Wednesday, January 13, 2010

So what is the feminist view of childfree women?

By childfree, I mean women who have chosen to never have children, not those who want them someday but do not currently have them. Just curious!So what is the feminist view of childfree women?
Women who chose not to have children do so for very personal reasons and should be congratulated for being able to withstand the expectations and pressured of family-oriented society. It is not an easy decision to make and it should be respected. Feminists have fought for this choice to be possible for every woman.So what is the feminist view of childfree women?
Being Child-free by choice, I don't really have a view. I completely respect and understand anyone's decision to have or have no children. Everyone is different, and each should be respected as so.
I have a few female friends who decided before they got married to be childfree. That's their life choice and the reasons are fine by me. In today's society I think that children should 100% wanted by their parents so if couples decide not to have them then it's a wise decision.
This is third-fourth wave feminism subject matter, how we as individuals AND as a society intelligently repopulate, enjoy our children and rear them in most healthy ways. Every woman as an individual has the right to reproduce or not. HER Life vision in this matter supercedes society's needs and vision.





In post-industrial economic reality, the majority of women must work. Pay inequalities and hobbled career advancement today remain correlated with women's prioritization of their children over their careers. Economics requires women to work and requires that the majority of them participate in reproduction of the species (or we would fail as a species), yet, society still has not transitioned out of pre-industrial childrearing models that simply don't work today.





Traditional childrearing included a full-time stay-at-home mother and a nearby father. Traditional childrearing before the Industrial Revolution was well-supported by society. In 1900, 95% of all people in the U.S., for example, lived in pedestrian rural agrarian-based communitiies with extended family support, had demanding organized religious social structural support, had homogenous or single cultural groupings (vs. pluralistic multi-cultural groupings), had no significant mass communication like TV/telephone/radio to interfer with parental messages, rarely automobiles or unsupervised courtship, women could rarely get divorced and had less rights than many slaves did in the 1800's and were not allowed birth control, children worked more than they played, children had only the three ';R's'; and the Bible to learn in order to succeed in that simple world, and children typically had a father within walking distance. 95%!!





Today, 95% of people live in urban areas, most women have to work, grandparents rarely live with us, we use cars which destroy traditional pedestrian communities, father's are gone all day, women have rights like birth control and divorce, children have to learn an enormous amount of information and skills in school or not succeed in our more economically complex world today, multiple cultures are bumping up against each other, organized religion no longer has absolute control over the majority of families but families no longer have the stabilizing social structures that organized religion supported them with - - leaving a socializing vacuum yet unfilled and leaving families isolated and unconnected to each other more than they were a hundred years ago, runaway frenzied consumerism and mass media partially shapes our children and damages them (such as the sexual objectification of young girls), children play more than they work, an so on.





Women did not cause the Industrial Revolution or the enormous changes to our society that have occurred in the aftermath. Women didn't even have the right to vote back then. Men were completely in charge. Yet, in the confusion of all these challenging changes, many people blame women and irrationally believe that if women would ';assume their traditional roles'; that everything would be like it was before. That isn't possible within our current reality. If women returned to their traditional roles, the world economy would collapse.





The woman's movement with brilliant humanitarians such as Eleanor Rooselvet rose to address the tsunami of changes and to protect women and workers from runaway exploitation by industrialists. Women fought for the right to use birth control and to reasonably control the size of their families to be able to afford to raise them in healthy ways in light of the sweeping economic manuipulations occurring back then to force women into factories and such, and the male dominated Catholic Church fought them tooth and nail. Women fought for educational access so that they could rise above slave labor status so that they could build power-bases and be able to better protect their families and way of life, and ';traditionalists'; and the ';chivalous'; fought them tooth and nail. Women fought for equal pay and men fought them tooth and nail. Women fought for quality childcare and the ';traditionalists'; fought them tooth and nail. And, throughout, children have suffered. Women's Studies in universities attempt to examine the realities and how we might cope with these realities vs. these pre-Industrial confusions, and failed feeble-minded men whine mightily about women wanting ';special'; rights and that Women's Studies are bogus.





Feminism is all about rationally addressing women's issues in the REALITY of today, not 1900. For women, during these transitional times, the decision not to have children is made in response to those realities, that the struggle for women to survive and rise remains greatly resisted, deliberately non-supported by rational social interventions such as quality affordable childcare, hobbled by exploitive work models still based on pre-Industrial master/slave paradigms of ';give your ALL'; to the man and after fifty years you might get a gold watch (or lose your pensions completely - - oh well - - as did the employees of Enron), which worked for children back when men could afford to support their families on one paycheck and their wives could stay at home, and with our own stupidity and acculturations within ourselves that makes us doubt ourselves for being what we have to be today to survive in reality.





I choose to raise my own children rather than pursue a career as an artful expression of my intelligence, my belief that within each woman is the possibility of changing society by raising healthy wholesome children with their heads screwed on right, that the children of good dedicated intelligent mothers will get out there in the world and righteously slay the dragons and make this a better world. And, bless them, they have become all that and more. My ';purpose'; so to say in the large scheme of things, was to launch those two good people into the world, as I was not quite strong enough myself, but stronger than my mother as she was stronger than her own.





But, women who choose not to have children during these transitional times will empower themselves more than women who choose to have children. And, perhaps that's what it's going to take, some of us foregoing the enormous personal sacrifice inherent giving ourselves to childrearing, for women to rise enough above the ';traditionalists';, the confusion and odds that are stacked against women to bring about the necessary changes to our society to better support young families, rather than spend our money on more bombs and to have the clout to change society for the betterment of us all. In that light, women who choose to miss the pleasures and passions of motherhood might someday be considered to be our heroes.
Since I'm one of those women, I have a positive view about the choice to remain childless. The Feminist movement was started to gain women equality and more choices in life.
ok... i wont speak for the feminists... but i think its a womans right to live her life however she wants... theres nothing at all wrong with a woman never wanting children... jus as long as ur not getting abortions to do it... an its a womans right to never get married if shes happy that way... live ur life however u see fit an more power to u...
Its a choice for women to have children or not. I know that my sister has always said she never wants kids. So thats ok, its her choice.
Feminists for the most part think that all women should be childless. They see having children as being ';tied down'; They see children as career stoppers.
Having children should always be a responsible choice.





It is certainly 1,000x better for a woman to not have a child than women who have children with no viable means of supporting them.





btw: What do you think is the non-feminist view of a childfree woman? Do you think that each group has it's own unified answer or do you recognize the possibility of free and individual thought within each group? Do you think that choosing to be child free means that you are a feminist? Do you think that breeding=non feminism?


- just curious ;-)
Childfree does not necesserly mean they are feminists. Lots of non - feministic women are waiting until their 40's or 50's to have them. That really isn't a feminist view....Hope that helps you sweetie, take care and be safe











Your friend


Sheila
I'm glad women are able to make the choice themselves these days as to whether they want to have children or not without being treated like a freak.
feminists are pro childfree. they fight for abortion not children.





http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/
';Whatever floats your boat';.
Feminists respect the decision to remain childfree, probably more than anyone else would.
It's fine with me if that's what they want. Motherhood is not for every woman.
For the billionth time, feminism was a fight for women to have choices. If you'd take the time to do some research before posting such an inane question, you'd gain some knowledge.

No comments:

Post a Comment