Jump to content

Talk:Voluntary childlessness/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Childfree org

This article seems to suggest that there is a strong childfree organization; while many people without children aren't actually involved in any relevant subculture. Also, it seems to suggest a strong prejudice against the childfree which may be overstated. Citizen Premier 04:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I have to agree with you. This article is in major need of a reworking. James xeno 01:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the article you cite suggests a "strong childfree organization." The author mentions a few online message boards, along with No Kidding, which is merely a social organization, not a political one. Please explain your assertion that "prejudice against the childfree may be overstated." Does this come from personal experience or academic research?

Qualms about "Statistics and Research"

I do agree that the "childfree" group may warrant some study, but the information given by the links under "Statistics and Research" is meager. It is relatively easy to carry out sociological research about the _childless_, but considerably more difficult to reach real insights about the more elusive group of the _childfree_ (as defined in this wikipedia entry). (1) <<David Foot concluded that the female’s education is the most important determinant of fertility. The higher the education, the less likely for her to bear children.>> Here it is rather difficult to disentangle cause and effect, and in the interview cited Foot does not address this issue. Secondly, he appears to refer to studies about the childless, which is not the real group of "childfree".

On that point, education is unlikely to reduce biological fertility, so any effect would surely be due to reduced desire to procreate, and access to family planning. --Slashme 17:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
No, the point about cause and effect is still apt - it could be that biological infertility results in higher education... 151.203.243.152 15:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(2) <<A statistical survey of the childfree found that common reasons for the choice to be childfree included not wanting to sacrifice privacy/personal space and time for children; having no compelling reason to have children; actively not wanting children around; being perfectly content with pets; and seeing the effects of children on family/friends. >> The survey fails in not exposing the interviewed to the crucial question "if you find a wonderful partner who is eager to have a child, would you want to have a child?". Without such a litmus test question, the survey group is too ill-defined, and the tentative conclusions reached remain utterly tentative. Slavatrudu 16:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How does not asking a certain question make the group "ill defined"? All the study has to address is if people decide not to have children, why they make that decision. It doesn't have to address hypothetical situations to reach useful conclusions. To brand it as "utterly tentative" is unreasonable. Unless you have some better research, let's stick with what we have. --Slashme 17:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it does ask that question. Maybe you should read the study before criticising it.
"( )Partner/Spouse doesn't want children"
Choosing to include those who decide to remain with a partner is academically sound, as is including people who choose not to have children to further their career. It is a question of motivation, not of how 'childfree' they are. The group is well-defined - it is people who have made the decision not to parent. Maybe it doesn't fit *your* definition, but that doesn't make the research questionable. If you want to exclude the subgroup that would be persuaded to change their mind on that single factor, go do your own study.-66.28.217.228 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Prejudice against childfree does exist, I have experienced it. However, this may not be enough for wikipedia standard. I will read a few childfree books and then provide more depth in this area. Mjm1964 01:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Prejudice against the childfree is very strong in our culture-- with women especially who choose not to have children receiving an extra serving of judgement for committing the sin of not rejecting what many consider to be their "natural" role. There is a heavy pressure to have children, parents receive preferential treatment in many workplaces, public policy becoming increasingly pro-natalist etc. Is this enough for Wikipedia? Probably not, since nobody is actually burning us at the stake, but please don't try to tell me that there is not significant prejudice. It just isn't true. 38.2.108.125 20:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I too have experienced prejudice for not wanting to have children. Women with out the "maternal instinct" seem to be singled out as freaks, especially in the Midwest. I think it is entirely appropriate for this article to exist, whether or not there is a movement or organization associated with it. It exists as a lifestyle choice. Mapetite526 15:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed material from the "World childfree Association" section because 1) this was not encyclopic in nature, rather promotional 2) it was basically a copy and paste from the associated website, with "we" changed to "they" Mjm1964 11:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hallo Joyous! I have a question about your message: You ask me not to add inappropriate external links to wikipedia. When I compare the 2 links I added to other existing external links on certain webpages, I see that the 'appropriate' links (i.e the ones you leave alone), are also links to external -third party- organisations, such as our European organisation (STHOPD) is too. Our non-profit organisation works with volunteers and stands for certain principles which are similar to the 'appropriate' organisations on the webpages concerned, such as: Decreasing human overpopulation in an ethical way, having no children, warnings about the worldwide consequences of overpopulation such as the destruction of ecosystems. Please explain to me what would make our links appropriate. Friendly regards, 213.84.166.83 18:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC) MetaMouse.

Answered on your talk page. Joyous! | Talk 18:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"childfree choice" misplaces emphasis

I think that it is important for the entry for “childfree” to address the portion of childfree people who feel that being without children is not as much of a conscious decision not have children, but rather a consequece of other choices. Many people who identify as intentionally childless see there status as less of a choice and more of a result of their lifestyle. Implying someone is childless by choice misplaces the emphasis and misrepresents what is chosen. “Women are expected to explain a negative occurrence, a negative choice. The absense of motherhood becomes the point of focus rather than the many prior postive choices (Morrell 50).”

Morell, Carolyn (1994). Unwomanly Conduct: The Challenges of Intentional Childlessness. Routledge, New York.

Those people who are childless by circumstance (ie infertility, running out of time etc) are different than childless by choice ("childfree"). Childless by circumstance is a subset of childless, childless by choice is a subset as well. Childfree is usually defined as those who have chosen to not have children. Childless (or childlessness) will hopefully get its own page, and will refer to both sets of people.

Mjm1964 02:08, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) for above comments.

I am adding an article titled "Childless" and would love to have help editing it to explain all three types of childlessness, 1) by conscious choice, 2) by circumstance, 3) by infertility or other health problems that would prevent having children (assuming they were not by choice).Mapetite526 20:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sour Grapes?

Blatantly POV. (a) does not explain how tax/transfers balance between parents and childfree are either unfair or economically sound.

(b) does not explain why population is the lead factor that causes pollution or natural resource depletion.

(c) draws a link between religion, misogyny and the far right without any elaboration, and does not consider the most simple reason why governments pay parents - to subsidise the bringing into the world of a new generation of workers and taxpayers to support the current generation.

This write up gives me the idea that the Childfree "movement" is just comprised of unlucky, unpartnered spinsters.

Sounds like you have a bad case of sour grapes, actually. "Unlucky, unpartnered spinsters" may be your opinion, but it is not based upon actual demographics or facts. Actually a significant number of couples have chosen not to have children-- and this number has increased significantly in the past several decades. For some it is a matter of economics (children are expensive), for others a matter of politics (the world is overpopulated), etc. For even more though it is because they just don't want children, and luckily we live in a world where it is possible to choose not to have children if that is what one wants. Funny isn't it? Universally when people have a real CHOICE, they choose to have few children rather than more, and often choose to have none at all.

As for the "simple reason why governments pay parents" that you cite: it's a myth, bro. If an economy is strong, immigration will keep it going. No government needs to pay parents to have children in order to keep their economy going-- such economic decisions are usually based upon ethnocentrism and xenophobia. And again, it begs the question: if the desire to have lots of children is so innate and natural, why would any government need to "pay" parents? You see how you swallow your own tail? 38.2.108.125 20:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You should probably do a little more reading before speaking up, in particular consider Western Europe and *Japan*. There have been numerous news reports in recent years about the "phenomenon" of "selfish young people" either living at home or otherwise going about their lives and not making babies. --Belg4mit 17:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Interesting that you didn't sign your statements and then referred to women who don't want children as "unlucky, unpartnered spinsters." Does that refer to the men who don't want children as well? Mapetite526 15:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I find the pollution angle very self-evident. What if, tomorrow, the human race was suddenly decimated to less than 1 million individuals. How much pollution would remain? Virtually none; the air would be clean, the waterways clean, the landscape empty oh humans w/ a swift repopulation of forests & animals. ----- It is self-evident that fewer humans == less pollution. - Theaveng 17:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinion???

"Just don't want them; why should any other explanation be needed?" I found this comment to be un-encyclopedic.

It described one of the reasons an adult may not want to have children.

I will thus delete this comment.

Andyqaz 04:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)Andyqaz

I agree, it's anyway covered under "lack of biological urges to procreate" --Slashme 05:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, one more reason: I think it people can also question whether or not they have right to give life to someone else, i. e. to make decision for someone else. You can never ask if this new being actually wants to be given the life. In addition to it, with giving a life, you always give your child life with a death at the end of his or her life. (unsigned comment)

Good point. I have added that to the list of reasons. I have also re-arranged the list, so that we have a new topic to argue about, namely categorization ;-) I left the line about OCD and attachment theory in, but I don't quite get it. Can someone re-word it so that it is a bit more explanatory? --Slashme 07:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Motivation

The "Female increases opportunity in a more prestigious or traditionally male job." reason under the Motivation section is worded confusingly. What exactly is it trying to say? Females who are working in a traditionally male job, who choose to be childfree so that they can have a competitive edge? 66.92.144.74 00:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Organization

I moved Organizations closer to the bottom, to conform with most other Wikipedia pages. Captain Jackson 07:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

ChildFree vocabulary

Since we have a link to the "lexicon of spawn," is it really necessary to have the massive list of slang listed here? Joyous | Talk 00:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

  • If there are no objections, I'm going to remove the list of slang. It's not encyclopedic, and there's a list on a site in the external links, so it's not totally lost. Joyous | Talk 02:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Don't think the whole list needs to go. I am quite familiar with a few of the terms and not so familiar with others. Maybe someone just thought a couple up. I think a short list of the most commonly used terms would be appropriate. I think attitudes of the more militant childfree are appropriate for the context of the article.Montco 03:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Which ones do you see as the most common? I don't think the list should be longer than the top 10 or so. Otherwise, every clever CFer will feel the need to come here and add their newest creations. Joyous | Talk 03:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Breeder, moo, duh, sprog are gimmes. some of them like runt, DINK and rugrat are not exclusive to childfree persons and can probably go right away. Other than that I would think that a quick search of a.s.c.f could turn up the least commonly used words and those could be fried. I agree that anytime you have a list of some sort, you are asking for trouble to some extent. But there have to be enough childfree folks here to have a reasonable discussion on what should be included.Montco 03:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Remove it, I absolutely can't stand the notion of 'childfree' regardless but this is just a long list of petty insults; it doesn't belong on an encylopedia michael talk 03:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You may not like the notion of childfree, but its usage by reputable news outlets such as the BBC and Knight Ridder justifies it as an recognized "subculture". As for the list, one person's petty insults are pretty common vernacular on childfree message boards and newsgroups. The most common out there are certainly notable and illustrative of the attitude of childfree individuals towards parents. That attitude is significant to the article. I myself have argued in the past that, without standards, a list can get out of hand. Wikipedia is not stuff that someone thought up at happy hour. And as such. lesser known terms should be pulled in favor of some of the most common. Montco 03:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
As much as wikipedia is not censored, its an encylopedia and some things just don't belong. I've looked and we don't have a list of 'childish insults' or something similar - why does this long list of slander belong? That's all it really is. I'm sure everyone who isn't a 'childfree' will think much more favourably of the 'life-choice' when they read that list. michael talk 03:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
List of ethnic slurs. And if the list was an article in and of itself, you're right it would be unencyclopedic. If you read my prior post rather than engage in this rampant emotionalism over your 'life-choice' you would understand why I think a concise list of well used "insults" (if you choose to put it that way) does belong in the article.
Good luck on your article, apologies if I appeared that way. I will intervene no more, I wish you all the best with it. michael talk 06:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's getting to the stage where it's little more than self indulgent. I'd suggest slimming down, at least, to:

  • Anklebiter: a child
  • BNP: "Breeder, Not Parent"; a "breeder" in the specific sense (see below).
  • "Baby rabies": Obsession with having or conceiving a child.
  • Breed: to have children.
  • Breeder: Generally, someone who has, or intends to have, children. Is often used in a more specific sense to refer to obnoxious parents (in contrast with "parent", below).
  • Child-free: besides above, a place and time where no children are permitted.
  • Childless: A person who has no children through circumstances not of their own choosing.
  • Diaperwhipped: A term for parents who are controlled by their child(ren)'s every whim.
  • DINKs "Double income no kids;" couple with no children, both of whom are employed, thereby enabling them to maintain a high standard of living.
  • Duh/duhddy: A term for a father with bad parenting skills.
  • Freaklitter: A large multiple birth caused by misuse of fertility drugs. Sometimes known as fuctuplets or a litter.
  • Free range child: An unsupervised child, usually one who is not staying put or who is wreaking havoc in public.
  • Fuck-trophy: A child, especially one that is shown around by a parent as evidence of their achievements in the fertility arena.
  • Fussing quietly: (ironic) A child's screaming at the top of his/her lungs.
  • Handler: a parent
  • Kinderspullen/kindercrap: Unsightly paraphernalia associated with babies & children, such as large plastic toys, wading pools, forts in the garden, LEGOs on the living room carpet, and/or pastel bags bursting with baby products packed for any trip further than a block.
  • Moo/moomie: A term for a mother with bad parenting skills. Comes from the acronym MOO--Mother Obsessed with Offspring. Sometimes used for any mother.
  • Parent: One with children who behaves in a non-obnoxious manner regarding their children, and who is considered to have brought up those children well. (Some Childfree persons do not make the distinction between this and "breeder", above.)
  • PNB: "Parent, Not Breeder"; a "parent" (see above).
  • Snipped: Sterilized.
  • S-MOO-V: A massive sport-utility vehicle filled with baby paraphernalia, old drive-through food, or abandoned toys, driven erratically by a parent focusing more attention on the children in the back than the road all around him/her.
  • Stork spot: Parking space reserved for pregnant women or for parents accompanying children.
  • SUV stroller: A large, unwieldy, ridiculously tricked-out pram. Usually uncollapsable and pushed with unthinking gusto, as if it were an assault vehicle.
  • Thinker: Acronym for Two High Incomes, No Kids, Early Retirement (childfree couple)

Even a few of them don't need to be there.ALR 21:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


ALR, don't have a problem with your suggestion. i agree that its still too much. I think the following off your list can go.
  • Handler
  • Fussing quietly
  • Kinderspullen/kindercrap
  • Snipped (not exclusive to child free)
  • breed and breeder can be consolidated
  • Thinker and DINK can be condolidated but again not exclusively childfree slang.

Montco 00:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that DINK does not originate with childfree, but is instead a marketing term, referring to a specific target market. Also not that DINK can be interpreted as slightly perjorative, given other definitions of dink, thus Thinker--Belg4mit 17:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I know this has been debated before, but really... how encyclopaedic is this inclusion of derrogatory terms? Can we not at least have a separate page for them, a la "ethnic slurs"? why should this information be included in the core article? I doubt that the gay rights or civil rights pages have lists of derrogatory terms for straights and whites. I think that the continued inclusion of such terms in the core article constitutes hide-bound conservatism due to the fact that the terms were present prior to the last couple of re-thinks. They certainly pre-date the inclusion of all the political stuff and now actively serve to damage the community the article is describing by making the childfree look like raving child-haters straight off the bat to any journalist or curious lay person who wanders onto the page by accident. Mr. Analytical 16:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the list and replaced it with a short paragraph. A long unreferenced list like that seems to attract fringe entries. Also, we have a link to the "Lexicon of Spawn" which has every possible slang term, and then some. Joyous | Talk 13:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I would think that this kind of slang is used by a minority of childfree people. Can we make it clearer that not all childfree people are anti-child? I think there is a difference. I'm not against other people having children just because I don't want them myself. Mapetite526 15:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I think most of these terms are or were indigenous to news:alt.support.childfree and attribution should be to that newsgroup, if anywhere. There is a long list of slang terms but to list them all would require that they be given their own article - the main Childfree article already being rather lengthy by now. --carlb 14:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Editing

I've tried to slim down the text, get rid of the duplication that's been added line by line with little thought for integration. I'm concerned that little of this is verifiable and now that it's tighter I'll likely go through and ask for citations of a lot of it.ALR 21:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The section of external links is becoming excessive, based on WP:EL I would suggest it needs slimmed down. In particular Wikipedia should not link to forum or blog sites so I would propose to weed all of them out. In terms of notability I see only a couple of the links being justified. Any other thoughts on that?ALR 17:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following links only:

These should probably be referenced in the text, otherwise removed.


The following are questionable in terms of usefulness and should be removed

  • [3] A Lexicon of Spawn - a list of terminology found on alt.childfree
  • The Childfree Wiki - A Wiki-based website with information about being childfree and resources for the childfree (still in development)
  • Moral Childfree--A perspective on the morality of not bringing people into a place where the only certain thing is death.
  • The Population Institute - An international, educational, non-profit organization that seeks to reduce excessive population growth.
  • The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
ALR 11:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, in the absence of any other comment I'll slim down the links.ALR 06:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning out the links. It was long overdue. —Veyklevar 04:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Kidding Aside has its own article, so should be an internal link. --66.102.80.239 01:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello all, I added a link to Purple Women(TM), a project for, by and about childfree women of my conception -- before I read this discussion. The team blog associated with the project has multiple contributors from various nationalities and parts of North America. It is more like an online magazine than a personal journal. It is topical and timely. We have reviewed several books on the subject of childfree and are keeping tabs of related issues from media portrayals to workplace conflicts.

I can understand not wanting to include personal blogs, but blogs are not all alike. If it is not possible to discriminate personal blogs from content-focused blogs, would you instead consider a link to the the official Purple Women website: [4]? It introduces the book that will be based on the online survey currently underway.

It has been noted correctly that we, the childfree, as a group are growing in numbers, yet are not politically organized nor united as a group. Motivations and situations can really vary as do religious and political outlook, yet we are at the center of economic if not moral controversy. Purple Women is more than a blog and more than a book in the making, it is a new way of connecting and forming community via the internet. For this reason, I hope you will allow a link to us.

I also added an excellent scholarly book by a clicinal psychologist Mardy Ireland in the appropriate section.

Many thanks for creating this page.

--Teritith 22:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

teritith 6:33, 11 May 2006
I think we have too many external links as it is, despite recent cleaning. Wikipedia is not a link repository or a web directory, and the number of people (even with the best of intentions) attempting to turn it into one is growing out of control. —Veyklevar 04:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
If a collective blog is sufficiently notable, such as Samizdata then it could be mentioned in its own right, but WP:EL is pretty clear. The main thrust of the guidance is that external links should really be discussed, it's not a question of just becoming a directory. You could add something to the sectio on organisations, but there would need to be something distinctive about PW for that as well.ALR 07:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, got it. I will get familiar with the Wikipedia External Links policy and when my book is published...I'll be baaaaack! --Teritith 13:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned the links further, removing a blog, a dead site, etc. I have however re-added VHEMT as I feel that they are exceptionally relevant, providing both a strongly environmental bend on the concept compared to the other resources, and a most thorough discussion and exhaustive site vis a vis other childfree sites. It seems to me that they were removed simply because of the name. --Belg4mit 16:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Removed VHEMT from EL after noting the x-ref to local entry in See Also. As for anyone peeved about removal of No Kidding!, note that it is explcitly discussed and linked within the article; I still say it's not properly childfree though. --Belg4mit 16:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of dead links to watch out for:

  • worldchildfree-dot-org and related domains (one of the kindervrij sites) are gone and now cybersquatted. Content should be recoverable from waybackmachine.org if we need it.
  • knitmeapony no longer hosts a childfree wiki; there is a childfree wiki on nokidding.info but it re-uses none of the content of the previous wikiproject.

VHEMT belongs in "overpopulation" more than in "childfree", but yes an internal link is most appropriate here. --carlb 14:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

––––––––

Hello,

I'm French, and I'm looking for French-speaking sites about childfree choice and lifestyle. I didn't find anything really interesting, so i created a Yahoo Group. I'm sorry to adverstise my own group, but I think there are other French-speaking people who seek French-speaking sites about that theme. So my Yahoo Group is : http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/childfree_francophone/ Of course, you can delete this message if you think it's not the right place for it. And sorry for my bad English language...

Mariemarie0000.

OK, je l'ai ajouté à la liste des forums. :)
I believe there is a term «libre d'enfant» that conveys the "childfree" concept en français, but little or nothing in the way of French-language childfree resources. There is a montreal-childfree.org (as a group wanting to start a No Kidding! chapter in Montréal). A search on «libre d'enfant» turns up little of value. --carlb 14:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Statement and GLBT involovement issue

I removed the following statement:

[Gays and lesbians have become advocates for the childree community (particularly those in the United States, who are upset about having to pay the highest taxes for not having children, while they are the least burden on society for not needing schools and other social services children and those with children need, who in turn are receiving significant tax breaks).

I did this because this statement seems both biased and bitter. It definitly could be returned if edited and cited, but I don't have sufficient knowledge to do so. Thanks in advance to any Wikipedian who does so. Emmett5 03:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Sorry to section nap but seeing as you raised an NPOV issue over the involvement of GLBTs in the CF movement, I thought I'd raise the wider issue of the statement in the "Etymology and Uses" section that reads that:

"today, gays and lesbians are not uncommon in childfree groups. In fact, in many areas, they are becoming the dominant voice amongst childfree groups"

I'm glad to see that there's a "citation needed" stamp as this strikes me as a really odd thing to say and it's potentially false. It's undeniable that the GLBT as childless households are affected by the same issues as the CF but GLBT organisations don't campaign on CF issues because they're more concerned with getting legal equality with straights in matters of marriage and adoption, never mind the whole homophobia and oppression thing. So I think we need to be REALLY careful when talking about GLBT involvement because as far as I know, the GLBT lobby hasn't ever thrown it's weight behind the CF movement.

It's possible that individual CF groups have a large gay presence and even a gay leadership but if so which ones? are there any GLBT groups that campaign on CF issues? If they did would they even be part of the CF movement or would they simply be people affected by the same issues as the CF but aren't actually CF by choice like people whose kids have left home or people who are childless?

So I'm going to edit that sentence out and if it's going to go back in I'd like to see it fleshed out and maybe made the subject of another section rather than just asserted blindly. --Mr. Analytical 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)--Mr. Analytical 21:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Childfree slang

Removing "usenet" section. "Breeder (slang)" was originally a mild/humourous pejorative used by gay folks in reference to straight folks.

I thought "sprog" was a normal piece of British slang for any "kid"? --Quiddity 09:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed. In any case, I was under the impression that "crotchfruit" was the Childfree term of choice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.15.231.112 (talk • contribs) .
Ha! -Quiddity

I understand why you took out the original slang list--because you had a link to another such list. Since the link has been removed, why can't the list go back in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.5.195.69 (talk • contribs) .

It was slimmed down for that reason, but it was subsequently completely removed because it lacked encyclopedic value. It shouldn't be re-inserted.ALR 08:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
The list (actually, a few lists) exists elsewhere, so it should be linked. --carlb 15:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Referencing

Few of the 'reasons for a CF lifestyle' have any form of justification. It would be useful if they could be referenced to something independent. to this end I'm going to request citations for each of them.ALR 16:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Gov't and taxes section should mention that it can go both ways. Yes, the childfree do tend to get taxed for services they do not use *directly* i.e; public education (but really we all benefit from educated peers and citizenry). On the other hand, there are communities whom discourage some forms of construction to avoid an influx of families and their greater draw on services. This is similar to the tightrope cities must walk between even low service consumption/high revenue generation of businesses vs. a resident population. --Belg4mit 00:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we don't all benefit from that educated citizenry if the "brain drain" (where we pay to educate and train people only to have them emigrate abroad after gaining experience) continues. There are countries (the US being a notable example) that don't want to sink money into universities except for the rich or those willing to take on mountains of debt, and other countries are expected to subsidise this by exporting trained people? --carlb 14:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words and NPOV/Citations

This whole article has NPOV problems, and needs to have a go over. There is a lot of weasel wording. I replaced the individual fact tags with a section header for the motivation section, as it's much better for drawing attention of other editors. Athryn 04:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed them. The language of the page is highly qualified as it is. The motivations section talks about "reasons cited" and the reasons cited are clearly cited by the childfree. The page is, admittedly, written in a style that discusses how the childfree see themselves but A) I think that this is clearly implied and B) if you want to suggest a new direction for the page then I would think it was good etiquette to make a start on the change of direction yourself or start a wider debate. Mr. Analytical 20:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
And those "reasons cited" are not cited. Regardless of whether or not you and I know that these are things someone who is childfree may mention when giving a reason for their stance, that does not mean it is simple common sense and does not need citations.
Furthermore, with the exception of the Religion topic within the Controversy section, hardly anything is cited. Where are the statistics that show beyond a shadow of a doubt that people who are childfree "are active in community volunteerism"? Or that they "assist in providing tuition assistance to nieces and nephews seeking higher education or specialized training in an area of interest or talent (music, swimming, acting, or horseback riding lessons, for example)"? I see nothing which backs these claims up.
I am placing the POV tag back. If you disagree, then I recommend that you invest time in searching for legitimate citations for claims such as these. If you want some middle ground, I at least want to see a {{Unreferencedsect}} tag placed in the Controversy section, since it really does not cite references or sources for a majority of the section. Resident Lune 17:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the Weasel Words header ought to be removed as the fishy(est) section already has a neutrality/accuracy banner. --Belg4mit 16:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the Weasel Words needs to stay because it tells passerby editors (like me) exactly what needs doing without them having to delve to deeply to see. The Motivation section of this article seriously needs complete references - soon - or to be removed. I will give it a while longer before regretfully doing that. CyberAnth 09:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


There aren't really any Weasel Words in this entry - I'm going to remover the tag. Hmoul 04:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Economic issues

What are the economic factors involved, is what I'm curious about. I'll note that none of those advocating "childfree" lifestyle choices (links from here primarily) ever actually discuss in any depth the economic factors involved and generally display a lack of inter-generational awareness that I would describe as pure selfishness. What, precisely, goes into raising, educating, training, and maintaining a human? How much production does that human return to its parents, relatives, government, and society? How many productive years does a human have, and are those enough to, in essence, pay for, that which they have consumed over their lifetimes? Is it even possible to pay that back other than by replacing yourself with a child of your own unless you manage to produce taxes, goods, or services far in excess of the norm?

Pure economic factors aren't the only things to consider: when the childless are aged and infirm, who do they think is going to care for them? Are there going to be enough nurses, doctors, homecare specialists, etc to ensure a simple, minimum standard of living? When it comes down to it, who do these people think the next generation is going to show loyalty to? The zealously "childfree," or their own parents?

In terms of balance, I suppose it's easy to see where ZPG people get their ideas. Still, why must educated, intelligent people shoulder the responsibility to achieve ZPG? What kind of long-term damage can be expected if these intelligent, educated people become a scarcity? Isn't a population of permanent class division with no upward mobility one of the primary results that an educated middle class becomes a buffer for? Do we have nothing but a permanent ruling class to look forward to while all these smart people decide to commit genetic suicide? Ah well. Kothog 05:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest there are a couple of significant flaws in your arguments although I note that there doesn't appear to be a rigorous analysis of the economic influences available at this time.
If the cost of raising an individual cannot be compensated through the consequential working life of the individual then I don't see how adding a second individual into the system to continue contributing achieves a net increase in economic value. The second generation more than doubles the economic credit liability and if one individual can't compensate their own costs then the second generation isn't going to be able to contribute half of that credit. Given that we are globally achieving economic grwoth then the thesis you propose isn't sound. As to the CF contributing to a higher than average level, that should be self evident. With a greater net disposable income in relation to individuals with the same gross income then clearly they are capable of contributing a greater degree of economic value.
I'd agree that pure monetary value issues aren't the only thing to consider, the various professions you cite are employed to provide a service. It appears that you are conflating CF and VHE, which is not an intellectually legitimate comparison.
The points in your latter paragraph are interesting, and do appear to be influenced by rather outdated anthropology. The children of educated, intelligent people need not be themselves intelligent although they may be well educated. Equally the children of those who are not either educated or intelligent may themselves be well educated and/ or intelligent. Whilst nurture and nature are related, it need not be inferred that nature prevents nurture in an appropriate direction.
I'm not convinced that you were actually making a point with this post but would address one issue about citations, the majority of reasoning I've seen from the CF, ranging from mild CF to rabid anti children, are in places that don't meet the requirements for citation in wikipedia. Discussion fora etc, there are some academic works out there, but I don't have access to them.ALR 16:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not mean to imply that I am an expert, nor even particularly versed in sociology nor anthropology. Rather, I find the lack of an economic or even an overall _impact_ argument for CF-types conspicuous. Also, close persons to me (who are in fact degreed in said humanities) have insisted after multi-year University-level studies that childless humans tend to consume more resources than they return to the system they live in; I vaguely recall something about children looking after their own parents later in life being a significant factor in that, but I confess my memory is unfortunately just that: vague.
So, by "debt" I do not mean to include purely financial debt. I mean debt in the form of services, productivity, cultural contributions, and other intangibles as well as financial, though it's obvious you understood that too. Still, for just the purely monetary, I wonder what the threshold of lifetime income is where they are no longer a net burden on society, and, whether there is a kind of deferred debtload which their children take on during their own productive years.
I have no particular opinion which I feel qualified to adequately defend (hence my addition to the Talk page rather than fiddling around in the actual article;) rather, I'm trying to point out what I perceive as flaws in the completeness of the discussion in order to help bring any debate to a fuller fruition.
Global economic growth does not necessarily contradict the idea of a CF generating a debt unpaid. My suggestion was that child-less people tend to be a net burden while those genetic lines that persist with overlapping productivities are not net burdens because the productivity does not end with a final decade or two of mostly drain. I currently think the world's current population growth assures that productivity continues unabated. Kothog 10:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem with that statement is that you obviously have a personal bias against the CF concept (just as I obviously have one in favor of it, or I would not likely have bothered to raise the point). You lead off by saying you are not versed in it, and then go on to bring facts/points up that you admit you did not study and are not fluent in. As, I again point out, neither am I (well, at least not those particular studies). But even without the studies you mention being cited, I can still spot two flaws in the first paragraph, the first being that a CF person consumes more resources than one raising a family while contributing less. It's flatly improbable (and contradicted by most of the linked research in this article) that people with no kids will purchase more suburban sprawl-type homes, larger gas-consuming vehicles, drive on fewer errands, purchase less textiles and so on when compared to their counterparts. The second flaw is the age-old "who will care for the CF people" argument, which fails the logic test because it is based on an unproven assumption that CF people will need this service later in life. It is increasingly rare in at least one culture (American) for elderly people to live in the homes of their offspring at the end of their lives. It's an argument that is brought up by anti-CFers often, but never, ever attributed to any non-biased recent (within the last, oh, two decades or so) study.
Lastly, as far as the debt argument you make, as the article mentions, CFers are more prone to going into public service, working for nonprofits (they don't have to worry about paying for braces, school clothes, extra bedrooms for the kids, etc. so they can afford to chase those lower-paying jobs) and other things that one could say balance the karmic debt more than parent who is working as a, oh, car salesman or something. CFers pride themselves on NOT being a "net burden to society," due to their not consuming tax dollars to educate their children, the industrial waste to produce resources for the children, etc. They also often pride themselves on not interfering with other people on a daily basis, such as parents do by bringing crying children into restaurants. CFers work a 40 hour week like parents, but pay far more in taxes, and use far less of society's resources. As for cultural contributions, look through any college "required reading" list and see how many authors, sculptors, inventors and so on were non-parents. You bring up genetic lines, but a) overlapping these generations has no average effect on anything, you don't get credit for working an extra 20 years because your kids are at the factory when you retire. And b) CFers are not (generally) opposed to stable, productive, normal families, but the types of families that appear on Jerry Springer.
The main difference between the CF and pro-reproduction philosophers is that CF people see the tens of thousands of "families" that fit the negative stereotypes (single mothers who can't provide, drug addicts who raise damaged children, violent households, genetically unhealthy people passing on damaged genes, etc,) and say "I don't want to make things worse by adding to this," where pro-reproduction people look at the tens of thousands of stereotypical "Leave it to Beaver" families and say "I want to make thing better by adding to this."
Enough about my personal bias though, this is more about what should be done about this article. The fact is, encyclopedias explain the world to people. Articles on Nazis, malaria, meteors hitting the earth, psychotic episodes and 9/11 are not meant to promote those things. They explain them. The article on CF exists to explain what CF is, why it exists, what their motivations are and what they have to back it up. Several people on this talk page have tried to say this article is "bad" because they disagree with the philosophy, or the conclusions of it's adherents (this part not directed at the entry above mine, but at some several steps up the ladder). I disagree with Stalin's policy of mass-murdering the Polish, but the world needs an article that tells us why it happened, what his motivations were, what reasoning he had to back it up, and so forth. Other people found Stalin's acts entirely correct. Quiverfull people find us CF people to be pretty vile, as many of us CFers find them. That in no way negates the need for these articles, or the accuracy of the cited research. Davethehorrible 02:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

A very poor article

This article pretty much sucks but could be great. Is there not anyone with time (unlike me) who could make it better? Here are just a few of the sources I found:

  • Voluntarily Childfree Women: Experiences and Counseling Considerations. By: Mollen, Debra. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, Jul2006, Vol. 28 Issue 3, p269-282, 14p; (AN 21639016)
  • Why won't any doctor let me get my tubes tied? By: Crispin, Jessa. Jane, May2006, Vol. 10 Issue 4, p150-150, 2p, 1c; (AN 20775945)
  • Childfree by choice. By: Stobert, Susan; Kemeny, Anna. Canadian Social Trends, Summer2003 Issue 69, p7, 4p; (AN 10104919)
  • Throwing the Baby Out with the Bathwater: Childfree Advocates and the Rhetoric of Choice. By: Taylor, Erin N.. Women & Politics, 2003, Vol. 24 Issue 4, p49, 27p; (AN 9864242)
  • Childfree in Toyland. By: Clausen, Christopher. American Scholar, Winter2002, Vol. 71 Issue 1, p111, 11p; (AN 6390936)
  • The Chosen Lives of Childfree Men (Book). By: Greenhalgh, Susan. Population & Development Review, Dec99, Vol. 25 Issue 4, p817-818, 2p; (AN 2830198)
  • The Chosen Lives of Childfree Men (Book Review). By: Knodel, John. Gender Issues, Winter2001, Vol. 19 Issue 1; (AN 5068516)
  • Childfree and Sterilised (Book Review). By: Savage, Wendy. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 02/05/2000, Vol. 320 Issue 7231, p387, 1/2p; (AN 2809262)
  • Child-free with an attitude. By: Fost, Dan. American Demographics, Apr96, Vol. 18 Issue 4, p15, 2p, 1 graph; (AN 9604020009)

CyberAnth 09:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources, here's a bibliography and list of resources to get you started. ;) --carlb 15:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


I just wanted to add that I agree with the article not being too great. My main gripe is that the "controveries" section is HUGE whereas the polar opposite "movement" Quiverfull barely has a mention of controveries. That seems politically lop-sided on the issue. Overpopulation is not even mentioned in the Quiverfull page, although that belongs on the Quiverful talk page, but I'm just pointing that out here. Not a wikipedia expert, but I just feel this page might be slightly biased. Thx1200 (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


Merger proposed (Kidding Aside)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was proposal withdrawn, since notability issues have been settled. --B. Wolterding 08:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I propose to merge the content of Kidding Aside into here, since the notability of that article has been questioned and is not supported by third-party references. In fact, the article is not too long and could be merged here easily. Please add your comments below.

Proposed as part of the Notability wikiproject. --B. Wolterding 10:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


No Kidding! still has its own entry and Kidding Aside does satisfy the notability criteria having been written about in a number of national newspapers, though admittedly the links aren't in the article. I'll go and add them as the organisation clearly is notable. The original move to an independent listing (which I didn't have anything to do with) was prompted by the fact that a) there are now a number of CF organisations and B) the facts about an organisation aren't the same as the facts about a group. Mr. Analytical 10:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, that settles the notability issues for the Kidding Aside article. I removed the merger tags. --B. Wolterding 08:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

US-centric and statistics section

For one thing, this article does a poor job of presenting a global view. Is this because the issue isn't global (ie., is this movement a US-only thing), or is this just poor research?

Additionally, the racial statistics really ought to go. Hispanic women don't have more children because they're somehow genetically predisposed to it. They have more children because in America, they're poorer and (due to poverty) less well-educated than other women (see the statistic on education and birth rates), and because Hispanic culture typically involves Catholicism and its proscriptions on birth control. The statistic is racist and misleading.

The following bullet point, which mentions education, occupation, income, etc., is much more appropriate.

Also, the terms "childless" and "childfree" are used throughout the section, apparently at random. Since this very article goes out of its way to mention how both terms are considered pejorative by opposing camps, I propose we use the term "without children", which implies neither desire nor the lack of it. Kasreyn 04:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to racial birth rates. Extricating that data from, and correcting for, the education and income disparities enforced by society's racial prejudices, is not possible in an article of this size and scope. Therefore this claim can only mislead. Kasreyn 04:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is too US-Centric. I might be able to recruit some Aussie or British childfree people to come edit, but as far as I know there are not that many 'childfree' communities outside of these three countries. White countries such as Spain, Italy, and Japan have very low birthrates (and hence a high presence of childless people) I believe that there is very little self-identification as childfree, no real organization or community, and hence not a lot of sources to draw on for content.

That being said, this is in need of an Aussie editor, since that country is in the forefront of academic research on the Childfree -Lciaccio (talk) 01:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Overemphasis on Christian views

I snipped a detailed examination of a whole bunch of bible verses from the article; The "religion" section was already too Christian-centric. I think we should first find out what a few other religions' attitudes are towards self-imposed childlessness before we do a whole exegesis on the Christian attitudes to the matter. --Slashme 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Political activism

I marked the "Political activism" section with OR as it makes speculations at several points without pointing to sources (e.g., "This discontent is not widespread among childfree people, and as such does not translate into a unified political vision."). This may very well be the case, but I'd like to see something to back it up.  :)

[Later:] Doh, I forgot to sign this; I haven't been actively editing in awhile now. — Korpios (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Portrayal in media

I removed the reference to Idiocracy in the media section ("The opening scene of the dystopian film Idiocracy suggests that an inverse relationship between intelligence and birth rates will result in a bleak future for humanity."), because although it is technically correct that the film does suggest that, the couple shown in the case study, "Carol and Trevor" weren't CF. They talk about having kids when the time's right, although in the film it's never seen to happen. DrFishcake (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Sex and the City quote is basically irrelevant. "Pondering" single life versus married life is not at all the same as deciding to be childfree.AntidoteWasHad (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Another thing to add to "motivation"

I [I'm sure I'm not the only one] refuse to have kids for fear of pedophiles. You never know. It could be a friend, family member, teacher, etc.

And child kidnappers. People who can't have kids, who kidnap and murder pregnant women, to steal their babies. Just a suggestion.Email/User:Maersayer 23:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That makes little sense as a motivation, please do not include it Zalgo 21:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Trait wording

Someone from IP 70.171.239.21 keeps changing the wording: 

childfree people tend to be less conventional, more highly educated, and professional

to: 

childfree people tend to be eccentric, intellectual, and professional

The term "intellectual" does not mean the same thing as "more highly educated"; nor does "eccentric" mean the same thing as "less conventional". Myself and GoodDay have reverted this change twice, but the aforementioned individual has now reverted our revisions twice.

To 70.171.239.21: please do not change that line again until you have made a case for it here. Thank you.

- Korpios (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The wording in the first statement is strongly awkward at best, his change is better. Zalgo) 21:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The "selfishness" issue

This section of the article starts off on the wrong foot - it seem obvious to me that it is far more selfish to have children than not. The parents cannot guarantee that the child will be happy, there are already too many people on earth, the child will use up resources including benefits and free education that the childfree have to pay for. People seem to consider having children like owning a pet or toy. The most unselfish choice is not to have children. If the childfree are being selfish, then who are they being selfish to? If this section is written from the point of view of Catholicism, which I think believes everyone should have as many children as possible - except Nuns or priests - then it should say so. 89.242.99.195 (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The section in question seems to be neutral to me; neutral is what all Wikipedia articles should be. Lots42 (talk) 10:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The question, seems neutral to me too. Also, 89.42.99.195 said,
If the childfree are being selfish, then who are they being selfish to?
Mr. 89.42.99.195, you don't know the definition of "selfish". This is how Webster defines it.
concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
And, no, Catholics do NOT believe everyone should have as many children as possible. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
What 89 means, is what other person is being deprived because of the suppossed selfishness of the childfree? Being selfish implies that someone else is being deprived of something that the selfish person takes. But if there is no-one who is deprived, then there is no selfishness. You cannot claim that an unborn person is being deprived, since by that logic everyone ought to be having as many children as possible as much as possible. 78.146.175.181 (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Precisely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.153.254.33 (talk) 07:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Tell that to the parents who sacrifice so much for their children! Being a parent is one of the most unselfish characteristics ever.

Religion

This section deals exclusively with Christian viewpoints. Could we get info on some other religions' views?--67.161.204.116 (talk) 00:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

List of people who decided to be childfree or never had children?

Is there such a list on Wikipedia, it might be interesting to see people of different eras choosing to live without children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.58.128.61 (talk) 20:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Some of the "motivations" section sounds like it was written by an overly defensive parent who thinks we're all selfish, cruel, and lazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.146.114.241 (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Opinions about the quality of the page

A lot of the sources in this entry are just linking to interviews or opinions. Things like "Children are forever in danger of predators like pedophiles and pornographers" are opinions, and should be phrased in such a way to represent this.

The separate section for "Statistics and research" is particularly worrying. What is the content based on if not statistics and research. I think that the article would be better written if it included the scientific and statistical information in the content. This would make a separate section for "Statistics and research" redundant, as it should be.

I am really not sure how this has been rated as B-Class, I think it is more accurately represented as C-Class, and meets the description " The article should have references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup." which is taken from the Sociology/Assessment page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.145.118 (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Images

Today I removed several images from the article that do not appear to be directly related to the topic and could appear to be introducing bias into the article. Please do not replace them without discussion and agreement on this talk page. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Reasons/motivations

The second-to-last reason, "belief that people have children for the wrong reasons" is not a reason why one doesn't have children, but the opposite; should be deleted, since I can't think of any reason to be childfree that has to do with this, however it's worded. 81.32.30.76 (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)ElaHuguet

Article is too US-centric

This whole article is US-centric, and particularly the parts that cite statistics, as all of the statistics relate to the US. The assumption seems to be that all readers of this article are American, and interested only in US attitudes to being childfree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.75.175.81 (talk) 11:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Section Deletion

The following recent edit has been removed:

"Regional Uses

In late 2011 use of the #childfree hashtag in Twitter came under contention. Different regions of the world have different definitions of what constitutes being childfree. The US and UK populations mostly use "childfree" to describe those people who do not now have a child, and do not wish to have a child. Regions of Australia are adopting the term "childfree" to describe those times when their children aren't around; for example, when the kids are home with a babysitter. [citation needed]"

1. No citation was given for a claim that was made in the paragraph. It is not clear whether this alternate meaning of the word "childfree" is indeed one of region, or one of individuals in a Twitter conversation (see #2)

2. The fact that a Twitter conversation was mentioned at all exposes that this passage is likely the opinion of someone involved in that conversation, or who observed it in some way, and edited Wikipedia for personal reasons. Therefore, I question the neutrality of the paragraph as it seems to have been made for the purposes of someone taking sides in an argument and making edits to reflect their views.

Note: This was not a reason for removal but the layout was incorrect. If the problems listed in 1 and 2 were fixed, then the alternate usage of the word "childfree" should be found at the top of the page where the word is defined, not towards the bottom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldieMolly (talk • contribs) 15:53, 4 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Aand now it's at the top of the page, and I'm betting I have an idea who did it too. You can't just add dishonest edits to wikipedia to win arguments, people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Psykkodukk (talk • contribs) 18:03, 24 April 2012‎ (UTC)
As far as the content of the article, this alternative usage is definitely peripheral. Is there an article on the topic of "times when the children are not around, ...". If so a good way to handle this would be a disambiguation hat note. Zodon (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Tax on childlessness

I'm sure that a mention of the so-called tax on childlessness would fit flawlessly in the Government and taxes subsection. 213.109.230.96 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article. It seems even more directly related to natalism (so I put it in as a see also there). While I see how it could be incorporated here, probably really needs a more general coverage of Population policy. (There have been various policies to encourage or discourage child birth.) Zodon (talk) 07:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

tango couple

I have been messaged by another editor being told that the tango couple image (a) was not inserted by the image's uploader (that is, I am not the uploader), and (b) does not have any evidence that the couple are childfree, and not perhaps against the beliefs of "childfree proponents".

Any thoughts on this? For one, I have never known images to need to be inserted by the uploader, especially when the file is released under a creative commons licence (to Wikicommons), with "permissions" stating "Use a you see fit".

As for the fact that the couple may not be childfree advocates themselves, I will make a first attempt at trying to recognize that in the caption. Awaiting feedback.

-Tesseract2(talk) 16:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's not a very accurate depiction of what I said. Here's what I said: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Childfree&diff=502985903&oldid=499878487. I didn't say that only those who uploaded the images may use them; I say that since you're not the uploader, you most likely know next to nothing about the couple. Readers will assume that the couple is childfree. We should use an image of a real childfree couple. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Didn't mean to misunderstand you. I agree with that point about not knowing whether the couple is childfree. The current caption is a little longer winded, to honour that fact. Yes, even better would be if we can get a picture of a couple that supports childfreedo. For now, hopefully the image and caption meet wikipedia standards. -Tesseract2(talk) 16:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Since someone thought it would be humorous to add his personal opinion of childfreedom to the caption of the tango couple photo, I went ahead and removed it. As mentioned above, we don't know whether this couple is childfree at all. Or even a couple, for that matter - lots of people are dance partners without being romantic partners. Pais (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Largely Focused on Women?

This article addresses the topic of childlessness mostly with respect to women. This probably reflects the preponderance of the sociological research in this area, as well as the prevailing cultural biases within discussions of child-rearing. Even so, it would be interesting to have a little more information about the cultural, philosophical and financial implications of this topic as they relate to the male experience, as well. There are cultural stereotypes surrounding fatherhood, too (and now that same-sex couples in the developed world are marrying and often raising children, things are even more complicated!).

Still, while it may no longer be as true as it once was, unmarried, childless men beyond a certain age were once viewed with suspicion, at least in the U.S. I will look for some information on this topic, but I'm not a social scientist so I may not be able to readily find the highest quality, relevant research (such as it is). Also I am in the U.S. so obviously that is the cultural milieu I am familiar with. 140.247.213.164 (talk) 16:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Childfree men

The article only discusses statistics and factors relating to childfree women. This omits half the population. 74.60.116.198 (talk) 18:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Difficult and undesirable?

Why would being childfree be undesirable and difficult? It's not difficult to refrain from having kids. While some are born of rape most people consent. So for most refraining from sex would be fine to avoid having any children. It doesn't make sense to have children so they can take care of you when you're older. You could die before old age. You could be in good health and able to take care of yourself if you do get to old age. They could die when young and so won't be around when/if you're older. They might leave you and never come back. Doesn't matter if you have loads of kids, if they leave you they won't take care of you when/if you're in old age. If you do get to old age why inflict old age on someone else? All the suffering one could go through when older, it's better not to have children to avoid inflicting that on them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.127.212.147 (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The whole sentence says, "In most societies and for most of human history choosing to be childfree was both difficult and undesirable." This was because of the pressure put on one by society (one's parents and friends) to get married and have children, and also because of the lack of reliable birth control until the second half of the 20th century. It doesn't mean it was difficult and undesirable on the individual level, nor does it mean it's particularly difficult nowadays. Pais (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Birth control wouldn't be needed. If someone were to simply abstain from sex they would avoid having children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.220.160.25 (talk) 10:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

History Section

Why does this only focus on two instances from Christianity (Augustine and the 12th century)? Are there no other historical instances of childfree available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.229.145.105 (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

The previous version of the article, under the name "childfree", seemed to me to have NPOV problems, as it appears to tilt to the position of advocacy for the view described by the article. "Childfree" is not a neutral term; it has built-in political advocacy of the view that childlessness, both voluntary and otherwise is a good thing. Wikipedia, of course, should not take a position on the matter in either direction: we report, not advocate. Per NPOV, the article should be attributing this point of view to those who hold these beliefs, as with any other political position.

In particular, we should not be using this politically charged term in Wikipedia's own editorial voice. We can, for example, use the term when we are describing people who are advocates of the position, describing them using their own self-description as "childfree people", and we can use it when reporting their views on the matter in contexts where it is clear that that is what we are doing, but for things like statistical references we should be using the politically neutral term "childless people".

I've made what I think are the necessary edits to remove these NPOV problems, and have renamed this article to voluntary childlessness. The term "childfree" remains in the article where appropriate. -- The Anome (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Misconceptions and Biases

The physical effects of pregnancy are more than superficial. They can be life threatening or even end her life. Demanding that women carry pregnancies to term or devaluing her accomplishments because she is childfree dehumanizes her. You are essentially asking her to gamble her life for another one and that is morally wrong.

The author of this page did not acknowledge the existence of childfree men and decided to slam childfree women harshly. The term voluntary childlessness is highly inaccurate. This article is laden with the authors bias and misunderstanding.

For more information on the real complications and dangers of pregnancy visit https://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/youre-pregnant-now-what/pregnancy-complications.

Antinatalism assigns a negative value to birth and not all that are childfree are antinatalists. Children are not the greatest contribution you can make to the planet. (2607:FCC8:FE05:B900:31FF:17E4:E443:614A (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC))

While I agree with a few edits you've suggested, I have read through your proposed changes and they are no better for the quality of the wiki in that as written by you they contain "voice" and "perspective" (i.e. it is easy to tell that it was written with someone with an opinion on the matter). Please consider the section above, "Childfree" is considered a term of advocacy (i.e. it is used to advocate the perspective), "Voluntary Childlessness" is not (it is a concise, honest description free of either advocacy or opposition). Some suggestions: First, please register with Wikipedia as it makes talking and discussion easier. Second, in an encyclopedia one should avoid editorializing like including talking points in ()s like "(However, this is the only reason they need)" and "(And there's nothing wrong with that!)". These detract from the purpose of the article. Lines like " They also place high value in the mysogynistic control and abuse of women in the home." in regards to Islam is certainly not encyclopedic in nature and "Although this doesn't matter because catholic preists only want to molest the children born into their flock." is completely unjustifiable and honestly lacks any purpose in the article other than an attempt to troll other users. Over-all, I believe that your edits do significantly more harm to the standing of the article than what you've edited away. Until you can correct these issues, please do not edit the article further. Pirmas697 (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Inheritance

Mention inheritance issues. 

 I hate that there’s no one to inherit the things I’ll leave behind.[5]

Jidanni (talk) 07:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Incomplete Tag

I added the incomplete tag because the entire article focuses only on the female perspective. There are no statistics or literature about men who choose not to pursue voluntary childlessness. --2607:FEA8:5BDF:FD01:44E1:89AC:A61B:E4A3 (talk) 19:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Voluntary childlessness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed "Race/ethnicity/nationality" from list of "factors" "involved" in childlessness

I've removed "[heading: 'Race/ethnicity/nationality'] According to 2004 U.S. Census Bureau data, the proportion of childfree women 15 to 44 years old was 44.6 percent, up from 35 percent in 1976. The data showed that 20.6% of white women were childfree, compared with 17.2% of black women, 15.9% of Asian women and 12.4% of Hispanic women." In the absence of any discussion of whether this difference is statistically significant and/or any evidence, even qualitative/testimonial/anecdotal, about the nature of the causal process at work, this attribute's relevance has not been established. To include this data without an evidence-supported "why" or "how" is to invite assumptions resorting to stereotypes (white women are increasingly focused on careers, black women get pregnant earlier [downward pressure on rate] and/or have difficulty finding suitable partners [upward pressure on rate], Asian women feel pressured to have children until they [or rather their children's fathers] produce a son, Hispanic women are predominantly conservative Catholic and/or poor and therefore use contraception at lower rates, etc.) and to assumptions that whiteness is somehow the norm and that any attributes that do correlate with being "of color" are somehow deviations from that norm. 96.37.67.222 (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you also remove the "education" section for the same reasons? To be honest, I don't see where a causal claim was being made about race. Maybe the lvl-2 heading for that section could be "Characteristics of childfree couples". Since the US Census is a survey of the whole population, surely questions of statistical significance don't arise. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Whilst I agree with ethnicity being unnecessary for the article, would it be acceptable to add statistics from around the wold and not just the USA? It reads as american-centric. I've never added to wikipedia so thought u would ask first. T1nks (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Major Childfree Sites

How about adding major childfree 

Sites?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.8.127.218 (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
No, this is not an advertising platform and there have already been a number of links removed for being added for no reason other than seemingly to advertise that network. Pirmas697 (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV

There's another an article called CHILDLESSNESS .... that is heavy POV... where is the CHILDFREE article? What the fuck is "voluntary" childlessness? Should we rename contraception to "voluntary" child avoidance. Change the title to "CHILDFREE" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8700:7ce1:e066:e3fa:9e22:4b8a (talk • contribs) 02:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 not done please provide reliable sources which accompany your proposal and please sign your posts, many thanks Edaham (talk) 05:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

'Factors involved in voluntary childlessness' section is a mess

I have found a number of issues with it:

  • It is based almost entirely on statistics pertaining to one country.
  • It is entirely about women.
  • Half the information seems to be about childlessness in general, rather than voluntary childlessness. In particular, it's unclear to what extent not being married can account for being voluntarily childless in practice.
  • The 'Education' subsection uses language that is unclear to people outside of the one country.
  • It isn't clear what the percentages are of. Does it mean that 16% of those with no high school diploma are childless? Or are voluntarily childless? Or that 16% of childless women have no high school diploma? Or that 16% of voluntarily childless women have no high school diploma? Furthermore, does the "High school diploma" bracket mean all those who have a high school diploma at all, or all those that have a high school diploma but no higher academic qualification? Furthermore, what's the difference in meaning between the percentages in the prose and those in the table?

— Smjg (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Changing claims about women to refer to men and women

This is not appropriate. In the cases I have checked,we have reliable sources that specifically apply to women. It is nonsensical to suddenly claim that such claims and statistics apply equally to men. Meters (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Biased and Inaccurate language

The original heading contains unsupported and off topic declarations about the sociological history of childlessness in general.This is a clear violation of WP:V

The second bullet point under "commonly held beliefs" contains multiple errors. These include citing symptoms of more serious conditions as a separate effect, over detailing certain list items, and selectively reporting list items in a manner that suggests bias against voluntary childlessness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:bf20:db20:7051:d0e9:7054:4dc2 (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Spengler's explanation

@3i7touv: The section on Spengler's explanation should remain as it is. His opinions may not may not be find common acceptance among those interested in this topic. (He is applying concepts from physics to the social sciences, which seems questionable.) People have their own reasons for being voluntarily childless. So why not let them speak for themselves? Why impose a one-size-fits-all section on top of them? Nerd271 (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Science is not based on consensus. 3i7touv (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Except this is not a physical science but a social trend. Again, here at Wikipedia we do not accept original research. Because Wikipedia is a collaborative project, you need to reach an agreement with other editors. Nerd271 (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@3i7touv: Once again, I ask that you refrain from disruptive editing. That sort of behavior is not welcomed here. This is not your blog; you do not have absolute control over what gets written. If you insist on a certain point of view, you can do that on your own blog. Nerd271 (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@3i7touv: Last warning. If you keep removing large chunks of text contributed by many editors without a good reason, I will report you for misconduct. You may get blocked. Nerd271 (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw: Since you are a recent and significant contributor, what do you think about that guy's insistence on putting Spengler's explanation on top and removing the section on the commonly cited reasons for being voluntarily childless? Nerd271 (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the whole 'First principle' section is entirely out of place in this article. Apart from being original research extrapolating from a 1920s book, it has little to nothing to do with the topic, and advances fringe views as the 'real cause'. The removal of the commonly cited reasons section is entirely unwarranted. Considering the fact that this user's account was only recently created and has only edited this page so far, and has not been constructive in coming to a consensus, but rather the opposite, we can conclude they are an WP:SPA (and perhaps also a sock, considering their behaviour) seeking to disrupt the Wikipedia project's processes in favour of a particular point of view. I agree that reporting 3i7touv is the right thing to do, and that a block will likely follow soon. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@3i7touv: So Huon is yet another editor who has issues with the content you added. I have been quite patient with you. I will restore this version. I caution you against replacing it with your questionable contents. Nerd271 (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Nerd271. The "Causes" section in the version preferred by 3i7touv is based on 1920s sources with no indication of whether they are still considered relevant among modern scholarship. Worse, it's pseudoscientific nonsense. When someone talks about some humans as "more costly races", we're obviously dealing with scientific racism and pseudoscience. "Gravitation, or, which is the same, heat deficit, is the masculine [...]" - that does not even pretend to be science, and if the "physical" terms such as "heat" or "gravitation" aren't supposed to have some special, undefined meaning, it's plain wrong, too. The only source in that mess that's newer than 1930 does not mention children or childlessness at all and should be removed because it has nothing to say on the topic of this article (it's present in the other version too and should be removed from there, too). I'll revert to the version Nerd271 called "stable" though I'd say even there Spengler would need to be put in the context of modern scholarship and has WP:UNDUE issues. Huon (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@Huon: That section was there when I came here. I cut out a few things and moved it down in favor of the section on the reasons why people prefer this particular lifestyle. I would not mind if it gets removed, however, since it is a weird way of using technical terms from physics, if we are to be charitable in our interpretation. Nerd271 (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@3i7touv: You still have not convinced anybody here. Nerd271 (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

The section is firstly getting worse, with even more original synthesis from sources that have nothing to say about childlessness. Secondly, 3i7touv, instead of engaging in a discussion and explaining why that content, in their opinion, should be included despite the issues pointed out by three other editors, is edit warring to force their preferred version on the article despite the objections. That won't succeed. Huon (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
My head hurts from reading this pseudoscientific rambling, but that isn't a policybased reason. WP:UNDUE is, and I see no reason to mention this in the article, much less to give it a long section, when other reasons are presented by only a sentence or two. Sjö (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
@Sjö: Somebody removed it some minutes before you wrote this comment. Nerd271 (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mz7: That explains a lot. Thank you! We tried to scale down a rather bizarre section he added. An anonymous user removed it entirely. Nerd271 (talk) 01:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

A sock, just as I suspected. For such a recently created account he showed too much knowledge of how Wikipedia works; it had to be more than just an SPA. Thanks @Mz7: for taking this action and thanks @Nerd271: for asking my opinion on 3i7touv's edits! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 28 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 17:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)


Voluntary childlessness → Childfree

More popular. From this article: "According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word "childfree" first appeared sometime before 1901". Merriam-Webster itself doesn't even have "voluntary childlessness". This page was moved in 2016 with the reason to "avoids using POV neologism in title" (full explanation see Talk:Voluntary_childlessness/Archive_1#NPOV), although we actually allow POV article title per WP:POVNAME and it's not a 'neologism' because the term is in dictionary.

Looking at this page's history the title used (initial mention as bold) has always been "childfree" (except briefly when created in May 2004 the word bolded is "childfree movement", then changed and subsequently bolded in June 2004 to "childfree"). Hddty (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose. No evidence is provided for it being "more popular" (popular where?), and the tinge of NPOV/advocacy continues. The dictionary definition of "childfree" does not imply voluntary, just people who don't have children for any reason (still young, infertility, etc.). Walrasiad (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Google Trends Ngram. After moved to "Voluntary childlessness" two IP complained about the title (Talk:Voluntary_childlessness/Archive_1#NPOV_2 and #NEUTRALITY Voluntary childlessness). Hddty (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
That's not really evidence. Again, being "childfree" is a general adjective for any couple currently without children, voluntary or involuntary. Walrasiad (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
For "general adjective for any couple currently without children" we already have article about that at childlessness. The word "childfree" may imply that it is voluntary or involuntary, but current usage shows that it's mostly voluntary, see urbandictionary. Also, before the move in 2016 when the page title was "childfree", this article is about by voluntary. See also the article childlessness when created. Hddty (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Urbandictionary? Not sure what that is, but had to look it up and it is apparently a crowd-sourced thing. Seems like Wikipedia considers it an unreliable source. Heck, just peeking at discussions about, it seems like a downright awful source for anything. Surely you can do better?
Yes, there is an article about "childlessness" in general. This is an article about "voluntary childlessness" specifically. The 'voluntary' part of the title is what disambiguates this article from the other. It needs to remain. Walrasiad (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This is a neutral name. The word 'childfree' is also used in the article. But I doubt changing the name to it is a good idea. The current name is simply better. Nerd271 (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose in my experience "childfree" is slang for a subculture which engages in voluntary childlessness, and is neither generic nor well-known enough to be the article title over a descriptive name. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per explanation by user Walrasiad: "The dictionary definition of "childfree" does not imply voluntary, just people who don't have children for any reason (still young, infertility, etc.)". GenoV84 (talk) 04:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voluntary_childlessness/Archive_1&oldid=1157960769"