Category Archives: Childfree

Back in October, Fiona Apple whose Fetch the Bolt Cutters, released in April, captured a particular early pandemic mood was interviewed by Emily Nussbaum for The New Yorker Festival. I think we women should be marrying our friends, she told the journalist. We have sexual freedom! We have dogs! We have fun! We can do whatever we want!

Experiences like these have been a teeny, tiny crumb of positive over these unending months. Would I trade 10 months and counting without live music (last gig: The Hold Steady, arguably the best live band in the world, at their annual London Weekender at the start of March I sneezed in the middle of Euston while we waited for our train back to Scotland and tried not to laugh as people backed away slowly, it was a different time, alright?) to watch little-travelled idols perform in, and chat from, their own spaces, over video connections of varying quality? Of course not. But as the more professional streaming setups have shown, there are conversations to be had about accessibility once we are able to return to the hallowed halls and venues where some of our best memories were made.

Infamously reclusive, Fiona Apple knows a thing or two about lockdown. Fetch the Bolt Cutters was recorded over a period of five years almost entirely at home; the albums percussive, beating heart formed of the rattling of everyday objects, barking dogs and battering on the walls. The albums overwhelming message, though, is liberationist; its title a line by Gillian Andersons Stella Gibson in The Fall; its architect reckoning with childhood bullies, sexual assault and the trials of fame with a wicked wit.

The Fiona Apple of 2020, in her early 40s, has built a life of her choosing, in a home in Venice Beach she shares with her best friend and their dogs. Its why, as I revisit the art that kept me together this year, through long months of working from home seeing only my husband, my cats and a psychiatrist (virtually), I keep coming back to her New Yorker Festival interview. Her words have the warmth and wisdom of the elder sister of the women at the centre of some of that art. I think of Olive, the protagonist of Emma Gannons debut novel, rebuilding her life after breaking up with her boyfriend of 10 years and the only one of her close-knit group of long-term friends with no interest in motherhood. And I think of Nadine Shah whose fourth album, Kitchen Sink, is the most innovative and ambitious record I have heard this year, and which explores many of the same themes.

Both Gannon and Shah feature multiple perspectives in their respective works: young motherhood, sexist double standards, being childfree by choice, putting on a brave face when your reproductive system simply wont cooperate. As I inch closer to 40, my future childbearing plans or lack of no longer seem to be open to public speculation but I remember those jokes about ticking biological clocks, and the insinuation that I couldnt possibly know my own mind. Ive been childfree by choice for as long as I can remember, but there was a time those unsolicited comments stung. How much more painful for those women of my generation who are desperate for a baby, who have lost a year of their fertility or seen IVF treatments cancelled?

I am, as of eight days ago, the only childless grandchild of my mothers parents. Ive spent Christmas gazing at my perfect sisters perfect daughter and teaching my four-year-old Excellent Nephew to say that the shapes he cuts into his Play-Doh are frozen in carbonite. Ive had a year in isolation with these thoughts bouncing around my head, and yet Auntie Emsamee has had little time over the festive period to get these thoughts down on paper. Review the music, you say? Ill take my cue from Nadine Shah, who told Womans Hour last month that she felt a duty to tell the stories womens stories that just dont get told in our youth-obsessed music industry. Shave my legs, freeze my eggs, will you want me when I am old

Two More Essential Albums from 2020

Nadine Shah - Kitchen Sink

Taylor Swift - folklore/evermore

Musical Experiences of the Year

Roaming Roots Revue Presents Born to Run: a 70th Birthday Tribute to Bruce Springsteen at Celtic Connections, Old Fruitmarket, Glasgow, 27 January. Craig Finn, Jonathan Wilson, Karine Polwart, Lisa Hannigan and more performing rousing and redemptive covers, a testament to the sheer joy of singing along in sweaty rooms.

Whole Lotta Roadies: a unique compilation album recorded in lockdown by some of Scotlands best-loved bands and their crew, raising funds for the crew members who are the backbone of the live music industry and now facing a year without work. You can order your copy, and limited edition goodies, on Bandcamp (who also deserves a shoutout for their monthly "Bandcamp Fridays", during which every penny goes to artists selling on the platform).

Track of the Year

Phoebe Bridgers - I Know The End

Below: hear "Trad" by Nadine Shah, featuring the best opening lyric of the year

Read the original post:

Albums of the Year 2020: Fiona Apple - Fetch the Bolt Cutters - The Arts Desk

Bridgerton

Diamond of the First Water

Season 1 Episode 1

Editors Rating 4 stars ****

Photo: LIAM DANIEL/NETFLIX

Minutes into Bridgerton, the eight-episode Netflix series from Shondaland thats based on Julia Quinns Regency historical-romance series about the eight sons and daughters of an English noble family, its clear that the history TV game has changed. The cast is diverse, the costumes feel more inspired by vintage Quality Street candy-box images than museum pieces, weve got a gent ass out and balls deep en plein air, and the voice of Dame Julie Andrews recites a quote from epoch-defining mess Lord Byron about scribbling bitches.

The opening scenes function as a long-awaited responding salvo to the myriad of fans and professional experts who have spent the time since the shows July 2018 announcement speculating on what executive producer Shonda Rhimes and show creator Chris Van Dusen would bring to the source material. The Bridgerton book series beloved by readers around the world for its warmth, humor, and relatable characters has sold millions of copies and been translated into more than 20 languages. No pressure.

A fair number of historical-romance novels set in the U.K. during the long 19th century (17891914) and published in the last 20 years or so take place in an alternate universe (AU) coming out of Jane Austens pelisse, marinated in conventions introduced by 20th-century author Georgette Heyer, and forever altered by Kathleen E. Woodiwisss introduction of on-page sex in The Flame and the Flower. The Bridgerton books contributed greatly to the AUs popularity despite the sub-genre being classified as wallpaper historicals by some romance fans. Im an academic historian (Ill be suggesting some sources and scholarly reading related to the show in my recaps), and I actually like the way authors such as Quinn have collectively built the alternate universe! The 19th-century AU is a mix of historical reality and total fantasy: Theres little indoor plumbing but an infinite number of hot young men laying ducal pipe.

One of the chief criticisms romance fans have made is that Bridgerton and the 19th-century romance AU have traditionally been an almost uniformly white world (though recent and forthcoming books tell stories about people of color). The show aims to address this central problem, and the flexibility of the 19th-century AU is an asset here. Bridgerton makes the historical Queen Charlotte, who has been identified as a descendant of a Black branch of the Portuguese royal house, the regent governing an inclusive society. The show isnt just Austen with sex and color-conscious casting but a whole new speculative take on the enormously successful AU.

In much the same way that Bridgerton expands the AU, it takes Quinns series as a starting point but deviates from it in both small and meaningful ways. I considered enumerating the differences between the eight books plus their combined 16 epilogues and the show but ultimately tore up my notes so they could serve as extra confetti during one particularly pretty dance scene. Regard the Netflix Bridgerton series as a new story, a new sheet of paper. Whats to be determined is whether its a box of shmancy 13th Century Fabriano or the back of a CVS receipt.

Episode one of Bridgerton shoots us into Grosvenor Square in the Mayfair district of London on the eve of 1813s social season. Baron Featherington lives with his wife and three daughters in a house with a magnificent smooth stone exterior. Mama Portia Featherington demonstrates that shes tasteless and tactless by insisting that her daughters corset by Mister Pearl, creator of burlesque-inspired corsetry for Kylie Minogue and Dita Von Teese be laced tighter. Never mind that women pulled way back on corsetry in the early-19th century; this is a big-budget costume romantic comedy for the female gaze, and nothing reassures modern women that weve come a long way, baby, like historical characters getting their innards rearranged by tightlacing. But congrats on losing corset Twitter in the first few minutes; thats got to be a record.

Were next introduced to the Bridgerton family, consisting of four perfectly handsome sons, four perfectly beautiful daughters, and their widowed mother. Theyre rich, but we know theyre the quirky and fun kind of rich because their house has an old-money, weve had this pile for a while variation in brick colors and some charming wisteria around the entrance. The Bridgerton scheduled to find love first, Miss Daphne, is running late, but its forgivable because shes wearing a dress with a glorious embroidered train that must present a tripping risk.

The current Viscount Bridgerton, eldest son Anthony, is missing. Its because he pulled over for an exuberant roadside shag against a tree, which cant be that great for her, because shes against a good deal of bark, nor for him, because hes checking his watch. I hope the coachman standing guard in the same frame is getting hazard pay. The family reassembles outside the under-construction Buckingham Palace and all slide in to see Daphnes triumphant presentation to Queen Charlotte. The debutants are outfitted with feathered headdresses that make them resemble cosseted showgirls or corseted circus ponies, both of which make sense given their decorative place in society.

The voice of Julie Andrews introduces herself as Lady Whistledown, aforementioned scribbling bitch, who is using a team of enterprising newsboys to warn London high society that she plans to remain unknown while detailing their lives in Lady Whistledowns Society Papers. Back in the Bridgerton house, Daphne expounds on the wish to use her elevation over the other 200 young ladies looking to wed this year to secure a love match modeled on the love her parents shared. Next-eldest sister Eloise bursts her bubble by pointing out that even the star of last years season is now unhappily dumped in the country, far from her husband, according to the Whistledown scandal sheet, which is unique in that it prints the full names of its subjects.

Daphne, proclaimed a diamond of the first water, and her family fare well in Gossip Ladys pages, but across the street, garishly upholstered Portia Featherington rages against Whistledown over tea with her brightly attired daughters and the visiting Lady Cowper. Youngest daughter Penelope suggests that she might sit this season out, which leads to nasty comments about her weight and skin from sisters Prudence and Philipa. A visiting cousin is expected shortly, and Portia wonders how much competition a poor relation from the country could possibly present for her girls. Shes immediately dealt her comeuppance in the form of beautiful and simply attired Marina Thompson.

Simon Basset, Duke of Hastings, rides into town with a dashing scowl and caped greatcoat straight out of Mr. Rochesters tormented dreams. He sneaks a drink from a flask to let us know hes not just brooding but also dangerous before accepting condolences on the death of his father from Lady Danbury. She economically reveals that Simon hated his father and hes now considered a top catch by the vulgar society mamas of unwed daughters. Simon attempts to wheedle out of attending Lady Danburys ball, but she demonstrates that in this relationship, shes the alpha and he is still a mere pup.

At the opera, Viscount Anthony and singer Siena Rosso eye-fuck and then actually fuck again backstage, enthusiastically breaking a good deal of property along the way to hammer home once again that despite the bright costumes, this isnt The Wonderful World of Disney. Anthony is forever checking the ancestral watch, but Im checking the results from leg day, because in this alternate universe, the men show the most skin in love scenes.

Back at Lady Danburys ball, the Vitamin String Quartet plays Thank U, Next to kill off any sticklers for historical accuracy who have made it thus far. Daphne enters the ball on the arms of her mother and Anthony, her innocent no-makeup look in contrast to smoky-eyed, sexy Siena. Anthony bounces a number of unsuitable men who make their approach to Daphne while Colin experiences a coup de foudre upon seeing Marina Thompson.

The Featherington girls recognize Simon, the Duke of Hastings, from their set of bachelor trading cards and join a growing swarm of ladies hoping to become Her Grace. While fetching a glass of lemonade, Daphne encounters Lord Berbrooke, who is instantly recognizable as ineligible owing to a profusion of chest ruffles and slurping his drink. While escaping Lord Berbrooke, Daphne collides with Simon in a crash of fate. Simon reads Daphnes attempt to use him to avoid the attentions of Berbrooke as accosting, and they have a snappy exchange even after Anthony runs up to greet his old Oxford schoolmate.

After rolling out of the ball early to leave the gentlemen wanting more, Daphne receives a number of suitors in the Bridgerton drawing room the next morning, but Anthony scares them off, leaving the field open for Lord Berbrooke. The gentlemen flock instead to the Featherington house to call on Marina. Lady Whistledown fans the flames by broadcasting the drawing-room disparity and suggesting that Queen Charlotte made the wrong call about Daphnes luster. Curiously, Whistledown mentions the mental illness of the king, suggesting that maybe theres a link to the historical reality in Bridgerton and Queen Charlotte stands in as regent in this AU instead of real-life regent Prince George.

Daphne and Anthony fight in Hyde Park while riding, giving her the chance to confirm what we know about the restricted roles for 19th-century English women, particularly the daughters of the aristocracy. Simon is lying abed, similarly emo about his place in society, given that hes a hot single man in possession of a dukedom.

Within a gentlemans club, presumably Whites, theres a chalkboard tracking the names, weights, and rich or poor status of a number of men, probably the greatest piece of set dressing in the whole series. Anthony and Simon bemoan the state of life as bachelors in a city littered with marriage-minded mamas over drinks and cigars. Simon reveals that hes been spending a lot of time on r/childfree and plans to let his title die with him, which is a good way to phrase it these days if you dont want pushback, but maybe not so much in the 19th century if youre a duke with an actual bloodline to speak of.

At the opera, Queen Charlotte snubs Daphne in light of Lady Whistledowns insinuations that Her Majesty bestowed her favor on the wrong debutante. Lady Danbury invites Violet and Daphne to her box, where the elder ladies hatch a plot to counter Whistledowns talk by pairing off Simon and Daphne.

The next morning at the Featherington house, Marina searches through her bedsheets and throws them in anger, presumably furious that she spent $100-plus on start-up sheets that are still, you know, bedsheets. Should have held out for a Black Friday sale.

Over dinner at the Bridgerton house, with all of the children plus Simon in attendance, the table speculates on who Lady Whistledown could be. Simon and Daphne dont click: She calls him a rake (short for rakehell, a debauched man), and he calls her desperate.

Mama Violet and Anthony clash in the Viscounts study after dinner over the subject of responsibility. Anthony isnt buying into Violets assertion that reformed rakes like Simon make the best husbands, while she calls him on keeping a mistress on the other side of town. After the scolding, Anthony swings by for a bang and then promptly dumps Siena, mere show minutes after promising to always protect her. He tells her to leave, presumably meaning to leave the apartment he pays for. Okay, remember when Bocca degli Abati cut off the hand of Florences standard-bearer in 1260 at the Battle of Montaperti, leading to their defeat by Siena? Im about to cut off a whole lot more than a hand for Siena. If I hear a single word against this woman, who is apparently mistressing without a decent contract due to love or lust, getting barkburn for watch-checking Anthony Bridgerton, I will go to the mattresses, and not the temporary ones paid for by Bridgerton money!

Across the river in Vauxhall, Colin Bridgerton saves Penelope from mean girl Cressida Cowper after learning that Marina is stuck at home unwell. We discover back at the Featherington house that its because Marinas cursed sheets function as a positive pregnancy test, since of course theres only one reason they should remain unstained by blood for more than a month.

Anthony announces to Daphne that shes to marry Nigel Berbrooke on account of him ticking off the essential boxes for a husband, which are presumably has heartbeat and introduces conflict to a canonically pretty chill family. She takes off to a secluded garden to pace in rage, where shes met by a rapidly escalating Berbrooke, who reveals himself to be a creepy villain. Simon happens upon the couple while avoiding mamas and rushes to Daphnes defense just as she knocks Berbrooke out with a right hook. After sharing their mutual rock (Lady Whistledown) and respective hard places, Simon proposes a fake courtship and they head to the dance floor to sell the lie to the ton. Lady Whistledown reveals the match in voice-over, suggesting that the ruse worked, and the couple dances into the credits with enough fireworks in the background to level London once again.

Ton, bucks, and high in the instep add Regency flavor, but the full meaning of some words isnt always apparent to modern viewers. Luckily there are fun lexicons that can get you sorted out. Heres a good starter.

If youd like to go a step deeper and add more Regency words and phrases to your life, may I suggest the 1811 Dictionary in the Vulgar Tongue, actually written during the Regency period. It includes such outstanding finds as CATCH FART: A footboy; so called from such servants commonly following close behind their master or mistress.

The lead actors are sporting some magnificent brows. Based on the hold and color, Im guessing the makeup artists used glycerin-based soap to create what are known as soap brows. For more on all the clear brow products that can launch you into le bon ton, check out this guide from the Strategist.

Keep up with all the drama of your favorite shows!

Visit link:

Bridgerton Premiere Recap: Scandal Broth Served Hot - Vulture

Its hard to talk about Sex and the City, the show, as something separate from the industry it spawned. When people who didnt watch the show hear the name, they often think of caricatures of women, of Manolo Blahniks, conspicuous consumption, Magnolia Bakery, cosmopolitans. Its easy to dismiss it as an example of vapid materialism, the most artless and hackneyed kind of media aimed at women.

For the most part, thats not what it is or, rather, it hasnt always been like that. Its gotten further and further off the rails as it went on, culminating in two deeply embarrassing film sequels. And this week, more than 10 years after the boring, regressive, out-of-touch Sex and the City 2 showed a burqa-clad Carrie Bradshaw exposing her leg in order to hail a cab in the middle of a Muslim city, theres talk of a third movie or a limited series reboot. Why wont we just let this show die?

iMDB

Like a lot of shows made in the late 90s and early 2000s, much of Sex and the City seems dated today. But when it started on HBO in 1998, women on TV didnt talk about sex, at all. Toxic relationships were rarely explored in depth, especially not from a female point of view. It was a world before Insecure or Fleabag, and seeing women talk candidly about their sex lives was seen as progressive.

The show also differed from what came before it in showing single women in their 30s as glamorous and aspirational instead of lonely and miserable though the characters were deeply flawed and often made bad choices.

Much of it hasnt aged well, like when Samantha dates a black man, or any time theres a non-cisgender character. (Not to mention the Donald Trump cameo.) Its scope is extremely limited: its about what dating is like for thin, conventionally attractive white women who are all obscenely rich hardly representative of New York as a whole. For many people, that wasnt seen as a problem when it debuted in 1998. But arent we further along now?

High-end fashion was always a part of the shows appeal, and that, too, narrowed its point of view. Putting your name on a waiting list for a Birkin bag, like Samantha does in season four, isnt exactly a relatable experience for most people, given that they retail somewhere between USD $40,000 and $500,000. But it wasnt mindless consumption, or at least not always there was a storytelling purpose to that kind of luxe living.

In one episode, Carrie is invited to a baby shower, where shes asked to remove her shoes. They end up being stolen. The friend whos having the baby offers to pay Carrie back, but balks when she finds out they cost hundreds of dollars. She shouldnt have to fund Carries selfish, indulgent lifestyle, she says.

But Carrie starts thinking about all the money shes spent on that friends lifestyle. When women get married, their friends are expected to buy engagement gifts, wedding gifts, pay for their bachelorette parties, and for the luxury of being a bridesmaid. Theyre asked to give money for baby showers, and buy gifts for their friends children. Carrie is single and childfree, and has always pitched in for her friends choices, but shes the one considered selfish.

Not all women without children will opt to buy designer shoes, of course. But that episode made a compelling point about who and what we consider selfish.

The movies, though, have none of that thoughtfulness around their consumerism. Fashion is no longer a fun mode of self-expression; its crass capitalism. In the first one, Carrie gets mad when her friends arent jealous that her partner buys her a huge apartment, for instance. Another scene uses a Louis Vuitton handbag in place of actual emotional resolution. Jezebel suggested that watching it might make you want to become a communist.

And the less that can be said about the second movie, the better. In one memorable scene, Charlotte and Miranda, who both have kids, opine about how hard it is and in one throwaway scene add that they dont know how women without help manage. Its out of touch, to say the least.

iMDB

Youd hope, as a fan, that the kind of storytelling where everyone is straight and white except for two token gay men, who end up together wouldnt continue onto the shows two sequels. Youd be disappointed. If anything, it gets worse.

In the first movie, Carrie hires an assistant whos Black, played by Jennifer Hudson. Shes a prime example of the magical negro trope, where a Black character serves no other narrative purpose than helping a white person with their problems. In the second one, Charlottes nanny being a lesbian is a punchline, revealed at the very end to show how silly she was for worrying her husband was considering an affair with her.

Whats most puzzling about whats happening now is that a lot of fans seem to be lobbying for a third movie, as if they hadnt seen the second one. There was a lot of ire directed at Kim Cattrall, who played Samantha, for saying she wouldnt come back to the show.

I remember getting a lot of grief on social media for not wanting to do a film, she said on a podcast this week. Shes also suggested an actress of colour should play Samantha.

iMDB

While that would help make the very white series a little more diverse, why bother with a reboot? Very few arent actively disappointing think of the buzz around the new seasons of Arrested Development and Gilmore Girls, vs. their realities. And this isnt theoretical: we already have two examples of how bad Sex and the City remakes are, each worse than the last.

If we had more shows about women living authentically, maybe we wouldnt be so attached to this one. Lets make more shows about female characters who arent just straight and white experiencing the pleasure and pain of relationships and intimacy. Lets let this one die before it embarrasses itself further.

Read more from the original source:

Please Just Let 'Sex And The City' Die - HuffPost Canada

Imagine a world in which, one day, you learned youd eventually be expected to give birth to, then raise, an ostrich. It would be a long-lived ostrich, one residing with you inside your home for at least 18 years.

This large, growing bird would require a great deal of care daily, exhausting, heroic care, for which you wouldnt be paid, nor, in general, well supported. In fact, youd probably have to take time off from work; if youre a woman, your ability to earn a post-ostrich livelihood would most likely be curtailed, perhaps severely. Plus, there would be the expense of ostrich daycare, ostrich violin lessons; in the future, god help you, ostrich college. Did you catch the part where youre physically birthing the ostrich? It would tear open your body as it emerged from either between your legs or a gash sliced across your stomach, this larger-than-usual, speckled ostrich egg.

Then, imagine that, despite the pervasive societal expectations, you realized one day that you could opt out of having an ostrich. You never wanted the bird in the first place. Imagine how much more natural it might feel if you could just not.

Im starting with illustrative ostriches because Ive learned, over the years, that people tend not to believe me if I indicate that I dont feel, and have never felt, the urge to have children. Indicate, because I rarely say it outright. If directly asked, I respond, Oh, I dont know, not yet, as if theres a question about it as though I havent been certain, all my life, that Im at least as disinclined to parent a child as I would an ostrich. I equivocate with the hope of heading off the arguing, the unsolicited assurances about what my body wants and how I should live my life: Youll change your mind, Im often told. Hey, you never know.

Except I havent; I do. Thus, ostriches.

But how can this be so difficult to believe? My position should be, by now, plausible: the American fertility rate is at a historic 35-year low. The so-called replacement rate the national birthrate believed to be optimal for population renewal and stability is 2.1 babies per couple; today people with wombs are expected to have 1.71 children in their lifetimes. And that 1.71 estimate came before the pandemic; in this changed world, in which it seems all the parents of young children I know are having by far the hardest time of their parenting lives, it seems likely that fertility rates will keep falling.

Until recently, though, the US experienced more robust fertility rates than did other developed countries. We can thank immigrants for this: since 1970, any growth in annual births in the US is attributed to immigrant parents. Gretchen Livingston, from Pew Research Center, notes that if immigrant moms had not been in the States, [the] overall number of births would have actually declined in that time.

Since the 2008 recession, however, the total fertility rate has fallen by close to 20%. This dwindling rate has demographers worried: an aging population with a disproportionately small base of working adults is one more susceptible to the vicissitudes of the economy or a new coronavirus.

Looking around at the state of this country, as well as the world, it doesnt seem particularly surprising that the birthrate would be declining. Parenting in the US is especially costly and difficult, for one. And then theres the climate crisis: in a 2018 New York Times poll, a third of Americans of childbearing age cited climate change as a factor in their decision to have fewer children.

Based on my experiences, Id say one-third sounds, if anything, low. Im in my thirties; a significant majority of my friends still dont have children, and many say the climate is a serious consideration. Since the pandemic started, friends whod been unsure if they wanted children have begun saying theyre leaning more decisively toward not. If I look at a still younger set of people, the college students and graduate students Ive frequently encountered while teaching and publicly speaking, Id say the one-third figure sounds lower still, and how could it not be? In the absence of massive systemic change, it seems possible that ecological collapse will happen within college students lifetimes, and they know it.

Prospective parents also see the deficit in other, essential kinds of support, community, fellowship, help. In the Atlantic, Alia Wong argues that Americas low fertility rate is a sign that the country isnt providing the support Americans feel they need in order to have children. Even without a life-upending pandemic, trying to have a baby without consistent, legally enforced societal and medical support is indeed very hard. Or, as Anna Louie Sussman posits in the New York Times: It seems clear that what we have come to think of as late capitalism that is, not just the economic system, but all its attendant inequalities, indignities, opportunities and absurdities has become hostile to reproduction.

Could this falling birthrate eventually affect how childfree people are viewed in the US? (Childfree, Ill emphasize, not childless a lot of people without offspring prefer to reserve the term childless for those who are unable to have children.)

With plenitude, comes acceptance, even normalcy, until the childfree seem unremarkable something like that?

It might be unlikely. Throughout history, people without children women, especially have often been persecuted, mistreated, pitied, and killed for their perceived lack. In ancient Rome, a woman who hadnt borne children could legally be divorced, and her infertility was grounds for letting a priest hit her with a piece of goat skin. (The blows were thought to help women bear children.) In Tang Dynasty China, not having a child was once again grounds for divorce. In the Middle Ages, infertility was believed to be caused by witches or Satan; worse yet, an infertile woman could be accused of being, herself, a witch. In Puritan America, it wasnt just having no children that was suspect. Giving birth to too many children could be perilous, too, and grounds, yet again, for being condemned for a witch.

Also in the US, enslaved women were expected to have babies, and were routinely raped, their potential future children considered a slaveholders property. Some of the only times women without offspring have garnered respect might be when they have formally devoted their lives to a god, and to celibacy: nuns, vestal virgins.

Which brings us to a word I havent yet used, but which often is levied against childfree women like me: selfish. Despite everything, its still common to view parenting as a moral imperative, to such an extent that voluntarily childfree people can be viewed with such outsize emotions as anger and disgust. Pope Francis, a lifelong celibate, has said: The choice not to have children is selfish. Life rejuvenates and acquires energy when it multiplies: it is enriched, not impoverished. Such judgments might be even more available now, at a time when so much, especially including parenting, has become more difficult for so many people.

I used to find this charge bewildering. How can it be selfish not to want? Why does it bother anyone if I refrain? The world is burning, and its been argued that the single best way an individual in a developed country can reduce her carbon footprint is by having fewer children. (Of course, what can really reduce our carbon footprints is ending our planet-strangling reliance on fossil fuels.) Whats more, a hundred children from a less economically developed nation could easily have a smaller carbon footprint than one American child. To be very selfless, I could move to a less rich land and help raise an entire orphanage.

And the upset about the replacement birthrate part of me is tempted to ask why it matters. Why is it prima facie an obvious good in and of itself that our species collectively keep overpopulating the earth? We abound, you and I. No other animals despoil this planet the way we do. But okay, if one wished to argue on behalf of the improved national social stability provided by having a younger population well, in that case, lets further open our borders. Lets fling them open. As Adam Minter says in Bloomberg: Until some country shows otherwise, immigration remains the most effective means of reversing a baby bust.

Voil, an elegant, satisfying, available solution for birthrate concerns.

Back to the question of selfishness: I used to wonder, as Ive mentioned, what could be selfish about wanting to live my own life, one in which Im electing not to take care of this hypothetical, doesnt-even-exist American child or ostriches. And then, I realized. Thats it, right there, I think. Im a woman; as one, Im expected to look after others. To nurture. To mother: a child, most often. Plus anyone else who could use my time, really. Thats the most uncontroversial kind of woman to be: one devoted to caretaking.

Here is where, if I wanted to, I might include a detailed paragraph about the caretaking I already do. I could line up examples of how unselfish I can be, how passionately I care about family and friends, and how I give to my larger communities. I could talk about being an aunt; I could explain how Ive tried to help sustain friends with children, all to say: Look, Im not the monster you might think I am. But I dont want to prove any claims to unselfishness here nor that of other childfree adults. Its irrelevant, and I shouldnt have to. It would be as if I abruptly started telling you how much I love Valeria Luisellis writing. What does Valeria Luisellis writing have to do with wanting or not wanting children, you might wonder, to which Id say yes, exactly, do you see?

Instead, I think of how, for as long as I can remember, Ive softened my refusal to be a parent. The times Ive said, Not yet, the parties at which Ive smiled when a stranger informs me Ill change my mind, as if hes more familiar with my body than I am. The talk of ostriches. It occurs to me that this is yet another way I force myself to take up less space: I badly dont want my private refusal to sound like an affront to anyone elses desires.

But one grows tired of extending courtesies that are too often not reciprocated, and maybe, for once, Ill say it plain: I dont want children, I never have, and it doesnt feel like any kind of lack. To me, it just feels like being alive.

Additional reporting by Adrienne Matei

Read more from the original source:

More women like me are choosing to be childfree. Is this the age of opting out? - The Guardian

Good morning. The mayors of Houston and Austin have warned that hospitals in the two Texas cities are in danger of being overwhelmed by coronavirus patients in the coming weeks, even as Donald Trump continues to play down the exponential increase in Covid-19 cases across multiple US states.

Two months ago, Americas most severe outbreaks were in Democratic-led regions such as New York. But the countrys coronavirus map is very different now, and badly-hit states such as Texas, Florida, Arizona and Georgia which all voted for Trump in 2016 look set to be 2020 election battlegrounds amid the pandemic, as Joan E Greve reports.

Speaking at the White House over the weekend, Trump said his administrations Covid-19 strategy was moving along well and claimed, without evidence, that 99% of cases of the disease which has now killed almost 130,000 Americans were totally harmless. But, as Adrienne Matei writes, even mild cases of Covid-19 can lead to long-term health problems:

Emerging medical research as well as anecdotal evidence from recovery support groups suggest that many survivors of mild Covid-19 are not so lucky. They experience lasting side-effects, and doctors are still trying to understand the ramifications.

Trump spent the 4 July weekend stoking Americas cultural divisions, dismissing the threat of the coronavirus pandemic, and playing golf at one of his own private properties. But as he ramps up the belligerent rhetoric for his re-election campaign, there are fresh rumblings of dissent from within the Republican party.

Several anti-Trump groups have sprung up within the wider GOP. Some are openly supporting Joe Biden, reports Daniel Strauss, and almost all are better organised than the so-called Never Trump movement of 2016. Meanwhile, the presidents former national security adviser John Bolton has called into question Trumps claim never to have been briefed on the Russian bounties controversy, telling CBS that was just not the way the system works.

The coronavirus pandemic has struck the oldest generation most severely, but the impact of the economic fallout will likely be felt most deeply by young people particularly the so-called generation Z: those born between 1997 and 2012. Lauren Aratani spoke to several young Americans about entering the economy just as it goes into freefall.

Tom Hanks on surviving coronavirus

Back in March, Tom Hanks and his wife, Rita Wilson, became, he tells Hadley Freeman, the celebrity canaries in the coalmine of all things Covid-19. But now hes recovered and promoting his new film, albeit via Zoom. Im not one who wakes up in the morning wondering if Im going to see the end of the day or not.

Choosing to be childfree

RO Kwon never felt the urge to have children. With the world on the brink of environmental collapse, she writes, many women have joined her in choosing to be childfree. Two childfree Guardian editors introduce a new series on opting out of parenting, while Kristin Brownell says she refuses to pass on her addiction gene.

Why we need sharks

They get a bad rap from Hollywood, but the monstrous villains of the ocean are in fact a majestic, diverse bunch who help to bring balance to the underwater ecosystem. Helen Scales explains why sharks matter to humanity.

Trump nominated William Perry Pendley, a conservative activist with close links to anti-government forces, to oversee Americas public lands. His elevation, argues Cas Mudde, is a reminder that the true far-right threat to US democracy does not come from neo-Nazis.

It is this coalition of disaffected, illiberal and self-interested forces that holds Trump and the Republican leadership together and which is slowly but steadily dismantling the federal government from within.

The Dodge Charger from the TV show Dukes of Hazzard, named after General Lee and emblazoned with the Confederate flag, will not be removed from display at the Volo Auto Museum near Chicago amid the national debate over Confederate monuments. The museums director said its collection also includes Nazi artefacts: If were going to get complaints about the General Lee being here, weve got much worse items over in our military building.

First Thing is delivered to thousands of inboxes every weekday. If youre not already signed up, subscribe now.

Read this article:

First Thing: could the pandemic turn red states into swing states? - The Guardian

The Big Bang Theorywas among one of the most successful television series of all time. For 12 seasons,fans became invested in the lives of Sheldon Cooper, Leonard Hofstadter, RajKoothrappali, and Howard Wolowitz, as well as the ladies who eventually joined theirgroup. There is one major plothole that fans cant let go of, thoughBernadetteRostenkowskis explanation for why she dislikes children changed during theseries.

When Bernadetteand Howard first discuss having children, she mentions that she doesnt likechildren. The news is surprising to both fans and Howard alike. She goes on toexplain her reasoning for wanting to be childfree. The story makes a lot ofsense and left fans with more information about Bernadettes upbringing thanthey ever had before.

RELATED: TheBig Bang Theory: Was Raj and Howards Relationship Perfect or Weird?

ScreenRant notes that Howards love interest originally suggested that her hatredfor children stemmed from a childhood spent caring for other kids. She toldHoward that during her formative years, her mother ran an illegal daycare outof the familys basement to make ends meet. According to the story, Bernadettewas tasked with helping to keep the operation organized.

Later in the series, Bernadettementions that she isnt open to the idea of children simply because she wasforced to watch her younger brothers and sisters while her mother worked. Whileit is known that Bernadette has five brothers and sisters, they are never seen,and only one brother is named. Bernadettes younger brother, Joey Rostenkowskiis mentioned in Season 5, Episode 12, but is never mentioned again.

So, from what Bernadette says, her mother worked outside ofthe home and left all of the siblings under the care of Bernadette. If Bernadettewas really the oldest of all of her siblings, fans theorize, at least one ofthem would have still been living at home when she met Howard. That, however,did not seem to be the case.

Fans were quick to notice the inconsistency in Bernadettesstory. It seems implausible that her mother worked full-time and ran an illegaldaycare in the familys basement. The full-time job her mother had is nevermentioned, although fans are aware that Bernadettes father was a retiredpolice officer. Simply put, the inconsistencies in Bernadettes story is likejust that, an inconsistency. Unfortunately for fans of televisions how conspiracytheories, there is likely not a more elaborate reason behind Bernadettes twodifferent stories.

RELATED: BigBang Theory Fans Were Quick to Point out this Plot Hole in Young Sheldon

Several popular shows have had significant inconsistenciesin their storylines. Television shows ranging from Friends to GilmoreGirls have had serious plotholes in their storylines. For example, Friendsfans have noticed that RachelGreen and Monica Gellers apartment number makes absolutely no sense. GilmoreGirls fans point out that Lane Kims ability to buy tons of music withoutany money is a serious plot hole. Bernadettes lack of interest in children andthe reason for it isnt even the only plothole in The Big Bang Theory.

Link:

'The Big Bang Theory': Why Was Bernadette Really Reluctant to Have Children? - Showbiz Cheat Sheet

In Deb Perelmans recent New York Times op-ed, In the COVID-19 Economy, You Can Have a Kid or a Job. You Cant Have Both, she details the impossibility of parenting small children during the COVID-19 epidemic, writing, We are not burned out because life is hard this year. We are burned out because we are being rolled over by the wheels of an economy that has bafflingly declared working parents inessential.

Perelmans piece went viral, causing you cant have both to trend on Twitter and receiving a prized retweet from the totem of working parenthood, Hillary Clinton. But as a working parent and as a journalist, I couldnt help but feel that while it articulated much of what I had been seething about throughout the crisis, it also buried the lede. Yes, fathers and mothers are having a difficult time right now; yes, our culture instructing parents to perform at full capacity in their jobs while simultaneously playing Nanny McPhee to their children is a ridiculously extravagant ask.

But it isnt really thateveryonein the COVID-19 economy cant have a kid and a job at the same time. Its that mothers, specifically, cannot. It is mothers, not fathers, who have historically shouldered the vast majority of the childcare burden, and continue to do so during the pandemic, according to one oneNew York Timessurvey; it is women, not men, for whom the Secretary General of the United Nations warned, across every sphere, from health to the economy, security to social protection, the impacts of COVID-19 are exacerbated. And as Perelmans piece notes, it is mothers, not fathers, who have historically bowed out of the workforce when their domestic responsibilities increase, thus making it more difficult for them to ever return. It is women, not men, who will take pay cuts and buyouts, who will go from full-time to part-time to no-time, who have spent years accumulating degrees and tasteful outfits and dog-eared paperbacks of Girl Boss, ascending this pile of corporate feminist ephemera to get a boost up the ladder, only to fall rung by greased-up rung. It is women who will learn firsthand what their jaded first-wave feminist forebears have warned them for years: that not only is having it all a sham, but that even attempting to have a little bit of both will invariably result in quietly flaming out.

In many respects, this is an unprecedented historical moment, says Stephanie Coontz, director of research and public education for the Council on Contemporary Families. Although mothers have been expected to juggle domestic labor with work for much of history, they were reliant on their communities for instance, grandparents or neighbors to assume some of the childcare when they were too busy. There was this integrated community of work, education, instruction, and exchange that was very hard work, but it wasnt this isolated work, she says. While weepy, coronavirus-themed Facebook commercials may try to convince us that social media and virtual interaction can supplant the loss of this network, they dont have the actual physical coordination and the interdependence that parents really need, she says. In other words, the COVID-19 pandemic has ushered in an era where parents, particularly women, are expected to achieve a perfect balance between work and childcare, and for basically the first time in human history, theyre expected to do it on their own.

Unsurprisingly, many experts have predicted that this doesnt bode super well for women. A report from the United Nations has warned that the precarious economic situation could roll back many of the advances feminism has made over the past few decades, with layoffs hitting women disproportionately or forcing women with small children to bow out of the workforce. We could have an entire generation of women who are hurt [economically], Betsey Stevenson, a professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan, told the New York Times.

Its worth noting, as Perelman does, that compared to many low-income women and women in service industries, middle-class working mothers who have the luxury of working from home are in a position of extraordinary privilege. While there is little hard data on the subject, low-income mothers will also be hardest hit by the impact of the pandemic: If youre making less money in a relationship and men make more, whats happening is women are staying at home to cover for childcare and these are often low-income women, says Ellen Kossek, a professor of management atPurdue University Krannert School of Management and author of a forthcoming study on the subject. It is proof of how broken the system is that even the best-case scenario (as Perelman and myself embody as happily employed middle-class remote workers), feels so daunting as to be unmanageable.

Truth be told, these prognostications are not anything new. Virtually any working mother has a horror story about feeling pushed out of the workplace pre-COVID-19, even those who come from a relative position of privilege, becausethe demands of the American workplace are totally antithetical to the demands of the home. You are forced to take a 30% pay cut as you watch your male partner get raise after raise and promotion after promotion, spending the remainder of your career trying in vain to catch up. You are encouraged to exclusively breastfeed your child for the first year of their life, which no one tells you is almost impossible to do if youre chained to a desk for eight hours a day. And you are forced to apologetically duck out at 5:15, trying to avoid the gaze of your superiors, gazing wistfully at your childfree cohorts as they go off to sip Moscow mules and network at happy hours.

Under the best circumstances, being a working parent feels like being an unwanted guest at the worlds most tedious party, and what COVID-19 has done is essentially kick working mothers out of the room altogether. In this sense, it has succeeded where previous efforts to limit womens ascendancy in the workplace the absence of paid leave, rampant pregnancy discrimination, and loopholes that ensure some employers dont have to institute lactation rooms, just to name a few have failed: in a scenario so perfect its almost as if some misogynistic sorcerer conjured it in a dungeon, a global pandemic may well be the impetus for booting working mothers from the workplace altogether.

This is already kind of starting to happen. Over the past few months, policy makers have engineered what they no doubt view as ingenious ways to return children back to school, all of which have been met with widespread ire from parents on social media. Fairfax County in Virginia will be spearheading a part-time policy where students can choose between four days of remote learning or two days of on-campus learning, while Gov. Cuomo has suggested that the 2020-2021 school year could be entirely remote. Employers have also done their part in instituting policies that are wildly ignorant of, if not downright hostile to, the lived realities of working parents, with Florida State University instituting a policy for remote employees banning them from caring for children while working. [FSU IS] acting like they gave us this privilege towatch our children while we worked when thats literally what I had to do, one professor complained. (FSUwalked back on this policy following backlash on social media, sending an email to staff saying, We want to be clear our policy does allow employees to work from home while caring for children.)

That the needs of parents were not taken into account during the development of these policies is apparent; that the needs of working mothers in particular were not considered, doubly so. In the absence of these discussions, the onus has been on parents themselves, not employers or policy-makers or the media. Theres a stigma right now that you cant say Im not available because Im helping my kid with my homework from 2-3, and you have to empower people to do that especially during the pandemic, says Kossek. Though she says managers should lead these conversations, the reality is that they so frequently fall on employees that its clear women arent just expected to seamlessly perform childcare and household and work duties simultaneously, theyre also expected to start the conversation about why such expectations are unfair.

Therein lies the crux of the issue: although much valuable discussion has been devoted to how COVID-19 has exposed the disparities in class, gender, and income, the parenting issue intersects with all three of those things, yet receives relatively little attention. Why isnt anyone talking about this? Why are we not hearing a primal scream so deafening that no plodding policy can be implemented without addressing the people buried by it?, Perelman writes in her essay. While there are likely plenty of reasons the relative unclickiness of the importance of paid parental leave among them the truth is that parenting issues are so often considered as tantamount with womens issues that theyve been rendered marginalized in the discourse, almost to the degree that theyre ignored altogether.

There are some who are optimistic about the long-term changes that COVID-19 may bring in terms of gender dynamics and parenting. In the long run we know that when men learn to actually get hands-on experience with the kind of work they were able to ignore for so long, they do do better, says Coontz, citing studies that show how men who take paternity leave end up assuming more of the burden of household labor. Now that men have been forced to pick up some of the childcare burden, becoming more intimately acquainted with its accompanying gifts and travails, I think there may be some possibilities for forward progress after this, she says.

But such progress is dependent on how we, as a society, respond to this crisis, by which she means implementing family-friendly policies such as paid leave, decreasing the wage gap, and providing universal health care. Sometimes there comes a crack in time, Koontz says, quoting a line from a poem by Stephen Vincent Benet. This is a real crack in time that exposes where the roads have been blocked, where theyve been overgrown, where new things need to be built. Theyre terribly painful, these cracks in time, but they can lead to change. But that assumes that everyone, from policymakers to media figures, sees these roadblocks as roadblocks to begin with, and until more people let loose with that primal scream calling for massive change, then these cracks in time will likely be left ignored.

Read more:

Coronavirus Is Killing the Working Mother - Rolling Stone

Someone will often ask me to explain the difference between a person who is childfree and a person who is childless. Im happy to direct people to my book for further information. It is one of the most common questions I get from people in person, and online readers. Without quoting my book directly, I will summarize it here as best as possible.

A person who is childless feels the lack of having a child in their lives. They might have tried to conceive children without success, not knowing if it is because of a medical reason. Others may be childless because they cannot conceive children and have been told so by their doctors.

A person who is childfree is not childless by choice. Less means lacking in something. The choice not to have children is represented as a free choice. So, someone is not lacking in having children.

For further information, there are great numbers of online resources available. My personal favourite which I would encourage everyone to check out, isNon Parents, where I have contributed some content.

This post was previously published on Dann Alexander and is republished here with permission from the author.

All Premium Members get to view The Good Men Project with NO ADS.

Need more info? A complete list of benefits is here.

Photo credit: iStock

The rest is here:

Childfree and Childless The Difference - The Good Men Project

Women who didn't plan on becoming mothers but are mothers all the same are beginning to speak up (Photo: Shutterstock)

Whether or not a woman should have or choose not to have kids will always be a sensitive topic. Some women know that they wanted kids from a very young age, but for others, its not the case. Theres a part of society that doesnt believe there are women who really dont want kids and with that comes a lot of heavy judgement.

ALSO READ: Five tips on talking to your kids about their fears

Within that community of women who have no desire to have kids, are those who actually end up having children. Life happens, things change and you find yourself breastfeeding at 1 a.m. while youre half asleep. Now you have to awkwardly accept the congratulations for your baby and a part of you wants to curl up into a ball and cry.

Heres some advice if you find yourself with kids when you never planned to have any.

i. Youre not alone

Society likes to isolate women who dont want to have kids. Youll face the pressure if you attempt to air your views and surprisingly, some family members will even resent you for it. And now that you have kids, theyll automatically assume that you changed your mind just like they said you would. Only a few will understand how you feel about the whole motherhood thing and eventually you might even meet some women who are going through what youre experiencing.

Recently, women who didnt desire to have kids have started being more vocal about how they feel, which is revolutionary. They might still feel comfortable sharing their stories anonymously but, at least you know youre not alone.

ii. Youre not a horrible mom

Its hard to admit that you didnt want to have kids in the first place. It doesnt mean that you hate your kids and it doesnt make you a horrible person. It just means youre being honest. Dont feel horrible about yourself if you dont enjoy carrying your baby or spending every single moment with them. Its going to be tough for a while but the fact still remains that motherhood isnt necessarily for everyone. Hold on to your truth regardless of how people feel.

ALSO READ: Online app making homeschooling smooth

iii. You shouldnt be forced to have more children

Things might just get worse if youre pressured into having more kids. Its one thing to amicably decide to have more kids with your partner but it shouldnt be a matter of forcing issues. Youre the one wholl bear the burden of carrying the baby through the nine months then go through the pain of labour and delivery. Perhaps youll even be the one to change the diapers throughout and handle everything else in the household so I believe you have the right to decide whether you can handle more kids or not.

iv. Never resent your children for it

Its not your childs fault. They didnt sign up to be born. Although you have a right to feel the way you do, you should never take out your anger on them. Every child deserves to be loved by their parents regardless of whether they were planned or not. Parenting will force you to do things you never wanted to but thats just how life is. You have to appreciate them for who they are and focus on the joy they bring.

v. Things might change

Some mums actually come round after some time.There are still those moments where you miss your childfree days but for the most part, they learn to embrace their new lives. Seeing your baby smile as they sleep peacefully or noticing they have the same dimple as you can actually turn things around. Itll be a gradual process of making lemonade out of the lemons that life gives you.

ALSO READ: #FridayFashionInspo: Sizzling mum of five, Keke Cameron is keeping it hot and trendy

Do not miss out on the latest news. Join the Eve Digital Telegram channel HERE.

Read the original post:

A word for mums who never wanted kids - The Standard

As a woman without a child, Im constantly queried about when the time will be. You know what? Get your mind out of my uterus.

The other day, I was asked (again) whether I was planning to have children. The further I get into my thirties, the more I get asked this question tick-tock and all that. Except this time it was by the guy who came to fix my rowing machine.

We had made small talk for a sum total of a minute and a half when he felt the pressing need to work out how it was possible that I didnt have children by my age and that I really should get to it before it was too late. He didnt say that last bit, of course they never do but that was the implication.

I often wonder why people feel that it is perfectly okay to ask a total stranger about their personal life choices. Perhaps Id spent years trying to get pregnant and it was a trauma that I didnt particularly want to rehash while offering a glass of water to someone who was only in my house because Id paid him to fix something.

Or maybe, just maybe, I dont want children. And I dont care to justify that to anyone, least of all someone I dont know.

Despite the fact that childfree couples are set to become more common than families with kids in the next 10 years, there is still a strange stigma attached to this choice. The question about whether I want children is usually followed up with one about how my partner feels, as though Im doing him an enormous disservice.

I wonder whether, on his own, he is asked so frequently about his childlessness. He doesnt have the disadvantage of a biological clock, after all, counting minutes that usher him closer to that terrible point of no return.

Moving through your thirties, your friendship group starts to get divided up into those with children and those without. You start making friends who are either significantly older or younger, as your peers are no longer out taking dancing classes theyre at home looking after children. An old friend with a young baby once said she didnt approve of my lifestyle choices because I was still going to parties on a Saturday night.

A new friend without children asked me if I was planning to have kids within weeks of us getting to know each other, because she told me frankly that she didnt want to form an emotional attachment to somebody who was going to drop off the map. Ive had other child-free friends express a similar sentiment we all know the difficulties (though not impossibility) of maintaining a close friendship with a woman who has kids.

But even though our demographic is growing rapidly, being childfree is still not treated as a normal thing for women to do. A few years ago, the HuffPost ran an article with the headline: Cameron Diaz Says Shes Completely Happy With Her Choice To Be Childfree as though it was unthinkable that a woman might find joy in something other than parenting. (Would they ever run such a headline about Leonardo DiCaprio, I wonder?)

Recently, a scathing Vanity Fair article about the coastal town of Byron Bay in Australia alerted me to the existence of so-called mommy bloggers and influencers. Clearly Im not their target audience. They tout a return to simplicity, which in effect means dressing their children in linen and refusing to give them phones while they earn a large income from displaying their family lives or rather a perfect version of them all over Instagram.

Their social media feeds espouse a sort of glorification of fertility and parenting, filled with pregnancy photoshoots and staged pictures of their abundance of children (in linen), all similar in age, among magnificent beach backdrops. I am not judging the decision to have children, but the popularity of mumstagrammers seems inherently at odds with demographic trends in Australia, the average per woman is now less than two children.

I do wonder whether they get asked the same questions as me, but in reverse. Does anyone ask them why they decided to have children? Does anyone ask a woman with a child if she will regret her decision? Does anyone imply that her choices make her selfish? Emotionally unfulfilled? Immature?

Last week, while drinking wine on a balcony with my childfree friend on a Friday afternoon (because we can do that any time we want), she commented that there are no role models for women who do not have children. Show us how that can be a fulfilling choice! she practically shouted down to the street.

Show us how women can find rewards in something other than motherhood without it somehow making us less than. Show us how we can be valued as more than our reproductive capabilities. Lets talk about how we can be fulfilled in our work, our creative pursuits, our friendships, and yes even in our relationships with other peoples children that doesnt leave us wanting our own.

There are plenty of reasons why women decide not to have children. I dont have to give you mine.

Read more:

Child-free women are tired of being told they'll regret it - The Big Smoke Australia