kamala Harris, paradoxically extolled by Drew Barrymore as ‘Mom-ala’, experienced her share of criticism over her choice not to have her children biologically. The extent of this scrutiny was such that a statement from conservative lawyer Will Chamberlain suggested Harris was ill-fitted for the presidential role due to her lack of ‘skin in the game’. Furthermore, an antagonist, JD Vance, sarcastically labeled Harris and similar individuals as ‘childless cat ladies unhappy with their own lives’.

In yet another instance, Vance portrayed the childless as conspiracists, harshly stating that most progressive leaders are people without children attempting to infiltrate the minds of the young. This form of bigotry can create a severe divide, ignoring that childlessness is not always a choice but at times a forced reality. There are countless women who have drained their resources, both financially and emotionally, attempting to bear a child but to no avail. They’ve taken on other care roles, for instance, Kamala Harris caring for her stepchildren, yet traditional notions refuse to acknowledge their situation.

An argument people often lean on, commenting on women forgoing progeny, is its ‘unnaturalness’. Underlying this assertion are two inherent fallacies. First, ‘natural’ does not always equate to beneficial – malignancies, tooth decay, miscarriages, carnivorous animal behaviors are all natural, yet unwelcome. Second, this view shows a simplified and reductive perspective on women, boxing them into the preconceived roles of motherhood.

Despite societal constraints, women still manage to rebel and try to live child-free lives, especially in the western world. Thanks to exceptionally courageous couples and women, the stark realities associated with natural procreation like ectopic pregnancies, genetic aberrations, low sperm count, and PCOS have come to light. Even in such challenging circumstances, these realities can be openly discussed without the dread of backlash.

However, it’s worth noting that not all regions globally offer this understanding. In amplifying the voice of the child-free movement, photographer Zoë Noble has revealed the harrowing oppression that many face worldwide. She mentions a Serbian woman who was threatened with her life by her partner upon expressing her wish to remain child-free.

Childfree women symbolize liberty and independence, a concept finding resistance, specifically from men. It is perceived as a sign that women no longer are reliant on men. This instigates worries among many modern men about their relevance. Compounded by demographic figures that show single men face more social isolation and loneliness compared to married men, and that childfree, unmarried women report higher levels of happiness, this leads to general unease.

Furthermore, data shows marriage extends life expectancy more for men, while unmarried, childfree women report being happier overall. Married men generally earn more, while conversely, women earn less after marriage. The skewed expectations force women into a pigeonhole, often viewed more as helps than partners.

Men tend to take a backseat when their partners fall seriously ill. A revelation from a 2009 study shows that males are seven times more likely to leave their unwell partner, particularly if she suffers from a severe disorder such as brain cancer. Despite societal pressures, women in public life, regardless of whether they have children or not, are targeted for their choices, confirming the problematic gender symmetry.

Financial disparity plays a significant role here too. Women who return to work post-childbirth and manage to afford childcare are celebrated, where stay-at-home mothers often see their unending work ignored. Being a stay-at-home parent requires an impressive set of skills, tremendous psychological strength, and indeed, no days off.

Without women taking on unpaid roles, the current capitalist structure would collapse. Adequate parental leave, government care plans for the disabled and elderly, and a comprehensive overhaul of hospitals would be required to tackle the gender imbalance in societal roles.

Such narratives have profound implications. They have the potential to shape policy, societal norms, and personal feelings about individuals and children. When they become politicized, a potent division is created that distracts from issues such as lack of affordable childcare and abysmal work-life balance.

It’s distressing but unsurprising due to sharp opposition from factions resistant to women gaining control over their bodies and lives. Women choosing not to structure their lives around kids has often been met with alarm. The root of this ‘disturbance’ and ‘disorientation’, however, lies not with women, but in outdated societal structures, failing to prioritize women’s individualism.

Instead of pointing fingers at women or ‘womxn’, attention should shift to scrutinizing policy, government officials, and patriarchal edifices we often reinforce. They are the ‘disturbing’ and ‘disorientating’ elements in reality, not a woman electing to prioritize herself.