Childless Marriages (The HORROR!!)

OK, if you didn't get it already, and most of you will, the title is a joke: I don't think childfree* marriages are frightening or scary (the phrase, "childfree marriage," in fact, makes me think of quiet evenings involving wine and pleasant conversation in a tidy room). But I chose the title because I followed an interesting-looking link at the CFEZ board to a thread on why CF marriage frequently aren't taken seriously.

I thought it was a really interesting and (for me) eye-opening conversation - people wrote about being told that their marriages aren't marriages unless they have children, which is something I've only ever heard from feisty fundies. People also wrote about having others try to fix them up on dates, knowing full well that they were married but taking the "no kids" to mean that the relationship wasn't solid or committed.

Come to think of it, that's pretty much how religious folk who think sexual orientation can be "cured" treat queer people. I've heard of both of these things happening in exactly that context.

So I'm curious - those of you who are married and don't have kids: do you feel that your marriages are taken less seriously than you expect? Those of you who do have kids: did the way others treated your marriage change when you had kids? And this goes for those of you who aren't married, as well - does having kids, or would it, do you think, change the way that others see your relationship? And does any of this differ between same-sex and different-sex couples?

I do remember, pre-kid, being asked a lot if I had kids and getting surprised reactions because I didn't (which I found annoying). And often the questioner would provide a handy reason as to why I hadn't had a kid ("oh, well, you're still in school," or "you're young - you have plenty of time". I found these comments odd, since the conversation seemed to be taking place entirely in the questioner's head - I wasn't talking about kids, wasn't engaging their questions about kids, wasn't feeling sad or anxious about not having kids, but clearly the questioner was having issues). But I haven't noticed that my marriage is treated differently with kid than without kid, and I was married without for more years than I've been married with. I will say, though, that my relationship definitely got taken more seriously when I got married than it was before, which pissed me off for all of the obvious reasons.

One really interesting comment on the CFEZ site suggested that the rationale for the notion that a marriage must produce children comes from the fact that so many people stay together "for the kids," so that lots of people have come to see marriage as about kids...

Any thoughts?

*I used "childless" rather than "childfree" in the post title on purpose, because I doubt very much that those upset by the very idea of marriage without kids would get the distinction.

Update on yesterday's post.

If you're wondering what all the fuss is about, my buddy Stuff Daddy has it here.

I've gotten several hits from the community he mentions, and the abusive comment I mentioned yesterday (but did not post) came from there. They feel that I won't publish anything I don't agree with, which BritGirl and the other childfree people (and some childed) who commented on my other childfree posts will be surprised to hear. I'm sure Renegade Evolution can sympathize. Interestingly, on their own site, the policy is to disallow any posters who are not childfree specifically because they don't want to have to defend themselves or their beliefs (or, I think, their hateful language - I'm not talking about "breeder," either - go to Stuff's site, and see for yourself). But at any rate, I've never deleted comments because I disagree with them, and I think Aus Blog would back me up on this, as well. I've only ever deleted a handful of comments. In re. to comments on the Childfree thread, I deleted an abusive one that appeared just after I'd posted that I would delete abusive comments. I also deleted another by the same author that re-posted all 40+ of the comments on that thread (it was just confusing as hell, and she had posted another comment that was more clear, which I left). I did not post the one she sent me to complain that I was unfair in not posting her abusive comment because she didn't call me any names (she did) because I addressed her concerns on the front page (I haven't gotten any hits as of last evening from their site to my front page, so I doubt she's read it).

I haven't bothered to respond to this group (of two commenters, by the way) beyond yesterday's post (which, as I said, they haven't read). The reason I haven't responded will become clear if you follow the links from Stuff Daddy. After reading what's been said about me in their own forum, I don't see how it is possible that they would respect me enough as a human being to actually want to talk with me about anything, much less about this. And I don't feel like participating in a "discussion" purely to fuel more talk on their site about what a "sanctimonious" "moo cow" and horrible parent I am. They can do that without me. But even if I did feel like talking to them, what would I say? "Hey, you've got me wrong - I'm an ally!"? I am an ally to childfree people, generally. But after this? I'm no ally of the people on that site.

But I will say more about why I don't think a discussion is possible.

As just one example, I made a distinction between temper tantrums in public and normal kid behavior. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about this, but I was trying to separate a real tantrum from, say, fussing or something that is easily resolved. So I said that in the case of a tantrum, parents needed to remove the child from the situation, and that in the case of normal kid behavior, people needed to suck it up. What I was thinking was that, for example, babies fuss if they're hungry, kids fuss if they're tired, etc. Not that the parent should let it go - most parents carry around bags of kid stuff for dealing with just these situations. As is clear from reading all of the other stuff I've written about this - which the folks from that forum haven't done - I think parents need to "do something" about these situations. My point was merely that it's unreasonable to expect that babies will never cry and kids will never fidget, and that, yes, people need to be patient, just as people are patient with other annoyances (including people who walk slowly in front of you in a long line, or, for that matter, the angry woman at the gate who threw her water bottle on the ground in a fury when they wouldn't let her take it on board (nearly hitting me, for which she apologized profusely - just as parents often apologize for their kids' behavior)).

This has since been turned into the comments that Stuff Daddy quotes, in which I am expecting childfree people to worship the sun shining out of my newborn's ass.

I also questioned a commenter's statement that kids should not be allowed to sit on planes or on public transportation. I called this attitude entitled. I wondered why I was not allowed to take my child on a plane, and why Andi, the commenter, was entitled to make that decision, and why her preference for travelling without a child on board took precedence over everyone else's needs.

Here is the response that I got:

YOU are not the center of the universe. YOUR CHILD is not the center of the universe. Most people who actually PARENT their chidlren know if the kid cries, you take it outside. And if your kid is crying on the plane, don't sit there and act like you either a) don't hear it or b) think we all should think it's cute. Because I'm pretty sure 99.9% of the time, the kid did NOT need to travel. Unless your mother is dying, you did NOT need to be on the plane. Period. And trust me, if you were in the seat next to me beaming up at me with your holy progeny in your lap like I was supposed to fall down fawning all over it, I WOULD have asked to be moved.

All creatures can reproduce. Acting like it's some miraculous feat is stupid. Get over yourself, already.

Have all the kids you want, but RAISE them - DON'T drag them everywhere you go whether appropriate or not, DON'T act like we should all think your DNA replicants are the bestest thing on the planet, and DON'T act like you are more special, or entitled, than the rest of us. Because you know what? You're not.

What's of interest to me is the great acrobatic leaping and bounding from assumption to conclusion. I love, particularly, the assessment that children (and parents) don't need to use public transportation; that public transportation has been designed solely for the use of the childfree; that parents, in general, think their children are the center of the universe; and, of course, that I, personally, do not "PARENT" my child. (There's also the whole, "I'M not entitled - YOU are!" deal.)

These comments speak volumes (and I even left out the part where babies and mothers were compared to drug addicts, among other "undesireables"). As do those on the site from which these commenters came.

What's bizarre to me is that the comments smack of exactly the same behavior that people seem to find most upsetting in children. This is nothing short of a temper tantrum. It's not a reasoned argument - the commenter is stating many of the same claims I made in that post, in related posts, and in comments, and is simultaneously blaming me for taking an opposite position to the one I took. It's not a civil argument - it's name-calling, it's obnoxious. Do adults not have the responsibility to rein in their own unpleasant behavior? Or is it only children's unpleasant behavior that is the problem?

Anyway - comments, as always, are welcomed. I will post any that do not come with embedded insults.

Oh, and speaking of insults, I think it's interesting that the folks on the site in question call mothers "moo cows" and babies "sprogs," but I haven't seen any insulting names for fathers yet. As a feminist, I have to wonder why that might be. Is it simply that they feel that mothers behave badly and fathers don't? Is it a subtle misogyny? Is it that they most often see the sprogs with their moo cows and not their moo bulls? I'm curious.

If an *adult* has a temper tantrum, does that make it OK?

Sigh.

I will delete abusive posts from now on. People are welcome to come here and disagree. They are not welcome to come here and throw a tantrum or make personal attacks.

I deleted a comment that included name-calling and hostile language. The fact that its author doesn't feel that it did illustrates somewhat the difficulty we're having in engaging in conversation.

If you want to post a civil comment, without embedded insults, please do.

Comment moderation is on.

Oh, and since there was a question about this: please feel free to curse if you feel moved to do so.

Who benefits from benefits?

Just to let you know, I already wrote a great Valentine's Day post about vaginas, but I'm saving it for closer to the actual holiday.

Now my post for today will probably seem boring. Perhaps I should have waited to tell you about it (I was just so excited!).

Well, anyway: I've enjoyed discussing childfree and childed issues with Brit Girl on her blog for the last little while. Recently, her post on the myths of parenting prompted a brief discussion about the benefits parents do and don't get from the workplace. I am writing this from a U.S. perspective, and Brit Girl is writing with an eye on Canada and the U.K. That may account for some differences in our opinions, but I'm not sure that it does.

I wrote:

One thing - despite all the pressure to reproduce - and I totally agree that this is a breed-oriented society - speaking from the U.S., we don’t do much to help parents. We act like we do, and we pay a lot of lip service to it, but when you get down to it, we’ve set things up so that parents who have jobs (which most parents need to have) are screwed, and their families are screwed.

This is not to say that the proposed solutions for parents in the workplace have always been great for cf people. I think we need a whole workplace revolution that will make *all* of our lives better. But I don’t think the U.S. really values parent-child or family relationships in general. I think it values the labor of employees, and that the encouragement of breeding is in part about creating a labor force and in part about gender roles.

Brit Girl responded:

...much more is done for people with children than for childfree people. While I will agree that the many work envrionments are not tailored around women bringing up children (and yes, this causes all sorts of issues for women who have to work and their families) at the same time many are bending over backwards to create more "family friendly" workplaces. They are doing this because they need to retain workers.

They need to be mindful that they need to support their workers, but they also need to be aware that if they don’t make a profit, the company will be gone.

Which is fine, except that family doesn’t mean person with no kids, or person who is single. It means people with children. People with children have - for example (at my company) - time off if their kids are sick, time off to go to parent teacher meetings, very good health benefits coverage extended to all dependents, subsidized childcare, on-site company childcare, time off if they are adopting kids, preferential tax breaks, tax credits and child benefit, a christmas party for workers children. During March break, childfree people can’t take vacation, because parents are on vacation.

Pregnant women can take up to a year off as maternity leave with all benefits and can return to their substantive grade. Their vacation entitlement remains untouched. This is also the case in the UK. When you consider that, some women are have vacation entitlement of 3-4 wks (depending on years of service) the time off is subtantial. (Vacation entitlement is more in the UK. I was entitled to 5 weeks/year). Employers cannot fill their positions, they must keep them open. Fathers are now entitled to paternity leave - though many don’t take it, mothers can opt to job share, flexible work, or work part time. PLUS there are many other ways government supports parents. In Europe, benefits for people with children are even more generous - depending on the country. Plus companies are sympathetic to parents when they have to dash out of the workplace to tend to a child, or attend a school function or a kid’s sports function. Not for the Childfree. I think you’ll find that even the US has many more benefits for parents as opposed to those without. So I think while it isn’t perfect, it’s more than lip-service.

Contrast that with what is provided for childfree people, or as mercurior says, young men (a pretty vulnerable group btw). We get no extra time off outside vacations and public holidays, even if we are taking care of a parent or a pet. There are signs that is now changing in larger corporations but it still is much less time than people with parents are able to take. Small companies may go under, they don’t have the same luxury of economies of scale. So, rightly or wrongly many won’t hire women.

We get no extra benefits. We can, of course, take a year off - but it will be without pay - unless we use our vacation time. We pay more tax than parents and get no tax breaks, no government support, no subsidized transportation, no subsidized elder care payments. And by the way, I work for one of the most family friendly companies in Canada, and one of the best employers, with over 50% of employees being women. Many in very senior positions. Might be different in the US, but I would guess that good companies still have more benefits for parents than non-parents. Generally we understand - children are demanding, but lately we’ve been getting fed-up at what we perceive as preferential treatment for parents.

And even if they try and make things more "family friendly" and "do more" for parents, childfree people will be even more marginalized as far as the workplace is concerned. In my opinion It’s already tipped far too much in parents’ favour - and we pick up the slack. As you said what’s needed is a more equitable solution - for childfree and childed alike.

I want to discuss these issues in more detail, and this may end up spilling over into another post. So to begin, I want to argue my original point - that while there is a clear expectation that we will all become parents, that the state of parenthood (motherhood, in particular) is a state to which we should all aspire, and that not wanting to be a parent is somewhat abnormal (note that I'm saying this is what's expected, not what I agree with), American society simultaneously withholds the very resources parents need in order to be good parents. And those resources are things like extended and paid maternity leave, flexible work schedules, decent pay, good and affordable health benefits, good and affordable child care, and, of course, JOBS that offer these things in the first place. Most jobs, of course, do not, and so these benefits are not available to the majority of the population.

I will say at the outset that these benefits should not be set up only with an eye toward what parents need. They should be available to all workers; instead of maternity leave, for example, workers should be able to get similar leave for any care-giving (and yes, I would limit this to care-giving or grief leave or something along those lines). Employers should offer flex time to all employees (and studies have shown that flexible work schedules result in employees who are more productive AND more loyal, so it would seem that this would be beneficial for employers). I hardly need to present an argument for decent wage and health insurance, right? I mean, we can understand why those would be necessary. And as for childcare - while I don't think it's crucial (or, in many cases, practical) for employers to provide childcare, providing the other things, like good pay and flex time, would allow parents to work with available childcare in order to find a good solution.

In other words, when we think about improving the workplace for parents, which is absolutely necessary, we should also be thinking about improving the workplace for all workers. Because while childfree workers may not face the same stressors as childed people, we could all benefit from a work environment in which individuals matter, in which employees are treated as if their lives outside the workplace are valuable.

One of the problems, though, is the sense I get, having participated in discussions re. stopping the tenure clock for new mothers (sometimes fathers) on the faculty, is that everyone is simply terrified that someone else might get something that would give them an unfair advantage.

I gotta be honest, here. To me, this sounds a lot like the people who argue that students with documented disabilities shouldn't have extra time to take a test because that gives them more time to write better answers - even when, as has been my experience as an educator - that extra time merely affords them time to laboriously do the work of almost completing the written exam. It isn't the thinking of the brilliant answer that takes the time, often - it is actually writing it down. And it's just small-minded to complain, when faced with a student making his or her way through college in this way, that he or she is getting something extra that someone else is not.

So, yes, at first I was a bit unsympathetic to this claim. And I'll add that, for new parents, parental leave is not a matter of having the time off to enjoy the baby. The experience of sleep deprivation alone is more intense than most people have experienced outside this situation. And then, for mothers, there are all kinds of biological issues to address, as well, as hormone levels change and so on. On top of that, we could argue that babies and mothers need to be together for at least the first several months for breastfeeding and bonding (no, of course I'm not saying that moms can't make other arrangements work). My point: maternity leave is not a vacation, and the time should not be offered up generally to people who want to take an extended trip. It should be offered for care-giving or for other monumental occurrences that necessitate a serious leave of absence.

I had a similarly unsympathetic attitude to those who begrudged parents the kinds of resources I mentioned earlier. But then I heard some stories from an unlikely source - a good friend, a feminist friend, and one who'd been very supportive of me when I had my son. This friend routinely was saddled with extra work due to the family responsibilities of a co-worker who frequently had to miss meetings and so on. And this is not right. Employers need to work out maternity and other leaves so that co-workers do not bear the brunt. It is the EMPLOYER'S responsibility to find temporary help to protect the other workers but also so that a leave does not pit employees against each other.

Let's move on. Brit Girl mentioned subsidized childcare. I may be wrong about this - I am open to being proven wrong - but I think, in cases where people argue that they should get the actual monetary equivalent if they don't use the service, that this is another case of "hey, it looks like someone else got something that I didn't get!" Subsidized childcare means a discount on a service. If you don't have children, why would you need that service discounted? Since childcare is still an expense, I don't think it's reasonable to expect that people without children be given a chunk of change equivalent to the discount. But I do think it's reasonable that they could be offered that same discount to be extended to other care-giving situations - childcare for nieces and nephews, in-home care for elderly parents, etc.

Brit Girl also mentioned time off - for sick children, for school meetings, for vacation. It is absolutely unfair not to allow all workers the same time off. Now - in my experience, when I have had emergencies come up, I was able to use my sick time or my vacation time or, sometimes, I would work through a few lunches to pay back the time I took. I think a more generous allowance of time off - for everyone - would be helpful in most cases, however. And when it comes to scheduling vacations, I'm going to take a hard line. Parents should not have their vacations given priority due to school scheduling. There is no reason that anyone *needs* to take a vacation, anyway (see? told you it was a hard line.). If it conflicts with school, too bad. There is ample time for that in the summer.

I also want to speak to the tax breaks. This actually really disturbs me because it's not an issue of, "oh, you have a kid? Hey, let me give you some money." It's an issue of, "oh, you have another mouth to feed/person to clothe/take to the doctor/etc. That's expensive. Let's arrange to lower your taxes slightly." Having a child means paying more money. The tax break attempts to ease this burden. Childfree people will still have more money at the end of the day, given equivalent income, than childed people. What's the problem? It's a lot like the single tax. The government used to give single people a break, realizing that they were paying more (for example, in rent) with relation to income than were married couples. But then the right wing got all freaked out about what they called a "marriage penalty" or "marriage tax," and guess what? Now there is no longer an eased burden for single people, who often continue to make less income than do dual-income couples. So the argument that childed people get a tax break doesn't really interest me. Figure out what it costs to take care of a child, and compare that to the tax "break," and see where you end up.

Finally: I think this business of comparing pets to children is particularly frustrating. They are not the same. And frankly, I thought they were, until I had a child. Now, I know saying that might make me sound like an asshole, but bear with me. I don't think that childfree people love their pets less than childed people love their kids. I do, however, think there is a qualitative difference in these relationships. Even if I'm right, though, it wouldn't matter, because the fact is, when you love someone or something, then you love them, and being told that your experience of love is different than someone else's is absolutely unhelpful. But I just want to make the point that saying - as a former friend once said to me - that she was in love with her new puppy, and she was sure I knew what she meant because I had a baby - is not going to win you any points with parents. (And really, how would you feel if someone said that to you about your boyfriend, or sister, or mom?) Nor is it going to help either of you understand each other any better.

One more point about the pet thing - I know exactly why someone who doesn't have a child would say this. I've felt it. I've said it myself. I'm trying really really hard to avoid saying, "you don't know until you experience it," but at the end of the day, that's all I can say. I'm sorry that sounds so patronizing - that is certainly not how I mean to come across.

Now that I've got that off my chest, let me add that there's no reason why health benefits couldn't be extended to veterinary care for dependent pets, or leave to care for sick animals, and so on. I think perhaps I draw the line at a tax break for dependent pets, but only until we restructure our tax system to tax the wealthy and no one else. Then, I'd be fine with it, and I would certainly list my two cats along with my son as dependents.

I'm sure I have more to say, but that's all I can think of at the moment. Let the comments begin. (I mean, really. Let them begin. Delurk.)

UPDATE: Just as I went to post this, I noticed that Brit Girl had also posted something on this topic. There is good conversation afoot!

Childfree?

I'm always disheartened whenever I read a piece on the childfree movement. It's not that I think everyone should have kids. To the contrary: I'm actually really glad that there exists such a movement because most people, women especially, feel that having kids is something they're supposed to do, whether or not they want to, and that if they don't, they will be missing out. And those women who know that they don't want kids are not taken seriously - they are told, repeatedly, that they'll change their minds. Or that it will be different with their kids, when they have them, and all the things they think will be annoying or boring really won't be. Or, finally, that there must be something wrong with them if they do not want to do something as normal as have children.

But why is it that "childfree" keeps morphing into "keep that kid away from me - I don't like kids, and I shouldn't have to put up with yours!"? (Disclaimer: I know that there are many childfree people (perhaps most?) who don't have this attitude. I am writing about those who do. Perhaps this faction gets the most media attention for the obvious reason that they are the extremists of the movement - I don't know.)

Before I had a baby, I thought other people's babies were a pain. I didn't like hearing babies cry on airplanes. And then when I had one, it wasn't that I suddenly found baby cries charming - not at all. It was simply that I realized this was just part of life, part of the way kids develop, and that there is nothing that can be done about it. In the same vein, I stop myself when I'm de-planing and getting worked up about how slowly the elderly woman ahead of me using a walker is moving. I mean, she's mobile. That's a big deal. And my impatience is really not the most important thing in that moment. Disability, too, is the way people develop. It's nearly inevitable, and so our attitude should be about making society comfortable and safe for babies, children, people with disabilities (who I am not comparing to babies nor children) - everyone. Shouldn't it?

Yes, crying babies can be annoying. But you can get used to them. If you want to, that is. I used to have a fair number of students in my classes with thick accents, and it was clear to me that the other students couldn't understand them. But I could. Why? Did I have some amazing talent for understanding accents? No. I simply had a job to do. As the teacher, it wasn't ok for me to stop listening because I couldn't understand. I had to listen harder, better, and more patiently. And what I learned - really, this was very surprising to me - was that I could learn to understand thick accents. And what that made me realize was that this meant that my students had simply been giving up and not listening because they didn't want to make this effort.

They didn't care enough or think that the student had anything to say that was worth listening to, so they stopped listening.

The childfree movement seems, often, to soar right on past making it acceptable not to have kids to making it acceptable to make derogatory comments about kids, and then further, to making it acceptable to not want to be around kids. Ever. And this I find as discriminatory as those students who weren't interested in what the student from India had to say.

I'm not saying that everyone has to enjoy spending time with children. Anne Lamott once said that being the mother of a young child was so boring that it made her want to throw herself down the stairs. Even those of us who have kids don't always enjoy spending time with them. But children nevertheless deserve the same generosity and respect that we would give to anyone else.

Radical lesbian feminist and separatist Julia Penelope, in her book, Call Me Lesbian, wrote about arriving on board a plane and finding a woman with a baby in Penelope's seat. The woman looked up at her, smiling, not at all apologetic. Penelope interpreted this as a moment in which the "breeder" was privileged, completely unaware that she was taking up space not meant for her.

In the years since I read Penelope's piece, during the time when my own son was a baby, I often wondered if I might ever encounter Penelope on a plane trip, and whether my baby might be in her seat. Penelope saw her own rights as completely central: Her right to sit in her assigned seat. Her right to not have to interact with a breeder and child. Her right to not have to look at a baby as if it were cute. (I wonder if it ever occurred to her that the woman might not have been able to afford two seats and was simply hoping the seat next to her was empty so she'd be able to set the baby down and rest her arms. Or that the airline might not have been able to get her two seats together.)

Not wanting to have a child is a choice that is all too often not validated, and that is a real problem: the childfree movement is right to be pissed off, and I fully support people who choose not to be parents (hell, I do more than support them - I encourage them!). But not wanting to associate with children is, first, a disturbingly entitled position: "I am so special that I should be allowed to construct my life in such a way that I do not come into contact with those I find undesireable." But it is also a prejudice. It is determining that there is a whole class of people that one does not want to be around, by virtue of their age.

In what other situation would it be socially acceptable to reject an entire group of people in this way? I can't think of a single one.

Here's a link to a childfree blogger I absolutely agree with - well, except for the thing about parents getting unfair benefits and abusing them - but I suppose it happens. Hmm. More on that later, I think. But anyway - methinks that her piece on one problem with childfree is also very applicable to some of the blogwars that have been happening lately...

And, FWIW, here's the quote that got me pissed off about all of this - from Bitch Magazine, helpfully posted on someone else's site:

And then there’s Adrienne Frost’s book, I Hate Other People’s Kids. Many people who describe themselves as childfree are quick to profess that they love children and are devoted aunts, godparents, babysitters or teachers. Frost is not one of them. From the very first sentence of her book (“I hate them with a vengeance… and I hereby give you license to hate them too”), Frost is unequivocal in her contempt not just for children but for a culture that increasingly resembles a vast Toys “R’ Us. And like café owner Dan McCauley, she speaks not only for the childfree movement but also for anyone who cares about manners and discipline. (And that goes not only for children: Frost aims much of her vitrol at parents themselves, as in the chapter “Have you Met My Vagina?” in which she berates new parents who force others into watching the “D-grade porn” of their birthing videos.)