Redefining Family Child-Free
I've known I was going to be child-free since I was in grade school. It was never a big decision, I just knew that motherhood wasn't for me. I told my own mother when I was around eight that I didn't want to be a mom, and she replied that I couldn't possibly know whether or not I wanted kids as a kid. This sentiment has been repeated to me my entire life. I've always remained clear: parenthood isn't for me. Every time this comes up, people are so quick to contradict me, asserting they know what's best: I will change my mind, my body will revolt when I'm 30, I haven't met the right guy, I don't know what I'm missing, and on and on and on. I've retaliated with the entire gamut of counterarguments: pregnancy isn't aligned with my gender, I want to travel, I want freedom, I don't want to share that responsibility with a primary partner, I don't need to contribute that carbon footprint, I wouldn't be a good mom, and around and around we go. When I'm honest about the primary reason: I don't like children, people give me strange looks as if I've revealed an atrocious secret. But I just don't. If we're being honest, those comments are annoying because they glaze over an even more important underlying issue: parenthood isn't for everyone, and it shouldn't have to be.
What I’d rather be doing over breast feeding
Etched into our cultural fabric and relationship scripts is compulsory parenthood. Just like I dislike compulsory heterosexuality, compulsory monogamy, and compulsory cis-normativity, I also dislike the idea of compulsory parenthood. But the pressure remains pretty ubiquitous that everyone must form dyadic monogamous relationships with the goal of child-rearing. There are a lot of complex economical reasons why this script is so ingrained in our social consciousness but it mostly boils down to labor reproduction. For those of us who couldn't give less of a shit about a thriving late-stage capitalist economy, that can seem like a feeble reason to have kids. Nevertheless, it can also be a challenge (like being gender non-conforming, queer, non-monogamous, etc.) to divert from cultural norms. So I'm here to break down the fallacies that drive compulsory parenthood and provide alternative framings. I speak once again from my perspective, your reasoning for being child-free can be completely different than mine.
Fallacy #1 - Children complete you
I'm a relational anarchist. I don't believe in people's rights to dominate and subjugate others. That means that I am critical about our entitlement to others, including parent to child. Unfortunately, entitlement is almost always erased from our outlook on parenthood which extends to children's rights. First, we often hear "everyone has the right to have children"... not really. Children are autonomous beings, not possessions. No one has a right to HAVE a child. Rather, it's a privilege to hold the responsibility of birthing and rearing another being. So often we center on parents, without factoring in the kids. Primarily, the duty of parenting is attending to the needs of the kids, not the other way around. Not everyone is suited for the parent role, and they shouldn't have to be; just like not everyone is suited to being a teacher, and they don't have to be. Children are not accessories, they do not complete you. Children are not responsible for making you whole. Furthermore, if you're unwhole, you cannot possibly be responsible for attending to the needs of another. Second, our laws currently do not give children legal rights. Parents hold gigantic amounts of power over their children, which means they're able to commit atrocities toward them with very few ramifications. Children deserve the same legal status as adults. They aren't commodities that we should continue acquiring for our own selfish gratification. Parenthood should be framed as an option to assume responsibility rather than an entitlement, and certainly not an obligation. The more we frame parenthood as compulsory, the fewer agency folks have over assuming the responsibility of parenthood. You cannot be a good parent if you aren't able to understand what your needs and capacities and limits are first. You cannot be a good parent if you're looking for a child to validate your existence. And you cannot be a good parent if you aren't allowed to enthusiastically decide to do so.
Fallacy #2 - You'll end up alone without kids
Children do not have a responsibility to take care of their parents. Unlike adult relationships, parent-child is not reciprocal nor conditional. A parent's responsibility is to meet the needs of the individual child to the best of their ability, not to model kids to best suit the parents' needs. Again, we need to stop viewing kids as need-fulfillment machines or labor reproduction, they're not. It's bullshit to expect a child to take care of you or to carry your legacy. They have zero obligation to you. Obviously, it can be a hope that as a child gets older and self-sufficient the relationship with the parent matures into one that is symbiotic, but that certainly isn't a requisite. Think of it this way, as a parent, you were able to choose to give birth (even if you didn't assume the responsibility for that decision), whereas children were not able to reciprocate consent. As a parent, you were also able to choose how you raised your child (even if you didn't assume the responsibility for that decision), and your children didn't have any say. Your child was not active in the decisions you made, and they are not required to meet your expectations or fulfill your fantasies. Now, whether you end up alone or not is entirely your responsibility. There are many absolutely excellent parents who understand their role in actively creating relationships that children choose to continue engaging in as adults. But they manage this much in the same way as any other relationship is sustained: through practicing love and trust, open communication, valuing authentic autonomy, spending time together, and creating rituals. There's nothing more magical about adult parent-child relations than any other. Blood is certainly not the determining factor of whether or not you'll be successful at managing those bonds.
Fallacy #3 - Children build families
The nuclear family model is honestly bullshit, much like monogamy, heterosexuality, and other norms. Compulsory parenthood is just as restrictive as all other singular social constructs. We need to de-center children from family-building. We currently invest so heavily in a dyadic monogamous heterosexual script that centers on children as the focal point of the family, to the detriment of children's wellbeing. We see dysfunctional marriages prolonged, "for the sake of the kids." We see young people rushing into parenthood right after marriage because it seems like "the next step." None of these are good enough reasons to parent. Queering familial relations means that we see family as chosen bonds, not blood obligations. We don't prioritize children more than adults. My family comprises of individuals who have chosen to show up for me and I for them, they are all adults that I choose to share my life with. I hold familial responsibility to them, our ties are long-lasting because we are committed to each other. We don't need kids to force us to show up, we do it regardless.
Fallacy #4 - You have to have kids if your partner wants them.
My mother-in-law accused me of depriving my ex-husband of fatherhood because I didn't want to have his children when we were around nineteen. I haven't forgotten this because it was an absolutely egregious accusation. He didn't want kids, nor did I, the only person we were depriving was her - from her entitlement to being a grandmother. But not all cases are like ours. In certain instances, a partner will want a child, and we don't. This mismatch in expectations is usually a deal-breaker for monogamous relationships, luckily, ethical non-monogamy offers us a variety of alternatives. We don't HAVE to raise children in order to continue being in our pal's life. The beauty of having multiple partners is that we can honor our pal's desires while also maintaining our integrity. Of course, this decision doesn't necessarily mean it is easy. We might have to de-escalate our relationship in order for our pal to parent with someone else, but it can still be a more appealing option than breaking up. In these situations, of course, it's important to negotiate ahead of time how much involvement there will be with the child, it's foolish to believe that you could be entirely uninvolved in your partner's child's life at least occasionally.
At the end of the day, deciding to be a parent is an enormous responsibility, that many people make without considering the implications because it seems like the next step on the relationship escalator. In many parts of the world, childbearing is no longer an unavoidable responsibility. Many people have the freedom to choose whether they want to be parents or not. However, our cultural attitudes haven't caught up. It's still often seen as taboo, selfish, or just not right to choose to be child-free. By redefining what it means to be a parent, in ways that place the children's needs first, we can start to openly acknowledge that not everyone is up for the task nor desires this responsibility. These are hard concepts to grapple with because parenthood is so etched into our popular narratives, but ENM often allows us to dream up new possibilities. I choose to be child-free because it's the best decision for me and the kids I don't have.
I hope we got your juices flowing. As always, we aim to provide as much free and accessible content as possible; thanks to the amazing support of our patrons. Head over to our Patreon to support our work and get access to bonus content! If you have any questions or want to chat, please book a peer support session.